Buford v. Bostick

Citations

• 50 Tex. 371

Syllabus

<p>1. Certificate of commissioner of land office.—The certificate of the commissioner of the general land office, under Pasehal’s Digest, 3806, is not admissible in evidence to prove the date on which field-notes of a particular survey were returned, or that they had not been withdrawn from the office.</p> <p>2. Negligence of attorney—New trial.—A new trial may be granted on the ground of surprise, even when such surprise is occasioned by a correct ruling of the court, and although negligence may be imputable to his attorney, if the party asking it has a meritorious cause of action and gross injustice will otherwise be done.</p> <p>3. Newly-discovered evidence.—Important testimony of a witness who was examined on the trial, but who had not communicated his knowledge of the facts relied on until after the trial, is ground for new trial.</p> <p>4. Calls in survey—Evidence.—A survey called for as the beginning corner did not so appear on the county map or surveyor’s books: Held, That evidence that such survey was at the time known as called for, was admissible.</p> <p>6. Same.—Eield-notes called for “southeast corner of a survey in name of James Russell.” No such survey existed, but one in name of Ira Ruble was there instead: Held, Admissible to show that the Ruble survey was made for James Russell, and that the survey had been known as the Russell survey.</p>