Skip to main content
· 7/1/1873

Crayton v. Hamilton

Citations

  • 37 Tex. 269

Syllabus

<p>1. An instrument for the conveyance of land lying in G. county was made in 1837, and in 1846 was proved up for record by a subscribing witness before the county clerk of T. county, and soon afterwards was recorded in G. county, where the land lay. In 1871, a certified copy from the records of G. county being offered in evidence, it was objected to on the ground that it was never legally proved up for record, inasmuch as a county clerk had no authority in 1846 to take such proof, when the land was situate in a different county. Held, that the healing act of February 9th, 1860, legalized the registration of the instrument, and therefore the objection was properly overruled. (Paschal’s Digest, Article 5021.)</p> <p>2. A transcript from the records of an United States District Court sitting in bankruptcy, though authenticated by the certificate of the clerk alone, is admissible in State courts as prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated; and when such a transcript recited that the Eegister in Bankruptcy had assigned the bankrupt’s property to the assignee, that recital was sufficient evidence of the assignment when no demand was made for the production of the assignment itself, and when objection for want of the assignment itself was not made in the court below.</p> <p>3. In an action for the recovery of an undivided interest in land, and also for partition, there was judgment for the plaintiff; and the court below, without any commission of partition, decreed to plaintiff a particular part of the land by metes and bounds ; which is assigned as error. But it was in proof that, long before the commencement of the suit, the defendant and the vendor of the plaintiff agreed to the same division made by the decree, and it is not proved or pretended that the part decreed to the plaintiff is more valuable than the rest; and defendant failed to move the court below for a new trial, or otherwise to afford it an opportunity to correct its decree in the respect now co

Judges: Ogden

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.