Decourt v. Sproul

Citations

• 66 Tex. 368
• 1 S.W. 337

Syllabus

<p>1. Patent obtained by fraud—Collateral attack—Void grant—Purchaser— 'Plaintiff alleged that the patent under which defendants claimed issued in 1880, and was obtained by fraud and perjury; that the grantee obtained the grant as the head of a family and an actual settler upon the land, when, in reality she was not the head of a family and had never occupied the land; that plaintiff settled upon the land in 1884, with the object of obtaining a donation homestead under ch. 9, title 59, R. S. Defendants demurred. Held:</p> <p>(1) If the patent was not void, the land conveyed in it was titled and could not be surveyed for plaintiff.</p> <p>(2) A void grant is a mere vacuity, and its issuance leaves the title in the state. It is void when it conveys what the grantor does not own, or is made without his authority; when it is expressly declared void by law; or when its issuance is conditioned upon the actual existence of facts, not existing, and the jurisdiction to ascertain the facts before issue is vested in no agency of the sovereign.</p> <p>(3) It is well settled that the patent was not void by reason of the fact simply that the grantee was not the head of a family and had not settled on the land. In the absence of fraud, the decision of the commissioner of the land office upon these qualifications is conclusive. (Styles v. Gray, 10 Tex., 503; Russell v. Randolph, 11 Tex., 46, etc.)</p> <p>(4) A suit can be instituted by the state to set aside a patent'obtained by fraud, but such a patent cannot be collaterally avoided. (Following Field v. Seabury, 19 How., 332. Oases reviewed.)</p> <p>(5) If the patent was void for fraud, it could not be vitalized by an innocent purchase, and if it was void only while the title remained in the grantee or assignees with notice, it was not void, but voidable.</p>