Merrill v. Roberts

Citations

• 64 Tex. 441

Syllabus

<p>1. Oases reviewed — HeadrigAt certificate — Case distinguished. — This case distinguished from Hughes v. Lane, 6 Tex., 294, and Peck v. Moody, 23 Tex., 94, and the doctrine announced in these cases, that headright certificates were required to be approved, or established by suit, in order that title might be secured under them, has no application to a case where patent had issued and suit is brought by those claiming under the patent.</p> <p>3. Fact case — Land certificate — Stale demand.— See opinion in this case for facts pleaded, under which it was held that the doctrine of stale demand did not bar a recovery of the community interest in land by the heirs of a deceased wife, whose husband had transferred his interest in the headright certificate, by virtue of which the land was patented to his assignee. (The husband transferred his interest in the certificate in 1851; the wife died in 1839; the certificate issued in 1838; the land was patented in 1860 to the assignee of the husband, and suit was brought to recover the community interest inherited from the mother, in 1880.)</p> <p>3. Laches.— Ordinarily, laches will not be imputed to one who, having a cause of action, fails to sue while the statutes of limitation are suspended.</p>