Waters v. Spofford

Citations

• 58 Tex. 115
• 1882 Tex. LEXIS 219

Syllabus

<p>1. Registration — Certificate of acknowledgment — Seal.— Quaere, was a certificate of the acknowledgment of a deed before the clerk of the county court who was to record it, required, by the law in force in December, 1838, to be under the seal of the county court?</p> <p>2. Same—Validating acts.— The registration, in 1855, of a deed, authenticated in 1838 by the county clerk, without the seal, was at all events good, by force of various validating acts of the legislature. Hart. Dig., arts. 2776, 2777, 2789; Pasch. Dig., arts. 5021, 5022.</p> <p>3. Same—Preliminary affidavit.— The grantee in a deed, authenticated for record by proof of the handwriting of the grantee and a subscribing witness, was competent to make the affidavit required by the statute, that these parties were dead, or their residence out of the state or unknown. Hart. Dig., art. 2792.</p> <p>i. Same—Authentication by evidence, of handwriting.— See this case for authentication held sufficient, notwithstanding an apparent discrepancy in names.</p> <p>5. Practice.— An objection to the authentication of a deed because of a discrepancy of names is not entitled to favorable consideration when first made in a motion for new trial.</p> <p>6. Identity of land — Misdescription.— See this case for a discrepancy in names in the patent and in a subsequent conveyance held insufficient, under the other evidence, to raise a doubt as to the identity of the land, described in each.</p> <p>.7. Evidence—Judgment in rem — Mandamus.— A judgment in favor of purchasers of land at a tax sale, enforcing by mandamus against the sheriff their right to a deed, is not a judgment in rein, and is not admissible in evidence against one neither a party nor privy to the proceeding.</p> <p>8. Tax deed — Description.— A tax deed which does not give such description of the land conveyed thereby as will identify it, is invalid, and inadmissible in evidence.</p>