Platt v. Vermillion
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Error to tlie Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs in error instituted two actions of trespass to try title against the defendants in error, which actions were consolidated and tried as one cause.
Read the full summary
In Error to tlie Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs in error instituted two actions of trespass to try title against the defendants in error, which actions were consolidated and tried as one cause. Plaintiffs in error, in their first amended original petition, charge that on January 1, 1895, they were lawfully seised and possessed of the following lands, situated in Archer county, holding the same in fee simple, and allege that on January 1, 1895, the defendants in error entered upon said premises, and with force ejected them, and now…
1Opinion of the CourtPardee, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts). The plaintiffs in error claim the land in controversy to be a part of the Brazos county school-land grant of four leagues, and that in former judicial controversies between them and persons other than the defendants in error they obtained judgments in accordance with their contention. The defendants in error deny that the land in controversy is a part of the Brazos county school-land grant, and show that in other controversies between the plaintiffs in error and persons other than the defendants judgments were obtained declaring that the lands in controversy were…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ayers v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Stafford v. KingTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Davis v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Philipowski v. SpencerTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Maddox Bros. & Anderson v. FennerTexas Supreme Court · 1891
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. Tuesburg Land Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1915
- Carter v. Kirby Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1907