State v. de Casinova
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal frOm Bexar County. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. contended: 1st. That the plaintiff should have alleged and proven that the intestate resided in Texas from the date of the declaration of independence to the time of the institution of this suit, which had not been done. 2d.
Read the full summary
Appeal frOm Bexar County. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. contended: 1st. That the plaintiff should have alleged and proven that the intestate resided in Texas from the date of the declaration of independence to the time of the institution of this suit, which had not been done. 2d. There was no testimony to sustain the allegation in the plaintiff’s petition (and which was denied by the answer prescribed by the statute) that she was administratrix. 3d. There was no testimony showing that the intestate had his family in the county before 1842. Argument omitted by…
1Opinion of the CourtHemphill, C. J.
The appellee, as administratrix of the succession of Juan de Casinova, claimed under the 11th section of the act of February 4, 1841, “ supplementary to an act to detect fraudulent land certificates,” etc., a certificate for a league and labor of land, and recovered judgment for the amount of her claim. It was proven “ by witnesses, Manchaca and Rodrigues, that the plaintiff’s intestate was a married man, residing in Texas at the date of the declaration of independence, and head of a family; that he did not abandon the country to avoid a participation in the struggle during the spring of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Griffith v. FrazierSupreme Court of the United States · 1814
- Republic of Texas v. SkidmoreTexas Supreme Court · 1843
3Cited by3 opinions
- Capp v. TerryCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
- Less v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1947