Cowan v. Hardeman
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Burnet. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was an action of trespass to try title and for damages, brought by D. Hardeman, William P. Hardeman and William B. Coffee, against David C. Cowan, Gideon Cowan and James Alexander. The land in controversy was a tract of six hundred and forty acres, to which the plaintiffs derived title by purchase from Peter Pauly, a colonist of Fisher’s and Miller’s colony.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Burnet. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was an action of trespass to try title and for damages, brought by D. Hardeman, William P. Hardeman and William B. Coffee, against David C. Cowan, Gideon Cowan and James Alexander. The land in controversy was a tract of six hundred and forty acres, to which the plaintiffs derived title by purchase from Peter Pauly, a colonist of Fisher’s and Miller’s colony. The land was granted to plaintiffs as assignees of Pauly, on the 18th of September, 1855, pending this litigation, and they set up their patent by an amended petition.…
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The main question for our decision in this case, depends upon the construction that must be placed upon the proviso in the fourth section of the act for the relief of James Erwin and others, passed June 3d, 1837, which reads as follows : “Provided, That no lands granted by this government shall be located on salt springs, gold or silver mines, copper or lead, or other minerals, or any island of the Republic.”
By this provision of the statute it is contended, as we understand appellants’ counsel, that the islands and all lands containing minerals, were separated from the mass of the public…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Plainsman Trading Co. v. CrewsTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- Cox v. RobisonTexas Supreme Court · 1912
- Cox v. RobisonTexas Supreme Court · 1912
- Lemar v. GarnerTexas Supreme Court · 1932
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.