Thomson v. Hines
Texas Supreme Court
Error from McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. L. 0. Alexander. The case came up on an agreed statement as follows: Suit brought by the defendants in error to recover four hundred and eighty acres of land, patented to Abraham Blunt. Defendant, pleaded not guilty. Plaintiff in the court below offered in evidence: 1st. Patent from the state to A. Blunt for the land in controversy, dated November 8, 1875. 2d.
Read the full summary
Error from McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. L. 0. Alexander. The case came up on an agreed statement as follows: Suit brought by the defendants in error to recover four hundred and eighty acres of land, patented to Abraham Blunt. Defendant, pleaded not guilty. Plaintiff in the court below offered in evidence: 1st. Patent from the state to A. Blunt for the land in controversy, dated November 8, 1875. 2d. A certified copy from the land office of the original certificate-to A. Blunt, on which the patent issued, dated November 21, 1837. 3d. A land office copy of a transfer from A. Blunt to…
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, P. J. Com. Apr. —
Unless facts or circumstances exist which tend to rebut the inference that a written contract “or obligation was delivered to the obligee, its possession by the latter, or by one claiming it through or under him, prima facie implies a delivery of it by the obligor or grantor; and possession of it by the obligee or grantee, or their assigns, is prima facie evidence of ownership.
*528The plaintiff claimed title to the land under these transfers of the certificate, by virtue of which the patent through which she claimed ownership had issued, and it was competent for her to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sanders v. FarrierCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Ingram v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Tompkins v. Creighton-Mcshane Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Sanders v. FarrierCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924