TEXAS, (Continued.)

know of the passage of the last act within time to prosecute their action. Ibid.

9. Held, that the last-mentioned statute conferred a favor, and was not retrospective; and that plaintiff's action was barred, whether he knew of the act or not. Ibid.

10. The Constitution of the United States does not restrain the right of each State to legislate as to the remedy on suits on judgments in other States. Ibid. 11. Under the decisions of the courts of Texas, a survey made of land beyond the

limits of the surveyor's district, although invalid at the time, is rendered good by the subsequent approval of the proper county surveyor. This court adopts the rule. Doswell v. De La Lanza, 29.

12. Where patents for land in Texas were erroneously issued, it was proper to cancel them. Ibid.

13. In the present case, the land granted in Texas was alleged to be within the empresario contract of De Leon. After proof that many of the documents upon the subject were destroyed in the revolution, the court left it to the jury to decide whether or not the land was thus situated. This ruling was correct. White v. Burnley, 235.

14. The fact that the surveyor included more land than was called for, does not avoid the grant. Whatever the State might do to annul it, third parties have no right to consider it void. Ibid.

15. A grantee having been compelled to leave Texas, there was no evidence of his voluntary and final abandonment of the country. As there was no evidence, the jury could not express an opinion upon the subject. Ibid. 16. Nor was there any evidence which would justify the court in leaving it to the jury to decide whether or not this grantee was an alien enemy when he made a conveyance, he being then a resident of Louisiana. The mere fact of L. being a Spaniard was not sufficient for an inference that he was an enemy of Texas. The averment in the deed that he was a citizen of Mexico was not sufficient. Ibid.

17. Where a deed of land in Texas was executed in Louisiana, and recorded in a notary's books, a copy of it which had been compared with the original by a witness who was acquainted with the handwriting of the notary (being dead) and the subscribing witness, was properly admitted in evidence. It was also admitted as a record of another State. Ibid. 18. In order that the statute of limitations shall begin to run, the defendant, claiming under a younger title to land which conflicts in part with an elder title, should have been in actual possession of the part which was overlapped by the elder title. Ibid.

19. The judge of the District Court of the United States in Texas had power to order the record of a suit in which he was interested to be transmitted to the Circuit Court of the United States in Louisiana. Spencer v. Lapsley,

264.

20. A plea in abatement, filed in connection with pleas in bar, was irregular; and the refusal of the court below to allow the plea to be filed is not subject to the review of this court. Ibid.

21. A contract for the sale of eleven leagues of land in Texas, issued before the revolution, and subsequently located within the colonizing grant of Austin and Williams, with their consent, and certified by the Secretary of State, was good without the signature of the Governor. Ibid. 22. So far as the land was within the colonizing grant of Robertson, his consent was not necessary, the term of his grant having expired. Ibid. 23. Where no organization of a colonial grant had taken place by the introduction of settlers, the land not occupied was open for public sale, with the consent of the empresario, and the alcalde was a proper person to put the purchaser in possession. Ibid.

24. That the survey was made before the order of survey was directed to the surveyor, was not fatal to the grant. Any preuminary defects were cured by the patent. The fairness of the grant cannot be investigated at law, at the instance of a third party. Ibid.

25. A power of attorney, authenticated before a regidor, proved by the handwriting of the regidor and the assisting witnesses, held sufficient. Ibid

TRUSTEES

See AGENTS.

WASHINGTON-CORPORATION OF.

1. The power granted by Congress to the corporation of the city of Washington, "to open and keep in repair streets, avenues, lanes, alleys, &c., agreeably to the plan of the city," includes the power to alter the grade or change the level of the land on which the streets by the plan of the city are laid out. Smith v. Corporation of Washington, 135.

2. If, in the exercise of this power, an individual proprietor suffers inconvenience or is put to expense, the corporation are not liable in damages. Ibid,

WATROUS-JUDGE.

1. A rule laid upon the district judge of the State of Texas, to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued for him to allow an appeal in a certain case; but upon an examination of the case, the mandamus refused. 'Mussina v. Cavazos, 280.

WRIT OF ERROR.

1. Although an irregularity in the citation may be cured by an appearance in court, yet a defect in the writ of error, (such as not naming a return day for the writ,) or an omission to file a transcript of the record at the term next succeeding the issuing of the writ or the taking of the appeal, are fatal errors, and the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction Carroll v. Dorsey, 204.

2. No one can bring up, as plaintiff in a writ of error, the judgment of an inferior court to a superior one, unless he was a party to the judgment in the court below; nor can any one be made a defendant in the writ of error who was not a party to the judgment in the inferior court. Payne v. Niles, 219.

3. Therefore, where there was a judgment in the court below, and certain persons intervened, whose petition for intervention was dismissed, they have no right to sue out a writ of error from the judgment to which they were not parties; nor was any process, upon their intervention, served upon the original defendant. Ibid.

4. Rulings of the court below, in admitting or rejecting evidence, can be brought to this court for revision only by a bill of exceptions. Suydam v. Williamson, 427.

5. Every special verdict, in order to enable the appellate court to act upon it, must find the facts on which the court is to pronounce the judgment according to law, and not merely state the evidence of facts. In this manner it becomes a part of the record. I bid.

6. Where there is a bill of exceptions, the writ of error does not operate only upon that part of the record. Wherever an error is apparent on the record, it is open to revision, whether it be made to appear by a bill of exceptions, or in any other manner. Ibid.

7. Where there is no dispute in regard to the facts, and consequently no necessity for any ruling of the court in admitting or rejecting evidence, the case may be brought before an appellate court by a special verdict or an. agreed statement of facts. Ibid.

8. But in such a case, the previous rulings of the court upon questions of evidence do not come before the appellate court, unless brought up by a bill of exceptions. Ibid.

9. A bill of exceptions may include in its scope the rulings of the court as to the admissibility of evidence, which a demurrer to evidence cannot do. Ibid.

10. A demurier to evidence makes the evidence a part of the record. Ibid. 11 So where oyer of any instrument is prayed, or there is a demurrer to any part of the pleadings. Ibid.

12. A writ of error operates only upon the record, and brings it into this court. Ibid.

13. Therefore, where a paper was filed in the court below after the writ of error was issued, which paper, purporting to contain all the evidence, both admitted and rejected, was signed by the judge and certified to be correct by the counsel of the appellee, and concluded as follows: "A verdict was then, by direction of the court, taken for the plaintiffs for the VOL. XX. 41

WRIT OF ERROR, (Continued.)

premises claimed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the questions of law, with liberty to turn this case into a special verdict or bill of exceptions," this paper cannot be considered a part of the record. Ibid. 14. A special verdict requires the presence and assent of the court, and a bill of exceptions must always be signed and sealed by the judge. Ibid. 15. In this case, the paper is merely a report of the judge who presided at the trial, and as such must be disregarded by this court. Ibid.

16. Under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, where the jurisdiction of this court is not shown upon the record, the writ of error must be dismissed; but under the twenty-second section, if no error appears upon the record, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. Ibid. 17. This court again decides, that after a case has been brought here and decided, and a mandate issued to the court below, if a second writ of error is sued out, it brings up for revision nothing but the proceedings subsequent to the mandate. Roberts v. Cooper, 467.