.... State, Lismore v. (Ark.). ..... ... State, Miller v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Rutherford v. (Tex. Cr. App.) State, Shoemaker v. (Tex. Cr. App.). ... State, Snowberger v. (Tex. Cr. App.) Page Page 853 Taylor, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.)..1117, 1200 621 575 Texarkana Cooperage & Mfg. Co., McDan.1156 iel v. (Ark.). 727 67 703 8 .... 875 Texarkana Gas & Electric Co. v. Lanier 598 (Tex. Civ. App.). .1160 Texarkana & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Brandon 442 (Tex. Civ. App.)... 864 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Boesch (Tex.). .1150 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Hico Oil Mill (Tex. 578 Civ. App.). 601 Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Morrison (Tex.) 868 Texas Midland R. R., Coffman v. (Tex. .1148 Civ. App.)... 577 Texas Southern R. Co., Hubbell v. (Tex. 596 Civ. App.).... 586 Texas Southern R. Co., St. Louis Union 88 Trust Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .1129 Texas Southern R. Co., St. Louis Union 276 Trust Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 264 Texas Southern R. Co., St. Louis Union Texas & P. R. Co. v. Adkins (Tex. Civ. 887 .1157 .1057 878 (Ark.) State v. Steele (Mo.) State, Tacchini v. (Tex. Cr. App.) 609 619 313 296 306 308 287 954 .. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Andrews, Reynolds & 562 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Taylor (Tex.)..1117, 1200 73 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Wooldridge & Ham406 by (Tex. Civ. App.).. .1139 Thacker, Gallup v. (Tex.). 86 730 923 996 257 264 Theodore Maxfield Co., St. Louis, I. M. & 797 S. R. Co. v. (Ark.).. 1128 Thomas, Hamburger & Dreyling v. (Tex.) 870 Thomas v. Malone (Mo. App.). 572 Thomasson, Stewart v. (Ark.). .1158 Thompson, Acklen v. (Tenn.). .1145 Thompson v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.).. Thompson v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas (Tex.) 570 Thompson, Orange Lumber Co. v. (Tex. .1134 Civ. App.).... 591 Thompson v. St. Charles County (Mo.)...1044 270 Thompson v. Yowell (Ky.). ..1102 271 Thothos, State v. (Mo. App.). Tidwell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Tilmyer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Townser v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Trabue's Ex'x, Burke v. (Ky.). Trent v. Lechtman Printing Co. (Mo. App.) 238 Trigg v. Trigg (Ark.).. .1198 604 797 .1128 870 572 125 Trinity & B. V. R. Co., Doke v. (Tex. Civ. 328 32 Trotti v. Gaar, Scott & Co. (Tex. Civ. 670 749 986 State ex rel. Halsey v. Clayton (Mo.). 506 466 Steele, State v. (Mo.).. Stephens, Johnson v. (Mo. App.). Stevenson, Albright v. (Mo.). Stewart v. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. Co. (Mo. Stewart v. Thomasson (Ark.). 666 .1027 .1097 397 406 1199 .1003 1199 35 (Tex. Civ. App.). 637 Sullivan & Co., Vernor v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 641 (Ark.) Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. v. Cooper (Tex. Civ. App.).. Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. v. Hampton .1071 914 755 387 Tacchini v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).. Taylor, Ogburn-Dalchau Lumber Co. v. Umstadtt, Bick v. (Mo. App.)... Union Biscuit Co. v. Springfield Grocer Urbahn, Cotulla v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 627 9 603 .1120 236 996 Union Depot Co., Ransom v. (Mo. App.).. 785 796 Urban, Lombard v. (Mo. App.). Van Frank, Greenbrier Distillery Co. v. (Mo. App.).... Van Zandt-Moore Iron Works v. Axtell (Tex. Civ. App.).... 83 561 522 200 13 .1108 221 .1180 222 930 Page Vaughn v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. W. F. Taylor Co. Hightower Bros. v. Page 621 80 Vernor v. D. Sullivan & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 641 Whitener-London Realty Co. v. Ritter (Ark.) 856 ... Vogelsong v. St. Louis Wood Fibre Plaster Co. (Mo. App.).... 804 Wigglesworth v. Uvalde Live Stock Co. (Tex. Civ. App.).. .1180 Wabash R. Co., Corinth Woolen Mills v. (Mo. App.).... Williams, Investment Security Co. v. (Mo. App.) 968 803 Wabash R. Co., Craig v. (Mo. App.).. Wakefield, Citizens' Tel. Co. of Kentucky v. (Ky.). 771 Williams, Patterson v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 601 Wilson v. Shocklee (Ark.). 832 Wilson, State v. (Mo. App.). 996 127 Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 570 Walker v. De Villeneuve (Tex. Civ. App.) 281 262 Wilson-Ward Co. v. Farmers' Union Gin Co. (Ark.).... 847 763 Winfrey, Warner v. (Mo. App.). 216 ...1145 Warner v. Winfrey (Mo. App.). 216 Wingfield, Arkansas Southwestern R. Co. v. (Ark.)... 76 Warren Commission & Investment Co., City of St. Louis v. (Mo.). Winkler v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 1134 166 Winn v. Campbell (Ark.). 1059 Wasson Bros., Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of .... 664 Winn, Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. (Ky.).. 153 611 Wiseman, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. (Tex.). .1109 Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Withers v. Kansas City Suburban Belt R. Co. (Mo.) 432 Wolff, Schramm v. (Tex. Civ. App.).......1185 Woodward v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 894 270 ..... 271 841 Wooldridge & Hamby, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 603 Wright v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 517 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Olivarri (Tex. Civ. App.).... Wright v. Wooldridge (Ark.). 841 688 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Price (Ky.). .1100 686 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Robertson (Tex. Civ. App.). Wyatt, Folkes v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 958 .... 629 Western Union Tel. Co. v. See (Ark.). Western Union Tel. Co. v. Webb (Ark.)..1072 .... 78 Yates v. Caswell (Tex. Civ. App.). Yowell, Thompson v. (Ky.)............ ... ..1176 914 .1102 .1071 518 .... Zeilda Forsee Inv. Co. v. Phoenix Brick & 788 Co. .1030 REHEARINGS DENIED [Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this reporter.] Big Sandy & C. R. Co. v. Blankenship (Ky.) | Louisville & A. R. Co. v. Cox's Adm'r (Ky.) 118 S. W. 316. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Patterson (Ky.) 125 S. W. 287. City of Owensboro v. Sweeney (Ky.) 111 S. W. 364. Emig's Adm'r v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. (Ky.) 106 S. W. 230. Indiana Tie Co. v. Phelps (Ky.) 124 S. W. 833. Jackson v. Becktold Printing & Book Mfg. Co. (Ark.) 112 S. W. 161. 125 S. W. 1056. Milby & Dow Coal & Min. Co. v. Balla (Ind. Millican v. McNeill (Tex.) 114 S. W. 106. Price & Lucas Cider Vinegar Co. v. Haley (Ky.) 125 S. W. 720. Schmitz v. South Covington & C. St. R. Co. (Ky.) 114 S. W. 1197. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Byrd (Tex.) 115 S. W. 1163. Lonergan v. San Antonio Loan & Trust Co. Whitt v. Maddox (Ky.) 124 S. W. 270. (Tex.) 104 S. W. 1061. See End of Index for Tables of Southwestern Cases in State Reports. THE SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER. VOLUME 126. RAGLEY v. ROBISON, Land Com'r. Under Laws 1901, c. 125, § 8, giving the purchaser of timber on state lands designated, or his vendee, the right to purchase the land at the valuation fixed by the commissioner, etc., the commissioner need not inquire into equities between a remote vendee of the purchaser of the timber and a third person, growing out of the fact that the latter furnished the price for the conveyance to the remote vendee, and, where the legal title to the timber is in a vendee of the purchaser, a third person has not the right to purchase the land. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Public Lands, Dec. Dig. § 172.*] Original petition for mandamus by W. G. Ragley against J. T. Robison, Commissioner of the General Land Office, to compel re spondent to accept relator's application to purchase land. Refused. W. W. Blake, D. W. Doom, and D. H. Doom, for relator. Jewell P. Lightfoot, Atty. Gen., and L. A. Dale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. BROWN, J. This is an original proceeding by W. G. Ragley to procure the issuance of a mandamus by this court against J. T. Robison, Commissioner of the General Land Office, upon substantially the following facts: On the 15th day of February, 1904, J. D. Labrie purchased from the state of Texas the timber upon a certain tract of land, situated in Sabine county, and particularly described in the petition. The timber was required to be removed from the land within five years from the date of the purchase, and, in case of failure to so remove it, the timber would be forfeited to the state. The purchaser, or his vendee, was granted the privilege to purchase the land on which the timber was standing at any time within the five years allowed for removing the timber, upon terms prescribed by law, which are not necessary to be recited here. By proper conveyance Labrie transferred his right to Sprague & Toole, and on the 20th day of August, 1906, the last-named parties, by regular conveyance, transferred their interest in the timber to the Ragley-McWilliams Lumber Company, in which conveyance the receipt of the pur- The respondent replied by admitting the fact of sale of the land to Labrie, as alleged in the petition for mandamus, and the transfer to Sprague & Toole and, by the latter, to the Ragley-McWilliams Lumber Company, but alleging the fact that the conveyance vested the legal title to the said timber in the lumber company, admitting that the consideration for the timber ad been paid by the lumber company and by Ragley. Relator claims that under this state of facts the legal title was in the lumber company, and that Ragley For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes had no right to purchase the land. It is also admitted that relator made application as alleged in the petition to purchase the land and complied with the terms of the law, and that the same was refused by the Land Commissioner for the reason that the said Ragley was not the owner of the timber. The commissioner avers that he wrote to the relator advising him of the fact that he could not accept his application to purchase the land for the reasons before stated, and that, after this letter was written, on March 15, 1909, the attorney for the relator wrote a letter to the respondent, stating that the application sent in was to purchase the land for Ragley-McWilliams Lumber Company, but, being president of the company, the relator had signed his own name by mistake instead of the name of the company, and requested respondent to send him another blank in order that he might make an application for the lumber company. The respondent further avers that on March 26, 1909, the timber being on the market for sale, the relator here filed an application for the purchase of the timber in the name of the Ragley-McWilliams Lumber Company. Wherefore respondent denies that the said relator was entitled to purchase the land upon his application. When the state sold the timber on the land involved in this proceeding, the act of 1901 was in force, which directed the sale of tim ber on lands designated, and contained this provision: "The purchaser shall have five years from the date of his purchase within which to remove the timber therefrom, and in case of failure to do so, such timber shall thereby be forfeited to the state without judicial ascertainment; provided, that all timbered lands from which the timber has been cut and taken off may be placed on the market and sold as agricultural or grazing lands, according to classifications to be made by the Land Commissioner; provided, that upon application of the purchaser or his vendees of any such timber made within five years from the purchase of such timber the Commissioner of the General Land Office shall have said land classified at the expense of the owner of said timber as agricultural or grazing land, and the owner of said timber shall have the right to purchase said land at the valuation fixed by said commissioner on the terms and conditions as other lands of like classification are sold under the provisions of this chapter." Laws 1901, p. 297. The purchaser of the land was Labrie, and the Ragley-McWilliams Lumber Company was the remote vendee in whom title to the timber was vested on the 4th day of February, 1909, when relator applied to purchase the land. The legal title being in the lumber company, the Land Commissioner was not required (if, indeed, he was authorized so to do) to institute an inquiry into the equities between the lumber company and relator, growing out of the fact that the latter furnished a part of the purchase money. The facts alleged do not show that the land was bought by the lumber company for relator, but rather that the latter, as its president, purchased the land for the lumber company. Relator shows no right to a writ of mandamus, and the application is refused. QUINN v. GLENN LUMBER CO. (Supreme Court of Texas. March 16, 1910.) 1. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 285*)—INJURY TO SERVANT-DEFECTIVE MACHINERY NEGLIGENCE QUESTION FOR JUry. Plaintiff, an employé in a sawmill, was injured while adjusting a guide pin of a circular saw, by the slipping of the wrench used. The wrench was worn and loosely fitted the head of the pin, which was also worn, both of which facts plaintiff knew. The foreman, whose duty it was to repair the pin, had put a rag in the hole to tighten it, and this plaintiff did not know. Held, that whether the injury resulted from negligence, either by the master or its foreman, is a question for the jury. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 1016; Dec. Dig. § 285.*] 2. MASTER AND SERVANT (§ 190*) - FELLOW SERVANTS. |