from an order of the county court of Waller county, made in the administration of the estate of William Milo, deceased, on the ground that the appeal bond was not filed within 15 days from the entry of the order appealed from. This question was certified by us to the supreme court, and was answered by that court in the negative. See Milo v. Nuske, 66 S. W. 544, 4 Tex. Ct. Rep. 113. In accordance with the opinion of the supreme court, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Affirmed.

STROUD v. HAWKINS et al.1 (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Feb. 1, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Hill county; Wm. Poindexter, Judge. Action of trespass to try title by T. M. Stroud against T. G. Hawkins and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. B. T. Jones, Clark & Bollinger, and Vaughan, Works & Clarke, for appellant. A. P. McKinnon, L. A. Carlton, and Wear, Morrow & Smithdeal, for appellees.

TEMPLETON, J. This is a companion case to that of Stroud v. Hawkins (decided to-day) 67 S. W. 534. The two cases are so nearly similar as to render a discussion of the questions raised herein unnecessary. We adopt the conclusions of fact and findings of law filed by the trial judge. We think that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Affirmed.

TINSLEY et al. v. DANSBY.2 (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Feb. 1, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Bosque county; Wm. Poindexter, Judge. Action by Thomas Tinsley and others against Jonathan Dansby and others. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. S. H. Lumpkin and N. J. Wade, for appellants. O. L. Lockett and Wm. M. Knight, for appellee.

HUNTER, J. This suit of trespass to try title was filed in the district court of Bosque county on the 26th day of September, 1881, by Thomas Tinsley against Jonathan Dansby, Amanda Jacobs, and her husband, Perry Jacobs, to recover an undivided interest of 195 acres in the Jothan C. Bullock survey of onethird of a league of land, consisting of 1,476 acres, located on Hogg creek, in Bosque county, Tex. Amanda Jacobs, as heir of Jonathan C. Bullock, joined by her husband, filed a cross petition against the defendant Dansby, and claimed as such heir an undivided interest of 225 acres in the said survey, and joined in the prayer of plaintiff to recover from Dansby 1 Writ of error denied by supreme court March 20, 1902.

2 Rehearing denied March 15, 1902.

and for partition. Dansby pleaded not guilty, three and five years' statute of limitation, and suggestions of improvements made in good faith. The case was tried first in 1890, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant Dansby, from which an appeal was taken to this court where it was reversed in 1893 because the verdict was against the evidence as then contained in the record, but the case was not reported. It was again tried on the day of -, 1901, upon much more testimony taken by defendant after the reversal of his judgment here, and again resulted in a verdict and judgment for Dansby, and the plaintiff and cross petitioners have again appealed. The able counsel for appellants state in their brief that "the main, if not the sole, issue in this case, is the identity of the Bullock to whom was granted the certificate No. 569 in 1838, and approved by the land board in 1840, on which the patent was issued to the land in controversy.' The appellants contend that the certificate was issued to "Jonathan" C. Bullock, a married man who left his family in Rutherford county, Tenn., in 1833 or 1834, and settled in Texas, in order to acquire lands for them, who was the father of Amanda Jacobs and of Tinsley's vendor; that the erasure of the letters "na" in the name of "Jonathan," by running a pen two or three times through them, so as to make the name "Jothan" was done after the certificate was issued and delivered, and was unauthorized; that while the land was located in 1845, and patented in 1846, in the name of Jothan C. Bullock, the equitable title thereof remained in Jonathan C. Bullock. The appellee contends that the certificate was issued to "Jotham" C. Bullock, who emigrated to Texas from Rhehobath, Mass., on the 30th day of September, 1834, landing on Matagorda Bay, Tex., on the 30th day of October, 1834, and that the clerk who wrote the certificate wrote his name "Jonathan" by mistake, and before it was signed and delivered changed it, upon being informed of his error, by running his pen through the letters "na" thereby intending to make it conform to the grantee's true name, but by oversight of both the final "n" was allowed to remain as originally written, instead of being changed to "m." We conclude, from the evidence contained in the record, in reference to the verdict of the jury, that the certificate, No. 569, by virtue of which the land in controversy was located and patented, was issued to Jotham C. Bullock, who emigrated to Texas as a single man on the 30th day of October, 1834, from Rhehobath, Mass., and that the evidence sustains the jury in so finding, and that the plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to recover herein. We have examined all the assignments of error, and overrule them as being without merit; and, finding no error in the judgment, it is affirmed.

$ 1.

Establishment of will, see "Wills," § 3.
Foreclosure of mortgage, see "Mortgages," §
6; "Railroads," § 3.

Co-tenants, see "Partition." § 2.
Joint debtors, see "Contribution.'
Members of church, see "Religious Societies."

Actions by or against particular classes of
parties.

See "Beneficial Associations"; "Carriers," $$
1-3; "Executors and Administrators,' § 7;
"Husband and Wife," § 4; "Infants," § 1;
"Municipal Corporations," §§ 7, 8; "Prin-
cipal and Agent," § 2.

Banks, see "Banks and Banking," § 1.
Stockholders, see "Corporations." § 2.
Telegraph companies, see "Telegraphs and Tel-
ephones," § 1.

Trustees in bankruptcy, see 'Bankruptcy," § 2.

Particular causes or grounds of action.
See "Bills and Notes," § 5; "Contribution"; |
"Death," § 1; "Insurance," §§ 10, 11; "Li-
bel and Slander," § 2; "Malicious Prosecu-
tion," § 4; "Money Lent"; "Negligence," § 3;
"Penaities." § 2; "Seduction," § 1; "Torts";
"Trespass"; "Trover and Conversion," § 1;
"Work and Labor."

Breach of covenant, see "Covenants," § 1.
Breach of sheriff's bond, see "Sheriffs and Con-
stables," § 2.

Reformation of written instrument, see "Ref-
ormation of Instruments."
Removal of cloud on title, see "Quieting Title.”
Setting aside fraudulent
conveyance,
"Fraudulent Conveyances." § 3.
Setting aside will, see "Wills," § 3.

Particular proceedings in actions.

see

See "Continuance"; "Costs"; "Damages":
"Dismissal and Nonsuit"; "Evidence"; "Ex-
ecution"; "Judgment"; "Judicial Sales"

"Jury"; "Limitation of Actions"; "Parties";
"Pleading"; "Process"; "Removal of Caus-
es"; "Trial"; "Venue."

Default. see "Judgment." § 2.

Notice of action, see "Process." § 2.
Revival, see "Abatement and Revival," § 1.
Verdict, see "Trial," § 7.

Particular remedies in or incident to actions.

See "Attachment"; "Garnishment"; "Injune-
tion"; "Sequestration."

Proceedings in exercise of special jurisdic...ons.
Courts of limited jurisdiction in general, see
"Courts," § 4.

Criminal prosecutions," see “Criminal Law.”
Suits in equity, see "Equity."
Suits in justices' courts, see "Justices of the
Peace," § 2.

ADEMPTION.

cating Liquors," § 5.

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.

ADJUDICATION.

Operation and effect of former adjudication.
see "Judgment," §§ 9, 10.

ADJUSTMENT.

Price of goods, see "Sales," § 5.

Recovery of land sold by vendor, see "Ven-

dor and Purchaser," § 5.

Recovery of payment, see "Payment," § 2.
Recovery of price paid for land, see "Vendor
and Purchaser," 6.

Recovery of usurious interest, see "Usury," § 1.
Services, see "Master and Servant," § 1; "Work

and Labor."

Wages, see "Master and Servant," § 1.
Wrongful attachment, see "Attachment," § 2.

Particular forms of action.

See "Ejectment"; "Replevin"; "Trespass," &
1; "Trespass to Try Title"; "Trover and
Conversion."

Particular forms of special relief.

ance, § 8.

As evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence.”
$5.

Alimony, see "Divorce," § 3.

ADVERSE CLAIM.

cellation of Instruments.'

Construction of will, see "Wills," § 4.
Determination of adverse claims to real prop-
erty, see "Quieting Title."

Dissolution of partnership, see "Partnership,"
$ 3.

Enforcement or foreclosure of lien, see "Me-
chanics' Liens," § 3; "Railroads," § 3.
Establishment and enforcement of right of
homestead, see "Homestead," § 5.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See "Easements," § 1; "Limitation of Actions."
Conveyance of lands held adversely, see “Cham-
perty and Maintenance."

1. Nature and requisites.

Grantor in deed held not to have acquired
title by adverse possession as against grantee

of portion of tract conveyed.-Woods v. Texas
Land & Loan Co. (Tex. Čiv. App.) 155.

AIDERS AND ABETTORS.

Criminal responsibility, see "Criminal Law,"
$ 3.

ALIMONY.

ALLOWANCE.

Of appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and
Error." $ 8.

Of claim against estate of ward, see "Guard-
ian and Ward," § 2.

ALTERATION.

916.

In trespass to try title, facts held to entitle
plaintiff to title by limitations.-Sparks v. Hall
(Tex. Civ. App.) 916.

In trespass to try title, a judgment by limita-
tions, because of possession during a period in
which no cause of action existed, is not war-
ranted. Sparks v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 916.

Where, in trespass to try title, the only pos-
session shown for a certain period was of dis-
tinct parts of the land, aggregating less than
the entire tract, and no parcel is identified, a
judgment for title by limitation is not war-
ranted.-Sparks v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 916.
Title of the patentee of land having been de-
stroyed by plaintiff's ten years' adverse pos-
session, defendant cannot show title under
the three-year statute, by proof of subsequent
entry as tenant of the patentee's heirs under
written contract.-Grayson v. Peyton (Tex.
Civ. App.) 1074.

§ 2. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re-
view.

The pleading and evidence in an action of
trespass to try title held to entitle defendant
to a decree establishing a title acquired by
adverse possession as to part of the land,
though he had not pleaded adverse possession
as to any specific portion of a larger tract, in-
cluding the land in question, but only as to
the entire tract.-Smith v. Abadie (Tex. Civ.
App.) 925.

ADVERTISEMENT.

Publication of process, see "Process," § 2.

AFFIDAVITS.

In replevin, see "Replevin." § 1.
In sequestration proceedings, see "Sequestra-
tion."
Of jurors to impeach verdict, see "New Trial,"
§ 2.
Verification of claim against estate of dece-
dent, see "Executors and Administrators,"
§ 4.

Verification of pleading, see "Pleading," § 3.

AGENCY.

See "Principal and Agent."

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

See "Assault and Battery," § 1.

AGREEMENT.

See "Contracts."

AGRICULTURE.

Property in crops, see "Crops."

AMENDMENT.

Of judgment, see "Judgment," § 5.
Of pleading, see "Pleading," § 2.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

Jurisdictional amount, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," 1; "Courts," §§ 3-5.

ANIMALS.

Carriage of live stock, see "Carriers," § 2.
Injuries from operation of railroads, see "Rail-
roads," § 8.

Where fields of different proprietors are un-
der a common outside inclosure, one proprietor,
detaining cattle of the other for trespass on his
premises under Rev. St. 1899, c. 69, art. 2, can-
not assert, in replevin for the cattle, his com-
mon-law right to damages.-Jones v. Habber-
man (Mo. App.) 716.

A recorded cattle brand, designating the
place where it is to be placed as "on shoulder
or side," held in violation of Pen. Code, arts.
932, 934, and inadmissible in evidence on a
prosecution for cattle theft.-Reese v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 325.

judge in obedience to a prior order of the com-
An order for an election, made by the county
missioners' court, to determine whether Hogs,
sheep, "or" goats should be permitted to run at
large, is void, because in the alternative.-Reu-
ter v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 505.

Under a city charter, held, that an election or-
dered by the commissioners' court to determine
whether hogs, sheep, and goats should run at
large within the county would be void as to the
city, and could not prevent a saloon from being
open on the day it was held.-Reuter v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 505.

Persons to whom land has been conveyed to
enable them to vote at an election held not
freeholders and qualified voters.-Jones v. Cary-
er (Tex. Civ. App.) 780.

A description of an election district to deter-
mine whether stock may be allowed to run at
large held not defective.-Jones v. Carver (Tex.
Civ. App.) 780.

ANNULMENT.

Of will, see "Wills," § 3.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See "Exceptions, Bill of"; "New Trial."
Appellate jurisdiction of particular courts, see
"Courts," § 5.

Costs, see "Costs," § 4.

Review of proceedings of justices of the peace,
see "Justices of the Peace," § 3.