Christy v. Scott et al. pretended title, and pay for said land the price established by law. And the defendant says, that the said Arceniega, and those claiming said land under him, wholly failed to comply with said conditions. 7. And the said defendant says, that the said plaintiff claims the land described in his petition under and through a pretended grant purporting to have been made to one Miguel Arceniega by authority of the government of the State of Coahuila and Texas, bearing date, to wit, the twentieth day of September, A. D. 1835, and under and through a pretended claim of transfers from said Arceniega to plaintiff; and that within six years from the date of said pretended grant, and before the annexation of Texas to the United States, the said pretended transfers were made to said plaintiff; and that the plaintiff was not, at the date of said pretended grant to him, and previous thereto had never been, a resident citizen of Texas or Mexico, but was then, and thence hitherto continued to be, a resident and citizen of the United States of America, owing and paying allegiance to the government thereof. 8. And the said defendant further answering says, that he is the owner of the following tracts or parcels of land, to wit: (setting out a tract of land by metes and bounds, but without saying whether or not it was the land claimed by the plaintiff) and the defendant says that his possession of the said land is by virtue of the authority and title of the said John Graves, and as claimant under said Graves; and the said defendant says, that he and the said Graves, under whom he claims as to the said last-mentioned tract of land, and that he, in his own right and those under whom he claims, as to the several parcels of land above described, have had peaceable adverse possession of said several tracts of land, claiming the same by virtue of the certificates and files aforesaid, and the surveys aforesaid, with chains of legal transfers from the government down to this defendant, and to those under whom he claims, for more than three years next before the commencement of this suit; and the defendant disclaims ownership and possession of any portion of the land described in plaintiff's petition, not included in the metes and bounds of the several tracts and parcels above set forth. 9. Said defendant further says, that the land claimed by plaintiff in his petition is located within the territory designated as the twenty frontier leagues, bordering on the United States of the North, in the act of the Congress of the Republic of Texas, approved January 9th, 1841, and entitled "An act to quiet the land titles within the twenty frontier leagues bordering on the United States of the North," and is claimed by plaintiff by virtue of said location made prior to the seventeenth day of Christy v. Scott et al. March, A. D. 1836; and that said plaintiff, and those under whom he claims said land, did not commence an action to try the validity of said claim within twelve months from the passage of the act aforesaid. And the defendant suggests to the court that he has had adverse possession in good faith of the said several tracts or parcels of land, for more than one year next before the cornmencement of this suit; and that, during said possession, he has made permanent and valuable improvements in the same consisting of, to wit, one thousand acres, cleared and fenced, and divers good dwelling-houses, gin-houses, barns, corn-cribs, orchards, outhouses, &c., of great value, to wit, of the value of ten thousand dollars. The plaintiff then filed the following replications and demur rers: 2. And the plaintiff, by attorney, comes, and as to the plea by the defendant, secondly by him in his answer pleaded, whereof said defendant puts himself upon the country, he, said plaintiff, doth the like. Demurrer [to 3d plea.] And the said plaintiff, by attorney, comes and says, precludi non, by reason of any thing in the defendant's third plea, in his said answer pleaded; because he says the said plea, and the matters and things therein contained, are not sufficient in law to bar and preclude him from having and maintaining his action aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify; wherefore, he prays judgment, &c. And for cause of demurrer, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the said plaintiff sets down and shows the following, to wit: 1. The said plea in bar of plaintiff's action attempts to set up the want of the approbation or assent of the executive of the national government of Mexico, to the issuance of a grant within the twenty border leagues, when the national colonization law, under which is sought the benefit of this bar, contains no prohibition to the issuance of said grant; but if, at the time of the issuance of said grant, there was any such prohibition, it only extended to making settlements within said border leagues. 2. The said plea in bar of plaintiff's action attempts to set up the issuance of a grant under which the plaintiff claims, dated 20th September, 1835, without the approbation of the supreme executive of Mexico, within the border leagues; but does not show the nature or kind of said grant, so as to enable the court to judge of its validity. Christy v. Scott et al. 3. And the said plea is in other respects defective, informal, and insufficient, &c. Replication [to 4th plea.] 4. And for replication to the fourth plea by the said defendant in his said answer pleaded, the said plaintiff says, precludi non, because he says the grant under which the plaintiff claims was issued by an authority, at the time of the issuance of the same, in the State of Coahuila and Texas, existing and competent to issue the same, and this, he prays, may be inquired of by the country. Replication [to 5th plea.] 5. And for replication to the fifth plea, by the said defendant in his said answer pleaded, the said plaintiff says, precludi non, because he says that the said grant, under which the said plaintiff claims, was not obtained or procured to be issued by fraudulent misrepresentations, as in the said plea alleged, and this, he prays, may be inquired of by the country. Demurrer [to 6th plea.] 6. And as to the sixth plea, by the said defendant in his said answer pleaded, the said plaintiff says, precludi non, because he says the said plea, and the matters and things therein contained, are not sufficient in law to bar and preclude said plaintiff from having and maintaining his action aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment, &c. And for cause of demurrer, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the said plaintiff sets down and shows the following, to wit: 1. The conditions set forth in the said plea, as those upon which said grant was issued, as is manifest by the said plea, were conditions subsequent, of which the defendant cannot take advantage upon a failure in their performance. 2. A failure to perform the conditions in said plea set out, might have been cause of the forfeiture of the estate passed by said grant in said plea, set out on a proceeding in behalf of the State; but this is no reason why the defendant, before forfeiture declared, should, against the plaintiff, retain possession of the estate in said grant mentioned. 3. And the said plea is, in other respects, defective, informal, and insufficient, &c. Demurrer [to 7th plea.] 7. And as to the seventh plea, by the said defendant in his said answer pleaded, the said plaintiff says, precludi non, because he says the said plea, and the matters and things therein Christy v. Scott et al. contained, are not sufficient in law to bar and preclude him from having and maintaining his action aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment, &c. And for cause of demurrer, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the said plaintiff sets down and shows the following, to wit: 1. The said plea in bar avers, that the estate in the premises, in the said petition mentioned, was transferred to said plaintiff while and during the time he was a citizen of the United States of America, and owing allegiance to the same, and an alien to the Republic of Texas; yet shows no forfeiture declared, on office found, so as to divest the estate vested by said transfer. 2. And the said plea is in other respects defective, informal, and insufficient, &c. Replication [to 8th plea] Withdrawn, and the following demurrer substituted: And now, at this term, comes the plaintiff, by his attorney, and, by leave of the court first had and obtained, withdraws his replication to the eighth plea, by the defendant in this behalf pleaded, and says, precludi non, by reason of any thing in the said defendant's eighth plea in this behalf pleaded, because he says the said plea, and the matters and things therein contained, are not sufficient in law to bar and preclude him from having and maintaining his action aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment, &c. And for causes of demurrer, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the said plaintiff sets down and shows the following, to wit: 1. The said plea avers, that the said defendant, and a certain John Graves, under whom he, the said defendant claims, as to a part of the land in said plea mentioned, had and still held peaceable possession of the same, for more than three years next before the commencement of this suit under color of title; when, to produce a bar within the statute in such case made and provided, a possession, under the circumstances, and within the time prescribed by said statutes, by said defendant alone, should have been set up. 2. The said defendant, by said plea, avers that, as to a part of the lands in said plea specified, the title is yet outstanding in a certain John Graves; yet the said defendant, by his said plea as to said land, attempts to set up in bar, by reason of possession of the same for three years, under color of title, next before the commencement of plaintiff's action. 3. The said defendant, by his said plea, avers, that a portion of the land in said plea specified, and of which he, said defendant, Christy v. Scott et al. claims to be the owner, by virtue of his, said defendant's, own head-right certificate, has not been surveyed, as by law required, to vest title in the same in said defendant; yet said defendant, as to the same, by his said plea, attempts to set up in bar an adverse possession, for three years next before commencement of plaintiff's action, under color of title. 4. The said defendant, by his said plea, does not aver, that he, said defendant, was ever an actual settler upon the said land, of which, by his said plea, he claims to be in adverse possession. 5. Though the said defendant, by his said plea, attempts to set up in bar an adverse possession, under color of title, for three years next before commencement of plaintiff's action herein, yet he does not show that said color of title was duly proven and recorded. 6. The said defendant, by his said plea, attempts to set up in bar of plaintiff's action adverse possession, under color of title, for three years next before the commencement of said plaintiff's said action, when, by the purview of the statutes in such case made and provided, there can be no such bar; but if any, the bar must be by such adverse possession, under such color of title, for three years next after cause of action accrued, and before commencement of action. 7. The said plea, though in bar, does not make any case by which the plaintiff is barred of his action, by reason of any possession adverse, within the terms of the statute in such case made and provided. 8. And the said plea, is, in other respects, defective, informal, and insufficient, &c. Demurrer [to 9th plea.] 9. And as to the ninth plea, by the said defendant in his said answer pleaded, the said plaintiff says, precludi non, because he says the said plea, and the matters and things therein contained, are not sufficient in law to bar and preclude him, said plaintiff, from having and maintaining his action aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment, &c. And for cause of demurrer, according to the form of the sta tute in such case made and provided, the said plaintiff sets out and shows the following, to wit: 1. The act of Congress, referred to in said plea, at the time of the approval thereof, since, and now, was not, and is not, the law of the land. 2. The said act of Congress was made and intended to impair the obligation of contracts. 3. And the said plea is, in other respects, defective, informal, and insufficient. &c. |