Hosner v. DeYoung
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026City of Falfurrias v. Javier Tovias and Hector Garza Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi
- 2026City of Brownsville v. Hortencia Villarreal Quintero Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi
- 2025Shamar D. Bradley v. Texas Office of the Attorney General and Texas Department of Information Resources Tex. App.
- 2025Robstown Independent School District v. Jesus Alejandro Tex. App.
- 2025Non-Party Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Ashley Dominguez, Orlando Hayward and Reyna Hayward, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Niguel Hayward, Eduardo Moreno, Kelly Ray Wren, and Draggin Tools Trucking, LLC Tex. App.
- 2025Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson Tex. App.
- 2025James Brickley v. Nicholas Walton Tex. App.
- 2025The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11 Tex. App.
- 2025Francisca Okonkwo, Administrative Law Judge, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, in Her Official Capacity and Fort Bend County v. Joshua David Heiliger, Individually, and on Behalf of the Estate of Lauren Brittane Smith, and on Behalf of Death Benefits Beneficiaries Joshua David Heiliger and Emma Destiny Heiliger Tex. App.
- 2025The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc. Tex. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Rufus K. Hosner v. John DeYoung, Surveyor, etc.
Attorneys
- Ovid F. Johnson, Elenezer Allen and William G. Hale, for appellants.
- John W. Harris, Attorney General, for the appellee.
In this case I believe the judgment of the court below ought to be affirmed for the following reasons:
1st. Because a m,andamus is not a process that can be resorted to against the state without its consent, and that this suit is in effect against the state; that no state can be sued in her own courts without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.
2d. Because it is admitted that the certificate sought to be located and surveyed was fraudulently obtained by the fraud of the board of land commissioners from which it issued, and that the name of Duncan, the pretended assignor, is a fictitious name. That this fraud annulled and destroyed everything done, and every supposed right acquired by such fraudulent act of the board of land commissioners, and that the certificate so obtained could give the assignee no standing in court.
3d. Because the different acts of the congress of the republic of Texas to detect fraudulent land certificates are valid, and not repugnant to the constitution of Texas, under which they were enacted. That the claims to be acted on by those laws were only imperfect obligations, and could never be enforced against the government but by and with its own consent.
That the fee being in the government until it passes into a perfect grant, no suit can be sustained to compel the government to divest itself of the title until the political authority has prescribed the mode in which it shall be done; that in all such cases the political authority can establish, alter and modify such regulations from time to time, as may be deemed necessary in maturing an imperfect into a perfect title; that this control is necessary to the protection of the public domain, and a consequence resulting from the fee being in the government.
That this was the construction given to the powers of the congress of the republic, acting on imperfect claims, by its highest judicial tribunal, is manifested in the cases of the Board of Land Commissioners of Nacogdoches County v. Riley, and in Walling v. The Republic, and the same doctrine has been held in this court in the case of Trimble et al. v. Smithers, and in Jones v. Menard.
4th. Because the plaintiff not having pursued his remedy in the anode in which the state.consented to be sued, he cannot be permitted to seek it in any other way.