MoRoAN v. cox. 37 l
TURNER, J. This is a suit by the plaintiffs, as heirs at law of
Charles Morgan, deceased, for one league and labor of land situate -
in Llano county. The patent bears date December, A. D. 1848, sur-
, vey No. 509, by virtue of certificate No. 493. The grantee, Charles
Morgan, died February 14, 1847. The suit is in the usual form in
trespass to try title,-—petition filed July 15, 1885. The defendants
filed their first answer, August 9, 1885, and their amended original
answer, February 12, 1886. In this amendment they pleaded not
guilty of the wrongs, etc., and the statute of limitations of live and
ten years. They also pleaded valuable improvements in good faith.
The same day, February 12, 1885, after defendants` amendment was
filed, plaintiffs tiled their nrst supplemental petition. V
The defendants claim title as follows: (1) By virtue of an appar-
ent transfer of the certificate No. 493, (by virtue of which the patent
issued to Charles Morgan, as the assignee thereof,) from Charles Mor-
gan, plaintiffs' ancestor, to one T. S. Milfozd; and (2) a transfer from
the said T. S. Milford to one B. W. Nelson; (3) and from R. W. Nel-
son to Euceba Moore, wife of Nat. Moore. Under Moore and wife all
the defendants claim.
In the plaintiffs’ supplemental petition they plead, among other
things, that if defendants do hold possession of the various portions
of said league and labor, they each hold under and deraign their title
under, through, and by virtue of, a forged transfer, from the grantee
to one T. S. Milford, of the said certificate No. 493, by virtue of
which the land was patented. An affidavit was also filed by the
plaintiff on the twelfth day of February, 1886, stating that the ain-
ant (one of the plaintiffs) believed the transfer from Charles Morgan
to Thomas S. Milford was and is a forgery. Thus the pleadings
stood when the parties proceeded to trial. »
The plaintiffs proved. themselves the heirs at law of Charles Mor-
gan, deceased, and then introduced a certified copy of the patent to
Charles Morgan for the land in controversy, and here the plaintiffs
rested their case. The defendants then offered in evidence a deed
from B. W. Nelson to Euceba Moore, (who was and is wife of Nat.
Moore.) This deed is for the entire league and labor sued for, and
bears date the twentieth day of January, 1875. Objections were
made to the introduction of this deed, on account of want of a proper
seal used by the notary public; and to the certificate of registration,
because the certihcate recites that the officer has no seal, and there-
fore uses a private seal. I think these objections untenable, and that _
the same was properly of record in 1875. It is under and through
this deed that all the defendants deraign their titles; but, be that as
it may, certain it is that the plea of limitations of live years, under
the conditions prescribed by the statute, would have protected some
of the defendants. But whether this be so is not, as I apprehend, of
importance, as the finding of the jury cuts off all right to recover, if
the same shall be permitted to stand.