Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/492

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

OCTOBER TERM, 1?. comm?on. As a matter of convenience, in the carry? out of the contract, 'a deed was made by Sweet and w?e to ali of the property. Afterwards an attempt was made to form the corporation. There being no law in Texas under which such a corporation could be formed, that portion of the scheme failed, and, as shown by the record, the project was dropped by almost all, if not entirely all, of the partie? connected thert- with, and the deed, although recorded, was returned to Sweet, together with th? notes." As already indicated, at the time the above arrangement was made it was supposed by some that Orecr County was part of the State of Texas. For many ?ears, indeed, from the time of its admission into the Union, Tex? asserted that Greer County was within its recognized limits. But subsequently, in a suit brought in this court by the United States against the State, it was adjudged that Greer County constituted no part of the State of Texas, but was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. United States v. Texas, 162 U.S. (1895), 1, 90. At a later date, January 18, 1897 (29 star. 490), Congress passed an act whereby grants of lands in Greet County could be obtained under the homestead law of the United States as modified by that act. Under that legislation Sweet, on Oc- tober 13, 1898, obtained a patent from the Unted Statc? and holds title under it. The original scheme for the upbuilding of Mangum as out- lined in the deed and agreement of 1890 failed and was wholly abandoned by the parties to those instruments, and the pres- ent suit was brought by Sweet and wife for the cancellation of the deed made to Bogard, and for a decree removing the cloud created by it upon the title to the property in question. The plaintiffs having died, after the institution of the suit, there was a revivor of the suit in the name of their children and heirs. Notwithstanding some of the parties to the original scheme defended the suit, a decree was rendered in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiffs, and that decree was affirmed