78 S.W. 1082
KEACHELE et al. 
v. 
HENDERSON et al.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
February 13, 1904.
        Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; T. B. Cobb, Judge.
        Action by F. A. Keachele and others against Jim Henderson and others. From a judgment for 
defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
        Anderson & Anderson, for appellants. W. B. Moses, for appellees.
        BOOKHOUT, J.
        This suit was filed in the district court of Freestone county, Tex., on
Page 1083
the 14th day of December, 1901, by F. J. Keachele et al., nonresidents of Freestone county, against Jim 
Henderson et al., in an action in trespass to try title to one-third of a league of land situated in Freestone 
county. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a judgment for 
defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
        The trial court filed conclusions of fact and law as follows:
        "In 1833, the law having been in all things complied with, there was issued to one Aguilera, by the 
Mexican government, title to eleven leagues of land on the Trinity river, in part in the Robertson and in 
the Houston land district as existing in 1841, and in the counties of Freestone and Anderson as now 
constituted. In November, 1841, the Republic of Texas granted and patented to Tobias Dubronner one-
third of a league of land lying wholly within the lines and boundaries of said 11 leagues. The plaintiffs, who 
are the heirs at law of said Dubronner, admitting the original validity of the Aguilera grant, seek to nullify 
the same as to the later patent upon the contention that their ancestor obtained patent without actual or 
implied or constructive notice of the existence of the prior title, and to maintain such contention proved 
that they paid the taxes on the Dubronner land for ten years next before suit filed; that they had the lines 
of said land surveyed out in 1895 or 1896, at which time one or more of the defendants, being on the land 
as squatters, agreed to hold under their title; that the transcript of land titles from Robertson county—
Freestone county being part of what was the territory of that county until 1846—showed no grant to 
Aguilera; that a search of the archives of the General Land Office made in 1902 disclosed no document 
evidencing the Aguilera grant, except a sketch or map thereof, contained in an atlas or folio together with 
other like maps or sketches, some bearing dates indicating the time of deposit in the land office, and 
others, among which was the Aguilera map, bearing no date, the earliest date shown being of 1846. The 
defendants proved that one E. A. Mexia claimed to own the entire Aguilera grant for many years prior to 
1895 or 1896, and that at that time the agent of Mexia, finding the same occupying defendants on the 
land, obtained from them a recognition of his title and agreement to hold under same; that the Robertson 
county transcript did not contain all of the conveyances of record in Robertson prior to 1846 pertaining to 
lands now in Freestone county. The evidence failed to show a search of the records of Robertson and 
Houston land offices or of Anderson or Robertson counties, and was silent as to actual knowledge on the 
part of Dubronner of the Aguilera grant, or as to circumstances from which notice or want of notice might 
be deduced.
        "The evidence does not show title in defendants under the Aguilera grant. I conclude that it is not 
proved that Dubronner was without constructive notice of the prior title. I conclude that it is not proved 
that Dubronner was without actual notice of such title. Having failed to prove affirmatively that the junior 
grantee took title without constructive notice of the prior grant, plaintiffs cannot recover. Were the 
evidence sufficient to sustain an inference that the Aguilera title was not archived as required by statute 
(1836), and that the testimony was not registered as provided by act of 1837, prior to grant to 
Dubronner, yet there is no evidence of want of actual notice to Dubronner. The plaintiffs have not made 
out their case. That a junior purchaser may recover against a holder of prior legal title, the evidence must 
show that prior deed or patent was not registered, and that the junior purchaser was without notice of the 
prior title. The superior outstanding legal title in Aguilera is a bar to plaintiffs' action."
        There is no statement of facts in the record, and these conclusions must be treated as presenting 
the facts. The learned trial judge arrived at the correct conclusion from these facts. The facts are 
insufficient to show that Tobias Dubronner, ancestor of plaintiffs, was without notice of the prior 
appropriation of the land at the time the same was patented to him, and entitled to protection as a junior 
good-faith locator. King v. Elson, 30 Tex. 246; Rogers v. Mexia (Tex. Civ. App.) 36 S. W. 825; Murchison 
v. Mexia (Tex. Civ. App.) 36 S. W. 828; Guilbeau v. Mays, 15 Tex. 410; Byrne v. Fagan, 16 Tex. 392.
        The proper judgment having been rendered, the same is affirmed. Affirmed.