concluding clause in Texas

1992Graham, 4 S.W.2d at 542 .

1953Trimmier v. Carlton, 116 Tex. 572 , 296 S.W. 1070, 1074 , and authorities there collated; 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 70, 71; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, Secs. 36, 37. *521 The concluding clause of Section 1 of the charter provides “And all such powers, whether expressed or implied., shall be exercised and enforced in the manner prescribed by this charter, or when not prescribed herein, in such manner as shall be provided by ordinances or resolutions of the commission.” This is the sole provision in the charter which deals with the mode or manner under which the city may exercise its powers embraced in

1953Trimmier v. Carlton, 116 Tex. 572 , 296 S.W. 1070, 1074 , and authorities there collated; 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 70, 71; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, Secs. 36, 37. *521 The concluding clause of Section 1 of the charter provides “And all such powers, whether expressed or implied., shall be exercised and enforced in the manner prescribed by this charter, or when not prescribed herein, in such manner as shall be provided by ordinances or resolutions of the commission.” This is the sole provision in the charter which deals with the mode or manner under which the city may exercise its powers embraced in

1927St., 803, 11 S. W., 543 , when the court said through Chief Justice Stayton: *470 “The concluding clause of that deed shows clearly that it was not the intention of its makers that the one hundred and twenty acres of land therein referred to should pass to appellee, and however unusual the form of the deed may be, effect must be given to the intention of the makers.” The rule is stated in 8 Ruling Case Law, Sec. 151, p. 1094, as follows: “Whatever it may be called, whether exception or reservation, a provision intended to secure a right in the grantors that otherwise would pass to the grantee

1918App. 324 , 100 S. W. 1024 , and authorities there cited. [1] It was held, even prior to express legislation granting the authority, that the land commissioner might “correct errors in surveys after the field notes have been returned into the general land office.” Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1074 .

1918App. 324 , 100 S. W. 1024 , and authorities there cited. [1] It was held, even prior to express legislation granting the authority, that the land commissioner might “correct errors in surveys after the field notes have been returned into the general land office.” Smith v. McGaughey, 87 Tex. 61 , 26 S. W. 1074 .

1918Such a provision would be inadvisable, if not impracticable. * * * There is no mistake as to what land was patented for No. 12, and the land so patented, all of which represented school land, which no other person had any right or interest in at the time, was placed beyond the reach of subsequent applicants, upon the well-settled principle that only the state has the right to inquire into matter affecting' the patent which do not involve the power of the officer to grant the patent.” In support of the proposition of law announced by the court in the concluding clause of the above quotation, se