
    Thomerson v. The State.
    The decision in the case of Titus v. Latimer, 5 Tex. R., 433, applies to the removal of canses from every sort of inferior jurisdiction except that mentioned in the 13th section of the 4th article of the Constitution.
    Appeal from Kaufman. The appellant made bis application to tlie commissioner of Mercer’s colony on tlie 2!)th day of April. 18.70, for six hundred and forty acres of land, under the provisions of Hie act of 1870 “for tlie relief of the citizens of Mercer’s colony.” (Ilart. Dig., p. 702.) The application was rejected by the. commissioner, and tlie claimant appealed to the District Court, under the "provision of the iJtli section of the act which gives the right of appeal from tlie decision of the commissioner to the. District Court, “under (lie mies and regulations governing appeals from Justice’s Courts !o the District Courts.” (Hart. Dig.', art. 21)22.) There wits a trial -in the District Court, which resulted in a verdict and judgment against the claimant, who thereupon appealed to this court.
    
      
      U. M. Burford and /. II. Reagan, for appellant.
   Wheeler, J.

The right oí appeal to the District Court in this case falls within t lie principle of the decision of this court in the case of Titus v. Latimer, 5 Tex. It., 443, and repeated decisions subsequently made in which that decision has been affirmed. The appeal must consequently be dismissed. We liave looked into the statement of facts, and it is apprehended that were we to entertain the case for an adjudication on the merits, under the well-settled principles of law relative to what constitutes a national domicile and citizenship or residence in a country, as recognized by the decisions of this court, it must result unfavorably to the appellant. (Holliman v. Peebles, 1 Tex. R., 688, 689; The Republic v. Skidmore, 2 Id., 201; McIntyre v. Chappell, 4 Id., 187 ; Hardy v. DeLeon, 5 Id., 211.)

The case, however, is not before us in a manner to enable us to adjudicate that question ; but this intimation of opinion may save the party the expense of further litigating' his claim.

Appeal dismissed.  