
    The Heirs and Legal Representatives of George Robbins, Deceased, vs. The Heirs and Legal Representatives of Nathaniel Robbins, Deceased
    — Error from Houston County.
    A contract for the conveyance of land, in contravention, of the 36th article of decree No. 272, Laws of Coahnila and Texas, is void. [Posi, 498: 1 Tex. 748; 12 Tex. 18; 18 Tex. 474; 26 Tex. 24. J
    The petition in tliis case alleges that about the first of January, 1835, George Robbins, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, contracted with Nathaniel Robbins, the ancestor of the defendants, to select, locate and obtain the title from the government, of the league of land to which he was entitled as a colonist in Yehlin’s colony, and for which services, and the money to be advanced in their performance, he agreed to convey to him, the said Nathaniel, one-half of the league, when the title was obtained. That the said Nathaniel performed his part of the contract, and obtained the title for and in the name of the said George Robbins from the commissioner, but that he and the said George died before any conveyance was made to him of the half league which he was to receive for his services under the contract; and that since their death the representatives of the said George had refused to make the conveyance. They therefore pray that the representatives and heirs of the said George Robbins be cited to appear, and that by the decree of the court they be compelled to convey one-half of the league to the petitioners.
    The answers deny the contract as stated in the petition, and deny the performance by the ancestor of the defendants in error of the contract as it was made by the parties.
    
      Wm. Robertson, the only witness introduced at the trial, testified that he was called upon by George and Nathaniel Robbins, in the fall of 1834, to survey the league of land under an order of survey; that there was a verbal contract between them that Nathaniel was to clear out the league of land, paying the surveying and office fees and government dues, in •order to procure a title, and that the land was then to be equally divided between them, and that Nathaniel Bobbins paid him for surveying the league. The witness stated some other facts respecting the payment of the government dues, and a subsequent survey, with a view to a division of the land according to the contract, but as they are not involved in the question decided by the court it is unnecessary to repeat them. The title issued by the commissioner in the name of George Bobbins, for the league, is dated in October, 1834. There was a verdict and decree for a specific performance of the contract, in favor of the plaintiffs below, and the defendants below sued out their writ of error, and by which the cause was brought into this court.
    Gillespie for plaintiffs in error.
    Jennings for defendants in error.
   Mr. Justice Lipscomb

delivered the opinion of the court.

There were several points relied on by the plaintiff in error to reverse the judgment. It is not, however, believed necessary to notice but one, as that is conclusive of the case. The contract on which the suit was brought was for the conveyance of land, and appears to be in contravention of the 36th article, Law No. 272, Laws of Coahuila and Texas, p. 252.

This question we consider as settled in this court, by the case of Hunt’s Heirs vs. Robinson’s Heirs [1 Texas Rep. p. 748]. That case has been considered as correctly settling the doctrine, and the consequence is, the judgment and decree of the court below in this case is reversed, and the cause ordered to be dismissed at the costs of the complainants in the court below.  