Herbert v. Moore
case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas
Herbert v. Moore, Dallam 592 (1844), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas which held that property taken by Indians in a raid were not subject to the rule of postliminy and were still the property of the original owner.
Background
On May 27, 1842, Indians stole horses and mules from P.W. Herbert in Bastrop County, Texas. Two days later a mule and other livestock was found in the possession of Indians about 30 miles from Austin. Thomas Moore and others recovered the stock after a fight, during which Moore lost his own horse. Herbert demanded his property back, but Moore refused, on the grounds that the taking of the stock for more than 24 hours stripped Herbert of title, and the recapture vested the title in Moore and those with him.
Decision
Judge William J. Jones explained that Moore's position was based on the rule of postliminy, which was designed to handle property taken during war by an enemy. If the property is retaken within 24 hours, the original owner still maintains title, but if not retaken during that period, the original owner loses title. The question before the court was whether takings by Indians fell under this rule.
Jones noted that postliminy was a principle of international law and then examined whether Indians were separate nations for the purpose of the law.
“Herbert v. Moore” enters the record as case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Herbert, Moore and case can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Herbert v. Moore” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Herbert, Moore and case provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 29, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q17022100. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1844 and 1842.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Herbert v. Moore”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Herbert v. Moore primary sources, Herbert v. Moore archive and Herbert research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Herbert v. Moore”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Herbert v. Moore” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.