August Nachant

Male 1882 - 1978  (96 years)


Personal Information    |    Media    |    Notes    |    All    |    PDF

  • Name August Nachant 
    Born 19 Apr 1882 
    Christened 14 May 1882  Heiligenmoschel, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Gender Male 
    Died 14 Nov 1978  San Diego, San Diego County, California, USA Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Buried Greenwood Memorial Park, San Diego, California, USA Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Person ID I4199  Rossen Genealogy
    Last Modified 27 Aug 2017 

    Father Peter Nachant,   b. 1838,   d. 10 Mar 1900, Heiligenmoschel, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 62 years) 
    Relationship Birth 
    Mother Wilhelmina Buhl,   b. 1852,   d. 17 Mar 1890  (Age 38 years) 
    Relationship Birth 
    Married 3 Sep 1870  Heiligenmoschel, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Family ID F1452  Group Sheet

    Family 1 Elsie Rae Lohman,   b. 17 Aug 1888, Chatham, New York, USA Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Children 
    +1. Fritz August Nachant,   b. 3 Jun 1917, San Diego, San Diego County, California, USA Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 2 Oct 2008, San Diego, San Diego County, California, USA Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 91 years)
    Last Modified 11 Aug 2017 
    Family ID F1451  Group Sheet

    Family 2 Mary Frances Reynolds 
    Married 19 Sep 1961  Seattle, King County, Washington, USA Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Last Modified 25 Aug 2017 
    Family ID F1472  Group Sheet

  • Documents
    August Nachant
    August Nachant
    WW I Draft Regsitration Card, page 1
    August Nachant
    August Nachant
    WW I Draft Regsitration Card, page 2
    August Nachant
    August Nachant
    Census 1910
    He lives in Fairbanks City, Alaska. Occupation is mining on own account and he is a lodger. August immigrated from Germany in 1904
    August is no 3 on the list
    August Nachant and his wife Elsie Rae (nee Lohman), their son Frederick P Nachant and Elsie´s parents
    August Nachant and his wife Elsie Rae (nee Lohman), their son Frederick P Nachant and Elsie´s parents
    Census 1920
    They live in San Diego. August is working as a baker in a bakery on own account. Both Elsie and her father are listed as artists.


    Headstones
    August Nachant
    August Nachant
    Headstone

  • Notes 
    • Nachant v. Montieth, 299 S.W. 888 (Tex. 1927)
      Texas Supreme Court
      Filed: November 30th, 1927
      Precedential Status: Precedential
      Citations: 299 S.W. 888, 117 Tex. 214
      Docket Number: No. 4893.
      Author: R.H. Harvey

      The relators, August Nachant and others, seek the issuance by the Supreme Court of a writ of mandamus against the Honorable W. E. Monteith, Judge of the District Court for the Sixty-first District, requiring him to observe and give full force and effect to the judgment of dismissal hereinafter mentioned. On November 8, 1926, and for several years prior to that date, there was pending in said district court a suit which was numbered 63,787 and styled G. H. Herman v. August Nachant, et al. On the date mentioned, November 8, 1926, a judgment of dismissal for lack of prosecution was entered in the suit. The suit was one of trespass to try title that had been instituted by G. H. Herman against the relators as defendants. Prior to such dismissal, G. H. Herman died and his representatives, who are co-respondents here, duly made themselves *Page 217 parties plaintiff in his stead. After the judgment of dismissal was entered the plaintiffs in the suit failed to file a motion for new trial or any other character of pleading within thirty days from the entry of the dismissal judgment. On January 12, 1927, they filed a pleading, bearing the same style and number of the dismissed suit, which pleading they denominated their "Motion to Reinstate and Bill of Review." The defendants in the dismissed suit, who are the relators here, waived citation and filed answer to this pleading. Afterwards the plaintiffs, under leave of court, filed an amended "Motion to Reinstate and Bill of Review," and the defendants filed an amended answer in response thereto. Thereupon the court, on July 1st, 1927, heard the said pleadings of the parties, and the evidence offered by the plaintiffs; and entered judgment purporting to set aside the dismissal judgment of November 8, 1926; and set the case down for further hearing on the merits at a later date. The relators strenuously resisted such action of the court on the alleged ground that the court was without jurisdiction because the term of court at which the dismissal judgment was entered had terminated, as respects the case in which such judgment was entered, prior to the filing of the original motion to reinstate and bill of review. And it is upon this ground that the relators seek the mandamus here, contending in effect that the purported motion and bill of review constitutes nothing more than an ordinary motion for new trial.
      The amended "Motion to Re-instate and Bill of Review," apart from its number and style, bears the earmarks of a petition in an independent suit for equitable relief. Its formal parts are those of a petition; and issues of fact are tendered as constituting a cause of action. It alleges an action of trespass to try title, describing the land involved in the dismissed suit. It alleges the former pendency of the suit, and the entry of the dismissal judgment, and alleges facts as showing that the dismissal was entered through accident and mistake. It also alleges facts as showing that the plaintiffs, through no fault of theirs, were unaware of such dismissal judgment having been entered until January 11, 1927; and facts are alleged as showing that the plaintiffs were not negligent in the premises. It alleges in detail a meritorious cause of action for the recovery of said land, which will be lost if the dismissal judgment is not vacated. It contains allegations of fact as showing that an appeal or writ of error will not afford the plaintiffs adequate relief from the destructive effects which the dismissal judgment has on their cause of action. Without summarizing further, it is deemed sufficient for us to say, *Page 218 that the pleading alleges facts in detail as affording the plaintiffs therein equitable grounds for the vacating of said judgment; the existence and sufficiency of which alleged facts the trial court, as a court of first instance, has jurisdiction to determine.
      We do not find it necessary to consider that provision contained in Section 30 of Article 2092 of the Statutes, which relates to bills of review. For it is our opinion that, regardless of that statute, the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the plaintiffs' so-called Motion to Reinstate and Bill of Review. The averments of this pleading are of such nature as to require the trial court to take cognizance of the matters presented, as of a new suit seeking equitable relief, even if such pleading should not be entertained as a continuation of the old suit. Galbraith v. Bishop, 287 S.W. 1087; Osborne v. Younger, 235 S.W. 558.
      The judgment, in respect of which the plaintiffs in said pleading seek relief, is one of dismissal. Therefore it is of no consequence, in this proceeding for mandamus, whether the interlocutory order of July 1, 1927, purporting to set aside such judgment, does or does not effect that purpose. A decision in this proceeding does not require a determination as to the effectiveness of such interlocutory order, and we express no opinion in that regard.
      We recommend that the application for mandamus be refused.
      The opinion of the Commission of Appeals is adopted, and the mandamus refused.
      C. M. Cureton, Chief Justice.