The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-09

chase had been made and the new homestead
occupied ~ such by Mrs, Buckley before the
rendition Of this judgment against herr tho
continued residence with her Of tho children
Of Mrs, Howard also before lis rendition, and
under circumstances which seem 10 preclude
any presumption that this was done with m
improper purpose the peculiar social status
Of The parllesi tho prior assumed obligation
Of Mrs, Buckley 10 support these chill
dren, and their state of dependence
upon her for moral training md for
nj least portion Of their support md main
t0nance, her long formed Intention 10
adopt Anna, and tho general policy Of our
laws providing exemption In fayor of widows
and minor children, we are not prepared 10
say that this did not constitute such family
as would be entitled 10 the protection Of this
property M u homestead even without the
adoption of the child Anna, or TINT IL thia
adoption WIS necessary for this purpose, that
under tho circumstances, there was such bad
faith In tho transaction rs would amount to n
fraud upon the previously acquired rights Of
a Judgment creditor II does not In this case
become necessary IN determine the legal cl-
feet Of such adoption, further thnn, II made
In good faith, II would create such legal 10
lRtIon Of parent and child ms would cOnstl'
iute family rs contemplated by our Con-
stituuon and laws, Neither does II become
necessary In tho Wow We take OF this case TO
express any opinion upon the question
whether there might not DO II distinction, rs
affecting the right TO acquire homestead be-
tween tho rights Of creditor acquired by II
judgment lien upon All tho lands generally Of
n creditor md those acquired by a specific
lien upon Il particular tract rs attachment,
mortgage or vendors lien, North VI,
Shearn, 10 Tex, l74 McNlanus vs., Camp
bell, 81 Tex, 267, Affirmed.
w. A. Saylor vs., N. ManX, Appeal from
Galveston. On motion 10 dismiss. Opinio'
by Gould, j. by motion filed in due time,
appellee sought TO have this case dismissed
for alleged irregularities and nsuillcicncy in
tho transcript The certificates thereto and the
brief orappcllant and loralleged insullicicncy
in the amount of the appeal bond. The va
rious grounds of diSmissNl SGT up in that mo-
ton were held insufficient IN an oral opinion
delivered by the chief justice but because
tho court discovered, in examining the mo-
ton that John Il. Breckenridge aud John NJ.
Swshor were suretos on the bond for costs
given by plaintiff in the court below that the
Ipot6mc byS bis mit and for costs, was rs to
mo cog1s olso ogainst them by name. and
G,.,hor ,bo, tbcy ware tho only sureiies ON
w. 'nv,, ooi Iond o;ron hv nlointiT, il was
S "I e. ,h V nds no sufficient hond 10 oive
Nv .''' ;,n;sd;ciinn md tho cnsn wns Cnr
u ,,1 , nooson Jis,ni,scJ This action of Tho
o",' ,,os r,oinIv hoscd an tho outhoritv NJ
Iu"'s w." "s Inrn,In n and Iaholi ga liam
and an ,bc nart If The ln,ter ot COST WINS me-.
Wv" ',iosnoj IN "a rnlo ~ ,rnc,ico vi,bout rnlIv
d o'nroo;atn" III i,nnnr,ancc If tLc mrisdic.
.lpoppoi ,,'i ,od Tbat ordcr NJ di..
s.J'"' 9aoS''Jn ,,,I 90, asJo nv tbo court
nl'ssu' w"s suoouI"o S,oS oorofl oyom;roton
on ''s ,no''om h Goo "''Va ,maioriiv Of tbc
VI Wv JJLod tho oonc},sinn tbat tho
rour1 INV iH"J1 y, W" ,,,o ,lo conrt ;"ri.dc
Uollu wnS s"'S'V .i, w I'D ~ no Ghiac,ion
Llou vi v';e e"Se, tho E,iHro ~ boonnGIlon 20
ovn,S m".ovu W S,G H;tbin thc Tina nros.
SET III nls ilio.'o'i S,Tn,t e Wv, wv ~ nJ
cr,oe4 ny tno ruaos, wv I ,hot tb;S coMoIpsinn
~ li,us' 10 SV "Sot ~ s";d I NV the "omrt in
~ =, III ev"'i.oe W. Iu"' =" tho oGact that tbo
'n'',ols W . hnnr cnr oo,ts o,oinst
JuaSi'cn. oeloM ilH',s Ueo'' W oooa;
,he pS'ntl anu ler se,'o''oS o1 "oL I w.. 'tE, a
po',u, M "PPsa' oo'', SS ,;o, , u * s'',
! TiT U',v 1Nl,nt oncn
Ia'h an uppou. noMn 60 81 ;rri sdi i"1'
hao oGeh ulslisseu ~. m",,' u 80 ro;n
ana ue quoss'Vil "ro ,aa ' .ha. tbo nor
a'a'e' ~ Is " oo notGu INV Wy -.
pears 70 nHvG po.'' s";,suod, OhoII Is
IhnV 'hc 'i'o',ou " ;iI''''V y no
rue9' anu VIVA. y sHiu ", s'o 'u .yr 10 vac
bona seems intended l"snor W suo's'hun y
conclusion already reaGncu .ii"u W W. i'se,t
tne GROUND upon wnlcn VA; eono,os ,L WI
placed Moreover sho 9pin'on vs. W. my aa'"
lhSu,llcleuSy VI thv 9oru 10 oSpnTeSoy O"su 1o
ON inc authority o. taGS,'io w. D''t,, o%s'
Nh,ch we no" sn,nk uaiV, 1;1 ~ "' ,aJ,a
ana "hich tnerel3r '1 , ulu I nn In'VIeo
the same quest'ons' - lcA"s' w ~ 'nnl
case number OF parlles uh''eu III enlo'hlhs
The collection OF taN' anu Judgment nav,
ing gone against 1ucl' ~ 'no MI uS' rnS
court, they pr0secuteu JONI "ppe". "',u
gave an appear pohu, sls.ieu ohly W '" T0I!
selves, without any securities wiatoIer hNiI
denty that case may s'sho On 'ne S'?uI y,
on when INC opinion places II. th"V the lnul-
viduHl oongatoh Oh appe,iSan's ,, Is NOV MI nP'
peal oohd IN the sense ol tue s'atu'o WuiGn
required TWO or more sure1'es' ana yet 'le
appeal pond IN D"hielS vs.. Lnrsnuol'' anu a,, Ia
the present case might eacn DC goou; Inc
'urstes here were nov paTties plSlht'u' ana
they have not Appealed ~ can not DC sal9
that the appellants give 9hly lneir lhdiyIduaI
Obligation Inc case OF Eaouute vs.: Dsnn
is not questloned' out IL Is NOV peuoVeI 70