The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-06-23
the COUR Ts.
synopsis or Decisions or the Supreme
court.

hnn DVOAH6s
synopsis or Decisions or the sapvem
court.
The state Of Texas, OF. rel. Edwards v
FlatoD; from Camp county by provision
Of the quo warranto act the district cour
not only has the power 10 enquire into tn
question of an unlawful usnrpation of, or In
trusion into an office, but also into that o
the several rights of divers parties to the sam
office. There Is a distinction between tn
right to declare an office vacant in a CAS-
where tho officer elect, without good csus
wholly fails or refuses to qualify, and il
which in good faith he endesvors to comply
wi h the low. The office of sheriff is un
questionably such property as is protected
by the constitutional guaranty that no one
shall be deprived Of life, liberty or property
without an Oppor luity to be heard. The
district court mad !risdiction over the ques
ton presented by the information, and erred
in sustaining defendants demurrer. Revers'
ed and remanded. Bonner, j.
The Western Union Telegraph company
vs. the state of Texas from Travis county
This was a suit against the telegraph COM
psny for the recovery of taxes due for the
last quarter of the year 1879 and the two
first quarters of 1880, and to compel report
and compliance WITH the provisions of the
Revised Statutes on the subject. Answer
was by demurrer, general denial and plea
that the law impo ing the tax was void
under the state and federal constitutions
and the.....laws' ot congress Held, that the
constitution of the state authorizes the i'm
position by the legislature of the occupation
tax sued for, and that the levy ia free from
obstructing or regulating interstate COM
merce. Where action is given for taxes, in
terest is not recoverable unless the statute
gives it. This judgment, 30 far as it gives
interest, is reversed, but in all other respects
is affirmed. Gould, j.
Comm issIoners OF Appeals Opinions
Adopted ny supreme Court.
j. I. Shannon VS. Stelle, Yost s. Co.. from
Grsyson county. Appsllees sold R. e. S. &
Bro, partnership doing business in s., a
bill of goods, for which firm is here sued.
The trade was made with r. e. Sd. L. s.
was then a minor, and 80 known to appellees.
Afterwards, aud prior to this suit, h. >,
sold his interest to his partner, j. IS. SUBS
and before the account was due,
appellees instituted this suit by attach
ment against r Il. s. & Bro, upon affidavit
charging that r E 5. had transferred his
property to defraud his creditors, and that
j. T. s. was about to transfer his prof erty
to defraud his creditovs The court properly
the jury that ''if j t. s. was a
minor at the time indicated, under the
defense OF infancy Set up by him. plaintiff
c ,uld not recover g personal Judgment
against him." That j. T. S. had the right
" repudiste tho obligation of the contract
sued on, and that he had the right
no less to repudiate the contract
Of partnership with his brother, is princit
pie of elementary law. Both contracts were
valuable, and though there is class OF con-
racts of minor held by the courts abso'
u,ely void, that of a partnership does no.
belong to it. The court charged: ut
minor has purchased goods, and being sued
tor the price, wishes to reclaim himself OF
the debt he must return the goods purchs sed
ia his possession" Held, error. The
plaintiffs were seeking to enforce an infants
voidsble obligation to pay, and the SUIT was
not framed to recover back the property; nor
was tender back necessary on the part OF
j. s. to defeat plaintiffs right TO enforce
the contract. II j. T. s., under the sale to
him acquired good title, the properly was
not subject to plaintlff's debt, and its seizure
under attachment. if procured by pislntfis,
eutitled him TO damages for injury Sustained,
If, however, the transaction was cttec 10
of r. E. s., ITO interests OF Is
e. S. r.. rN Grants. would be subject
defraud tn ..s :. e. S. & Bro, or
in the hands of j. T. s. to seizure and sale
in behalf of plaintiffs, On this issue the
charge did moi, as it should have made the
determination of the issue of liability to levy
and sale depend upon the validity and lair
ness Of the assignment or trans er OF The IDS
to j. T. s. Reversed and RENAL j.
Walker 2. j.
CHS HRR Cows Bell g. Bro; from
Dallas. This was "A suit for damages caused
by appellants negligent delay to deliver IL
cases of fruit trees at their destination.
Petition alleged by exposure on fiat cars ana
several days delay the fruit trees were frozer;
that plaintifis had bargained and agreed with
divers persons for the sale and delivery OF
fruit trees in good order; that by reason OF
careless delay IF IL days and
exposure, whereby The trees were trczan,
they were subjected to great loss, expense
and dnmagt; that one box of the value OF
S4O0 was never delivered by tho defendant
and wholly lost; that because OF their dam
aged condiiiou, tue parties who had greed,
refused TO purchaIe the trees, and plaintiffs
were com PEELED to sell at great sacrifice, ex-
pense and delay to their damage OF S5,OOO
set forth items OF account or
Iist of fruit trees shipped, value, etc, agsre
eating 81 900 exactly. The originsI pc iiion
valued them al 81 500 The amendment
valued the lost box at S220. The others,
.houeh alleged TO have been damaged, were
received and sold at q sacrifice. Judgment
,y default with writ of inquiry for plaiotiff
or $1,000. Defendant pro:scute-
wit of error, and among
,ther grounds assigns as error that
he judgment is msnifesly excessive. As
ignment 60 general would require no notice
rom this court but for the fundamental
rror committed below. Held, the plaintiff
.lleges no facts upon which he could recover
amsges on a broader basis as measure
hereof, than difference in value of tho trce.
when they we're delivered to defendant, abd
heir diminished value when received, which
,ould not have exceeded their entire value,
hovn BY plsintiff to have been $1,000. Nor
10 the plaintiffs pretend are entire, but
.dmit q partial lose, admit sAla at c sscradce
n ali hut the lost box. but do not ct ate the