The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-06-12

synopsis of Decisions OfCommission'
ersO of Appeals, Adopted by supreme
Court.

synopsis of Decisions determination
ers Of Appeals, Adopted by supreme
Court.
John F. Gordon VS. Henry Terrell; from
Guadalupe county. This appeal is presen-
Ted upon the single assignment OF error that
the scourt erred because the judgment in
the cause was contrary to the law and the
evidence" aud it does not appear that any
of the rulings were excepted TO. An assign
mentso general, pointing to nothing speclf-
cslly saw, the general result or conclusion of
the court upon tho pleadings, and the evil
dence, requires no further examination BY
the court than to ascertain whether or not
the Judgment rendered conforms. .to..lhe
pleadings, and is supported BY sufi ;ient evil
dencs. Judgment of the court upon facts
will receive the same consideration as wosld
be given the fading of a jury. The defense
of the statute of limitation relitos to the
remedy, and q citizen has no vested right in
the remedy which tho law furnishes for tn o
maintenance OF his rights in the court. The
title of heirs or devisors to land is burthened
with the debt of tho estate when they be
come invested with title; their title is subor
dins,e to the rights of creditors, and the land
Is subject to the payment OF tho debts
through the jurisdiction of the probate court,
and vendor from the survivor Of a marital
community takes the estate subject TO cons
munity debts and charges of administration.
Under the evidence disclosed by the record,
this court cannot say that the ju1gmel was
against manifest justice. Affirmed. Walker,
P,J.
Bingham OF al, vs Barley ct al; from Col
lin county. 1t has been settled in this state
that minors deed is not void, but voidable
only; \ \ y is valid until the infant has
avoided it by disatlirming 1t after arriving at
majority; that IL is Indispensable to the dis
atfrmsnce that the consideration of money
or property should be rendered to the pnr-
chaser. 1t seems that the proper rule un.
der any decisions relating 10 the rights
and duties of the minor who would avoid
his deed on attaining his majority,
that he should to held to do SO within u
reasonable time, that his silence or ac-
quiesence beyond such reasonable time
should preclude him from dissflirming it,
and that what is a reasonable time, is such n
period, and in view of the attending facts
would rebuff any presumption ofan intended
disaffirmance Affirmed. Quinan, j.
j. w. Smith and wife VS.. City of Dalla.;
from Dallas county. A paper purporsing to
DO an assignment of errors, not signed by
counsel, nor marked fled, written in hand
writing different from that In which the body
of the transcript is written, found pasted be-
tween two pages Of the transcript, aud evil
IDENTIFY interpolsted after the transcript was
made up, cannot DO treated by this court as
an assignment of errors. In the absence of
an assignment of errors the judgment of the
court below must DO affirmed unless the
record below discloses fundamental error,
or it Is NANTES! therefrom that gross jus
iice has been done. Dedicstions Of lands
for purposes of streets, ETC., have been es-
tabliahed in every conceivable way by
which the intention of the party to dedicate
could have been manifested; and the proof
may be by any act Of the party, by deed, by
parOl or written declarations or acte. At
frmed. Quinan, j.
Houston & Texas Central railroad COM
pany vs.. Samuels g. Slower; from Collin
county. La order to entitle plaintiff 10 an
action for damages against railroad COM
pany for failure of contract to transport
goods, to special damages, the facts from
which such special damages arise, and that
the company had notice Of these facts must
be alleged and proved; and charge OF
court, however correct in announcing an
abstract principle of law, should not 60 out.
side Of the pleading and sub
init extraneous matters to the jury
A way-bill not shown with suf.
fcient certainty to have been the paper tina,
accompanied the shipment, was properly
withheld as evidence from the jury. Evil
dence Of the condition of goods some three
or four months after shipment and delivery
was improperly admitted. Reversed and
remandsd. Watts, j.
Gilelsnd vs. Drake; from Travis county
That cross interrogstories were not answered
Is not good obiectinn 10 tho reading of q
deposition when IL appears that no cross
interrogstories were filed to tho interroga-
tories In chief upon which tho deposition
was taken. Cross.intorrogatories filed L
previous interrogstories propounded to The
same witness, were not applicable to subse
quent interrogatories. Assignments of errol
SO general and indefinite as not to comply
with the statute and point out the errol
complained of, arc not to be considered b,
this court. If, looking to tho whole charge
in the light OF the evidence, there is nc
reason TO believe the jury were not properly
instructed as to the law Of the case. and thu
verdict appears warranted by the evidence
this court will not examine charges asked
and refused. Affirmed. Quinan. j.
Grandjean vs. Story; from Bsxsr county
The record failing to show that the attention
Of tho court was called to the demurrer or
that 1t was in fact overruled, objection tha
1t was improperly overruled, must be deemed
as waived. The defense having pleaded
that the property was tho homestead of w
and wife, from whom no purchased in goot
faith, that the purchase money hat beer
paid, and that there were no liens on II, /
was not necessary that the plaintiff should
reply 10 these allegations in order to intro
duco proof In rebuttal. Either the return O
the officer, or his oath, Is competent testimon,
OF . levy and sale, and proof that unsuccess
full search has been made In the clerks oiIic,
Tor the execution by tho CLERK that issued II
and production Of tho execu,ion docke, show
Ing the date ofits issuance, and copy of tn,
sherifs return thereon, was sufficient evi
dence OF the execution, and warranted til,
admission Of the PLAINTIFF deed. Deed !
not necessary II there DO sherif's return
nor "a II necessary II thore DO u convey vance
A purchaser at a sherifl's sale under execu
tion Is not prejudiced by u deficient or incor
rect return, nor by the entire absence of an,
return at all. Recitsls Of tho sheriff, and o
biz levy and salo arc entitled to the sam
eiiect Ms instruments Of evidence rs tho sher
us return. Affirmed, subject 10 credi. O
SKI dam N aa rap,;ttnI k,, lxc.. H.. l. -