The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-01-22

property wGs left opSS 10 be ailposod Of by
a further judgment and order Of the cosrt to
DO rnado in ths same case. Held: For want
Of q fisRl judg@6nt TO support 40 sppeA by
the iztsrvGsor the mstisn TO dismiss ii aus
tanned. Could, snOciaIs justice.
p r. Mitchell aRd vita va Thomas Cen
nor, from RSfugio coanty. The court below
fuRnd that by pnrol agreement that tho
Eunber of cattle WaA TO DO determined by
two referees oaS selected by each party was
contsmporansCus vita tho writer contract
and was therefore supported BY thS same
consideration, and O'Conn9PS failure 70 APP
point suck referee when riqNeated, en1y in
tho sprisg of 1879 20 settle, vas such a
hrsgch of that part Of this contract nD made
the plaintiff right Of seton complete, Also
that four years bad eiSprSd after tins date
bafOrs institution OF suit, and the CAUSE 0f
action was barred by Limitation. Held: In
our opinion thers is no auch error ID this
conclusion % would warrant raYsTf0l. Tho
evidence naky have heah sufficient
to show thst 81 between Mitchell
and bio wife, tho cattle cold Wero
her separate propsrty, and yot tho
court may not have tlrsd in hsldiag tAat A'
bttwasn them aud o'Cenu0r, th4 cattle aud
thoir proceeds Wcm community property.
rha petition GSGl not tlleg1 that tho pro-
cse1I vsro soptra.r property Of tho wife
We ar0 OF opinion Inst even ftho coutt Was
is arrar s.; Is 10 c3npluEi2R Of The fact, the
cattle we're cojmuUltg properly AID The
arrnr 10 inrastai GoulA. snDcirls justice.
TJsruAry ls. 1891 McAnssn et oil. VI.
Epp,son vt al, llem Red River county This
case has broR uI,Ar adv'omapt for several
terms Of this couu. After previous due con.
sidoratios Il wsa referred back to coungol
January 3D. 1880, for further investigation
on two puIGtB.
i D6lho rog.t5 % lAa Judgment ofJuoa
Hts, 1855, ahogthNt tho court bad required
Jurisdiction ps 10 the minon, dNtaluD
lhorein, by rots1a cf their having personally
appsertli t6Ae being no porousl service on
then. Was ID ccmros,ut for minors 10
waive sefv;co 10y porsontl appearance so a
TO nu!horias the Cour. 10 appoint for iham q
guardian sd litem.
2. Was Tho aul msin,sHsbo 20 ono lur
the review Of that judgement; if 10, what Ns'
tho period or length OF tmoUNgr .lo removal
Of THAR disabilities allowed lyt The Ina.isItioa
Of such suit,
Counsel having nraighe1 sl2IiontI hha'
and The cree 8gNin Wbwisal, ths court IN o
very olfb5reta "al astaa@ 'piai7a aS3.
T. Ihsso +, 81, 20 e3aaa. Of authority
upon tiit a1joCt bet ah9r careful
RuJ cI'eudab ttemiua'ila Of many
caiss IN addition 90 iaofo cited
by cougsj ia which tto juaguae.
ic prac"liH3s Vie oau now uade cpr dof-
U.n, r.s a1U,u,lu De a.JGlas lqe4l.a Ihe
miaor dMaudsaIa although I'p.au.5f uy
lgua-jno' aj ltn, bad a1t bts1 gasauaiy
le'3 Wy Iarf ,G.3 Um.ls1 iJuts5
Hitchcock ga R.bh vs. irwin Much De.
bt0A sy.N fa iau boob. aYpn ,h1sgNE' hut
areraacad ,hst it viii BIO found, upon o6-
gmaE,l.D, tRM 5ocrcla Fg.srfl uNder euch
IclEolwstascsd &e gNseraiIr x NOT uriror-
sally holden TO DO ytluAblc not void Suoh |
| haze No dau5J is tao Waishl Of authority.
! Is Oh,0, 900 Is AIabsmR 607 B McLttn,
| Q g., $780, 6 Missouri 40, OHIO, (St J
bOl T9 which maJ be added that u This
court: 10 Io1aI, o.; 9 ISsa0, rs.
To Tho "a question council suEwer ia Of
feet thAi ,hs proceedings wcra not in,iilu.
tod Il, tho purpose 81 having the suit main.
tsinsd by bill Of rfyisG after 40 long an
Slatas Of time. Whether considered 81 q
bill Of royioW under thd BtAtuts OF
A. proceeding in thu nature ofR bin ef rs-
view in chancary, Il should have bean iasl.
tuled, In anY event within two years slar
the youi gaBt Of the minors became Of age.-
(P d, Ar. ABlG.7; lAs3 0; 1889 F0rtla dis
position Of ths question now before Una clur.
wo cannot, On principle, diGiugush under
cur statute, the prosecution f p
writ Of error from that OF A bin OF rayio,y.