The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-05-27

however, the right of appeal. By this right
of appeal Is meant right, on making writ
ten and timely application therefor, and
having the opposite party served with cita-
| ton, 10 have the cause ''stand for trial dc
novo as in ordinary cases." Il. 5. Arts. 81,
81. Trial de novo means q trial OF the entire
case anew, hearing evidence, whether addi-
t!onal or not. 10 Texas, AL. The statute
allows the parties, by reserving the right OF
appeal, the power of multiplying the award, If
dissatisfied Herewith, and Of having the case
tried anew without regard to the agreement
to arbitrate or thu award made. II no right
of appeal il reserved and the agreement,
proceedings and award are in substantial
compliance with the statute, the award, upon
motion will DO made the judgment OF the
court unless impesched on equitable
grounds. 16 Texas, 53l; IA Texas, Sc. On
| questions of fact the award, unless SO i'm
peached, is conclusive. Morse on Arbitra>
ton, Sl5, 3l6 This case is hero, on appeal
apparently, from the action OF the district
court in making the award the Judgment of
tia court, and unloss upon the face OF the
award or proceedings there appears some
Irregular or deviation from the statute, or
some excess of the authority given the ar
bitrators tho court below did not err. At
tirmed. Gould. j.
Ramsey vs. Medin ct nj, appeal from
Llano. This suit was instituted by Rams y
appellant against appelless iorecover Of them
$50 acres of land which he cl'imed by virtue
of a purchase from the stale under su act
approved april q, 1874 Laws IA Leg l42]
entitled an San act to provide for the sale
of the alternate sections of lands and sur
veys by railroad companies and set apart
for the benefit of the common school fund"
Plaintiff proved strict compliance with MI the
requisites of the act except "a valuation Of
the land as required by law. Judgment was
rendered rgsinst him, from which he prose-
cutes the.appeal. Held, that the valuation
was an essential prerequisite to his right TO
recover. The burden of proof was upon him
to show 1t AMI his failure to do SO should
defeat his RICH! to recovery. Affirmed; Bon
ner. j.
Wsdsworih VS. Chick; appeal from San
Saba. Mrs Wadsworth instituted the suit in
the probate court against Chick, admnistra-
tor of + w Taylor deceased, claiming to be
the owner Of the whole estate, valued at over
$1,000 by virtue of gift to her csuss
morris BY said Taylor, praying that che be
permitted to give bond under revised statute
article 1864 " and take possession. Upon
trial in probate court it was adjudged thst
her title be established and that the admins
traitor deliver the estate to her, upon her
giving bond under the statute. The admin
istrator appealed to the district court. The
heirs at Jaw of Taylor deceased, interviewed
and became parties to the appeal, and on
final trial in the district court it was ad.
judged that Mrs Wadsworth take nothing by
her suit, that the administrator mako final
settlement of the estate and pay over to the
iotervenors tho remaining assets From that
judgment Mrs Wadsworth appeals. Held,
that she claimed neither as an heir, device
or lega,ee, but by title from Tay Tor during
his lifetime; it WAS case over which the
probate court has neither constitutional nor
statutory jurisdiction; its powers and duties
are wholly inadequate to try and determine
such contested Issues The judgments of
both tho district and the probate court were
without authority of law, &c Tex 263; AZ
Tex 81 Reversed and dismissed. Bon
ner, j.