The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-06-15
THE COU RTH.

synopsis Of Decisiens of Co mmissiO"
ersof Appeals, ADJ .ted by supreme
Court.
Hubert 81 al VS. Flint s. Chamberlain; from
Navarro county. The bankrupt court has
jurisdiction to set aside sale made by the
assignee. While it is true that notice to the
adverse party is preliminary essential to the
proper exercise of such jurisdiction, it is also
trus that even though the decree setting aside
the sale does not show that the adverse party
was served with process, or appeared and
pleaded, this court, in tho absence Of proof to
the contrary, must presume in favor of the
jurisdiction of tho court, ,hst all the facts
have occurred necessary TO call it in exist,
ence. Affirmed. Qainan, j.
Carey u Alexander vs. Morris ct al; from
Ellis county. Appellants, lumber dealers,
under justice of the peace's judgment for
tho purchase money oflumber put in house
occupied by appellee and wife, sought in the
district court,to subject the house to execution
under mechaics lien, and there was no ALE
cation or proof that the requirements of the
statutes of 1871 or 1874 had been in any re-
spect complied with. The claim of the
plaintiff rests upon the provisions of tho cous
stitution of 1870, respecting the subject of
liens mechanics and africans, but is not en-
braced therein lien is right to detain
personal property 10 possession until certain
demands are satisfied. Possession ia essential
in the absence of express agreement either for
the creation or continuance of the lien. Ii the
appellants could in any way be considered
partisans or mechanics for the material fur.
nished for building the house, they could
preserve as lein often surrendering possess
sion. The court did not err in holding that
mechanics lien did not attach. Affirmed.
Quinan, j.
Ryal VS. Gritlio; from johnson Go. Appli-
cation for continuance Is properly overruled ii
II comes Too late, and no cause is shown why
proper diligence was not shown. Nor can
defendant be permitted to delay the plain
tltf's case until he has made publication and
brought into court parties who reside outside
OF the state and are unwilling to participate
In the suit. The other assignments not being
supported by the second, IN which there is
no statement Of facts, and it being apparent
that the writ of error was prosecuted for
delay, the judgment should be affirmed with
ten per cent damages. Affirmed. Quin-
an, j.
Rutherford VS. ROUGH ct al; from Dsnton
county. A patent from the land office to
land in controversy is evidence of title, and
it is incumbent on tho party who claims
adverse title, to rebut the same by showing
prior equities to those evenluating in the
patent. Reversed and remanded, Watts, j
IA
county, This was a suit by the assignee for
services OF special policeman under tho act
OF 1911, on vouchers signed by the registrar.
Held, that the act contemplated that each
special policeman should have given 10 him
certificate signed by the chief of police,
stating the time Of his services rs special
policeman, the county in which he was en-.
ployed, and the amount of his compensation,
which should be his voucher for his services.
The certificate of the registrar is no. provided
Tor by the statute, and cannot be made the
basis OF recovering against the county. AZ
frmed. Watts, j.
Houston Il Texas Central railroad com.
pany Va. Seal ct al from X ,bertson county.
An assignment of error which relates to the
charge of the court. and not merely fails to
specify grounds OF objection, but does not
Indicate any particular part of tho charge
objected 10, nor which Of several requested
charges were erroneously refused, reonires
no notice from this court, unless the Justice
OF the case demands 1t. When the damages
are in their nature permanent, and 90 to The
value OF the entire estate elfscted by the
nuisance, the whole injury may be at once
compensated. But if DO VI certain or con
tingent whether further or other ipinry m.y
result there can be reco very for the dam.
ages sustained only at the commencement of
the suit. In suits for nuisance the general
rule is, that tho plaatitf's measure of dsm-
ages 10 the loss actually sustained. The rule
OF damages.as respects injuries to real estate is
tne difference between the value of the plain
tlh's promises before and immedatel after
the injury. Where the grovumen of the ac-
lion ia the continuance Of a nuisance, the
suit will lie, even after the original right of
action for its creation has been barred bv
tho statute OF Limitation. The admission of
improper evidence having relation to allegs-
tons OF time of injury to plaintiff, will not
OF necessity authorize II reversal OF Judgment
where there is competent evidence TO war
rant the verdict. Wherever the trial
Judge is clothed with sound discretion. bis
action on proceedings Hereunder will be re
vlsed only in case of abuse to the injury of
the,party in interest. Affirmed. Walker. j.
Judge.
johnson VS. Hamilton, from johnson
county. If accompanied BY delivery OF
possession and occupation, an exchsnce ut
lands, made by verbal contract, constitute.
Y valid defense to an action at law. Tbs
court charged that TO authoriz, recovery. !,
~ IN aIl A..