The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-17

Prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Tia
npr Of GalyuBtOu.l

|
| nur, Of dalyeBOn.l
Galveston, Houston & San Antonio Rail
way Company vs.. IT II. Marsdcn; appeal
from Caldwell county. 1t ia error sufficient
TO reverse judgment for counsel against oh
lection to state facts pertinent to the issue
and not in evidence, or to assume arguendo
such facts to be in the case when they We're
not. Central Law Journal, September 10,
1873, D. Oily The court will no. DO required
to wait tor objections to be made when She
rules as to any argument arc violated, but
should they not be noticed ard corrected by
the court, opposing counsel may ask leave Of
tho court to rise and present his point of OBJ
lection. (Rulo Az Where evidence was i'm
properly excluded, but if admitted, the YER
dctcould not legally have been different
There was no error in refusing y new trial
16 Texas, 1927 RCmanded Walker, p. @
Samuel Stone vs. w. X. McAlpine; appeal
| from Galveston county. The errors assigned
are such as could only DO determined by
reference TO the evidence introduced upon tie
trial below, and ia the absence of state.
ment of facts this court will presume that
the judgment of the county court is correct.
The instrument contained in the transcript
is no where shown that the same contains .
statement of the facts proven on tho trial Of
the casa II ia not signed by counsel Of either
party, but ut the conclusion we find the word,
"Adopted," underneath which Is written,
"Wm. II. Williams, Co. D., q. Co." This is
not such statement of facts, under the
statute, rs Can bo considered. Affirmed
Watts, q.
John Haker VS.. Theodore Boodeker; 90,
peal from Washington county. Plaintiff
can only recover such damages as have bosn
directly and necessarily been occasiunod by
defendants breach of contract and nat rally
have resulted therelrom. 90 Iowa, 244 J The
loss of his crop, or the price il would have
sold for in market had it been planted
raised and gathered, is altogether too re-
, motive and speculative to furnish \ safe basi;
TO estimate his damage upon. ia Texas, 225
80 Teyas, 635; % Texas, lSS; fl Texas, go
He WAS only entitled to recover fair reu,a
| value Of the premises for the time. Reversed
$ and rcmanded, Quinan, Q.
). H. Gill, guardian, VS., Eliza F. McWhor-
ter; appeal from Ellis county. The uour
below refused TO allow interest on money re-
/, ceived by a father az part Of His minor a1n
interest in his grandather'a estate. TIT
money was collected BY the father II was in.
y cluded in note for a largor amount. HI
! WAS chargeabie rs trustee. The son wa
lunatic. Held: There is no proof Of ep,e'a
0 circumstances shown why tha father sh,ul,
pay interest. Affirmed. Quinan, o.
, j. NJ. Tan vs.. j. A. aud Mary Il. Ham
, appeal from Grayson county. The de5crip
ton necessary TO DO given Of tho judgment il
/ appeal and cer.iorari bonds is not set 70. il
the statute. The bond in appealed casfs j
q the leading process and upon princip
should only contain such description Of tn
Judgment appealed from a. will enable tn
! court to certainly identify the iudgmeo
bound in the transcript as the same appeale,
d from. Affirmed, Watts, q.
% N. D. Horne VS.. b. o. Gambriel appes
d from McLennan county. Plaintiff justice
his possession Of the land under deed t'or
Mrs. Shambin, who was the injured pr.
emptor and occupant Of the land. She va
"a empowered by the statutes regulating pre-
o emption rights TO assign her right to th
n land and the assignee, ii otherwise entitled Z
WV huhVhNo VI WV laNo Nuul
thereby be invested with all the rights of hi
m grantor, and his claim would constitute =
a. equitable though defensible title, which IN
:, less he failed to comply with the terms of tn
~ law, would ripen into complete legal title
and would be sufficient under our law :
IN maintain an action of trespsss TO try ;tlC
ID (5l Tex, 1886 Affirmed. Walker p G.
to S. j. NJ. Grady VS.. M. N. McRae, guardian
v, appeal from Fannin county. One tenant /
IL common has no remedy against the other VIII
II has exclusively occupied the premises snd r,
ceves the entire profits unless he is vested q
II; the premises, when ejectment may be brougt
n on unless the other ia acting rs bailif Of b
al interest by agreement, when the action
Is ejectment will lie. az Cal 4l9) One tens
is 10 common cannot msintain an action of Ia
III against his co-tenant for his part of N
s. Issues and profits Of the common properi
ry when there is no special agreement betwet
To- them to account for tho same. Aflirme
zee Quinsn, Q.