The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-03-23
synopsis of epin,S pms OF the supreme
Csurt az a. weston.


Court at Galveston.
prepared for the Herald by h, ward j. Ham,
ner, of Gatyeston.l
John Highland vs. the city Of GsiSeston;
appeal from Galveston county. The plaintiff
occupying the premises as tenant or lessee of
the owner, has no other or greater right TO
recover damages than the lot owner would
have were he himself occupant. Affirmed.
Gould, j.
The city of Galveston vs.. z. j. Loomie;
anneal from Galveston couuty. To the ex-
tent necessary to execute the special powers
4 and functions With which municipal cor.
II porstion is endowed by its charter, there is
4 an implied or an incidental authority to con-
4 tract obligations, which viii be valid and
upheld TO the extent allowed expressly or
impledly by its charter. Il is error to sup
pose that limitation would not begin to run
until the maturity of the bonds 20 which the
coupons remain attached, 50 U. 5. 40 Re
versed And reformed. Gould, j.
The city of Galveston VS.. I. j. Heard; ap-
peal from Galveston county. The greater
part of the opinion in the case relating 10
the proper constructions Of different por.
ito of the charter ordinances of the city of
Galveston, only the abstract rulings and gen
eral principles of law enuncisted by lhe court
are given. Ref. I.
LIST. Where neither the charter, nor any
legislative act requires notice to tho abutter,
or lot owner in order to make him liable to
pay the cost of sidewalk Improvements, then
il is not essential that notice be given, either
actual or constructive,
End. The contract for the sidewalk ia u
matter between the city and the contractor,
and tho only interest the auutter has in the
contract is that il be tainted not with fraud
and that his Agent the city, shall have the
contract substantially performed.
Sd. The mere fact that the work was to
be paid for in Illegal bonds, ii they be
illegal, cannot defeat the assessments, other
wise legal
4th. Without having found ii necessary to
determine whether 10 enforcing
local assessments municipal cor
porations are within the ope
ration OF one statute of limitation, we
cannot at all events, apply TO actions on
such assessments prior to the enactment OF
the revised statutes.
9th. The rule is conceded that taxes do not
bear interest unless the statute SO directs.
Reversed and remanded. Gould, j.
Wheeler ct al VS.. j. FL. Ahrenbeck; error
\ from Waller county. In this case service of
the petition was accepted and citation waved
by all the defendants, including the two
4 Minors for guardian I'D Item was appoint
ed, who accepted, quahf and
appeared rs such in the suit, Judg.
N ment and enforcement of the lion as
prayed for was rendered below, and
vs. this writ Of error prosecuted which presents
IN the simple question, Did the court err in
81 appointment Of guardian I'D Item for the
NJ minor defendants without service OF process
tf upon them? On this point tina courts SAY:
s4 at Is quite probable that in this case no in
& Justice in fact WAS done by tho failure 10
"a serve the minor defendehts personally with
y process, but We do not feel authorized in the
III application of Statutory general principle
" 10 permit rs q precedent M exception which
n must necessarily raise collateral issues, de-
pendent upon the facts of each particular
ease, as TO the boundary line between legal
d capacity and incapacty, the abuse or non
abuse Of Judicial power and discretion. u
Reversed and remanded. Bonner, j.
In the above case, which WAS referred 10
the commissioners of appeals, Judge Qui-
nan of that court delivered an opinion for
ailirmance which. was rejected by the su.
preme court, but at the same time, the su.
preme court request that Judge Quinan's
opinion be published in connection with their
own. Ref. ~
Judge Qninau's opinion: The service was
efectual as the delivery of the process by al
officer. There is nothing in the statute tc
except minors from its provisions. The ap,
pointment of n specisl guardian WAS regularly
made and we think the judgment ought to b.
affirmed.
Moody g. Jennison vs.. G. r. Cox, sheriff
appeal from Brazoris county. The county
court has Jurisdiction and power to grant
writ of injunction to restrain the sale of prop
erty for taxes when the amount thereof i.
more than two hundred dollars and less thar
one thousand dollars. Opinion by Quinan
Judge, for atiirmsnce. Adopted.
II. A. Lewis ct al vs. Thomas M. Davis
error from Arkansas county. 1st Where the
amended petition ortains only moro par
\ ticular description of the land and does moi
contain any new or additional matter, it il
not necessary that regular service thereof b
made upon the opposite party.
I'd, Where the land adjudged TO be sold !:
situated in two separate counties, it is til,
proper practice 10 appoint the sheriff o.
some other person commissioner to maxi
the sale Of the whole or some designated
part thereof instead of having execution
issued by She sheriff of either county. Re
versQd and reformed. Opinion of Watts, j
Adopted.