The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-03-01
Synopsis Opinions of the Supreme

|
Court.
| IP. eparcd for the Herald by Edward j. Ham
ner, of Galveston.l
T. Presley Fleming vs.. Henry Seelgsor
and w. A. Ellis; appeal from Galveston
county. This proceeding is in tie nature O
a bill in equity to review and set aside
Judgment previously rendered in the SAINT
coud below. Tho alleged fraud did no
render the Judgment solusoly void, bu'
voidabla only. This fact that one party may
have died nod the other may hsvo become
insane during tho pending of tho conrt and
after tho court had acquired jurisdition Of
the person by citation, appearance and an
swer, and when represented by council, there
|. being no suggestion OF death or the insanity,
would not render the judgment VOID put
voi1abls only. II is now the establishes
general doctrine of this court that such SUITS
should DO commenced within two years from
the rendition Of the judgment sought TO be
avoided, or within two years after inc re-
moval of legal disability existing at that
date. The claim of an Inventor may BIO ac-
quired by voluntary sale from ono OF the
1888 Affirmed, Bonner, justice.
q. @. Beavens OF al. VS. the mayor, alder
man and inhabitants of the city of Houston;
appeal from Harris county. The only issue
of law in this case ia the construction OF the
following provision ia the ordinance OF the
city oil houston.
Provided, the aggregate amount Of his the
city assessor aud oollectors) commissions
shall not exceed the gum Of four thousand
dollars ger annum.
Held, "rhat IL was not intended that tho
compensation Of the officer should be ah-
solutely fixed md recoverable for tho mlSl'
mum sum % which he might be enh1iei on
final settlement, because be may nave col
lected In les time than ono year, 10 amount
of taxes the commissions ON whlch might
equal the 81 900, but that HIS c0npensatoh
| was TO be esrne mOnthy, by tho perform
anco Of whatever egilimSte services might
| b. required Of him; Tie sum due on liosl set
| lament not ia any oyell TO exceed 4iuOO,
but which might be less, according 10 the
amount OF taxes collected" Affirmed, Bon
ner, justice.
S 5. Ashe vs.. the county of Harris; ap-
peal from Harris comfy. County warrants
are merely evidences ofintebtedncss allowed,
| but ARE not contracts in writing bearing
interest. While expressing our conclusion
that county warrants in the usual form DO
not bear interest, we do not intend to init
mate an opinion as to the powerof the coun-
ty commissioners court to issue interest
bearing warrants Affirmed, Gould justice.
Il. II. Dean, tax collector, W.. A. Z. Luz
kin ct al.; appeal from Galveston county.
Tho tayes to pay tho interest and provide y
sinking fund for bonded indebtedness in
aiding railroads or other internal improve
ments, ara in truth taxes levied at the time
tho bonds were issued, and not taxes to DO
levied annually BY the county commissioners
court, Reversed andreformed, Gould ius.'oe.
j. IL Burnett Va. w. VI. Wsddel; appeal
from Houston county. The discharge IN
bankruptcy of m appellant does not prevent
tho adjudication of the cause in this court
The sureties on an appeal bond under our
statute, in effect mako themselves parties
and arc liable to . judgment sgoiual them in
conjunction with the appellant. Should
| hers be found no error in the Judgment OF
Lhe district court. 46 Texas, Gi0. Reversed
sud remsaded. Gould justice.