The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-06-02
Synopsis of Opinions of Commissions
ers of Appeals, Adopted by Supreme

Synopsis of Opinions of commissions
ers of Appeals, Adopted by Supreme
Court.
Houston s. Texas Central railway COM
pany VS.. Gilmore; appeal from Grayson.
/. In Price vs. Houston direct navigation
company, 46 Texas, 535, it is he'd that the
master is not liable for injuries sustained by
his servant through the wrongful act, neg
lieence or default of fellow servant The
sIlSIsrities cited by the court to sustain that
doctrine comprise about seventy cases from
twenty-tbree different states. That doeisien
ha, been followed and approved in subse-
quent cases. Robinson vs.. the Houston d
Texas Central railway company, 46 Texas,
$40; railroad company VS.. Miller, 81 Texas,
27I: Houston 81 Texas Central railway
company vs. Myers, present Austin term.
2. 1t is now considered as finally. settled
that all employees engaged In operating the
same train are ss 10 each other fellow SER
wants. 46 Texas, $40. The court charged
the iury directly to the reverse of these now
we'll settled rules of law, and the charge is
undoubtedly erroneous. Reversed and re-
manded. Watts, Commissioner.
Vance ct al vs. Doebbler; appeal from
Bexar. The act of the husband in leaving
home and procuring presumption by three
years residence, etc, thereon, is not an
abandonment of the homestead where he
homestead Is occupied snd was oolLinuoue.s
ocoupied by the fsmily. By this act of the
husband the wife would certainly not forfeit
her constitutional right TO the homestead
The homestead is defined as place Of
family residence or the property dedicate
as ouch. Al Tex sos; AZ Tex 1876. From
the definitions in the foregoing authority 1t
follows that the question OF what constitutes
homestead, or rather, whore the homestead
of family is, would be q question oil faci
in the determination OF which the three
nrincipal elements ere ownership, occupancy
and intention.l Affirmed. Watts, Commits
sioner.
Magell ct al VS. Hitchcock; error from
Guadalupe. 1t is not sufficient 20 reverse
Judgment simply because the court below
NAV have erred in its rulings as abstract pro-
positions oflaw,or because il may have given
reasons not deemed sufficient. But the COM
plsiping party must make II appear, also.
that he hiss been deprived of some right, or
bss been injured bv the erroneous ruling.
% Tex 443. Affirmed. Walker. Commits
siOner.
Heethcock es 81. vs.. Goodrich, adminisira-
tor. 81 al 4; appeal from Guadalupe. THE
or pertv reserved from forced sale by the
contribution and laws OF this state or its
value. If there be no such property, does not
form any part Of the estate Of deceased
nersoB where a constituent of the family
survives" p. ID, Art 5476. Under the
probate act Of 1870 The surviving widow was
entitled 70 an allowance 10 lieu Of home.
vtesd and 10 lien Of such ereDpi psrsonal
p-opsrtv a. The husband did not leave her at
he time Of his death, and that % much Of
the property 80 was Necessary 70 make good
such allowances, vas not subject 70 sdminis-
trstjor. AZ Tex 857. Affirmed. Watts
Commissioners.
Tgobiz & %. ". Elliott; appeal from
Rsr.-. i. In The examination Of witnesses,
80 Ire rnsnpsr IN which they msy be per-
mittsd h give IN their testimony, somsihing
must Be lsft 10 the discretion Of the judge.
m i propsr 70 permit . witness 10 refer 10
rnsuorsDds made By him Of The circuustsn-
- Of tr.bsscfion for ths purpose OF re-
f---hiue his memory, especially u made soon
~rls- ~ oenurrepca On The other hand.
uhs-s si.temsuts are msde up b. the wit
~. IN visu Of The trial, and V instruct him
hou 20 rsisis fhsn, he should mol b Psr-
rui.sed 10 red his testimony from be ststs-
mart. TIE uss q such ststsEnsrt ss fair
s-bisrt II comment 70 The jury. ersebletf,
- ~. "a Wharton. Il. SEQ BIG DIS.
2 In casrs a oof ficfing erioeDoe y = not
- a. onu-f q ~ xhiek scels shall 10
fts frs-s las fof dbs jnry 70 os,srnIits TIE
r-sftnfr Of n uit-ssses sd % uslgh ne
ts-fuor1. Anrms6. Quinsn- Cpumis-