The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-07-01


PIcme Sn.rt
Hodge q. NJ VS. Donald; from Denton
county. Petition shows that the original
grantee, wife and children, came TO Texas
and settled in Peters colony, rs colonists, il
1915; settled upon and improved tract OF
land in Denton county, and lived upon it
until 1919, when the wife died, leaving the
husband and children sole heirs TO her com.
muuity estate. The husband in 1850 obtain
cd from tho general land Office certificate
for GAO acres, locating it in part on the land
occupied when the wife dioJ, and tho resi-
due elsewhere. This last survey was pp
GATED TO M. AS assignee in 1856. AND
controversy here involves an " ~
interest, or the iutores. of
murrer alleged that i, app9
petition that the land in con
lhe commuhlty property o.
w,fo but the separate pre- .s-
band, and the demu7 ipd
Held: that tho court verse
Is True ana tho lazy y prop
erty Reversed ,onrer. j
Note: the cas Jnett. from
"rsysoH CO ame question
and WAS ny
Wee an I'omnsnv Va
Not NJ r.o,isnt
. aud 6 and "bome
property no put on
an agent II, asking
3 and $4,000 for "bouse
offered $500 for all the
photographed N as follows {:
D and 6 and homo place for
down, 500 pine month";
This message was written by h
4 the compan,'s half rate or night
with knowledge of difference between
| day or full rate kilograms. 1t was
sered to N next day as follows: sold
"a, B and 6 and have place for $780,
he word shave" used instead OF "nou.e"
The compsny's agent assuring N that the
word "have" was repeated ON the wires
N did not have the whole telegram peated.
for value, $4,000, and had IN opportunity,
for investing for him, N tclegraphed back
'all right, close sale MS reported" Accord
ingly the sale was closed, conveying the
whole property. The judgment below WAS
for damages Though IN snme respects
telegraph companies partske Of the character
Of common carriers, they arc not strictly
such, ard should not be he'd 10 strict res
responsibility. But their employment is
quasi public and controlled 81 far by the
law applicable to common carriers that i'm
Partially and good faith is invited of them.
they are not insurers by simple reason of
occupation, but are h, Id only to reasonable
diligence proportional to responsibility
assum d, and have tho right TO restrict "
proper limitations their liability for dam
ages, by express contract or proper rules
br iueht 10 tho knowledge of those dealinp
wish them, unless the injury results from
misconduct or want OF due care on the COM
p.nys part. Tnoy can limit their liability
to liqurda,ed damages, Ms on the printld
part Of their blanks, Mere proof of error
IN the message rs delivered is not of itself
sufficient 10 show negligence. The recula-
ton That tho message bo repeated NJ rea
sonabe cost, is reasonable, and that the
operator made certain declarations will not
excuse. Reversed and remsnded. Bon.
nor, j.
Peters vs. Asbeck, Heineckc IL Bro; from
Washington county. In pr, cesdug by II,
, 'schmcnt and gsrnlshemant brought prior
, to the tax ny effect OF tho revised statutes in
; 1879, motion 10 quash was sustained bs
cause the wri,s OF garnishemeht did not com
I ply with the act OF April 10Th. 1874 IA seq
0 page lib Held, That the effect OF tho nc,
0 of SIl WA merely 70 au,horiz, the issusuc,
a OF tie writ Of garnishement in certain
0 cases without resorlipg 10 attachment, bu
, did not repeal tho law authorizing such writ,
. ss sufi larry 10 attachment, and il was erro
' to Qua,h writ ofgarnishement regularly sust
{ on under laws IN force prior to tho nc, o
r 1874. reversed and remspded, Gould. j
! Brooke va Clark Sy nextrfend on rel ear
from Grayson couo,y. Pasch div
1913, in regard to special guardia,
""cts two-folo. 1t. Tha, ,h
tho general guardian
also have the pro
.ardisu, whose out,
yN detail into tho SUI q
81 -, to which tho sppuintmen
ne w@ tho faithful peiioimanc
u OF VIA bond and security wer
w requires .nat the minor should hsy
ey oeen so LEGACY represented that the judcmen,
nd whether Tor or against him, shouli be-
he protection to tho o'hei, party. Ga care(,
70 review INV cour, concludeSha. the reheatin
N, shou,d begraa'od,, and it = ,desed aocor
irt dinghy. Bonner, j. Us
NJ City OF Galveston We lIeard-D,. ,hes
m ing; from Galveston county. Being |re,,
nd larly asses cd with the RICH, amount of I
nd pense for constructing sidewalks II IA INN
ad terial 10 the appellee whether the work v
al' done fo' cash or on credit The power
Tho city council 10 provide by ordinance
ldo lhe collection from the owners of abul,i