The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-12-01

TO reoonvene his demand and not be liqul-
dated but is sufficient fit arises out of, or
is incident To or connected with the cause
of action sued upon. The general RUE
of evidence in civil cases -
that the general character of parties Is
not admissible unless the nature OF the
action involves the general character Of the
party or goes directly to affect IT. Affirmed.
Watts, commissioner.
Nelson VS.. Baird; from Mason county.
An appeal bond otherwise correct, IA
which 1t appears that the Judgment H.
ferred 10, is that rendered in the trial court
is not fatally defective because the amount
of the judgment is miSstated and the error
appears clerical. Answer, that alleges facts
peculiarly within the knowledge Of plaintiff
andsuflicient to put him on notice is not OBJ
noxious as indefinite, and such objection
was properly overruled. Having alleged
them worthless, the defendant inflicted no
injury on plaintiff by reason Of failure 20
return notes given for those upon which
suit was instituted. Affirmed. -------,
commissioner
Hill VS. Tucker; from Dallas county. Pc
ttion in this case declared upon cert iin
written instruments in shape OF contracts TO
deliver cotton, but did not set out the
writings. Objection was urged to- admission
of certain, writings to prove the contracts.
Held that the doctrine of variance Will not,
under such circumstances apply, and the
writings, being relevant to the cause Of ac-
ton were properly admitted. Evidence
that the defendant on violation of his con
tract disposed Of the cotton, the subiec =
matter of the suit, proposed to supply the
plaintiif,was properly excluded. Affirmed,
Watts, commissioner.
Blake VS.. Miller; from stevens county.
Dnti in q a A. Al
parties which fails to allege the arrange
ment by the payee, shows no privity of
contract between the plalntlti and the
payee, and states no cause of action, and,
under such circumstances, the erroneous
reception or rejection of evidence is imma
terial, and in no wise to the prejudice Of
the plaintiff But aside from this rule, the
instrument declared on in this case, is
shown by the evidence to have been merged
in a Judgment and satisfied. Affirmed.
Watts commissioner
Brown IL Co. VS. Young ct al; from Pdr-
ker county. Whether or not County
Judge who issues an injunction to restrain
proceedings under an execution from II
Justices Court shall make it returnabe to
that court, depends upon whether the Jus
tiCe would have power to determine the
controversy involved in the injunction, and
whether or not the cause for injunction is
such as to require the writ to be returned to
the court whence the Judgment and execu-
ton issued Plaintiffs claim in this case
was that the property levied on in L.
county upon the execution from &. county,
was his, and not that of defendant in execu-
ton il exceeded 800 in value, and the
process of injunction was properly reSOrted
to. As to rights of co-partncrs TO protect
their interests and their remedies, SEE
Story on Partnership, section 26l, and note,
under facts above stated; section q Tex. 472;
20 Tex. 10; Story on Partnership, section
26i. Affirmed. Walker, commissioner,
Tyler Tap Railroad Company VS.. Lyons;
from Smith county. In a suit against a
railroad company upon an accepted order
it was not necessary to aver that the
amount had not been collected by the agent
of the plaintiff The instrument being an
order to plaintiff sagent to collect, accepted
by tho railroad company, was properly al
mitted in evidence Charges asked are
properly refused if, though correct rs far
as they go, they fail to present the whole
law of the case How far the agent may
bind the principal is laid down as general
rule in Story on Agency, 576 Affirmed
Quinan commissioner
Ryan ct al. VS.. Wilson ct al; from Tar
rant county. The suit being TO enforce
specific performance of verbal agreement
to convey land, and the record disclosing
that three days after the agreement was
made and before any improvement had
been made upon the lots orpurch base money
rendered, H., the party agreeing to sell,
died. The agreement being. naked ana
nothing more, was void, as being in contra
vention of the statute of frauds. AT his
death at the time, the estate of II, vested
in the legatees, unaffected by the void
agreement, and subject only to be dyested
for the purpose of administration Nor
would the fact that the parties to the agree
ment went upon the lots at the death OF II
affect the rights of legatees, nor they be
affected by the executors admission OF the
in the petition. Reversed and
Watts, commissioner.
HAYS & Co. VS.. Samuels Is Sons; from
Cook county. The petition stating cause
of action, which must have been good on
general demurrer and there being no eX-
cepton taken to it, the court ruled properly
that evidence was admissible to establish it,
Possession of acceptances is sufficient to
raise presumption of payment Variance
as to names of parties in whose favor ac-
ceptances were drawn must be so much Il
of parties as to mislead or
surprise the adverse party. Affirmed. Watts,