The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-01-29
sy0op,isoc9plnions ID alivoredby tn

syOOpsisG opinions Delivered by tht
supreme GOuTt, January 20, 1851.
lPrpp0fed Tor the Hrall by Edward j.. Ham
lsr OF Galyastoo)
A. Sous W.. William House; appeal from
Harris county Appellant employed Ham
20 construct for him building. Aauz en-.
gagged Trouieno to furnish the material ano
do The necessary masonry work Erent2nl
employed IIouaa 80 maui Menty-seyea loao,
OF brick TO and which were usol in the BALD
ing. Appellee brough. suit Tor work and
labor for $27 IS ia tho District court, claim.
Ing personal judgment against oil part, and
foreclosure of mechanics lien, OLc. Held
"It has been fully settled by former decisions
Of this court that there is n6 warrant OF
foundation Iog' This judgment against appel.
lee, either personally Or for
foreclosure of mechanics lien" Notice Of
such clsim should have been given appellant
OF such work before he settled with the
original contractor, that he might have re-
tanned ais claim from the amount to DO paid
(5l Tex, s96; ldem, 4Ol, idum, 4a5j 81 Tex,
GID, Reversed and remOuGod. Moore Q. j.
Mary .. UrtO VS.. II. a. Maydot; apeai
from Harris county. The trust dead uudeg
consideration Was made subsequently Co tho
0doption OF the constitution Ut 1876. The
legal effect uf the verdict WAS 10 Ind thu. NJ
tl0 dat Of tho Iruat decd block Al wAs not
part Of tho homestead Of Susan OrGo. The
charge given by the court virtually instructed
tho Jury N5 o question Of law thAL block a
was MOI part OK the homestead unless il WAS
q necessary adjunct thereto for its full en-
joyment, although ID might have been g Goa.
venience for that purpose. Held, That The
charge given was calculated TO mBicaj tho
jury by Withdrawing the question OF lacl
from their consideration and was therefore
error. Reversed and remndod Bonner,
associate justice.
w. $, Stewart vs.. Jno. Kemp, ct ali Keul
and others cMmiGg TO bo the 0wuor. OF thi
Jacques Headlight league, brought this sun
December Let, 1871, to recover 1870 ucres o.
said league from appellant and TO ca, col
tax deed mgde 70 appellant by ~ aby
sheriff md collector Of taxes. Doterdan
answered, denying that he was or had beer
Ia possession of tho land, and stating th5
before any citation was served on hun, anl
without any knowledge Of the Institution o
J this suit, he had cold and conveyed the lane
10 Minnie j. Stewart who was a recessar,
party, asking that she be cited to defend
He also alleged payment Of lakes, etc, fc
ten years prior 70 the suit. The court de
cliued to order Minnie j. Stewart TO be mad
a party overrules the exception to tho po,it
ton, and on tho trial excluded the defend
ants deed, and the county court condomip
the land to DO sold, also hi5 evidence that n
had paid taxes on the lmd since 1867 Held
| That the court did not err in disregardin
thesnswor Of defendants suggestions, iha, n
had sold the land to Minuio j. Stewart, ala,
thet tho court did no. err in excludiu ID
evidence Of tax deed, otc. Appellant sul
mitted the proposition that he hal right /
have refunded to him tho purchase mono,
taxes snd interest, though no had no deco
The plaintiffs title was established hy IN
deeds introduced, aud there being no o,he
evidence before the jury, the cour. did nd
err in instrucIiDg them to fad for plant,t
Reed vs.. Reed II Tex. Affirmed. Gould, A. /,