The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-06-18
THE COURTS.
synopsis OF Decisions OF the Supreme
tOurt.

synopsis OF Decisions OF the supreme
tOurt.
The state Of Texas, ex. rel. Edwards VS.
FIatoh; from Camp county By provisions
of the QUO wsrranto act the district courl
not only has the power 10 enquire into the
question of an unlawful usnrpalion of, or in
trusion into an office, but also into that OF
the several rights of divers parties to the same
office. There is distinction between the
right to declare an .tfice vacant in case
where the officer elect, without good cause
wholly fails or refuses to qualify, and in
which in good faith he ondeavors to comply
with the law. The Office of sheriff is un.
questionably such property as is protected
by the constitutional guaranty that 10 one
shall be deprived of lift, liberty or property
without an opportunity to be heard. The
district court had jurisdiction over the ques
ton presented by The information, and erred
10 sustaining defendants demurrer. Rsvers-
ed and remandtd. Bonner, j.
The Western Union Telegraph company
vs.. the state of I, xas; from Travis county
This was d suit against the Telegraph COM
last quarter OF the year 1879 aud the two
first quarters of 1880, and 10 compel report
and compliance with the provIsoLs of the
Revised Statutes on the subject. Answer
WAS by demurrer, general denial and plea
that the law impo ing the tax WAS void
under the state aud federal constitutions
and tbe,...laws OF congress Held, that the
constitution of the state authorizes the i'm
position by the legislature of tho occupation
tax sued for, aud that the levy is free from
obstructing or regulating interstate COM
merce. Where action is given for taxes in
terest is not recoverable unless the statute
gives it. This judgment, SO far as it gives
interest, is reversed, but in all other respects
is affirmed. Could, j.
Commissioners OF appeals Opinions
Adopted ny supreme court.
IT. Shannon vs. Stelle, Yost & Co; from
Grayson county. Appelees sold r. E. S. Il
Bro, a partnership doing business in s., a
bill of goods, for which firm is here sued.
The trade WAS made with r. E. Sd. I. s.
was then minor, and so known TO appellees.
Alter yards, and prior TO this SUIT, X Il. ).
cold hia interest to his partner, j. L. 5. SUBS
seQuently, and before tho account was due,
appellees instituted this suit by attach
ment against r Il, 5. u Bro, upon affidavit
charging that r Z s. had transferred his
property TO defraud his creditors, and that
j. L. s. was about TO transfer his prof erty
to defraud his creditors The court properly
instructed the jury that "if j t. 5. was a
minor AZ the time indicated, under tho
defense OF infancy ST up by him. plaintiff
could not recover personal judgment
against him." That j. 4. 5. had the right
10 repudiate the obligation of the contract
sued on, and that he had the right
no less ~ repudate the contract
of partnership with his brother, is a prlncit
pie of elementary law. Both contracts were
valuable, and though there is Il class of cons
racls of minor held BY the court. abso
utely void, that of u partnership does no.
belong to it. The court charged eft u
minor has purchased goods, and being sued
for the price, wishes to reclaim himself Of
hedebt, he must return the goods purchased
ia his possession" Held, error. The
plaintiffs were seeking to enforce an infants
voidable obligation to pay, and tho suit WAS
not framed to recover back the property; nor
was q tender back necessary on the part OF
j. T.S. to defe.t plaintiffs right 10 enforce
the contract. If j. T. s., under the sale to
him acquired good title, the property WAS
not subject to plaintiffs debt, and its seizure
un ier attachment. if procured by plaintiffs,
entitled him TO damages for injury sustained,
II, however, the transaction WAS effected 10
of Il. Il. s., the interests of Is.
L. s, at oil events, would be subject
defraud the creditors Of Il. II. s. u Bro, or
in the hands OF j. 4, s. to seizure and sale
in behalf Of plaintiffs. On this issue the
charge did not. as 1t should have, made the
determination of the issueof liability to levy
and sale depend upon the validity and iair
ness Of the assignment or transfer of the goods
TO j. Il. s. Reversed ard remanded,
Walker. p. j.
G HIS HRR Cows Ball &c Bro; from
Dallas. This was a suit for damages caused
by appellants negligent delay to deliver II
cases of fruit trees at their destination.
Petition alleged by exposure on flat cars and
several days delay the fruit trees were frozen
that plaintiffs had bargained and agreed with
divers persons for the sale and delivery of
fruit trees in good order; that by reason of
DEFENDANTS careless delay CT II days and
exposure, whereby the trees were frozen,
they were subjected to great loss, expense
and dsmag,; that one box of the value of
$500 was never delivered by the defendant
and wholly lost; that because of their dams
aged condition, tho parties who had greed.
refused 10 purchase the trees, and plaintiffs
were compelled to sell at great sacrifice, ex E
pense and delay to their damage OF So 900
Amendment set forth items OF account, or
list of fruit trees shipped, value, etc, sgsre
eating 81 900 exactly. The original pelition
valued them a, 81 800. The smendmen,
valued tho lost box NJ $500. The Others,
though alleged to have been damaged, were
received and sold at a sacrifice. Judgment
by default with writ of inquiry for plaiuiiil
or $1,000. Defendant prosecutes
writ of error and among
other grounds assigns us error that
the judgment IS msniies,ly excessive. AS
ignmenl so general would require no notice
rom this court hut for tho fundamental
rror committed below. Held, tho plaintiff
alleges no facts upon which no could recover
amsges on broader basis as u measure
thereof, than difference In value of the trees
when they we're delivered to defendant and
their diminished value when received, which
could not have exceeded their entire value,
shown by plaintiff TO have been $1,000. Nor
do the plaintiffs pretend arc entire, but
admit partial loss, admit Gala AZ Q sacratice
OF all but tho lost box, but do not st Ito the
amount realized, which should b. subIracted
from the $1,000. And notice to defendsn,
affords and circumstances which might resul,
In peculiar loss TO plaintiff, should have been
given 10 defendant At time of shipment 10
render delondent liablo for special damage