The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-11-10
TfIE DALLAS VIZ

Ileyrrsed And remnndod. Wlnklef,
Mock r.the stats frof1 Smith county
Article no N The penn code, upon Tie SUI
Isct Of taxation must be- construed W con
neoiion with article 1870 of the revised stat
utss. Criminal proceedings cannot be sls
tnlnod against parties for falling 70 fe,nrn
property subject ~ taxation, until ciyil
remedies for tho collection thereof have
been exhausted; nor can the criminal law
be resortcd TO until the person has been al.,
fordod an opportunity OF etcusing hlnscli
Tor default as prescribed by the civil stat
utos. Reversed and dismissed. Winkler, j.
J. G. Rushing VS.. +. W. Chandler; from,
Ellis county. Possession and uninterrupted
occupation tenant Is as effective In con-
stituting law under the statute OF limita-
ton as possession and occupancy in person
would be. The lapse Of occupation Tor n
short time between the change OF tenants
will not work suspension of the statute,
where there appears to be no purpose to
abandon possession. See 90 Texas, IA. But
under the peculiar facts of this case, the
| statute was interrupted as to the land in
yolved in this litigation. Reversed and re-
manded. Watts, commissioner.
Gaines vs.. National Exchange bank OF
| of Houston; from Falls county. The argu-
ment Of q case Of action upoH which ludg-
ment has been rendered. carries with IL the
/ TlEHI W '''' Wv -.
| principal that the assignment ola particu-
| lar claim passes to the assignee al the remi-
dies and liabilities which the sssignor had
to secure and recover it, though they are
specifically mentioned in the assignment.
To engratt parol trust upon, and in that
way change the effect Of written title.
Such trust must be clearly and certainly
delay and defraud creditors, is
not nullity bat ayoidable at
tho instance Of tho creditors. Tn:
statute of frauds declares such deeds void
only as to parties whose rights are .preju-
diced, A charge against this principle is
error. A married man who has no home
stead is not precluded from establishing
is Judgment lien, if he estab:
lish in fact prior to the actual
levy of the execution to this extent. Stone
VS.. Darnell. Affirmed. Quinan, commits
sioner.
Oliver VS.. Bevil, from Bastrop county,
Article BIG Paschals digest, has. reference
solely to Introduction Of copies of recorded
| ing their existence. But where the prac-
tice has been when proposing to prove the,
existence, loss and contents OF
an instrument BY oral testimony
to file an affidavit to such
effect, there is no rule of law requiring it.
Article 1907 Pasc. Dig, is limited in its
operation and effect to the death of the
whom the cause of action may exist. Art.
1921 Up. d. does not qualify, influence or
effect article 1924. Ten years adverse pos
| session taken and held under the circum-
stances mentioned in the latter article
| would constitute an effectuai bar. The
verdict is supported by the evidence.
| Watts. commissioner.
Gambrel vs. Steele; from McLennan county
Patent constitutes the superior right or
title to land, and the burden is upon him
who attacks it to show that it was illegally
issued. The affidavit of bona fide settle
ment required under the act OF 1866, in
order to constitute an appropriation OF the
land as settler is not required under the
subsequent acts, but these last require that
in order to obtain patent, affidavit must
show that the party or assignees have occq-
ETC., in good faith. The facts require the
reversal and remand of the case. Watts,
commissioner.
| Morrison Hart ct ais. vs.. Clarke; from
Navarro county. Conveyance Of property
| to the wife to take effect after the death OF
the husband, render. it then her separate
| property. Acquisition of property, in ex-
| change or that which was the wite's in the
| lifetime of the husband "to her sole and
separate use" strengthens the idea of separ-
ate property That the property paid as con-
sideration was community, rendered the
property purchased community, is an I'M
! tenable position. Gift from husband to
\ wife is not necessarily fraudulent and void
as to existing creditors. 1t may be badge
! of fraud to be considered in connection with
| intent, but it does not follow that because
| indebted one cannot settle part OF his
property on hi. wife. The facts in this case
warrant the verdict. Quinan, commissioner.
Thompson, Morris & Co. vs.. Pine & Pom
dexter from Lamar county. From the au-
| thority of Clark VS.. Thompson ct al, AZ
Tex, lbs, it is held that service upon one OF
several parties plaintiff against whom writ
of error has been taken is insufficient-all
| the defendants in error must be served. Re
versed and dismissed. Quinan, commits
sioner. :,
| Fowler VS.. Stagner ct al; from Caldwell
county, The decree of q county court adj
hitting will to probate is the judgment
of a court having general jurisdiction over
the probate of wills, and is conclusive and
unimpeachable upon any collateral attack.
Every presumption will be INDUCED in its
favor, and that decree will stand until set
aside by some proceeding had directly. for
that purpose. In such proceeding the bur
den of proof is upon the party seeking to
establish the invalidity of the will. 1t is
essential to the validity of will that lift
| be not wholly IN the handwriting OF
the testator it shall be attested by two or
more credible witnesses above the age Of
fourteen years subscribing their names his
or her presence. One who is interested in
taking under will is incompetent to tes-
tify TO establish it, Section 10 of the stat
utes on the question, does not repeal OF
qualify the first section, but the will still re-
| mains invalid unless subscribed W Two uis-
interested witnesses who take nothing I'M
der IT, The request TO p. in this case, be-
cause of his attitude in proving up the
will, is void. Reversed and remanded.
Quinan, commissioner.
Marshall VS.. Crawford; from Bell county
| The line of tract of land may as well be the
subject Of case as any other object, and
/ in this case where that line is, can be read
| ily found upon the ground by the calls foi
its corners which are,well-known. The night
\ to recover for Improvements is dependent
] upon whether the defendant had possession
/ OF the premises at least one year next be.
| fore the commencement of the suit. And
his pleadings must set up his right TO re
cover or they will warrant no Judgment
Affirmed. Quinan, commissioner.