The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-12-06

to S. or order. The questions presented
Whether transfer of such note by parol be-
fore maturity, for valuable consideration,
without notice of any defence thereto when
transfer WAS made, is such AN assignment
rs would under our statute preclude any
defense by the maker which he might have
had'against thepayee? Admitting under that
the transfer the defendants below could in
terpose such defense, did the testimony show
the same sustained The case was tried
before the Judge, and the record fails to
show whether upon the one or the other or
both grounds the Judgment was rendered.
The Judgment was authorized by the latter
at least, and as the Judge passed upon the
conflict Of evidence under the general rule
of practice, this court will not interfere.
Affirmed. Bonner, justice.
Harvey VS.. Bonds; from Pamela county.
In the absence of an assignment of errors
this court will not examine the record 10
ascertain whether the court below may have
committed an alleged fundamental error
upon question of fact, unless, perhaps, 1t
light in case where there was no testi-
mony at all in support Of the issue upon
which Judgment was rendered. The sure
ties upon the injunction bond in this case
do not complain, and as Harvey is, IN any
event. bound for the amount OF the judg-
ment rendered, he cannot complain. AZ
firmed. Bonner, j,
Raney and wife VS.. Chambers, guardian,
etc from Red Biver county. The home
stead ofan insolvent, who, upon his death,
leaves no constituent of his family surylv-
ing save his widow, vests III her,
and her subsequent deed thereto passes
| title. The deed from the widow in this
case was an executed contract, and recited
a consideration fully paid, and the. further
| Of I,,,,o and aIIanttpp IL "
commended, however, that the real consider
alton was not paid, and failure cancelled
the deed. Held that such doctrine does
not prevail That if, as claimed, the con-
sideration was annual payment OF an
amount for the support of the granter, 1T
was valid contract which might be en-
forced against the estate of the grantee
after his death, and was a lien on the land,
Affirmed Stayton, judge.
McMoy ct al. VS.. May and wife; from
Rusk county. There is no rule of law
which prccludes one whose last sickness
and death was produced by his own act
from disposing of his property at will. inc
statute in prohibiting nuncupative will to
be probated after six months by testimony
not reduced to writing within six days al
ter the making of the WILL has in view an
original probate in the County Court, and
=
certiorari to the District Court, when the
will stands again for probate. The County
| Court must be presumed to have considered
and determined the sutliciency of citation
and publication, and in this proceeding in
view, having jurisdiction of the subject
matter, even if its conclusions were crrone'
Gus, still its action based thereon would not
be void. Free. on Judg, secs. l2G and sos.
Affirmed Goula, chiefjustice.
j.. & H. Blum ct al. VS.. Wettcrmark ct ell;
from Rusk county. Creditors Of an in
solvent who has assigned his property
under the statute for their benefit, are
authorized at any time after the as ignec
has qualified to interfere for the protection
of their interest," if the assignee has impeIr-
lied or misapplied the assets of the insol-
vent estate. Whether scheduled or not, all
property belonging to the insolvent estate,
except that exempt, passes to the assignee
to be applied to the benefit of the creditors;
and this is true under both the LIST and Sd
sections of the act. Section 0 does not ap-
ply to the facts in this case, and this suit
was properly brought by some for all of the
Icreditors. BY the act under which this as
Segment was made, all consenting credi-
tors are not required to file their claims
with the assignee within six months from
the publication. appointment but
such as have no knowledge OF
the assignment may file any time
before distribution and participate
therein Petition that shows with reason
able certainty that creditors will suffer loss
by misapplication of certain property is
good on general demurrer. The bond in
this case was for smaller amount than the
value of the property alleged to have been
misapplied, and it was not necessary for pc
tition to allege insolvency of the assignee
and his surcties. The removal of the as
signee being relief incidental to other re-
lief sought here, is within the genera
equity powers of the District Court. The
court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Re
versed and remanded Stayton, judge.