The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-11-04

nc reSorteu 10 untll tne person mas been al
lordcd an opportunity Of cxcusing himself
Tor default us prescribed by the civil stat
utcs. Reversed and dismissed. Winklcr, j.
Synopsis of tho Opinions of tho Comm ssion-
ers of Appeals.
]. G. Rushing vs. f. W. Chandler; from
Ellis county Possession and uninterrupted
occupation by tenant is as effective in con-
sttutinga law under the statute of limita-
ton as possession and occupancy in person
would be- The lapse of occupation for
short time between the change of tenants
will not work n suspension of the statute,
where there appears to be no purpose to
abandon possession See % Texas, II. But
under the peculiar facts of this case, the
statute was interrupted as to the land in
vOlved in this litigation. Reversed and re-
manded. Watts, commissioner.
Gaines VS.. National Exchange bank of
ofllouston; from Falls county. The argu-
ment ola case Of action upon which iudg-
ment has been rendered, carries with it the
right to the judgment, ON the general
principal that the assignment ola particu-
lar claim passes to the assignee all the remi-
dies and liabilities which the assignor had
to secure and recover it, though they are
specifically mentioned in the assignment.
To ensralt parol trust upon, and in that
way change the effect Of written title.
Such trust must be clearly and certainly
established. A deed made to hinder,
delay and defraud creditors is
not nullity but avoidable at
the instance of the creditors The
statute of frauds declares such deeds void
only as to parties whose rights are preju-
diced, charge against this principle is
error. A married man who has no home
stead is not precluded from establishing
one upon land upon which there
lish in fact prior to the actual
levy oftho execution to this extent. Stone
VS., Dlrrell. Affirmed. Quinan, commits
sioncr.
Oliver VS., Devil, from Bastrop countyr
Article 3llG Paschul'S digest has reference
solely to Introduction Of copies of recorded
instruments without the HCccssity of PROV
ing their existence, Hut where the prc-
ticc has been when proposing 20 prove the
existence, loss aud contents of
an instrument by oral testimony
to file an affidavit to such
ELECT there is no rule of law recurring il.
Article 1907, Pasc. Dig, is limited in its
| operation and effect to the death of the
kpcrson I'm whose favor and not against
whom the cause of action may exist Art.
| lb2l (P. ID does not qualify, influence or
effect article 1921. Ten years adverse nos
session taken and held under the circum-
stances mentioned in the latter article
would constitute an cilGctual bar. The
verdict is supported by the evidence.
| Watts commissioner
Gambrel 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
| IA ul ,f I,l,, ~. II
ment required under the act of 1866, in
order to constitute an appropriation ofthe
land as settler Is not required under the
subsequent acts, but these last require that
III order to obtain patent, affidavit must
| show that the party or assignCeS have occu-
| pied the land for three years and improved,
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, renders it then her scperate
| property. Acquisition of property In eX.
change or that which was the wile's in the
lifetime Of the husband "to her sole and
separate use strengthens the idea of separ-
/ ate property. That the property paid us con
Aderation was community, rendered the
property purchased community, is an UNI
tcnablc position. Gift from husband Ia
wife is not necessarily fraudulent and void
~ to existing creditors. 1t may be 3 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 his wife. The facts in this case
warrant the verdict. Quinan, commissioner
Thompson, Morris & Co. VS.. Pine ~ Poin-
dexter; from Lamar county. From the au.
thority of Clark vs.. Thompson ct al, q
Tex, l2S, tits held that service upon one OF
several parties plaintiff against whom writ
OF error has been taken is insuiilcicnt-all
the defendants in error must be served. Re.
versed and dismissed Quinan, commits
sioner,
| Fowler vs.. Stogncr ct all from Caldwell
county. The decree ola county court ad.
hitting will to probate is the judgment
Ola court having general jurisdiction over
the probate of wills, and Is conclusive and
mnimpcOchublc upon any collateral attack.
Every presumption will INDUCED in It's
favor and that decree will stand until set
aside by some proceeding had directly for
that purpose, In such proceeding the bur-
den .olprooris upnn the party seeking ia
establish the inyalidity of the will. II Is
essential to the validity of n will that ifit
be not wholly in the handwriting OF
the teSlator II shall be attcstcd by two OF
more credible witnesses above the aye of
fourteen years subscribing their namcstohis
or her presence, One who is Interested in
taking under will is incompetent to tcs-
tiiy to establish Il. Section 10 of the stat
utes on the question, does not repeal Oh
qualify. the first section, but the will still re-
mains invalid unless subscribed by two dis
Interested witnesses who take nothing un.
der 1t. The request to T. in this case, be
cause of niN attitude I'm nrnvin, nm th,