The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-11-17

nuffef should have been sustained. tie
vefsed and feinanded. Walker, oofnmlsl
sidner,
/ Sullivan 4 Go, VA Mcfarland from Nc
/ lonnnf county, An appeal bond rom illo
Justices to The county court, which obi
| yates the payment IN their firm maine Il
| sufficient, without settling out the name Oi
each individual In full, That the obligation
clause Of such bond uses the word For"
| instead Of the statutory word "and," docs
not render the bond nugatory, and Is
sufficient II In double the amount of the
judgment as appealed from. All said and
one by the employer In n contract Of en-
! ploymeflt, with respect TO the terms of the
contract Is admissible and should DO con
sidered, but a charge in connection with q
question OF measure of damages, which In
structs In effect TO find for plaintiff,
provided the employer so acted as to con-
vey to plaintiff the belief that his employ
mcnt was by the year, whether or not the
employer so intended to be understood. In u
suit for breach ofcontract for personal service
the plaintiff may wait until the end of the
| term of contract and sue for full amount
and in such case the defendant may recover
for what the plaintiff has, or by reasonable
diligence could have earned between the
breach and expiration of contract Or the
| plaintiff may at any time sue for damages
| resulting from the breach of contract, and
natural and legal consequence from
from the breach. Remote or speculative
damages are not recoverable. Reversed
and remanded. Watts, com missioner.
Thomas VS.. Ownby & Son, from Lamar
county. In suit by material men against
under sections and 7, of the act regulating
mechanics lien General Laws 1876, page
92) even though the material men had
made out an attcstcd account and deliv-
cred it to the owner, and received promise of
payment, the contractor is n necessary
party, and exceptions to the petition on this
ground should prevail. Reversed and re-
manded. Watts, commissioner.
Franklin IL Stuart VS.. Hardie & Co.;
from McLennan county. Though the
agent of the plaintiffs below (appelles) may
not have known at the time of making the
contract, that S. was q partner of +. it
does not affect the plaintiffs right to hold
s. liable as such, ifthee partnership existed.
Credit extended to a firm within the scope
of their business, whether the partnership
be of general or limited nature, will bind
all the parties notwithstanding any secret
reservations between them unknown to
those who extend credit. The judgm ent of
the court in this case is not against the evil
dence, and is affirmed. Walker, COM
missioner.
Winsett vs.. Randle; from McLen-
nan county. This was a Judgment in favor
of appellee on writ of punishment, sued
out to recover amount of q valid Judgment
against one l.. The question was whether
an assignee under the act in relation to as
sgnments for the benefit of creditors is sub
ject to garnishmcnt. The recovery was for
the entire amount involved. Section of
that article provides that any creditor not
consenting to the assignment may garni-
shee the assignee for the excess of estate re-
manning in his hands, after payment to the
consenting creditor the amount of their
debts, costs and expenses of executing the
assignment. But the rule is otherwise
when the assignee holds under a general
and unqualified deed for the benefit of all
the creditors. He cannot then be garni-
sheed. Reversed and remanded. Walker,
commissioner.