The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-11
Synopsis of OpiniOns of the suprem,

Prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Ham,
ner, of Galveslon.l
w. J. Clsyton VS.. Eva L. Borden; appeal
from Wharton county. Clayton sued I. G.
Borden during his life time The case was
confined several times during the which
Borden died. There is no prima facia eyi-
dence in the transcript showing that his
surviving widow was ever served, save the
fact that the judgment in the court below
gecites as follows: "This cause coming on
this day to he heard upon defendants plea
in abatement and it being argued by
counsel, it is the opinion of the court that
the law is with the defendant, tho said plea
in abatement is sustained and the case dis
missed" The case was reversed and remand
ed that the proper parties should be- made,
the court holding that they must stlirma.
lively appear in the record US parties prop.
erly cited erejudgment could be passed upon
them. Reversed and remsnded. Moore,
Q j.
j. Q. Abrshams VS.. L. G. Volberum ct al;
appeal from Brszoris county. Although
there may have been no formal inquest
or Judicial proceeding .ascertaining The con-
dition OF an alleged non cempos mentis, vet
it is competent for the court trying the case
in which the the fact is alleged to satisfy
itself Of the fact and being satisfied to allow
the suit to proceed, Under the law former.
ly in force it was not competent for suit
of minor by its next friend TO be sustained;
il should have been by special guardian.
Reversed and remanded. Gould, j.
The Texas Cotton Press and Manufacture.
ing company vs.. the Mechanics Fire cons
pany No. 6; appeal from Galveston county.
Statement of the case: After the fire, which
took place in the appellants press yard, had
been gotten under control, and the fire COM
panes ordered todisperse by their chief en-
gineer, the sppellees who owned their en-
CINE remained on the ground under order
from the superintendent Of the press and
continued to play upon the partially subdued
but still lingering embers, lurking amid
the wet but ready to burn leeey staple.
The fire then having been entirely extin-
guished, the appellees with thei. engine re-
tired. They now bring suit upon an agreed
statement Of facts and present this question:
Is fire company entitled to compensation
for services rendered in extinguishing a fire
after having been discharged by the chief
engineer of the fire department? Upon this
question the court, Held: at being admitted
that the services rendered by the meR and the
engine were reasonably worth the amount
recovered, we are Of the opinion, that, under
the facts and circumstances of this case, the
judgment below should be affirmed. Affirm
ed. Bonner, Associate j.
+. +. Doan ct ais. We. the state OF Texas;
appeal from Galveston county. The TWO
controlling questions in this case are, lirst
Was the collector Of taxes in his settlement
with the comptroller authorized TO retain
commission, etc, in hands bid of to the
state? On this point the court held that it
was not intended by the statute Of 1876
Claws Is, Leg. 25P) that the state was to sd-
vance the fees and the tax collector was
therefore not entitled to them as from the
state. Second: Is the state entitled to in.
terest for the failure TO pay the taxes, from
the date when the same became due, or from
the date of the judgment in the court below?
On this the court says: "Opon authority of
adjourned cases we think this must DO an.
sWered in the affirmative" q Tex, 500;
36 Tex, 1928; , Tex, sos. Judgment af-
iirmed. Bonner, Assoc. j..