The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-02-25
Opinions OF the Commissioners OF
hnnanIa

Appeals
Prepared for the Herald by Edward j, Ham
ner, of Galveston
y. @. Harrison OF al. vs.. A. Crumb; appeal
from Tarrant county. A party seeking to
eni in judgment must show tina the plain
tiff had no cause OF action, or that he had q
meritorious defense to tho action. That the
ju lgment is clearly contrary to equity and
& cd conscience, but equity will not enjoin s
Judgment merely on tho ground of error
A party failing in his application at law for
new trial will not bs relieved in equity, a.
least upoa tho sAma merits already discuss
cd, AMI fully wi.hia the discretion of the
curt AT law. Before equity will grant re-
lief three things must coacur: Ignorance
Of tho defense when the Judgment was rem
dere !, diligence on the part Of the com
pla ut and that adequate relief cannot ba had
atllw. This injunction having been granted
after tho expiration Of tho twelve mont
both of the ground Of tho motion to dissolve
and dismisB were well taken aRd IT was error
TO override tho motion 10: which tho jude-
meut ought " DO reversed ana tho cause for
liJlNClOn uisnilseeu. lkbF0rabl huu us
missed Walker, p. O.
u. Il. Standlee VS.. j. A. benson; appeal
from Williamson county. The bond given
in the case is as follows: "Now if the said
j. A. benson shall prosecute said writ Of
celtor,ri with effect and pay all costs and
damages that may be Hdiudged against him
by said county court, then in that event this
instrument to DO null and void, otherwise
TO remain in full force and effect" Held,
The bond given bound tho party only to pay
such costs snd damages as the county court
III gbt adiudge against him. The bond re-
CURED by law binds the party to pay if ba
fail all costs and damages occhsioned by the
proceedings under the writ, whether al.
judged by the county court or not. Conse-
quonlly the bond is insufficient. Reversed
and dismissed. Quinan, Com.
Louis Suly bacher vs. William j. Wilkin-
sin; appeal from Msnard county. In
constituting conditional contract no partic-
ular words unnecessary 10 conhgitute con.
dili0n precedent or Is condition upon tue
poiat, il must be determined by tho cir
cumltances of the particular c.ia. Ii entire
performance of a CONTRACT according to tho
express agreement DO rendered impossible,
khibNEn hlN lAhie vi NAFtiul p'lLl1 VIZ party
in fault will bH liable on a quau,um meruit.
or other actor on the case, the CONFORMATION
b3ing graduated ms far az pos,bIa by tho
terms of the express contract, h0re /. il
not cas- Of conflict, bu. of entire efficiency
of evidence, Il nov trial ought 10 be grated.
Walker, L, O.
P. Ochos aud wig0 Va. Josofa NJ Gnrza
appeal tcom Bs14r county. Without Tho
compliant In case of f0fciDlo entry and
detailer clotFly and specifically reei!di such
An accurate description Of lne laGd IN con
troyersy IA will losvl IL in no doubt wra :
ever As well rs that the complainant was IN
possession a. the time of the alleged forci5le
entry az Tex. y A motion u strike on,
is good and should DO sustained E,Yerse d
aud dismissed. Walker r. O.
j. II Mcdonald VS.. j. L. Holt; appel
from Fannie oounly. One OF several prJtu-
isors not signing m a surety cannot plead
that DO is u surety merely for the pa pose of
requiring the al eyed principle to DO joined
or simultaneously sud.
William Il. Hughes IS. NJ. j. BoehEor
appeal from Dallas cVudtY. App, lldnl Of
trt.d IN tha court baow t. read IN evidence
o'oc,r.lug certain answ RS Of IL, 7 B,ahnsr
wv 'itA'' tNENNNlANo y NiNdliANA ~ hllh Wy
appellant going 10 provo up the contract
IN controversy, Appellee objected "ru tue
grouni that wha;evcr passed between plain
I'll and defendant IN re- ,ard 10 the charge ct
contract was by lettors, and that theao letter
were tho only competent evidence on this
poiat" Objection sustained in tho court
below Held, IL does not appear to US that
tho answers were Liable 10 the objection
ufgcd. Reversed and reminded. Watts,
Com
Flint, Chamberlain & Graham ct ais. We
MoCarLy " Br1wn; error IRON Hood cyun,
w. The atf lSvit asser ing clam TO tn,
cotton in controversy WAS signed, MT By a.,
special mombor, bu. as tirm, "MlCArty &
Brown" Held, Tho motion to strike on,
he aHi1avi, for the reason that it does moi
q pear ~ lave been sworn 20 by any par
I culTporSou or individual, but by tbs fra,
"McBsrty IS Brown,' should have been SUE.
tsined, the failure to do which Is sullicioo'
GRO 10 revise the Judgment, and there being
no sufficient stlid wit to support the JUG
ment, the case IL dismissed. Reversed aud
dis missed. Watts, Com
-----------a<e
ssle,rnl Innovntion.