The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-04-07
Synopsis Of Opinions of the Commits
siOners of Appeals.

siOners of Appeals.
prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Ham
ner, of Galveston.1
I. ". House VS.. w. E. Kendall, appeal
from Fort Bend county. lst, Where the
trust is a personal one to be executed by
both executors under.a will, neithera court
of law, nor a court of equity will enforce the
invalid contract made by one of them.
I'd. Where there is a total failure of title
on the part of the vendor, the vendee may,
if tho contract be executory and untitled, re-
fuse to perform il, and reclaim any portion
of the purchase money which may have been
advanced.
Reversed and remanded. Walker P. j.
Lopez and McElroy vs.. Robinson, appeal
from Freestone county. 1t is not material
whether tho party incorporating the fact
upon the belief of which another ia induced
TO act, know it to be false, or believed it to
be true, he is still responsible for the injury
sustained by the party who relied upon it.
Affirmed. Quipan j.
j. Fl. Peregoy and wife VS.. Isadore Kott-
wiz, appeal, from Harris county. The con-
slitn.ion protects from forced sale, the home.
stead Of a family in a citg, town or village,
tOtciNAlIE Va q " vi iOtSt NV W 6ACNtu a.
| value five thousand dollars at the designa-
ton 80 such without reference 20 tho value
Of any improvements. Affirmed. Watts. j.
j. Il. Harris aud G.. K. Harris vs.. Andrew
hay, appeal, from Coryell county. PsroI
tetimony showing that The appellee was IL
| tho army and rendered military eeryict
durine the revolution, "a admissible as tend
ing 10 establish the identity of the appellee
sa the same Andrew Hay 10 whom the GER
| tifcats was issued. Affirmed. Watts. j.
John Spiess vs. Charles Stolize
nppenl from Austin county. The do
| claraGons of a deceased person
not undor oath csnnot DO used as evidonc.
in behslf cf those representing bis eatGtc I.
asf.ef = ci,irn accented aeair-t i. g..
seli-sorsing declaration coms fully undor thl
| con7emns.ion Of no law % learsng aud sfl
NOT admissible. Reversed end remended
Watts, J.
Patrick Flynn Va. David Lynch, sppea
from Fort Bend county. This court canno
entertain Jurisdiction aiiundo the record
The supreme court has no power 70 supply
detects Ia tho record Of any ~iafgri0r court
whether occisionod by loss or otherwise
The record Of tho proceedings IN The dislric
court must show A~airmahvely how i &C
quirct iurisliction. Reversed and ramanded
Qninsn, j..
II i. s. Z. d. Crn5dock ". Willisn
Goodwin, rppeal from Walker county
Whene ITO suing out and levy Of tho suit
malicious, exemplary damages could b
awarded, and where il -rFo only wroHgfl
without malice, actuai damase only coul
bs awarded, bat the defosdants time Will
attending court Is not On element Of actua
damaga. Reversed and romandcd
Quinsn. j.
William Lamb ct a.. ". Sarah J L,ml
appeal from FreesioDe county. The oni
| objection against the judgment is that %
evidence uren which Il is based Is a compfc
mise. On rhis TIE courtsays: This being
case OF conflict Of evidence, and as under "a
evidence The jury might well have found 70
The appellee tho whole twenty acres as aboms
stead. but falling % do %. this c~ertainll
affords the appellant no Just ground Q
complaint. Affirmed. Wafiz ].
Wright S. Andrew RI al. w. Issbsll
Hsesd0n. appeal from Galveston county
A homestead IN = city. town Or village ma,
consist Of one or more lots. bot tbrr8
nothing IN our constitution or lsuE thatfCrce
Tie homegiesd character or qualify upon
lot or lots sdioining The one upon which th'
residence Is situated. ard whether such LOT o
lots ere q part of the Homestead IL q Questi0l
of fact. 20 be determined b It's evidence, an
there are fr0 republics that murt concur q
| give them MS quality, TIE owner must irfs1.
ths prccaT - psrf OF bis houes.esd. ~
must n some way use i ~ such. Affirmed
Watis. J.