The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-05-28
The cousrs.
synopsis OF Opinions Of the Commits.
sioners OF Appeals Adopted by the
supreme Court.

si0ners or appeals Adopted by the
Supreme Court.
French ct al VS. Grenel; error from Bexsr
l. 1t has been expressly held that the fac,
that an estate was being administered BY
Independent executors under the terms Of
awill which withdrew ii from the control Of
the probate court, would not confer jurisdic.
ton upon the bankrupt court. Adams VI
Terrell, Woods O. @. Rep, decided Nov. 20,
1880; Frazier vs. Mcdonald, 8 Nat. Bank,
Reg. 237. 2, No precise rule can be laid
down which will defae possession in good
faith in its application in all cases; but the
flexible rules Of u court of equity, unlike the
rigid rules Of the common law, will adjus,
themselves to the very right and justice of
the particular case. Bright VS. Boyd, Story
47S, is a leading case upon the subject. See
also 9 Story Cos. II Texas, 900; "a Texas,
$50; As Texas, 5SS. The improvements in
this case seem to have consisted eff necessary
and beneficial repairs, for which, according
to some auth critics, even possessor in bad
faith would be entitled to compensation. We
do not think the court erred in allowing
Grenet compensation for the Improvements
and repairs made on the property. Upon
the same principle there was no error in
allowing him for the taxes paid. These
were valid charges against the property, tho
failure to pay which, may have caused its
sale and sacrifice. g. The same general
principles of equity which authorizes pay
ment for improvements in good faith, has
been repeatedly applied 10 the restitution of
the purchase money of property bought at
void Judicial sales, when the money, as in
this instance, has been applied to the pay
ment Of valid iLcumbrsnce against the
property thus sold. 2 Story 49S; 80 Mo.
1874; 80 Wis. 1863; Texas $780, 10 Texas 357;
10 Texas 207; q Texas 772, db. 296; 38
Texas 2l9; As Texas $50; Steagall vs. Huff,
decided at Galveston A. D. 1881. Affirmed.
Bonner,J
Watson We. Miller ct al j; appeal from Bell.
/. A citation issued by district clerk re-.
turnable to term as provided for by ordi-
nance of the last constitutional convention,
but before the new constitution took effect.
was without authority Of law. The new
judiciary system could only take effect with
the new constitution and the courts under
the former constitution were left to continue
their work until relieved at that time. 9.
The suit was properly brought by the sur
wing partners, and the joinder of the exc
cutor of the deceased partners estste, no
facts beirg alleged showing that any reason
existed why said estate should be represen,ed,
was apparently wholly uncalled for, and
being objected 10 should not have been s>
lowed The surviving partners were legally
entitled to collect debts due the partnership
affairs. They were the proper parties to
sue. (Collyer on Partnerships, sec. 666;
Dicev on Parties to. Actions, rule "A, y.
[l62l 1927 Reversed and rmsnded.
Gould, j.
Synopsis of opinions of Commission
ersOf Appeals, Adopted by Supreme
Court.
Houston s. Texas Central railway com.
pany vs. Gilmore; appeal from Grsyson.
l. In Price VS.. Houston direct navigation
company, 46 Texas, 535, it is he'd that the
master is not liable for injuries sustained by
his servant through the wrongful act, neg
ligence or default Of fellow servant. The
authorities cited by the court to sustain that
doctrine comprise about seventy cases from
twenty-three different states. That decision
has been followed and approved in subse.
quent cases. Robinson vs.. the Houston &
Texas Central railway company, As Texas,
$40; railroad company vs.. Miller, 81 Texas,
27l: Houston g. Texas Central railway
company vs. Myers, present Austin term.
2. 1t is now considered as finally settled
that all employees engaged in operating the
same train are ss TO each other fellow ser.
wants. 46 Texas, $40. Tho court charged
the Jury directly to the reverse of these now
well settled rules Of law, and the charge ia
undoubtedly erroneous. Reversed and 70,
msnded. Watts, Commissioner.
Vance ct al VS. Doebbler; appeal from
Bexar. The act Of the husband In leaving
home and procuring a presumption by three
years residence, etc, thereon, Is not an
abandonment of the homestead where the
homestead is occupied and was continuously
occupied by the family. BY this act of the
husband the wife would certainly not forfeit
her constitutional right to the homestead
The homestead is defined as a place OF
family residence or the property dedicated
as such. A Tex sos; ~ Tex 1876. From
the definitions in the foregoing authority II
follows that tho question of what constitutes
homestead, or rather, where the homestead
ola family is, would be a question of fact,
in tho determination Of which the three
principal elements are ownership, occupancy
and Intention, AFFIRMED. Watts, Commits
sioner.
Msgell ct oil vs. Hitchcock; error from
Guadalupe. 1t is not sufficient to reverse
Judgment simply because the court bolow
may have erred in It's rulings as abstract pro.
positions oflsw,or because 1t may have given
reasons not deemed sufficient. RI. iha com,
planning party must m,ho /; appear, also,
that he has been deprived OF scme right, OF
has been injured by thu erroneous ruling,
20 Tex 448 Affirmed. Walker. Commits
sioner.
Heathcock Of al. VS.. Goodrich, administra.
tor, ct al appeal from Guadalupe. "The
property reserved from forced sale by the
constitution and laws of this state, or liz
value, If there be no such property, does no,
form any part Of the estate of deceased
person where o constituent of the family
survives" p. d, Art. CATS. Under The
probate act Of 1870 tho surviving widow was
entitled TO an allowance 10 lieu Of home
stead and in lieu Of such exempt personal
property as the husband did not leave her q,
the time ofhs death, ard that so much Of
the property rs wac Necessary 10 mako good
such allowances. was not subject 10 admins
traitor. AZ Tex. $751; Affirmed, Watts
Commissioner.
Twobig & Go. vs., Elliott: ANIMAL from