The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-11-16

:
not well taken. Objection that there is no
such an olense as an assault with intent
to kill'' as named in the forfeited hail-bond
is not tenable. The oilcnse as defined in
Art. 50i, 7. G is properly charged in the
language used. Affirmed. White, p. ].
Synopsis of Opinions of the Commissioners
of Appeals
AIulhall & Sealing VS.. Eicks from Gray
son county A compromise between parties
of matters in controversy between them is,
on sound principles of law, not only valid
consideration to support an argument based
upon it, but where it is entered upon to pre-
vent litigation, is one which is favored by
the courts, and no investigation into the
character or value of the different claims
submitted will be entered into for the pur-
pose of setting aside compromise Such
compromise cannot be avoided by an action
therefor, unless upon showing of such
facts, which, as fraud would vitiate any
other contract. The replication by supple
mental petition in this case to defendant S
answer set up no such facts and the de-
murrer should have been sustained. Re-
versed and remanded. Walker, commits
sioner
sullivan e Co. VS.. Mcfarland; from Nc
Lennnn county. An appeal bond from THO
Justice to the county court, which obli-
gates the payment in their firm name is
sufficient, without setting out the name of
each individual in full. That the obligation
clause Of such bond uses the word "or,n
instead of the statutory word "andn does
not render the bond uugatory, and is
suihC ent il III double the amount of the
judgment rs appealed from. All said and
done by tue employer in u contract of en-
ployment, with respect to the terms of the
contract is admissible and should be con
sidered, but q 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
ment was by the year, whether or not tho
employerso intended to be understood. In a
suit lor.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 NJ any time sue for damages
resulting from the breach of contract, and
damages in such case are those resulting as
natural and legal consequence from
damages are not recoverable. Reversed
and remanded, Watts, commissioners
Thomas VS.. Ownby u Son. from Lamar
county. In suit by material men against
the owner for money due by the contractor
under sections q and I, of the act regulating
mechanics lien General Laws 1876, page
~ even though the material men had
made ont an attested account and deliv.
cred 1t to the owner and received promise OF
ln n,t. 1,
party, and exceptions to the petition on this
ground should prevail. Reversed and re-
manded. Watts, commissioner.
Franklin " Stuart VS.. Hardie e. Co.;
irlm McLennan county. Though the
agent Of the plaintiffs below (appelles) may
not have known at the time of making the
contract, that s. was partner of L. it
does not affect the plaintiffs right to hold
y. liable as such, If the partnership existed.
Credit extended to u firm within the scope
oftheir business, whether the partnership
be OF q general or limited nature, will bind
all the parties Notwithstanding any secret
reservations between them unknown to
those who. extend credit. The judgm INT OF
the court in this case is not against the evil
dence, and is affirmed. Walker, com
missioner.
Winslett vs.. Randle; from McIen.
nan county. This was a judgment in favor
oil appellee on writ of punishment, sued
out to recover amount of valid Judgment
against one l.. The question was whether
an assignee under the act in relation TO ms.
signments for the benefit of creditors is sub.
iect to punishment. The recovery was for
the entire amount involved. Section s of
that article provides that any creditor not
consenting to the assignment may garni-
shee the assignee for the excess of estate re.
naming 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 general
and unqualified deed for the. benefit of all
sheed, Reversed and remanded. Walker
commissioner.