The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-05

Una court. IL Is oniy Where there may
s.,sOubt, that the court need not charge
upon n L TO be taken as an established
ine @5 Inc charge should be upon that
hci, a'T ~ Texas, SS7.) Appellee recovered
h, ls,n,ent for 81, 525, Tor injuries from a
" The platform of the freight depot of
nl va W in the city of'Austin, the TALL
ne caused by neglect of the appel
m,s IN failing TO provide proper
sas at place where it landed
lsn, Passengers Appellee had come in
rs Passenger on the train just then. AT
s,med. Stayton, j.
l,Isry p. Braden ct al VS.. John n. Gose,
.,srf ct al; appeal from Lamar county.
ssnnellants brought suit to enloln the sale
aPPnnrtion OF a certain tract of land, the
Wife claiming i as her separate property,
Nn"'.based with $500 given her by u relative
senarate estate, and 800, the accrued
:s,arest thereon. Held: The interest nc.
a lining on money, the separate es-
ea"e of the wife, is community
, enS land purchased with money, the sepa-
30 10 estate of the wife, and the accrued in
! iat thereon is subject to execution as
Immunity property in the proportion
, Hst the principal bears to the accrued in
; ta Affirmed, Stayton, j.
Pauline Z. Sellers VS.. Ann c. Vogel
al al. appeal from COmal county.
Their mutual equities should be adj
;used. if parties to Il suit unite iii asking
Era revision of contract for the sale OF
lands When the vendor had a superior
Inowledge which the yendee could not OBJ
iaio by diligeut observation, and there is
evidence of Misrepresentation of material
hcts by the former, the court below erred
in refusing to charge upon the validity of
the sale made through such representation,
the suit being for foreclosure of the ven
doris lien, and the Alternative relief of re-
cssion of the contract, and restoration of
the land being asked. The purchaser has
Alright TO have his purchase money and the
interest that remained after deducting the
reasonable rents, when the facts show such
fraud as will yitiate q sale and entitle II
party who has purchased and paid part of
The consideration to a RECESSION of the con-
tract II Texas, $50; 90 Texas, Az. Re-
yersed and remanded. Stayton, j.
7. Il. p railroad VS.. Mary A. Durrett;
appeal from Dallas county. A husband
cannot convey alone to railroad com
pany the righl-ot-way over land, which is
the separate estate of the wife, the latter's
objections being Impressed and known to
the officers OF the company, and with the
right of the company to use the wood, tim
Der and water, such privileges as an inter
est in land operate as perpetual easement
and can only be created by deed or grant,
and when valid, are not revocable. There
fore, a conveyance, as the above must be,
as required by statute, the wife joining,
$50 Il. S.. I Ohio |. The proposed to be con-
yeyed is something more than legal
easement, and assimilates the term known
as propita prendie. The railroad is liable
for the Inconvenience of crossing its track
irnp NJ al n pf intH N tI,,r
and the damages can be given in under the
general allegation without q special plea.
Affirmed. Stayton, j.
Nancy Carter VS.. Il. Wheeler ct al; APP
peal from Denton county. Where an in
tention. coupled with Il removal is clearly
evidenced, an abandonment of the
homestead by the wife though
no other homestead is acquired.
is sufficiently established. The property
sued for was the. homestead of appellant
and her husband in 1859; and shortly after
removal, i'll 1863, The latter sold the same
without his wife joining in and the pur-
chaser was particularly informed by the
wife that she did not claim it as her home
stead. They lived near the property
twenty-five years, and appellant failed, on
long delayed, and did not state the exist
ence OF Il continuing intention to return to
it us her homestead. Held: Voluntary
abandonment. Affirmed. Stavton, j.
\. Duess VS.. WenZel Fuedrck; appeal
from Bexar county. The stenographer S
report gave in full every question and an
swer, and even couusel's remarks, COM
prising 10 pages, when the simple facts
could have been stated in one.tenth of the
space. The rule, from early decisions
down, only requires the testimony of wit
neSses when there is a reasonable doubt of
the suificency of the evidence to establish
a TACT. The statute regarding the employ.
ment OF stenographer does not authorize
tue Incorporation of testimony so taken
down into the statement of facts, the dis
trlct court should not allow the adoption OF
the statement of stenographer's report into
the statemento Of facts; and this court will
discourage the course by the use of proper
means. When the question IS one of actual
damages, irrelevant testimony, calculated
TO excite the sympathy of the Jury, should
be carefully excluded. Reversed and re.
manded. Gould, c. j.
), A. Cook vs.. j. NJ. Lindsey ct al An
instrument called power of attorney, but it
lact showing contract by colonist il
1850, to sell the land to be granted to hin
as acolonist, before the issuance of title, i!
IN violation of the law then in force. anC
thereby Invalid; and the court was correc
IN excluding deed supported by
such power of attorney. The recorC
does not show any evdenc,
raising any question of acquiescence or rati
ncation, or OF presumption of valid
power OF attorney. e Porter, NO., AS
Holmes vs.. Johns, Tyler term, ISL Al
hrmed. Gould, c. i.
,,Jnan Villa VS.. Julian Herrea; appeal from
wilson county. When the land can b,
identified by the plat and defect
I'VE description together, it is SUI
nclent, and the authorities require the
contract to be substantially set forth ant
proven, az Tex, 6S7.) That the discre
pahcy is only in the amount Of considera
tion, is not sufficient to set aside the judg
mnent, CAS- Tex, POI: Al Tex, 2S3.) Affirmed
Gould. c. j.
J, +. Jones ct al. VS.. 0ctavia Pyron ct al.
appeal from Collin county. An equtabl,
es'oppel is not raised, where the schedule
OF an ancestor in bankruptcy proceeding
toegun in 1868, and the discharge secured Ii
ioo5, exhibited an absence of the land sueC
ior, though the schedule wa
supported by the statutory affidavit, ant
When there is no proof that the defendant
or their legal representatives were misle,
70 Their injury by such omission. Nor, il
Sucl case, is there an estoppel by record o
qeed. The appellees, widow and heirs o
iyron seek To recover 73S acres of land
showing title in said Pyron, through dee,
uated IN 1874. Affirmed. Could c. ].
IT.