The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-20
TIE APPELLATE COURTS.
Oommi.ss.n of Appeals. Tyler Term. 1882.


owned two acres of ground, upon which'hi
dwelling and outhouses were situated. Ii,
also owned fourteen acres in the corporal,
limits OF the town. He further owned OF
the pubic square, unconnectcd with hi
dwelling lots, a dry goods store, which wa
rented. Next was his drug store, where h,
Carried on his business, and adjoining wa,
Warehouse, between his drug store and
which there interviewed another house. The
warehouse was used lestimately az ware.
mouse Tor his drug store. The question
does this constitute the house in contro-
versy a part of the homestead. Held, the
iacts do not establish that the house and
i0t ~ controversy were in the sense and
Spit,t OF the constitution used by the de-
fcndant as his place of business A
storc-house. though in connection with his
store, is used in the carrying on OF his bust
ness, does not constitute the elements OF
his place ofbusiness,' as required by law.
Reversed and remanded. Walker, p. c,
NIX Story ct al, VS.. Duke ct AL; from
Caldwell county, During the pendency OF
tho suit between the original parties to the
suit, they compromised and settled it, and
dcicndant paid in full the amount of com.
promise. After the suit had been settled
and paid of, but before il was dismissed,
thiru parties interviewed AMI the court,
without any knowledge of the COMPROMISE
and settlement, granted the intervention.
When II came to the knowledge of the
court that the suit had been compromised
and aettled, after having granted the inter.
vention, the court set its order aside, and
refusing the Intervention, dismissed the
cause. Held, the order and Judgment
granting the Intervention was merely inter.
iooutory, and during the tendency of the
suit, u the court finds IL erred in so admit
tihe an intervention it has the right and
should setit aside. The cause having been
compromised and settled although of record
not dismissed was beyond the power of the
court and was dismissed aS TO its control
when the agreement TO dismiss was made.
The suit being dismissed the court did not
err M setting aside the Intervention aud dis.
masing the suit. Affirmed. Watts, c.
Barnard vs.. TGrleton ct al from -
county. Upon the trial below recovery
was had for the principal and interest on
Tue note sued on, but the property seques-
tratcd was discovered 10 belong TO other
parties, IN whose favor judgment was rem
dered When the citation in error was
made. aid 1t cited only those against whom
judgment had not been rendered and left ont
tue one against whom recovery had been
hah, the writ Of error bond was likewise
defective, Held, the citation being defect.
i've IN that it.cited but a part of the defend
ants, and the bond being equally defective,
having been given in favor of but a part
me writ OF error cannot but be dismissed
Writ Of error.
Wright vs.. Cook ct al; from Lamar
county. The question presented is. which
oitwo surveys does certain tract of land
De'ong. He'd, experience has proven that
as general rule calls for adjolning suryevs
are more desirable and reliable than those
oil distances. Where the surrounding cir.
cumstances show that Il cal for distance il
more reliable than that for adjoining sur.
nvcys Then the latter yields to the former.
Ihe calls for distance and quantity, in his
oasc Delhg paramount to that Of adjoining |
surveys, the Judgment is affirmed. Watts, e. |
;, Munzlenberger et al, VS.. .Bochm. from |
uolnd county. The question ia, il the
mother OF her deceased son such a con. |
stlsuent element of the family as would en-. |
t,ttc her to the exempted property under
the statute, though in his lifetime he sun. |
ported and maintained her. THE Judge in |
ms learned and thorough analysis reviews
al the authorities, but the reporter only
gives his deductions and conclusions for
want OF space to 50 spare The policy of
All FORMER probate laws was TO coniine the
Cenenciatiee OF insolvent estates to the
prejudice Of creditors, to be the surviving
widow and children only, and all our lawss
since adopted seem to follow in that wake
and confne the constituent members tn be
that also OF the surviving widow and minor
children, and therefore the mother though
supported by her son during liz
lite cannot hold the exempted properly
under the statute rs against conditions of |
an insolyent estate. Reversed and re- |
manded, Watt, c.
Slavin w, Wheeler ct al; from Grayson
county. When the case was called in the |
court Delov plaintiff objected to the case !
Dsing tried by the then presiding Judge, |
alleging that some ten years previous. he, |
the juugc, had given plaintiff advice IN re. |
gard TO the case, and was therefore of coun- |
sci. The proof showed that some ten years |
previous the plaintiff had sought and re- !
ceived advice in the case of the iuduc. |
though he firmly denied such. Held, |
although the attorney may not even
prepare papers or enter into the details of n |
case, yet no gives advice therein, though
he may not receive lee therefor, yet he is |
OF counsel in the meaning of the constitu
ton and il disqualified; the disqualiGca.
ton OF the judge going to the foundation of
siaered, Reversed and remanded,
Bender VS., Herbert, Banks Il Co. from,
Comal county. No further evidence In sun.
port Ola material allegation when admit. |
ted IN pleading is necessary, nor is il nee. |
cssary for the plainti.rtO read TO ,he iurv
an admission of the defendant in |
order TO avail himself of il. |
A third party may be brought into the suit
by the defendant and the rightSroi all he
detcrmined, but a defendant cannot nut
the case OH from term to term unless The
rights OF the third party would be irrcpnr
ably injured by his uonappcarance in the
case. Affirmed Watts, G,
Hurlock vs.. Mclan; from Navarro
county Suit brought to resclnd n contract
and for damages. The contract WAS DOR the
safe OF land, which Il was claimed defend.
ants had represented MS being their
property, when, in fact, the title was in
other hands. Held, where assignments of
error refer tho court TO the lower
coutts entire charge without naming
inc part wherein the error
DIES, they are In general to BE- considered,
whetligr n sufficient basis is laid for tho
admission OF a'copy OF u law instrument or
not, tBa question addressed 10 the discre.
ion OF tho court which the supreme court
pill not reverse, unless It is msnilestlv in
error 10, Texas 10, Affirmed, Walker, p. G.
T.crney VS.. Frazier, ct, al, from Cald..
Wen county, The evidence shows appel
innt having been indebted TO LeGievse &Co,
ihey SUED out an execution, but before its
levy appellant settled in full for his indebt.
meas, when about to make the levy. ,he
ucPvty sheriff was shown the receipt in