The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-11

| approximate result. Where such result is
necessary, or is legally impaired by the
| facts, the damages are general and need not
| be specially set forth in the pleading; other
wise they must. Affirmed. Walker, =. G.
| A. l.. Morris VS., l.. NJ Montgomery &
| Co.. from Washington county. Where no
other exceptions are taken To "a petition
than by general demurrer, and that ialIing
| to he presented for the courts action ~
will be deemed as having been waived,
| though the petition contains such general
averments as would he OBNOXIOUS 10 spetial
exceptions, yet they may be sufficient at
least i'm arrest of Judgment to support a
verdict aud judgment. There being no
statement of facts the presumption Is the
| evidence was sufficient to support the judg-
ment. paper copied into the record,
which is neither signed by the judge,
counsel, or the parties, cannot be
considered statement OF facts.
| Where there are no pleadings to supply
the judgment 1t will be reversed, although
there are no statement OF facts or blll OF ex-
ceptions, The general rule which pre-
scribes the mode whereby the wiie's sepa-
rate estate may be affected by contract APP
plies to contracts for improving her sepa-
rate estate, AZ well as to other contracts
contemplated bv the statute regulating
marital rights. Neither would the alleged
knowledge and acquiescence OF the wife
have the effect to bind her separate estate.
Reversed and remGndcd, Walker, p, C.
Gaines Il Hancock vs.. Levi Wolf & CO.,
from Lamar county. The province of the
sworn plea which was stricken out was to
present an issue under which the plaintiff
would be required to establish
the fact that the defendant either
made the note sued on or
authorized some other party to do so for
her TO constitute good plea, however,
for that purpose 1t, was necessary not only
that it should be sworn to, but that it
should deny that the defendant setting up
the plea executed the note. Jurisdiction of
the amount in controversy as to the Justices
court IN which this cause originated, Is as
signed as error. Express jurisdiction was
conferred ON the courts of the presiding
justices OF the peace of the counties of
Lamar and Fannin in suits where the
amount did not exceed 500, and did not
exceed 81 900, exclusive of interest, under
an act of the 18th legislature, passed May
26, 1873, p 96. Affirmed. Walker, p. C.
j. NJ. Wilson VS.. s. j. Gulbraith ct al;
from Fannin county. The attachment be-
ing levied nearly fifteen months after the
affidavit was made and the bond given,
it was not error to quaSh it.. Ifa principal
nocent third parties must suffer by the
carelessness or bad faith of the agent.
Affirmed. Delany, c.
Il. +. Green w. William Kemp ct al.
from Dallas county. 1t will hardly be de
MED that the district court has general
jurisdiction to order the petition and sale
of land. Is the sale to be then held void
because it did not take place under the
orders of the county court or because the
distric, court in ordering the sale did not
follow the rules presented by the county
COURT The failure to follow these rules
could at most only render the iudg-
mcnt erroneous. II so, it might be re-
verscd on appeal or writ OF error, hut
could not be open to collateral
attack. Although the payment did not re-
cite that the parties appeared and the
minors were represented by guardian ad
litcm, yet without the recital in the iudg-
ment it seems that it could not be thus col
laterally attacked. A deed is not void be-
cause the deputy sheriff who made the sale
inadvertently omitted the name of the
principal III signing the deed. We do not
think the sale void because not reported to
and confirmed by the court. Affirmed.
Delany, G.
w. n. Strouha, ct al. vs.. Gctzendauer &
Ferries; from Ellis county. If the parties
ltulN hEl'tN NIdl lHt conveyance VI lut
lot should extinguish the set.otT it was u
valid agreement, and the sct-oif becomes
eXtinguished and the result is the same as
if it had never existed If the set-olf was
cXtinguishcd it matters not whether il
was by sale of land or money. When A.
assigned Il note to H.. he by that act
authorized him to collect it by suit il neccs-
sary, aud whatever claim appellants had
against il, they might urge against the
claim in the hands b. Now if A. by any
arrangement with appellants either by u
payment in money or by conveyance TO the
property, d. could claim the benefit of it us
done IN his replication. II A. had conveyed
the last lot to appellants without the agree
mcnt about the offset, the effect would have
been to create debt from them to A., and
for the security of that debt A, might have
held lien on the second otconycyed. AT
ilrmed. Delany, c,