The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-01-25
COURT DECISIONS.


Lindsay VS.. JafiEy ct. al; from Cooke
c,nnty. The court trying the case without
n Jury. found from the evidence that the
heirs sold the certificate by virtue of
which the land was located, twenty
wears prior to their quit claim deeds
70 another party, conveying the land
itself There was some evidence
that the transfer of the certificate was in
writing, but it was not even necessary to Its
validity that it should have been in writing.
9S Tex. 247. The patent 10 the land issu'
ing to the original grantee, imposed out
standing title must must consist OF the
equitable title (the purchaser or holder
of the certificate in this case), and de-
PENDANT in this case not showing HIM
seli-connected with it, cannot plead 1t in
defense so Tex 52l. The court, to defeat
a recovery, will not regard possible,
though doubtful, equity. 80 Tex 5S). Plalnt-
IFS in this case bought the land from the
administrator of b., the equitable owner,
under an order of the Probate Cont, paid
for it, received deed, and the sale was con-
iirmed. In 1871 the District Court, cXer-
cising probate jurisdiction, ordered the sale
OF the same land, AS property of estate
of same b., and defendant pur-
chased, The deed to plaintiff was
not then on record But held, that the land
had passed by the first sale from the control
of ali Probate Courts, and the District Court
had no jurisdiction over it, 20 Tex, 5Ol.
laws down the rule on the subject The
heirs testified that they sold the certificate
in 1859, and objection thereto was oyerruled
on the ground that it was not in writing.
Held, error, but that without this testi-
mony there was sufficient evidence to
sustain the Judgment. Tho order
of sale described the land as
lying in y. county, but the deed to the in
testate, and all incidents of title, showed it
20 be in c. county, and identified it posi-
lively as the land in controversy. Held,
that objection Tor uncertainty Is not well
taken. Objection that the court erred in
directing the partition of the land, between
plaintiff and defendant is well taken, the
defendant showing no interest in the land.
In this respect the judgement is reformed,
otherwise affirmed Walker, c.
Pitts VS. Brazos IL Burleson Bridge Com
pany, from Brazos county. This suit was
for recovery of a ferry and ON account OF
tolls and Judgment WAS founded upon the
promise OF p. to pay the debt OF the appel
lees, growing out OF the transaction. 1t ap-
pears that the promise was made upon con-
slltatiun with attorneys, whom the deiend-
ant z. thought were his, but who IN fact
were the attorneys of the appelIees. i. re-
called his promise on asCertaning this fact.
Plaintiff, appcllees, insist that p. is estopped
denial. The debt was fee of the attorneys
in another suit. Held, that being founded
upon mistake, the principle OF estappel
does not apply. On the plea ofes;oppel, as
here in olvel, See 10 Tex. Az, p Tex. 400,
% Tex. l13 and % Tex. So. The decree was
erroneous because the injunction which was
granted was not asked or prayed for in the
petition, and because it was premature.
l,,tr IN 4 "a
franchise will only be granted when the
party seeking relief is in possession. Judg-
ment reversed and remanded Tor appellant.
Quinan,c,
l.. /. Reed VS.. NJ Reed, next friend. etc;
from Bell county. To constitute an equi-
table estoppel the act or statement must
be shown to have had direct or immedi-
ate influence upon the conduct of the party
claiming its benefits. The ques-
ton was whether any part OF a
tract OF land conveyed 10 appellant was
trust for the appellees, On this
point the evidence was conflicting. The pc
;ition alleged the conversion of the trust,
and application Of part of the funds to the
purchase of another tract, which defend.
ant subsequently sold. The court charged,
in substance, that if the jury believed that
the funds so invested, or any part Thereof,
was declared by Il. Y. Reed to be
the money of plaintiff for whom
he was investing, and did invest it, and that
it was Of the proceeds Of the original tract
conveyed then he was estopped by his
admissions from denying the trust charac-
ter of the money, and the jury should find
for plaintiff. etc. Held, that the admissions,
rs shown by the evidence and stated in the
charge, constituted no estoppel, and the
charge was upon the weight of evidence
Reversed and remanded. Watts, c.
Crane vs.. Stone; from Johnson county.
This was joint judgment against |. < Il.
commenced in the District Court in 1876,
when IL had jurisdiction of the amount
less than 5000. No service was obtained on
+. ). After the Constitution of 1876
went into effect, which deposcd the
District Court of such jurisdiction, ci.
tation for l.. s, issued ont of the
District Court, who, being not found, at
taChment issued and was levied ON H. SIS
land, The District Court did not have iu-
risjiction ut that time, and such process
was a nudity, aud no rights could be a.
iected by II. Whilst judgmen' cannot be
colIaterly impcached for want of iurisdic.
ton over the parties, where the
record rectcs or Is silent as to ser.
vice, yet where there is no
recital, or the record itself shows there was
no service, il is open to attack in any suit
IN which rights are claimed under it, This
being joint judgment, void rs TO Il. S. for
want Of Jurisdiction over her, is void also to
/. s. Void service cannot he the lounda.
ton of valid judgment. Affirmed.