The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-10
COURT DECISIONS.
Opinions of tho Supreme Court-Austin
Term, 1882.

Term, 1882.
Sam G. Bennett ct al VS.. San Antonio X.
j. and l.. Association appeal from Bexar
county. The authorities are conclusive
that gross negligence in the officers of the
corporation, in falling to examine the books
and detect frauds committed by an official,
will not discharge on that officials bond
given thereafter if such frauds were un-
known to and unsupported by the officers,
116 Mass, 275; 80 Pa ST., 3i3. the case of
Graves VS.. Lebanon Nat, Bank, Sup CT. of
Ky, 40 Rush. cited by the appellant, not
in point. For here there is no evidence that
the approval of the said. others account
was an act intended for the information of
the public, or that there was any pubica-
ton thereof. Had there been fraudulent
representation or fraudulent concealment
on the part of the directors, the sureties
would have been discharged because Of
fraud. The court regrets that the above
question alone requires discussion at pres
ent, Affirmed. Gould. c.
Andrea Louisa Freteliere VS.. George II.
Kinds ct al. appeal from Bexar county.
That parol evidence is admissible to prove
that deed, absolute upon its face, was
executed upon trusts not reduced to
writing and to prove II resulting trust, is
23l. The general rule, that title subse.
quently acquired by n vendor, who has con
veyed by deed with general warranty,
inures to the benefit of his vendee, is not
applicable to tins case. ", holding II
naked legal title in trust for b., until the
latter made the deed to him, made full sat
isfaction to T. the independent executor of
the will of NJ. for breach of warranty of
his deed to Nj. If f., also the testamentary
guardian of appellant, had not paid to her
the money from ", in settlement of his
broken warranty. she has her remedy
against him. Affirmed. Stayton, /.
Heirs of J. S, Browder VS.. Esther Kline
appeal from Fannin county. The court
did not err in admitting in evidence the
letters OF j. s. Browder to appellee, as
they contain explicit recognition by j. s.
u. of her right to the land, the extentt of
her interest therein, the quantity of land,
and Of his willingness to hold one-balf
thereof for her. The testimony of @. and
OF A., considered with the aforesaid letters,
liked with reasonable certainty There be-
ing no proof that J. S. b, owned any other
land in Fannin county the land to which
the letters referred, The proof that one
hall OF the purchase money was paid out
OF the funds of Mrs. X. is sufficient to sup
port the finding of the court, when il is
considered that the land was purchased in
1883, that o. had in charge the property of
Mrs: X. as her agent that the interest in
the land claimed by Mrs. X. came through
O.s agency, that B. and his agent, VINO
contested the land, as well as o., are all
dead, and that it was impracticablc to pro-
duce more direct evidence after the lapse of
so long time. The manifest Justice of the
case is SO marked that the Judgment ought
to be affirmed. Stayton ].
tNorE-The several reports of the COM
missloners, adopted at this sitting of the
supreme court, were published at the time
Of their delivery by the former; and for their
particuar2ing reference is made to the list
OF cases decided by the supreme court ut
the time of the above opinionsl