The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-07
COURT OF APPEALS.
e. opinions of the Court of Ap
as. TYLER Term. 1882.

"a nrther describe the property Sc
-. .s than nine bales OF cotton raised
~. mace in Bell county was properly
There was some proof to show
y,sslv agreed to give half Of the cot
.,ntroyersy to Reed and the other
80 another party. ION the other hand
s.s proof showing change of the
o, in what way is not shown. Part
s' alton has been ginned and the GIN
,iae5 that Mosely had directed that
I, ,iysn to plaintiff. Mosely afterwards
y Held, the evidence is sufficient to
- the verdict and Judgment. The
tN%i; NH and is the law of the case as
sl1s's no in 90 Texas, 2C4. Affirmed.
~ I,, ! We Beauchamp ct al; from Dali
Se ,nntv Suit was brought September
% T, in the district court on n
jna January LIST. 1915. Judg-
bv 6elault was taken against
sNi ~ December -, 1876 No fur
le elton was taken in the case I'M
t'"s OH. 1850, when, upon motion of
-.Iant, the cause was reinstatcd and
Earned TO the county court. No notice
siyen appellee, either of the motion or
pis.ton Of the court thereon. Held, the
e ,s,s If limitation barred the action of
e..T,rt nlaintifI below. .. The original
tbmnsbt by plaintiff is held to be abau-
Jsn3 discontinued by laches, and the
INC Of the statute Of limitation is not
-IIiled Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Godleton ct al. vs. Moore; from Bell
wv Nv 1ppellee had an execution against
ysr:, he had it levied upon the millet hay
'sseston, valued at 500. This implies
rial Of the right of property. One
SGse held the legal title to the hay, but
1~rs owned certain interest therein.
sc,e loaned Moore $500, taking n bill OF
I'm the millet planted and a mortgage
sbpr property besides. Appellants were
.-T,y upon Moore's note. The evidence
~1iJ TO show that tho bill of sale, al
s~,h apparently absolute upon its face,
nh tact mortgage, and by their verdict
mi the hay subject to the execution.
m the charge OF the court is correct, the
lsnce supports the verdict, the plea to
Y rrj.diction because the hay was worth
~ than 500 came too late, it should
+ Nj been made in the Justice court, and
hdement is affirmed. Wilson, l.
Iebys. Half, Wics II Co.; from Lime
egeOunty. l.. Loeb being indebted TOD.
l0eb in the sum OF 81 coo or $500, as
ma to him his entire stock valued at be-
{ "A, Si2 coo and $4,000 Half, Weis &
{ d Bal an execution against J.. Loeb,
raupon n part Of the goods and sold
Y RiUVrth. They attack the assignment as
n s,iuIent and hold the goods liable to
n saxeCution. The judge tried the cause
rAolt an intervention OF a jury and found
I ppeees, 0idudging the assignment
s.iuent and giving judgment for full
aunt OF the execution. Held, the eyi.
lie amply supports the judgment and
smOr isapparent of record; the Judgment
ilAtmed. Wilson, ].
HoustOn & Texas Central railway VS..
Anidt; from Robertson county. Some
BALES Of cotton shipped by appellee we're
ilyed some unnecessary time by which
Eialee was damaged. Appellant plead
q proved by competent evidence that
Lac TaS great increase III freight at the
asInd that although it had been con-
.ssu ior, suii,ciVilI Iollli'g ,storN Gould
\ N oos,' l,i w. 'r"lspoi' W. Ieiu, ap
s,Ans a'e uelu W ioLWeru promptly lhe
NV y! Uthe' HvlSilt IN INC oTuer re-
NV S .,, A." ;u"So''no.e 'il'le: l'eaS-
wv WI S nit ues ; " iI I'm "salhss appel
iv A. .nd 're ot,o 'iie otii ~ luulus was
Ss. ,, Ga" aS'e, nuu, o, 0uCa excuses u
IVY p'va"eu pio'eti -, nv suiiiGlellI Iega
u'.. 49,, y, ~ 49,, "a . t',, ileI' nurt
, ,," ca, ~ ,,' w. a a'iT' ~ a., ron Llllle
NS,s IanI h,, sn Tn",ir was ou'i! upoll
~, So ta'iI Ny f SuosCIiP Ii conultioneo
MI, " "sorno w nv W. uil ueho.iiilla,,ohs
Nh ', sb %tot ""'as oJ'ii'Neys IL W 'he Meth
sr ,aSI ~ tn appp, Puileu Gown aho
,6sss r ."V u .ho away, cunning ~ Dl
y-rob, h i,Vu' WY p,o''iuuisS cn'lrGh' oui
$50 y! HPpei'eIs iuf themselves Gh'
I'M T. o WV, = JudgihSill lor appellee'
4 Sr 10 lan " u.s., e'J, Llelu, II was Rot
NM, '" "mI' 9uV tue conversion OF tn'
Am " SS MY rho V o,;yN uourt nau JuI,s
rlct hein,, ~ amV vn;ueiIoo supports th'
Gs rbnro,n, t ~ as W ueM,catlol
,,n,o ,"jv" L w. Wy puolsV, gu. me SUI
,.sr, al or o'oVt ni lor aPPGiiees ana hu
Siins' -, y. T. a., an l'leu; II 1IFt' j.
!, naco y, v %,, Vs. o'ss rom i Ice county
ma is ,ho 1 ,.,,i cohlIacV Is 10 oe per
cn,r, 'ne pioper pace 70 prlhE SUIT l
INN ,nJ o., :, w. uG coihlnehceI IN ONT
M ro ST vV ~ p'eteu ~ alioIner, Tue istte
sl !, broG u, P,ore n up,;ulGe'om, W nei
sorni,, u ootaileu ana on appeal t.
aisei is }oS So ,n t ,I JuuEmeht Iherell
O,,, . o IVS ~ ''". the one appealeu from
a sj,cj W. ora tre county court should d
a y q rsCo "a",''SV VIZ uppeiiee' Reversed
a Sf raj C0io ,net, W ulSoh, Il ,-
N. FROM ov,O' Soi, " oahIa ne railway VS.
N a,oi v nt,l county ms snlt wa
4 M, i G,,e Nplelahls december ~, 1851
s,5r any,, G fnS .n When they were served
N" a 'u "osvhl witness issued Mare
Man, S" u, returned on the DAY OF "a
An Il INN mn. - 80 neiu' as 10 due dll
\ pNon Va" a,'. utpelu upon tue Time oil SCI
enn v% ~ appgllan.si that not appGarin
son How ~ vo, pS,. the suihGiency OF the a
Milan, w. III SSiHntlhuahGe. inc court hold
AMI o, ,'"3'e upon inns state OF case, Al
N IN tbo "ou ,Iishl-Soi,'oWay over appellee
,arr.. ''o cN'chl Oh lVu leet IN width. In