The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-11-16

here was n great fhcfease In freight NJ the
inns nd that although N he'd been con
faclcd Tor, sufficient folllngstock could
moi be- 0bt lined 10 transport ~. He'd, ap
lelants are held 20 forward promptly the
cotton or other freight IN the order re-
solved within reasonable time. 2. llees-
unable time begins to run against appel
Iauts from the time the bill Of lading WAS
gwen and received. g. Such excuses rs
above pleaded present no sufficient legal
hir TO q recovery. Affirmed. Hurt, ].
Heard ct AL vs. phifer ct al. from Lime
stone county. A church was built upon
Philer's land by subscription, conditioned
that it would be free to all denominations.
Phiier afterwards conveys ~ 10 the Meth.
onist church. Appellants pulled down and
conveyed the house away, claiming II by
purchase from the Methodist church. SUIT
brought by appellees for themselves and
numerous Others. Judgment for appellecs
for $500 in trust, etc. Held, 1t was not Il
suit for land, but the conversion OF the
building, and the county court had juris-
diction. ID The evidence supports the
verdict, being conclusive as to dedication
of the church to the public. 3D.. The suit
was properly brought for appellees and nu-
merous others. Affirmed. Hurt, ].
Phillips ct al. VS.. Sass from Lee county.
The place where contract. is to be per:
formed is the proper, place to bring suit III
the contract is to be commenced in one
county and completed in another, the latter
is the county Of proper Jurisdiction. When
a suit is brought in the Justices court, and
n Judgment is obtained and on appeal to
the county court the Judgment therein
obtained is less than the one appealed from,
the costs of the county court should be
adiudged against the appellee. Reversed
and so reformed Wilson, j..
A. n, N NIVNTnN
Hake; from Bell county. This suit was
filed against appellants December 10, 1881.
1t is not known when they were served.
Subpoena for absent witness issued March
II, 1882, and returned on the day of the
trial, March %, 1sS2. Held, as to due dill
gence it must depend upon the time oil SER
vice upon appellants; that not appearing
we cannot consider the sutficiency o. the APP
plication for continuance. The court holds
appellant liable upon this state OF case, APP
peilant owned rght-oi-way over appellee
land to the extent of 100 feet in width. The
road was constructed over the right-of-way
by Hurley, contractor. Appellee's land
was damaged by wagons cutting up ana
packing the soil, rendering it uuht for cnlti.
walton. And his cotton uupicked was also
tramped down and destroyed. Judgment
or 800 against appellant. Affirmed.
Wilson, j.
Bacon VS.. lgtONu, IIOul OOllllopL4 SbuhNJ
A deposition shall be suppressed If the Of
ficer taking such fails to certify that the
answers We're sworn to and subscribed be-
fore him; (26 Texas, 6S5) The suit as
pleaded being matter arising out OF, Incl
dent TO and connected with the plant frs
cause of action, the court erred in sustain
ing exceptions to the DEFENDANTS answer.
Had the facts been proved as alleged by
him, he was entitled 10 recovery; (3f
m, Int,t11 nris a
court should have charged the jury as to
what constituted partnership property
Reversed and remanded. Wilson, j.
Beer VS.. Lindenthal; from McLennan
county. A. gives his note, payable to
bearer, endorsed by himself and B to G.;
G. endorses the note and gives it to d.; ID.
sues A., B. and G. upon the note q. makes
default; B. answers that he was only an ac-
commodation endorser and sufficient dlll-
gence was not used to notify nm OF the
failure of A. to pay besides A. was given
an extension OF time. Judgment against
A. and c. A. being insolvent, G. pays the
full amount of the debt and sues b. as an
orig nal maker; b. pleads the former suit as
res adiudicata. Held, under the above
state of facts B. cannot plead res adJudlcata,
as the suit Before was between fourth
party and all defendants, and is now only
between two of the defendants. Judgment
IOr ". IOT lull dluOuIlbi WIN l. PSA NSh'' IS
terest. Held, the Judgment is supported
by the evidence, but the judgment gave l.
per cent. interest, and it will be reformed so
as to give only per cent. interest. Re-
versed AID reformed. Wilson, ].
Reed VS.. the State; from Upshur county.
This court refused TO dismiss this appeal at
a former day of the court, but OF its own
motion now grants rehearing and dis
misses the appeal because there Is no such
an assignment oferror in the record as can
be considered by the court because the APP
pellant has failed to comply with rnle W,
recurring the assignment of errors TO be
filed at the same time that the appeal bond
is filed. Appeal dismissed. Wilson, J.;
Cleveland VS.. Duggau; from Guadalupe
county. The appellee makes his motion
to dismiss this appeal, ana upon an lnsPec'
ton of the record it appears that his
grounds are well taken, and fhe appeal
must be dismissed, because the Judgment
as described in the appeal bond is not the
Judgment appealed from as contained In
the record. The judgment appealed from
was in favor of Ben Duggan as well as
others, and the appeal bond fills to condi-
ton any payment whatever TO- SAID ben
Duggan. Appeal dismissed. Wilson, j.
White VS.. Enbace & Miller; from Bell
county. The appeal must be dismissed
upon the first two grounds assigned, viz:
The Judgment is misdescribed in the cita-
ton In error, to-wit, it is dated December /.
1881. when the judgment in the record was
rendered December 2. 1889; and also be-
cause the citation in error does not state the
date when the petition in error was filed;
Or. S l39i) Either of the above grounds
are sufficient 10 dismiss upon. Appeal dis
missed. wilson, ].