The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-08
COURT DECISIONS.
....osIs of Opinions OF the Commission Of
Appeals.

..,al warranty OF title, and without an ex
-. reservation of vendors lien, the con.
20, Of sale of land is an executed contract
r;,hilities OF the vendee differ in executory
"a executed contracts, thus: in the former
| rond be relieved by showing defect OF
.,s unless proved by vendor that such
wv" s rnown at the sale and such title taken
he had. In the latter, the vendee
S,nld show that the title failed in whole
in part; that there was dan.
" al eviction, and such circum-
lance as would prima facie repel presump.
,s~n that he knew and took risk of the de-
~ Defense then, of invalid title, should
~ ~ nm Ignorance thereof at the time of pur-
Ssss by way of answer. This was not
I,ns nor by amendment when exceptions
u wsrs sustained. That defendant fears 'B''
,onnot respond in damages on warranty is
"nt a sufficient ayerment of insolvency
ll,sgations of fraud emitting to charge
,Sst The representations were fraudulently
msde with intent to deceive, and that they
we're relied upon, ETC., IS insufficient. AT
srmed Walker, y. ].
Williams vs. Mayfield; from McLennan
county. In contest over the true loca
,ons of the lines of two different
n niece of patented lands, 1t be-
somes the duty of the court
70 charge the jury as the principles of law
which should govern in the application Of
the various calls in the patents to the
rround. The latter part of the second par.
svraph of the charge asked and refused Is
III YOU believe from the evidence that the
ID survey was in fact remade, and follow
inc the actual survey as it was made, you
Spd the land sued for included in said sur.
vey, YOU will find for the defendant"
While such charge might be correct in some
instances it is not under the facts in this
esse, The court erred in not charging the
iury, the rules which should govern in de-
iermining the true location of the land
Reversed and remanded. Watts,j
Peasants VS.. Field; from karmes county
The suit was against G. and husband fol
purchase money for property sold, and
seainst Peasants as vendee under execu
ton sale of G. and husband, and the other
defendants to foreclose vendors lien. Judg'
ment by default against the C.'s, and
Peasants appeals setting up that no ven
doris lien had ever existed, but the pur.
chase was satisfied when sale was made to
The C.'s by NJ. (plaintitf and appellee)
The error assigned is that the court exclud
ed the evidence OF P. to the effect that G.,
after the purchase from NJ, and while in
possession, offered to sell HIM (P. the prop
erty, and that G. told him that he paid M
$1,000 for the same, in debt due him from
NJ Held, that the court did not err in ex
Guiding such evidence. Affirmed. Wal
ker, p.j.
Butler VS.. Pierce ct al; from Live oal
county. Suit by b. VS.. s. p. and j. p. to
oh oh in lot p
court withallegation that the acCount$72.S 80
and material was done and furnished in aiC
described The work was chiefly OF
repairs of household furniture, mechanics
tools, etc. Petition averred that ]. Z
owned the lots, and that description of tn,
ground and buildings was flied for record
Mrs. 7. excepted, and the others demurre(
10 the petition. Another answer, without
date sets up a plea to the jurisdiction be
cause the amount is less than 500. Amend
ed petition sets up that Mrs. 2. was having
astone building erected on the lots; tina
she was managing and experimenting tn
work separate from her husband that tn
demand was against that building; tina
she promised to pay the same
and that copy of account, etc
was filed and recorded and served o.
her, defendants excepted because tn
amendment sets up contract by Marie
woman without her husbands consent
which was sustained. Held, not error, bt
cause such suit could not be sustaine
against Mrs. F., and when she passed on
there was no Jurisdiction. Affirmed. De
laney, j..
H. & L. G. railroad company VS.. Burke
from Washington county. In charging o
themeasure ofdamagesthec court instructed
you may ascertain the value ofplaintitf
services to himself before the il
jury and their value since, an
ascertain the difference, and the
the jury would be authorized to give sue
sum as would at legal rate of interest pre-
duce sum equal per .annum to that diflel
ence, and not a greater sum on this item.
Held, error. The least Objectionable rul
on such measure of damages would be ths
rom the facts and circumstances Of eac
particular case, the Jury should award
the party injured such sum as in the
Judgment would compensate him for th
injuries received. Reversed and remand
ed. Watts, j.
Lane ct. al. VS.. Culver ct. AL; frol
Travis county. A charge of the court
the jury which instructs that a
extension of time does M
necessarily release a surety, but that
would release him if he was injured by I'll
extension, since 1t applied to the facts
THIS case, was not error. See IL Texas, 60
The only question in this case was wheth,
Tue postponement of the delivery Of pal
OF the cattle from tho LIST and 10Th of Jul
70 the 18th of July was such n change
the contract as 10 discharge the suret!
and 1t is held not to have been. Affirmed
Delaney, j.
La Rue VS.. Bower; from Grayson count,
The submission of special issues to the jur
by this court without request from eithe
party lies within tho discretion of tn
court, and is not error, if given in clear III
proper form on the issues raised by Il
pleading. Where jury has intervene
and all the issues been submitted to the
decision, their verdict must constitute Il
basis OF judgment, and the court cann
look to the evidence on which the verdi
was founded to determine what judgmel
70 render, but alone to the verdict. This
The applied rule, but 1t does not follow tn
the special pleading would not suppo
judgment rendered thereon by Il
court. As to whether the due bill
This case was given in settlement
me account or TO enable the plant
70 raise money was presented by the cou
70 the jury and by them answered In tn,
verdict. Affirmed, Watts ].
Texas & Pacific railway company '
Fort; from Dallas county. The court
thls case holds that when several carrie
unite to complete line Of transportati
aud receive baggage for one freight a
s .nroag q 9i o. d aSSsng each carr
the carriava and deliverv of tho vooda N