The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-05-11
eon,r rfoisfOss
syn opls ~ necisioh ~ snpf'"' ''''
Adatin Term 1888

0favspn county. Where, uhh"r "ot ""t
go, en tsia ,nryeyor sub.diyldcd the mi
yers,,v le,gne into 100 acre tracts, In con-
urovcrsv about previously agreed lint'
,,o corr.s will not assist unless agree
ment express and the surveyor had anlhol-
ity 10 make such an agreement. i. d. 3o'''
Wl,en old line surveyed for purpose OF re-
m,rlinp full ratification and long acques-
onoo copld only bind owner. (Loye vs.
p.ger. IT Texas, 3l0.) The state care
IA only estopped when the act is done
in her sovereign capacity through the legIs-
ture. and she cannot part with her tue To-
land except by grant or other record evid-
once. (5G Georgia, 1861 The surveyor how
ever. is trustee or the people, and thelatter
can always have the truth shown re-
carding any statement OF iac's
nv their agents. "A n. C. 1927 The
state holds university lands in trust ana
legal title remains until sale, and iuli com
pliance with the terms thereon. u. -.
1851 Affirmed. Bonner, ].
III, NJ. Schuster VS.. J. b. La Lande; regis
tration of title bond to convey previously
certain premises 10 another, oy defendant
in execution constructive notice 10 plu-
chase at execution sale of said bond to the
effect that if the third party had pald me
consideration he was the real owner OF su, n
premises, and the validity Of the TUE DOhu
was not destroyed by the fact chat the true
consideration was much less, or ehllreiE
different from that reclted, The aforesaid
purchaser was bound to inquire whether
ihe third party bad complied with his con-
tract The objection to verdlct that
Juror was not free-holder came too late.
Affirmed. Gould, C. j.
Juhn II Price VS. J. NJ. Slayton to en-
Join road-overseer from opening certain
public road by order Oh GYM I'm
missioners court. Plaintiff must prove that
The road was on his land, and the
court below did not err in holding that he
failed to establish his boundary, when the
evidence showed that the description rem
0ered certain lines hopelessly obscure. Inc
court reviews at length testimony as 10 Ger
tain identificationS OF the tract III question:
When snit is brought in individual ca
pacty on the ground that the road WAS be,
ing opened on plaintiffs land, having sold
the same as executor, any right Wnlcn IN
testate's heirs or plalutil may nave hau, ny
that sale has been divested. Athrhied'
Gould, C. j. n o,.,
Travis Henderson ct al. vs. X. D. Onerly
ct al: suit of trespass to try title. Deiend-
ami repevied sequestered premises, ana a
third psrty rented part OF a lot to erect "a
movable building on from the latter; prlvl-
lege being given said party OF removing the
same at pleasure. Judgment rendered
against defendant, and injunction against
third party dissolved, and damages awarded
him on cross bill for conversion OF house.
Held, that defendant as above,
making Improvements pending suit,
does so at his peril, no matter
what may have been his intention III regard
to their removal. By repleyying he Is SIM
ply able to retain possession, notwlthstah1-
ing the sequestratlon, ana ms rlshG 10 holu,
and improve are no greater than they were
before seuuestration, but after suit Hence,
having himself no right to remove fixtures,
Nropgfully annexed by him to the lana,
and thereafter suit brought, he could not,
by contract, give such right 20 thlru
party, having notice OF pending SUIT
Jewell on fixtures, p. Al; Henbschmann VS.
McHerry. 20 Wis, 655) Judgment dissolv-
ing Injunction, and in favor of third party,
reversed, and judgment rendered torappel'
liant perpretrating injunction ana Tor COST
Gould, G.
The following decisions of the commits
sioners of appeals adopted by the supreme
court:
John H. Belcher VS.. Marshall & Sealing;
appeal from Cook county. Court below
ruled correctly in refusing TO admit con-
temporaneous parole agreement to contra
dict or vary written contract. Surrounding
circumstances may be given to assist IN M
tnFDrefatlOn, OF WOTuS Ctlt NC lliui''N'i
hut the old established principle founded
~, Jason must not b. disturbed, Us Texas
552: Bshd Cutes 50; IL Wind, 513.) AS :,
ain,i.s OF where matters collateral anu con
sistent with. yet distinct from, the contract,
eau DC introduced as evidence, vide " Ie&as,
81. There was error in bearing oral desti-
mony as to u claim for damages on sepu-
rate verbal agreement not embodied IN the
instrument itself. lera Ell H'N '.'....
Stayton, J.
nH.l COUNTY IN au.eu, ui ls1so-
ment Nsac The -gs.gi sa Only
searched for erfs, - ' 'Hlu1l.o- % u.
plaintiffs action 81 '.- s'.' Pr.
probate law OF iri . t' .'...
of the district co Ht4 H. utli'. o.. "'r'
the permanent ". W ''
of contest, and attempted appointment by
him void. When She temporary admini,tr--
tor virtually abandoned the estate, outsiI'
interference permissible lhuush ordinarily
the formers court was liable au1 the dis
trict court slouil have pIots coed the estate
until a permanent administrator was alp
pointed. Affirmed. Watts, C (Not to Dc
reported. c,,. -. e..
Mcclellan county. The EXCEPTIONS
that executors, administrators ana guard
ians cannot testify where Judgment may
he render ID against them, uncss called by
the court or opposite party, and OF husband
and wife not being allowed as witnesses in
their own behalf; 10 competency OIL W.T.
nesses in civil actions npt extended by pup
lie policy to q partner speaking as 10 ms IN
terest, or that Of any other member ia me
partnership. Parties desiring TO nave the
action of the court below reviewed in admit
ting or rejecting evidence, must send mp
the proper statement of facts showing re-
leyancy and importance of errors COM
plained Of (23 Texas, "a Affirmed. Watts,
g. mot 10 be published)
W. A. Ryan VS.. Missouri, Kansas Texas
railway company; appeal from Grayson
county. Common carriers Of goods in this
state cannot limit their liability IS at com.
mon law by special agreement in hill OF
lading. or in any way Whatever. (R ;.
27s5 Such statutory Limitation applica-
b.s only TO those which coniine their opera
lions entirely within the STATE % WHIT, l06;
Is How 42l).
Contracts generally about personality 10
he determined A. 10 the validity by the law
~ the place where made; the modes OF I
action being governed by the law Of the
place where the suit il brought. tochouler
on Bailments, including contracts y. 0i9J I
m ner1nissisle in the state where tOue, the /
iiability Is restricted as ~ fire, the burden /
Il on the plaintiff 10 show neg iFeuce by the 1
r.iiwav o,npauy. % Texss, 49, c1mm0n /
[.rrier carr y BE- relieved from tell meas
ure OF responsibility attending his occups- !.
ton without bls Employers eApiicit 1
siipolafion: and ten, even the cgur mnst l
nave such stisuiafbn reasonable. l2l Val, /
2S-7.) Any desine on the part 81
carrer 10 deceive -he customer 10
d. Iafter's dis1dTsntaef. such AZ prtilt-
f,g tue usual stipulation. Ia large /
Al de esecial resfricions IN small
ietie-s. should be discyuutenancsd l9s
Nrss., 2sgJ The consignee being prcsump- 4
tIve 0ul e. Of goods, the shipping agent, 10 1
ABB 1ce 81 express authority ~ ussgs. can 1
c,i~ r,rtr.ef rrith reference 70 freight. etc.
u.,i7 h.sis Of com non law liability Of thr /
,.srrie-- and ire acceptance Of bill q lEding /
- IL . ,-,.~.r l. r,rf eufI rirrs 10 limit