The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-12
THE APPELLATE COURTS.
synopsis of Opinions of the Commission o
Appeals, Tyler Term, 1882


Bergstrom VS.. Breckenridge, from Bexar
county. To constitute valid contract OF
surelyship there. must be an agreement to
forbear for some specified time, such for
bearaace is a sufficient consideration when
there has been an an agreement by the
creditor extending the time to the prnci-
pal. Parties can h advance fix the amount
of attorneys fees as cost for collection, ana
reasonable, can be agreed upon IN the
note and recovery therefore had. When
Judgment is had, the interest on the note
to the date OF such is computed, the
amount thereof added to the lace OF the
note and interest computed on the entire
amounts Tex, iS7), Judgment reformed,
according to remittitur filed. Watts, c.
Rogcrs ct al. VS. Dagloy; from Bosque
county. Where the land described in The
petition for trespass TO try title,is SO accu-
rately described that il can with reasonable
certainty be identified, the description is
sufficient. Where, us in this case, IL is
more specifically described as part of some
certain grant or parcel OF land, IL is beyond
question to inquire into its suiliciency.
Hero Il names calls for certain marked and
defined corners marked lines and natural
objects by which the land is segregated
and can easily be Identified. Affirmed.
Watts, c.
Watson VS.. Murphy a. Co. ct al; from
Lamar county. The assignOrs Of ncgotia-
bic paper Mt commercial law occupy the
SAME position as they do in this state and
the party may maintain suit in his own
name when the equitable title to an action
rests in him. Open accounts do not come
within the statute respecting the assign
ment ofinstruments in writing; Cl5 Texas,
20) The mere assignment OF an account
does not authorize suit in the name ofthe
assignee, One who purchases an account
may maintain an action thereon. TO create
q liability as on open instruments there
must be au express contract to that effect.
Where there Is more than one defendant.
suit can be brought IN the county wherein
either resides. Affirmed. Watts, c.
Clay Va. Heirs OF Nestor Clay; from
Washington county. Action of trespass to
Try title, brought March %, 1851 by appel
les against appellant to recover o tract of
land in Washington county. On the 10th
day of March, 1874, plaintiffs recovered
Judgment against defendant for the land in
controversy, together with the sum of $l5,-
65s, From that Judgment this appeal is
taken, 0pinion-We find, however, in the
record final Judgment in favor of the
PLANTING against defendant for the land,
rendered March >, 1871. Motion for new
trial oycrruled and notice of appeal given.
There isno mandate in the record nor any
evidence that the last named Judgment has
been in any manner vacated. In the alb
sence of any such evidence we recommend
that the Judgment be reversed and the APP
peal be dismissed, (McAlpine vs.. Burnett,
y Tex, 535; Booth VS., Sirippleman, last
Galveston term; Hutchins VS.. Lockett, last
Austin term.) W. s. Delaney, !.
Prather VS.. Love- error from McLennan
county, Where it appears of record that
there is an agreement of record, agreeing
that the case may be dismissed at the cost
Of any of the parties naming them, the
court will dismiss the same without inQuir-
inc into the merits of the case, Dismissed
NJ plaintiffs cost. Walker, p. C.