The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-22
COURT DECISIONS.


higgins & Anderson VS.. H. G. Ford; APP
peal from Hill county. F. sued r. 4 A.
for $500 for rent of store-house, only
portion of which was due when distress
was sued out because X. u. A. were about
TO remove their property from the rented
premises. f recovered Judgment and a,fore,,
closure of the lien was awarded. The pono
to obtain the distress warrant omitted tne
words land unjustly," whereas the statute
expressly contained them, question us 10
the sufiiciency Of the bond TO secure tne
distress warrant and arethe terms illegally
and uniustly synonymous and convertible
terms. Under our statute when an amount
is due for rent, the creditor has the legal
right to sue out a distress warrant. but In
case the creditor should resort to the rem
edy by distress for the purpose OF harrass-
ing his debtor, sues out and writ issues
"uniustly," the legislature is not pre-
sumed to use surplus words meaning the
same thing II different meaning can be
assigned to the words of an enactment. he
yersed and remanded. Watts,j.
Trial and wife VS.. Lepori; IRON wilson
county. The appeal bond when approved
and filed by Justice Is an original paper
and must bo transmitted to the county
court The variance between the name
"Lapori' used in the bond. and 'Lepori'
are idem sonans, and are sufficient. One ct.
App. 53l; 2 CT. App. $40. The principal
is not required to sign the appeal bond. he
is eifectually bound by the Judgment with
out so doing 4 Tex, $50, The fact that
his name when signed to the bond was
-'Lepori Lerefin" instead of "Lerefin
Lepori,n would not invalidate it. The legal
effect of the bond given was the same
as if the language OF the statute had
been used. Lee ct al. VS.. Stone, supra.
Where the amended petition purports to be
filed by, permission Of the court two months ms
before the trial, the appellees should BIO
considered as having notice Of the same.
% Texas IS; ibid, %. Reversed and re-
manded. Watts, l.
Brown VS.. Him; from Dallas county.
The proposition that as q bond had con-
yeyed the land before the purchase money
note had been sued on by Burford, there
was nothing to pass by sheriff's sale under
foreclosure Judgment, therefore the appel
lee failed to show such title as would sus-
tain the plea of three years Limitation,
is not sound 20 Texas 100; q Texas
2i9; do not sustain the proposition.
Where one whose land has been sold by
Judgment against him, and he remains
upon the land three years after the sale he
has no title upon which to file claim.
regular deed for more than three years, he
traces his title thereftom, step by step, and
regularly connects himself with the ad-
mitted common source who 1t Is agreed
held under regular change Of transfer
from the sovereignty Of the soil. We are OF
opinion that the term title as used in the
section (of three years limitation) means
such regular change of transfers from the
sovereignty Of the soil.as when tested with
out respect to other titles, is regular, and
as between the various links, they are
valid. Affirmed. Watts, j.
Ewing vs. Baldridge; from Washington
county. 1t is not every defect Of pleading
which may be fatal on demurrer, that can
be reached in motion in arrest of judg.
ment II the issue joined be such as neces-
sarily required, on the trial, proof of the
facts so imperfectly or effectively stated,
such defect, imperfection q omission is
cured by the verdict. But If the petition
state defective title Or totally omit to
state any title or cause Of action whatever,
o verdict will not cause the defect. Where
there Is no statement Of fact in the record,
nothing can be assigned as error Of law
which could have been cured by evidence
legally given at the trial. Until the con-
trary be shown, the appellate court is
bound to presume that the evidence
is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
Every legal intendment is in favor Of tho
Judgment, and everything will be presumed
to have been proved which could have
'''''r legally proved under the issue.
% the petition sets out the facts which
uted the alleged fraud, and charac-
them as being intended by the de-
3 to cheat, wrong and defraud the
'ier, IT is sufficient to allege fraud.
50" w injunction in proper cases, il
I to protect the security of the mort
where adequate protection cannot
'ed at law, and where he would be
dequate remedy. The court did
mot cal IN overruling defendants demurrer.
Affirmed, with s per cent damages for de.
lay, Walker, p. J.
Eyerhart ct. oil. VS.. 0'Bannon OF. al; from
Grayson county. Plaintiffs claim that the
sheriff has failed to do his duty whereby
they have been damaged. Although this
J. sgative allegation they should have
ui ID proof TO sustain il. Green Ev., sec.
u.s. The proof offered showed that thoy
placed in the sheriirs hands writ which
directed him to attach goods enough to
make over 800; that the goods attaced when
sold some months after brought only 500.
Held, IL does not necessarily follow that the
sheriff failed in his duty. The return
shows that he levied on goods valued ut
500. This Is at least prima facie evidence
for him. The return was sufficient until
controverted. The fact that the goods sold
for less than the sherifls estimate il not
sufficient The question properly is; Did
the sheriff exercise caution aud reasonable
discretion, such as should influence the con.
duct OF prudent and discreet men, In the
management Of their own affiirsp 81 Tex,
lO3. The judgment is not sustained by the
evidence. Reversed and remanded. De.
laney, ]. u
Morris ct. al. VS.. Meek Of. al; from Hood
county. The decd to Meek bears date No.
vember, Ia, 1870. His possession prior to
that time must DO considered the posses.
sion Of Mrs. r. The suit was filed October
Is, 1873. Three years had not elapsed be-.
tween the date Of tho deed and tho com.
mencement Of the suit. 1t was therefore,
error In tho court to give In its charge the
statute OF three years Limitation. "a Tex,
2is; 20 Tex, 730, 1.-THE title Of defendants
IN error rested ON this plea, reversal of the
Judgment would result, but the plea Is NOT
considered material.
Seventeen years after purchase without
giving any notice Of claim. they institute
this suit. The doctrine expressed In 81
Tex, al, has since been overruled (l7
Tex, ~. The fact that small amount OF
the purchase money remained unpaid does
not alter tho case. Affirmed Delaney, 4.
Synopsis Of tho Decisions Of the Court Of
Appeals.
Hodges va Slate. from Lamar rountv