The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-01-26

The basis Of q subsequent proceeding before
another Justice, after the amount became
d o. The defendant should have been per-
mitt I'd to show that the notes sued on were
not in fact the property OF the plaintlil, but
held i'm trust by him for another, against
whom he, defendant, held three valid ludg-
ments which he pleaded in the set-oh. Inc
court erred in refusing the motion al de-
PENDANT to quash the distress warrant. he
versed and remanded. Quinan, C.
Cullers & Henry VS., Houston " IeXas
Central Railroad Company and Union
Trust Company; from Grayson county
This was suit for the recovery OF damages
for flour which had been shipped over
several lines of railroad. The issues lu-
volved presented questions Of fact, and the
Jury found, as matter of fact, that the
flour was not damaged on the railways
operated by the appellees. The man
charge, and those given on request, pre-
senting correctly the law applicable to the
case as made by the evidence, and the evl-
dence being sufficient to sustain the finding
of the jury, this court cannot interfere
Affirmed. Watts, C.
Capell VS.. Houston from Red River
county. This was trial of the right OF
property to certain goods appellant caused
10 be attached as the property of another
ADDtlltt IlluNt Nlulul w Aiic oehiN
the statute. The cause was tried before
the court and resulted in a judgment for
appellee. The issues of law present no
question for revision, and as under
former decisions of this court, the
Judgment of the court sitting as
jury, carries with it the same force
as verdict of the jury; the judgment is az
iirmed, the evidence being found sufficient
to sustain the Judgment. Affirmed.
Watts, C.
o. Ii. ~ r. J. Moore VS.. Long; from
Wood county. This suit was brought by
the wife, joined by her husband, to recover
damages for trespass and conversion OF
her separate property, upon an execution
against her husband. The defendant,
| pleading in reconycntion, set up an indie
pendent claim for damages, of like nature,
! but which was not connected with, did not
arise from, or grow ont of the cause
OF action on trial. Held that the
court erred in oyerruIing plaintiffs mo-
| ton to strike out the defendants sup
Elemental answer, setting up such de-
fence, lithe pleader sought TO res. his
claim for damages upon malice of plant
| IFS in prosecuting this action he was seek
| ing to assert n defense not recognized by
law. 1t is not acionab'e TO assert an un-
founded claim, by Il suit at law for damages
committed by an alleged tort to property.
A failure TO maintain it entities the de-
PENDANT to his costs and no more. Reversed
and remanded. Walker. c.
Galloway VS.. Baldwin; from Harrison
county. Under the Revised Statutes, il be-
comes the duty of the Clerk of the County
Court to endorse on the transcript the day
on which the same was demanded by whom,
and the day on which it was delivered, and
to whom, and to sign his name officially.
See Arts HIGHLY. And when it appears
that this duty has been neglected, motion
to dismiss the appeal will prevail. Appeal
dismissed. White, p. j.
llenzic vs.. Ward, from Anderson county.
In trial of the right of property seized UNI
der execution againsta third party, the JUS
ticc sustained motion to quaSh the claim
ants affidavit rendered Judgment against
claimant Tor cost, and held the property
subject TO execution. AT Il subsequent day
of the term he amended the Judgment,
, holding claimant and his suretieS on his
bond liable for value of the property. The
claimant then sued in the County Court for
damages for illegal seizure and sale of other
property of his under execution by virtue
of the amended Judgment. The
| Court charged substantially that
the amended judgment was void,
and the claimant recovered both actual aud
exemplary damages. Held error. The
statute, Art, 4Si3, L. S. ,prcscrbes the proper
proceedings when the claimant fails to cs-
tablish his right to the property. The
court has supervising control over its iudg-
ments and DEGREES, until the term at which
they are rendered is closed. The judgment
of the justice was not void, and could not
be attacked in a suit for damages for seiz-
IRE of his property under execution by vir-
tue thereof. Reversed and rcmanded.
| Wnils n