The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-31
synopsis OF Opinions OF Commissioners of
Appeals, Austin Torn, 1882


Miller VS.. City Bank of Sherman from
Grayson county. If this case was enter
tanned in the county court as an original
suit the record fails to furnish a basis of
jurisdiction. The rule for determining the
jurisdiction requires the record to show af.
tirmntlvely how the county court acquired
jurisdiction, and this court cannot ascertain
the jurisdiction aliunde the record. 81
Tex, la. If the county court acquired
jurisdiction by appeal from a Justices
court, the record Must show the necessary
jurisdictional facts to invest IL with juris-
diction. The county court not having jur.
isdiction, the court Of appeals has none. o
Tex, Sl3; Tex, l57, 6Tex., 263; 4 Tex,
923; Appeal dismissed. Walker, p.j.
Taylor VS.. Collins; from Johnson county.
No court can alter, vacate or annul final
Judgment regularly entered in case of
which IL has jurisdiction after the adjourn
ment of the term ut which such Judgment
was rendered. A right to amend iudg-
mcnt for mistake therein exists only under
the statute and Its benefits can only be oh.
tanned by n strict compliance with the
statutes. To constitute final judgement
there must not only be an order that the
defendant recover his costs, but also an or
uet 'uuV hAe plain'iil 'hhc notHlng Dy MS
suit or some other definite sentence equiva-
lent thereto. There being no final judg.
ment, this court has no jurisdiction OF the
appeal. Appeal dismissed. Walker. y. |.
Talbot vs.. Dyches, ct al; from Travis
county, The amount OF business of prac.
tical Importance would forbid this court
from occupying its time in considering
cases wherein there may be questions OF I'M.
portance AFTER their decision has become
useless by reason Of compromise and set.
tlement or otherwise, merely to determine
who shall pay costs. 40 Tex, 100. Dis.
missed. Walker, p, !.
John j. Adams, ct al, VS.. John T. Dug.
gan; from Guadalupe county. Parties are
held bound to take care OF their own inter
est on the trial Of causes. IL is not the
and acting upon oil questions which the
rights Of the parties might involve. 4 Tex,
S0; - Tex, 2i; IS Tex, 60. Where case
is brought before the court which presents
the question as TO whether the party con.
planning or the court was in fault In not
rendering a particular kind of Judgment,
which, according TO the evidence adduced,
after the trial, might have entitled hun To a
particular Judgment, the party must clearly
show the court below 10 have erred. Ar.
iirmed. Walker, y. ].
Wilkinson vs.. Mcdonald; from Bastrop
county. Plaintiffs action was based on an
| agreement in writing absolutely TO convey
certain designated tract of land which
said written agreement acknowledged the
receipt OF n ceuain specified sum " money,
the consideration upon which. tho objection
was based, Defendant offered parol evi.
| dcncc to show that the contract ssed on
was fraudulent, and therefore invalid, with.
out attempting TO impugn on the language
and terms OF the bond Held, this eyi.
dencc was properly admitted. lat Green.
| Ey., sec. ~ and 2si-S. Affirmed.
Walker, y. ].
stell, administrator, vs.. Amos Morrill,;
| from Lamar county. Plaintiff offered IN ev.
| idence a written contract, signed by one NJ,
as agent, no proof OF his MS agency was
shown. Held, without proof OF Ms agency
| by some competent evidence tending nj
least 10 establish that fact, there can exist
no valid contract which can be enforced
against the defendant. The mere produc.
ton OF the letter, which stated that II.
was requested and authorized 10 mako the
contract does not evidence the truth OF
such facts. and unless authority 90 make
such contract existed, and was proven, his
affirmative declaration TO that fact, ~ con.
taincd In the letter, Annot be considered
II Tex. AS. Where the option Of two Of
fers in one letter Is made aud the selection
OF either depends upon a specific
performance OF certain work, though
the work may have been properly
performed a. desired, TO effect q contrac,
between tho parties, the party 10 do the
work should have indicated which Of the
optional provisions he would select. An un
reasonable delay 10 make such selectlou
would be considered a refusal 10 accept ths
offer made. o Tex, ~. Rsvsrsed and 70.
manied. Walker. n. A.