The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-31

bltrary, or had resulted in Injustice TO the
opposite party. Is Tex, 10, Where the
court finds the verdict in the absence aud
without jury, the court will not revise its
rulings aud findings unless shown to be
clearly erroneous. Affirmed. Delaney, |.
Mays VS.. Cckrum, ct al. from GuaGa.
loUpe county. Though there are few no or
decisions in this state on the subject. the |
rule as laid down in South Carolina seems !
To have followed in this state. In South |
Carolina they do not hold that where two |
persons are on JOINT and several bond one !
being surety and the other obliger, and n |
person who takes joint Judgment against |
both that he could not after the death of |
the surety enforce the judgment against his |
estate but have held the surety liable as if !
me ohhgation had been joint and several !
Reversed and remanded; Delaney, ].
Rhodims VS. Cornell from Uyalde |
county. Where there is nothing in the
record 90 show that the court acted |
on demurrer, it will be considered |
waived, 1t is not good ground for
everything demurrer because il was not |
filed in due order of pleading. A sworn |
account is prima facie case, and unless |
rehutted is sufficient to support verdict. |
II isonly when parties sue as partners that
the denial OF the partnership must be un.
der oath. 81 Tex, 100. Objection TO the
charge that the Jury could find against ap-
pellant. without finding against the firm is
nntenable. "A Tex, p. Affirmed. De.
laney, j.
Pierce, ct al, vs. Logan, ct al. On re-
hearing. With or without administration
the heir takes the inheritance burdened
with the debts of the ancestor If there be
an administrator the probate laws prescril
the creditors remedy if none, he is REMIT
TED to the general principle applicable to
the case. The record showing no ad-
minlstraton and a lapse of time which
would bar the right Of administration the
provisions of the probate law could have
! no application to the case. The fact that
the purchaser at the sherilTs sale knew that
the defendant in judgment was dead, or in
what manner he was informed is not mate
rial, the sale would only be irregular and
voldable but not void Rehearing refused.
| Watts, ].
! Allen ct al, VS.. Hale; from Fannin coun-
| ". so long rs the property remains the
homestead n party's creditors have no in
terest in IL, and it is only after the sale is
complete that creditor could subject the
proceeds thereof TO the payment Of his
! debt. But if he chose to make gift
| to his wife of his interest in the homestead
| his creditors could not complain. So also
| if, before the sale, he agreed to, and did +,
make gift to his wife of the proceeds, to
induce her to join in the sale, then such
proceeds would be the separate property of
the wife. Affirmed. Watts,
Pickett ct al. vs. Johnson ct al; from
Mclennan county. A certificate which re.
cited that the party appeared and ac-
knowledged that he signed and delivered
the instrument of writing on the reverse
side hereof" is sufficient. Each heir is per
ssonally responsible for the obligations OF
the ancestor only to the extent OF the value
of the property inherited and actually re-
ceved by him. 1t is necessary to prove
value of property so inherited and actually
received in order to fix liability. The burden
ofproofis upon the party so alleging to
prove that the heir received the property so
inherited, rs well as to prove the value Of
the property. SO received. Reversed
and remanded, Watts, !.
Randall ct, al. VS.. Burtis ct. al; from Nc.
Lehman county. The Judgment in this
case recltes that the case was tried before
V. B. judgeot the circuit court of the city
of New York, and the certificate is by A.
X S., justice of the supreme court Of the
state of New York for the city of New York.
Held, this court cannot take judicial
knowledge of the laws of New York, or look
to Its statute Of the same for its judicial sys-
TEN, and the court organization. Is Texas
Is. The act of congress requires the at.
tention OF The clerk, with seal of court an.
neYed, together with certificate ofthe judge,
chief Justice or presiding magistrate. as the
case may be. 1t is not shown that the "cir-
emit" and supreme court are the same, or
that the justice of the last was also Justice
OF the first, or how the judgment roll found
its way from the circuit to the supreme
court, whether legally transferred, nor
whether the judge named was judge Of the
court rendering Judgment If 1t could DO
inferred that the "circuith and supreme
court Were the same, then It would appear
that judgment was rendered by Justice V.
b., whereas, the certificate was made by J us
tice A. X, s., which would raise the inference
that there were more than one justice at
that court, and hence, no certificate save
that of the chief justice would avail. There
was, therefore, no error in the court below.
Affirmed. Watts,j.
McLendon ct al. VS.. Harrington; from
1 Limestone COUNT. Appellants LEFT their
homestead in Limestone county in 1869 and
removed To Millican, where they purchased
property, lived md engaged In business.
They subsequently, sold their property.
removed to Bryan, purchased property and
engaged IN business. subsequently they
sold the Bryan property, removed to Cal.
vert, rented property and engaged in bust.
ness, and still later removed to Sterling ana
rented property at Sterling. NoLendon
and wife executed mortgage on the Lime
stone county property, and, upon suit TO
ioreclose the same. interposed the defense
of homestead. Held these acts consti.
tuted abandonment Of the Limestone
county property ~ q homestead and the
court below did not err in so holding. Al.
firmcd. Watts, 1.
Pagct VS.. Lockhart ct al: from Navarro
county. The record in this case brings up
only the pleadings and judgment. la the
absence OF statement OF facts, bill OF excep-
tons and charges of the court below, given
or refused, every presumption will be In.
dulged in favor of the correctness Of the
judgment. Under Tex, 2S5 and % Tex,
q, the judgment should be affirmed.
Watts,j
LeGicrse & Co. VS.. Gctzcnianer & Ferris;
tom Ellis county. To create judgment
lien upon land, the Judgment must be re.
corded IN the county where the land lies,
and among other things, II must set on,
the amount Of the Judgment, and the
amount still due on the same. As the
amount for which the Judgment was rem.
dercd was stated the presumption would
obtain that such was the amount stll due,
though plausible Is not tcnable posi-.
ton, The requirements OF the statute
must be strictly complied within order 70
secure Judgment licnupon land. Affirmed
Watts,
Adams & Mitchell VS.. Cox & Leonard;
Il r.. ~ l..