The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-05-25

nEpG moro NJ positive act NJ comm gs'uni
which gupl beyond the line Ol muf1 negli
'.uco and bee Impl al affirmative net, done
tthDr Intentionally, iu fact, Or under such
, rcumsiapces us that un intent piriurU
+, KIT reasonably bH presumed, by which
rcromes criminal or quasi criminal in 10
r.h ura. The testimony In thi, case shows
hss defendant wos skiilful IN his profes.
.i,r No rcH;On is
.noyr why he should carccssly, mucn less
yafYll7. have caused the injury.
He unfortunately may have com
mittel Tn, act, aud altough he may be La
he for actn II damages, he should NOT un-
der the circr, instances be liable also for e.
emplary dafa ages Bonner, 4. ].
Seay VS.. IN u; from Williamson county,
Without proof Of levy and execution AS
authority there or q sheriff cannot claim
right of possessrt n as against Il third party
not interested in the payment or execution,
Lnd without propt r predicate, such proof Is
not admissible. l he court having allowed
evidence Of special .damlges To go TO the
Jury, and that beIIl; error, the judgment
wiIl be reversed unlcs the special damages
If $50 is RENTED in ss n days; otherwise the
jud gment is affirmed. Gould, C. j.
Hines VS.. Thorn, el. al; from Young
county. An inchoate Iclaim for land is II
subject matter of sale. "A legal sale to land
conveys also legal title to the certificate
through which it was aL'propriated. 1t IS
not necessary for a certified copy
| to show fir I'M the copy that the original GER
tticate If il so supports) was under the
official seal of the officer. The presumption
On absence Of proof being OF strict per-
Torrance Of the duty BY the officer: The
burden of proof to show superior right is
on TIE party who attacks the legal title.
Affirmed. Bonner, q. j.
1 l., Wallace Va ! q. Clllall: from Bell
| county In q suit Of trespuss to try title
| the plea of mot guilty" formerly did not
admit trespass on the part OF the defend
ant, but calls upon the plaintiff not only to
prove title in himself, but also to prove an
actual or constructive trespass by some
character Of adverse claim or assertion OF
title or interest by the defendant, but now
The revised statute has reversed the case.
See Art. 1874. Affirmed. Walker, p. C.
Adopted by supreme court.
Newman VS.. D1bson etal, from Washing
ton county. An inteState devised his entire
estate to a minor daughter, providing that
ifshe died before majority without issue
the estate should vest in his brother. The
daughter died before majority, leaving one
child. Held, the contingency failed TO
arise which vested plaintiff (the brOther)
with anv interest under the will. The mar
rlage ofthe daughter beforemajority +, mo 3ed
A-. uisaDiuIy, and 1T her Geath the estate
vested aOSOIutelY Ill lnc surviving ClIh.
Though the will gave appellant control
and management of the property during
the daughters minority, that control
ceased st her marriage Appellant having
set up an adverse claim was no longer Il
proper custodian of the estate for the ben
eit of the child. Affirmed. Bonner, u. j.
State of Texas VS., Middleton ct al; from
Travis county. The rule of law regulating
the appropriation of payments, as between
individual debtors and creditors, does nos
hold as between collecting officers of the
state and their sureties aud the auditing or
accounting officer of the state. Suit was
brought against the collector and sureties
for SJSGS 81. taxes collected in 1876, upon
a bond given in 1876. judgment
tor the state, $l,159,7j. A special
finding of the jury showed $i,l5l.2O
OF the taxes of 1876 had been paid by the
collector into the treasury, and by the
comptroller applied to his arrears for the
years 1874 8, during which years he was
collector lander different. bond) and IA
default. The court below applied this pay
ment to the deficit of 1876. Held, correct,
It 10 shown that the Jury found
specially that after the execution of the
unud slcu on, the collector collected 81 ,O65
of the taxes due in 1874 and 1910, which Is
not included in terms as shown by the
picadings in the present suit For this rei-
son this Judgment is remanded that this
item may be embraced in the pleadings
and another and separate suit avoided.
Reversed and remanded. Stayton, al.