The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-05-11
Supreme Court.

Sam G. Bennett ct al VS.. San Antonio
K. b. and l.. Association; appeal from
Bexar county.-The authorities are con-
elusive, that gross negligence in the
officers Of the corporation in falling 10
examine the books and detect frauds
committed by an official, will not dis
charge surety on that officials bond
given thereafter, IL such frauds were
unknown to and unexpected by the Off
GERS. ZIG Mass. 275 SO Pa. 81. 3431.
The case of Graves VS.. Lebanon Nat.
Bank, Sup. ct. OF KY, no Rush. cited by
the appellant, not in point. For here,
there IL no evidence that the approval of
the said officers account was an act in
tended for the information of the public,
or that there was any publication there
OF. Had there been fraudulent repre-
sentations or fraudulent conceal
ment on the part of the directors, the
sureties would have been discharged
because of fraud. The court regrets
that the above question alone requires
discussion at present. Afirmed.-Gould,
CD.
Andrea Louisa Fretelliere VS.. George
+. Kinds ct al appeal from Bexar coun-
ty.-That parol evidence is admissible TO
prove that deed, absolute upon its face,
was executed upon trusts not reduced to
writing, and TO prove resulting trust, is
Tex. 231.1 The general rule, that title
subsequently acquired, by vendor, who
has conveyed land by deed with general
warranty, fnures to the benefit of his
vendee, not applicable TO this case, V,
holding naked legal title in trust for B.,
until the latter made the deed 10 him,
made full satisfaction to T., the indepen-
dent executor OF the win OF M, for
the breach OF warranty OF his
deed to NJ. II f., also the
testamentary guardian of appellant,
had Dotpaid to her the money from ", in
settlement OF his broken warranty, she
has her remedy against him. Affirmed.
Stayton, j.
Heirs J. s, Brander VS.. Esther Kline
appeal from Fannin couDty.-The court
did not err in admitting in evidence the
letters from j. S. Brander TO appellee, as
they contain explicit recognition by j.
S. Brander OF her rights to the land, the
extent of her interest therein, the guam
tity of land, and of his willingness to
hold one-half thereof for her. The testi-
mony OF G. and of A., considered with
the aforesaid letters, fixed with reason
able certainty, (there being no proof that
J.; 3. Brander owned any other land In
Fannin county) the land to which the
letters referred. The proof that one
half OF the purchase money was paid out
OF the funds Of Mrs. Kline, is suf-
fcient to support the finding Of
the court, when It is considered
that the land was purchased in 1853, that
0. had in charge the property Of Mrs.
X as her agent, that the interest in the
land claimed by Mrs. X. came through
O's. agency, that b and his agent, who
controlled the land, as well as o., are all
dead, and that 1t was 1mpracticable TO
produce more direct evidence after the
lapse Of 30 long a time. The manifest
justice of the case Is SO marked that the
judgement ought TO be afirmed.-stay-
ton, j.
NoTE-The several reports of the COM
missioners adopted at this sitting of the
supreme court, were published when de-
livered by the former; and for their par
ticularizIng reference Ia made to the