The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-24
..v APPELLATE COURTS.
|. ot opinions of the supreme Court
I.ler Term, 1852.

,,i,not the proper way OF present.
| oue,tion as to whether suit eau
[ aimed by an heir without showing
.,e WAS no administration and none
% mon the estate Of the ancestor.
4 this kind is maintainable by the
= Texas, 637l. The same reasons
,aonire an heir suing to recover a
nj, ancestor, or to recover personal
10 negative the existence and
s.,ity Of an administration, do not
suit TO cancel consequence of
.,s by that ancestor, or to vacatc
~,soriyed will. Whether a convey
he minor. without consideration
l, not, il is voidable by the heir.
N of such avoidance can be e1er-
l nriyies in blood OF the minor.
'pte OF wills cannot be evaded by
y. will the form Of a deed to take
Inc death OF the party; ga Texas,
Tsx,s, ~. Notwithstanding the
ftbs ward either the county court
district court, on appeal, had su-
10 settle the account of the guar
The court has authority to order the
tprned over TO the herr when there
sN,sity for an administration; Us
nm, This district court, whether on
AZ as an original case 10 cancel the
!. the authority to make either the
hich the county court might have
but 10 finally determine the question
Hldity Of the conveyance. Affirmed.
nsys. Thomas; from Marion county.
Ia on appeal being brought up to
krsme court, and in anticipation Of
I, thereof, the appellant cannot
M such and sue out a writ Of error
|sble to q subsequent term Of the
merely for delay; (52 Texas, SLY.
Id, are returnable to the same term,
Elent, therefore, that the writ OF err
4 not sued ont for delay, and herein
rrsel admit, the defects in the appeal
,nd desires to prosecute the writ Of
koly, We, therefore, consider the writ
X Also. The citation ia error fails to
Ihe date of the filing OF the petition,
bal the writ OF error and superssdeas
Ken granted on motion, therefore 1t
be dismissed for not complying
with the statute, besides, it being
Sary to appear that the defendant was
| with a copy Of the citation. which it
rot so appear. Appeal dismissed.
fi.
kocs l. Rowland vs.. Latimer ct al. I;
= county. The ground relied on
dismissal Of the appeal in this case is
he attorney Of record and only one
party are sureties on the appeal bond.
Ai attorney Of record, not having OBJ
leave OF the court to so appear, and
) contrary to rule 30, district courts.
hecause being returnable to q former
IBIS motion to dismiss comes too late.
h the above being the only ground
nisssl II would not be entertained,
because the attorney Of record ap-
asa surety upon the appeal bond of
ni, though the attorney lays himself
Nbe punished by the district court
infraction of their rules. Motion
h Gould, C.
I'D 4 Smart vs.. Texas & 81. Louis
company; error from Titus county.
as comes up upon = motion to dis
ssppeal, for among other grounds,
lowing: The transcript shows on
that il is incomplete, and does not
the proceedings had in the courts
Held, it appears that the suit origi-
the justices court, but nowhere
appear what action was taken
no, the right nor how the district
blamed jurisdiction, which is reQui-
appeal to this court" Motion sus.
,ad appeal dismissed. Gould, C. l..
Rational 4 Great Northern Railway
ay ct al, vs.. Kindred; from Ander-
thty. Appellee sues the Interna-
Great Northern railway and the
u Pacific, its lessees, for damages for
Aei son. Neglect Of appellants is al
y reason of their not keeping their
% good condition. Deceased was a
'ot on the train by which he wa, in
Killed. Appellants demurred to
atlon, plead general denial and a
plea that deceased being conductor
ne train causing his death, it WAS his
know that tho train was in good re-
pa he could so have known by the
Of ordinary diligence. Verdict
dgment for 81 ,to9.
peliee alleged and proved that her
instantly killed by the injury re-
whereupon appellants asked tho
% instruct the Jury that ii the son
PANTY killed MS no action accrued
none accrued or survived to the
Held, in Massachusetts, where the
skilled instantly with the wound.
action lies, as none accrued to the
ID q Cush; l0S).
nnecllcut, under q similar statute
.ary is held; 80 Connecticut, lSl
-SJ, 200; 4, Revised Statutes are
10 snd Article 10, Section % Con.
81 TINS state, and il il held,
lhese provisions of the law would
action to the mother for exemplary
where instant death resulted need
onSluered, as the courts charge con.
!ary TO actual damages. Whether
. acrued to the deceased or not is
iaht, the statutes referred
wing damages to certain
ates Tor damages for the loss re.
"lhem from the death Of the de-
ssslenment presents the question,
iot to read to the Jury this part o.
J deposition? Witness had no
support except his own labor and
w m9I her son IN to the date cf his
ned the evidence would have
hmlss'ble in q case of ordinary
ny the party injured. But here
Anohy was proper to show reason.
sv'auon of pecuniary aid by the
oul not Tor the purpose of increas.
ages letting many .authorities).
Is not necessary to
whether the INDECENT
aaees OF the mother should
Aown upon proof OF pccuniary
NySpected from her adult son.
a'ssnment OF error not supported
SS'op'late proposition will not be
uOsatories propounded to one
one Mscke answered thereto.
Fopounded others to Macke, in.
ns IN both instances the same,
".%ei,rogatoriss in the latter case
a.. ther admission objected to.
Ss being no question as to the
y ,ne party, nor does Il appear
MY signing Maeke Is not idem