The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-04-20
COURT DECISIONS.
Decisions of the Supreme Court.


Theodore Tobin VS. Houston Il Texas Cen
trail railroad company; Error from Gray
son county. The statute in force prior t.
the adoption of the Revised Statutes, pro
viding that "aal actions for injuries don't
to the person of another, as of assault, bat
terry, woundlng, or imprisonment shall
be commenced and sued within one year
next after the cause OF such action o.
suit and not after, applicable
to any physical injury, and
the enumeration of particular classes
only given for examples. This suit brought
for damages TOR injury to the person by the
railroad, and dismissed below on grounds
of limitation, as above. Affirmed. Not
to be publ!shed) Stayton, j.
WA. Kruiaid VS.. III. Butcher Appeal
from Collin county: Where the surveys OF
two adjoining tracts of land have been
made at the same time, and the boundary
line between the two differs as to, the dis
lance called for, the excess should be
equally divided between them. Welder VS..
testimony exists about an agreement which
was claimed to operate as an estoppel, the
verdict of the jury, having evidence to sup
port 1t, cannot be disturbed. 1t is not error
to refuse charge after the court had fully,
clearly and accurately charged upon the
subject. Affirmed. Stayton, j.
A. w. Morton VS.. A. NJ. X. Lowell APP
peal from Dallas county. The court says,
in language of the chancellor in Rockefeller
Charles j. HemphIll, in Rope VS.. Mays, 10
Texas, 37S, when an obligation is to indem-
nifty against damages or expenses, and the
obIige has become absolutely bound and
liable to pay the damages incurred by the
charge and his demand against this obligor
upon the bond of indemnity, by reason OF
the charge against himself, is reduced to q
certainty it would surely be reasonable,
and not in violation of law to permit him
TO enforce his own demand against the obli-
gor in the first instance, and before be
satisfies the charge against himself That
an acknowledgement, taken by trustee
acknowledgements to account would viii
ate the record, expressly decided in. Brown
VS.. Moore, 80 Texas 645, and other cases.
No opinion given as to the application OF
same principle to substituted, trustee,
when he appears as such on
the face of the deed affirmed. Bonner, j.
Z. Golden vs. 7. G. Patterson, ct al; ap
peal from Grayson county. 1t was assumed
in the charge of the court below that Ger,
tam signature was proven, as question Oh
fact, to be that of the original grantee,
without even the initials being the same, or
other evidence of identity. And, therefore,
the charge was not simply upon the legal
effect of undisputed documentary testi:.
mony, but an assumption of material
question of fact which it was the exclusive
right of the jury to decide. r. s., 1911.
Reversed and remanded. Bonner, j.
Synopsis of Opinions of Commissioners oil
Appeals, Austin Term, 1889.
Z. j. Gurley VS. the state. This case is
identical with that of Z. G. Henrick vs.
the state, decided January 18th 1915, in
which the court said the questions had beer
uly discussed and decided at the previous
Galveston term. In Willis VS. Owens, Al
Texas, Alb, same principles conclusively
settled. Reversed and dismissed. Watts, C.
n. X. Puice ct al VS. James o. Logan
ct al. As to effect of sheriff's sale when
party, against whom judgment rendered
and execution issued was dead, authorities
meagre and conflicting. Such sale, al
those acquiring title to the property
through The administration, may be in Q
certain sense called void; but as to the heir
or legatee, in absence Of administration, i,
is irregular and voidable, and the same
could be set aside by direct legal proceed
ings. the purchaser being subrogated to
the right OF the original judgment, to the
extent Of the application of his money: II
IN rossrssion purchaser can retain land
Cross, 40 Tex, 1855; Burns VS. Ledbetter, 81
Tex, 3T5:Jones VS. Wilson, last Tyler term
Reversed and dismissed. Award Watts, c.
j. =. Davidson VS. William Gibson. Held
in Dewitt VS. Jones, II Tex. 623, and which
has been the rule ever since, that "tbe pro
hibition of amendment, after announce.
ment of ready for trial must be understood
OF readiness for trial upon the issues Of
fact and not of law. which must be first
disposed Of" Substantial defects cured.
and omissions supplied by amendment OF
plaintiff; and the same indulgence must be
allowed defendant. % Tex, slS: Il
Tex, 4l3. Ordinarily it's no impeachment
to right to amend, that the pleading ex.
cepted to has been put In under oath. 10
Tex, 900. Reasons for disallowing such
amendment OF affidavits in the extraordi.
nary writs of. attachment, etc, do mot
apply to ether cases where pleadings
sworn 10; though even IN these, amendment
for other purposes than for validity Of
writ allowed. A plea impeaching consid.
Grafton Of a note not under seal need not
be made oath. Lemmen vs. Manley, .
Tex, 2I9. Reversed and remanded.
Walker, c.