The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-15

scription Of the ground and buildings
was fled Tor, and recorded. Mrs. L. ex-
cepted, and the others demurred to the
petition. Another answer without date
sets up plea to the Jurisdiction because
the amount Is less than 800. Amended
petition set up that Mrs. p. was having
stone building erected on the lots: that she
was managing and experimenting the
work separate from her husband; that the
demand was against that building;thats she
promised to pay the same and that copy
of amount, etc., was filed and recorded
and served on her. Defendants excepted
because the amendment set up contract
by a married woman without her hus-
bands consent, which was sustained.
Held not error, because such suit could
not be sustained against Mas. P, and
when passed out there was no iurisdic-
ton. Affirmed.-Delaney,J j.
ii. 4. G. railway company VS.. Burke
appeal from Washington county.-ln
charging on the measure of damages the
court Instructed, "You may ascertain the
value of plaintiffs services to himself
before the injury, and their value since,
and ascertain the difference, and then the
Jury would be authorized to give such
sum as would at legal rate of interest
produce a sum equal per annum to that
difference, and not greater sum on this
Item" Held, error. The least obJec-
tionable rule on such measures OF dam
ages would be that from the fact and
circumstances of each particular case,
the jury should award to the party in-
jured such sum as in their Judgment
would compensate him for the injuries
received. Reversed and remanded.-
Watts, j.
Lane ct al VS.. Culver ct al; appeal from
Travis county.-A charge of the court to
the jury which instructs that an extension
of time does not necessarily release a
hr1f hot rala he
was injured by the extension, since it
applied to the facts in this case. was not
an error. [See IL Tex. 694. The one
question in this case was whether the
postponement of the delivery OF part OF
the cattle from the LIST and 18th OF Jul
to the 25th of July was such change in
the contract as to discharge the surety,
and it is held not to have been. Affirmed.
Delaney, j.
La Rue vs.. Bower; appeal from Grayson
county.-The submission of special issues
to the jury by the court without the re-
quest of either party, lies within the dis
erection of the court, and is not error If
given in clear and proper form on the is
sues raised by the pleading. Where a
jury has INTERVIEWED, and all the issues
have been submitted to their decision,
their verdict must constitute the basis OF
Judgment, and the court cannot look to
the evidence on which the verdict was
founded to determine what judgment to
render, but alone to the verdict. This is
tue accepted rule, but it does not follow
that the special pleadings would not sup
port judgment rendered thereon by the
court. AS to whether the due bill1n this
case was given in settlement of the ac-
count, or to enable the plaintiff to raise
money, was presented by the court to the
jury, and by them answered in their ver-
dict. Affirmed Watts, J.,
Texas and Pacific railway company vs..
Fort; appeal from Dallas county.-The
court In this case holds that "when sew
eral carriers unite to complete line of
transportation, and receive baggage for
one freight, and give through bill of
lading, each carrier is the agent OF all the
others TO accomplish the carriage and de-
livery of the goods, and is liable for any
damage to them, on whatever part of the
line the damage is received" This was
recovery against the appellant for the loss
of a trunk which was checked through TO
Dallas from Memphis, Tenn, on check
which reads "Mempms-Dallas, Tex,
via NJ. Il l.. r., G. a. F., T. IL Pr" which
indicated the different railways over
which the trunk would come; ~. a. r."
indicating the appellants railway.
Afflrmed.-Delaney,J j.
Houston aud Texas Central railway
company VS.. Nichols; appeal from Wash
ton raised in this case was settled in SO
Tex, 64S. While the court is largely
vested with discretion as to latitude
allowable to counsel in argument. an
abuse thereof is cause for reversal The
court erred In permitting counsel to read
Sec. 500 Redfield on Carriers, to the jury,
with comments. Exemplary damages
when allowed, should bear proportion to
the actual damages. Actual damages
here allowed was in the sum of $1,000,
and exemplary damages, $4,000, which
amount was clearly excessive. Though
it did not prejudice the appellant In this
case as to actual damages, q charge in
effect to find, for plaintiff, actual damages
IL human foresight and skill could have
provided against and prevented the ia-
jury, required a higher degree of care
than is required by law. Reversed and
remanded.-StaytOn,J j.
Bigham v. Bigham from Bell county
When parties have deliberately put their
engagements into writing, so as to import
| a legal obligation, without uncertainty as
| to object or extent, it is conclusively pre-
| sumed that the whole engagement and
| extent and manner of their undertaking
was reduced to writing. and all oral tes-
timony of previous eOtt0quiam between
| the parties, or OF conversations or declara-
| lions, at the time or afterwards, as il
| would tend in many instances TO substi-
tute a new and different contract to the
prejudice possibly of one of the parties,
| is rejected. Where Misrepresentation is
| relied upon to avoid a contract it is neces-
sary to distinguish between a represen-
tation of an existing fact, which Is un-
| true, and promise to do or not to do
something in the future. There was no
Misrepresentation of an existing fact IN
this case. Warranty In deed can
neither be enlarged nor restricted by oral
| testimony of simultaneous or prior argu-
| ments. Affirmed.-Stayton, j.