The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-01-24
COURT DECISIONS.
Syllabus of the Opinions of tho Supreme
Court. Delivered at the Tyler Term, 1881

county. Domestic courts OF record with
general jurisdiction carry with them oil
reasonable presumption of validity. 1.-THE
record shows aiiirmatively that the court had
no jurisdiction over either the subject mat
ter of litigation, or over the person, con-
trary presumption VIII not be entertained;
but short of this, the presumption in favor
ofjurisdiction will prevail, and the mere
rendition of judgment will carry with it the
impress of absolute verify. And to deter
mine the character of service disclosed by
the record, the whole of il must be consid-
cred together Domestic Judgment of a
court OF general jurisdiction is not subject
to collateral attack. Reversed and re-
manded. Bonner, ],
Stewart vs. Heidenheimer; from Rusk
county. While il would be iairer practice
for the appellant to notify the opposite par
ty of the filing of his affidavit durability to
pay costs in District Court, there is no rule
of law requiring such notice to he given. II
the affidavit is filed within twenty days al
ter the ad ournment OF the term at which
the Judgment Is rendered, it is in ample
time to enable the appellee to institute con
test and services, unless contested, to per-
feet the appeal. Affidavit of inability to
pay costs is not defective simply because it
omits the clause "or any part thereof" y
That the petition was not sworn to, and
that the affidavit for attachment states the
demand at So less than the petition, but
corresponding with the amount named in
the writ, does not constitute ground for set
ting aside the attachment. Affirmed
Gould, c.j.
soott. administrator of Bills, deceased,
,lat nj lr,n 1 to
1t was held in Green VS., Crow, 18th Texas,
1874, that under the act of 1913 Hart Dig.
Art. 1850, that the property OF deceased
person which during life was exempt from
forced sale, upon death Of such person, such
property belonging TO insovcnt estates,
vested absolutely in the bencfclaries therein
pointed out. There Is nothing in the act
of August 10, 1870, which Indicates an
intention of the Legislature TO inaugurate
different line of policy and right. The
purpose of the act III question was to with
draw exempt property from administration,
except for partition OF solvent estate, II
deceased left constituent OF his family
surviving. And, under it, the value of such
property may be withdrawn from the es-
tate, when it did not exist in kind. Bills
died in February, 1876, leaving his wife sur
viving. The land in controversy was their
homestead, and also community property.
On his death it vested in her. Affirmed.
Stayton, ].
Rogers vs.. l.. & II. Blum from Hopkins
county. Though vendor of real property
take other security for the purchase money
than n lien on the property Sold the title TO
the said property does not pass out of the
vendor by reason of the execution OF bond
to make title upon the payment of pur-
chase money until the payment of pur-
chase money, rs the property was sold nm
der proceedings TO be instituted by vendor
or others holding the notes by transfer
The title continued, and the vendor in de-
FAULT of payment may repossess the prop
cry, or sell 1t to some other person. Liens
pass with the notes which they secure to
the purchaser of such notes. Appellant in
this case was not released as endorser by
the failure of the appellees to enforce the
vendor lien on the property sold. The
lien arising upon the original sale is supe
rior to that arising upon the subsequent
and must prevail Affirmed. Stayton, /.
Woflord VS.. UrFlS; from Anderson
county. The suit was 10 lorcclose mort
gage on the separate property OF the wife,
executed to secure an undivided debt of the
husband. A short time before maturity OF
the note, the husband went into voluntary
bankruptcy, and the holder of the note
proved up his claim. Subsequently he
withdrew the note to institute suit in
the District Court, where the
defense was the Statute of Limitations.
The judgment was personal
one against the husband. Held, correct
The bankruptcy proceedings operated to
suspend the statute rs against the husband
but not as against the wife. Affirmed.
Bonner,j.
Carey VS.. Rives; from Marion county.
,l,tu
the record filed, being certified copy of
Judgment and bond or, to dismiss because
no assignment of errors has been filed, nor
briefs filed below or in the Supreme Court
in accordance with rule 3d. An inspection
of the record disclosing the existence of
these facts, the motion is sustained and the
writ of error dismissed. Gould, C, |,
Wood VS.. Messer; from Smith county.
The motion to dismiss the appeal in this
case was based upon the grounds, first,
that the affidavit OF the appellant of in
ability to pay costs in lieu of appeal bond
was insufficient. Second, That the order
OF the County Court To which appellant
made the application for order to appeal
without bond and by which the order was
made, does not show TINT appellant made
strict proof of inability to nay the costs
or any part thereof Third, that in various
respects as to assignments under PROPOSE.
tons the briet of appellant was defective
An inspection of the record does not sustain
the motion, and il is overruled. Gould, q, i
Hall VS.. Dotson; from Marion county
The question in this case is whether or not
married women, joined by her husband
without consideration aCCruing 10 hcl
own benefit, can secure the debt of & ,
third party, by deed of trust upon her sepa
rate property, duly made and properl,
acknowledged in form prescribed h;
the statute for the conveyance q
such property. Tested by tho vo
rious authorities applicable TO tn,
question, the deed of trust so made is hind
ing on the married woman, and the cour
below erred in holding otherwise where
fore the Judgment is reversed and the sans
remanded. Bonner, !.
Lamar County vs. Werner ct al; from
Delta county. The assignments of erro
are too general in this case TO be noticed
being In disregard of rule 90 The charge
as gwen, is not at yarinnc
with previous decisions of this court ne Il
school lands surveyed for counties N
Texas. 3G6; 81 Texas, $50 and $40. Il TexnS
l53, l6g) But In the opinion of the write,
Y is defective In failing to instruct TIM
the record of the field notes in Lana
county, made when that land disirir
embraced the lands sued for, wns nc
tice to any subsequent locator. In his onr
ion sec, of the net of January "a ia
(P. ID. N66) was designed TO furnish ncii
ties for perlecting titles to school lands n,
ditional to those furnished nv tho un,,or,