The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-02
COURT DECISIONS.
.v,o,.,. Of Opinions Of the Supreme Court

.vnop.i. Of Opinions Of the Supreme Court
Grigsby ct al. VS.. Peak; from Dallas
county. This Is another one OF series oil
those celebrated cases which, ON account oil
the points oflaw Us well as the amount IN
controversy. have become peculiarly IN
ferestipg TO the profession. The former
cases, of which full synopsis have oeen
published, have directed every point az
issue, except that Of the bar by statute OF
Limitations. On this point Associate justice
Siavton dissents, and as soon as prepared
his opinion will be published In iull. me
question then Is, does Sec. ii, Art. IL OF tue
Constitution OF 1869, have q prospective enect
and apply to those parties only who were
married women, infants ana insane persons
Mt the date of the acceptance Oh
that constitution by consress1 Held
Soc. Ia, Art. IL of the consti'
of 1869 was not restricted in its operation to
that class of persons who should, OF the
date of its acceptance, or subsequently IA
bor under the disabilities therein named.
Although in peaceful adverse possession o.
the land for five years before institution o.
suit. vet, under the constitution OF lS61 u
statute OF limitations did not obtain, an
the court erred therefore in its charge to til
iury. Reversed and remanded. Bonner, J,
Grigsbv ct al. VS.. Bowles; from Dallas
county. Upon the authority of the case OF
Grigsby ct al. VS.. Peak, the judgment be-
low in this case is reversed and the cause re-
handed. Reversed and remanded. Bon
ner, J. :,
Greenwade, guardian, ct al. vs.,
Smith; from Bosque county. smith
recovered Judgment below against one
e. 'appellants interviewed, but their
petition for intervention, on eXcep-
lion was held insufficient and dis
missed. The intervenor's appeal giving
bond only to s. who recovered the
Judgment against G, Held, whilst the OBJ
iect of the intervenor is to reverse only tho
Judgment dismissng their plea of lnteryen-
tion they can only appeal from the hnal
Judgment, and rs G, was party to that
Judgment whose interest might be Affected
ifreversed, he is necessary party 10 me
suit. The necessary parties, not beng be
fore the court the appeal IL dismlssed'
Gould, C. j. r. D.,
county The sixth assessment OF error IL
that the court erred in rendering Judgment
and refusing to admit evidence tend
ing to show that there was less
than 1870 acres of land in the
tract in controversy, but as there was
no such defense set up in the answer the
tevidnnce was rightly excluded. There was
10 defense set up in defendants answer that
n.i. was less improved land than repre-
ented by appellee to appellants when the
purchase was made, but none that alleged
that the entire tract contained less than
1870 acres. Affirmed. Gould, c.j.
Houston Il Texas Central railway com
pany VS.. Schimel; from Robertson county.
This case is almost entirely identical with
that of Houston a. Texas Central railway
company vs. Boehm, synopsixed below, ex-
cept as to the question of extent of dam.
ages, and the accident and negligence OF
appellant, which caused the one being SINH.
lar to that in Boehm case. On authority OF
that case, this one is also affirmed. Stay
ton, al.