The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-05-11

common curriers', that they cannot ne n
private person, common carrier, iulght 40,
restrict The subjects and objects for trans.
porta Ion. They are the common CARRIERS OF
all such property 49, railroads may hc
adapted 10 transport, including I'VE Sloc"
as well.
Held, that II was competent for the rail-
road company TO make the special contract
relied upon, to the extent Of providing
upon the special lncts of the case, that the
owner who accompanied the stock In con
sderatiOn Of certain advantages aud terms,
extended under the contract 10 him should
MS "a condition precedent to n recovery for
damages, give notice TO the company OF
claim for damages before the stock became
mingled with other stock. (Goggan VS.
X. ?, X. II. company, u Kansas 4l6; Rice
VS.. X. i. X X. company G5 Mo. III; Betl
vs.. Farmers Loan company, u WIS: 81
EVpr"s" company VS.. Caldwell, 81 wal
lace, -226)
Oar statute restriction of carriers com
mon law liability, does not extend'to con
tracts for transportation beyond the state
III. IL !. C. II. Il. company VS.. Park, deci
ded by the court Of appeals at Austin
opinion book No. /. page 40. Reversed
and remanded. Opinion by II. S. Walker
p.i.
[. g. G. n. Il. r. VS.. Joe II. Stewart
ton made at the time, waver aud con
sent of parties will be presumed, where
the jury after retiring retHrned into court
with Il verdict, which the court refused Il
accept, and the jury retired 70 consider
further of the verdict under the direction
Of the court. 1t is only where there may
be doubt, that the court need not charge
upon the weight of the evidence. But whel
the same is to be taken as an established
+.,.f In al, gl,n hn InuI
basis az Texas, 3S7) Appellee recovered
Judgment for 81 ,525, Tor injuries from Il
fall off the platform of the freight depot o
the company in the city of Austin, the tal
being caused by neglect Ct the appel
lights at place where it landed
its passengers. Appellee had come il
as passenger on the train just then. AT
trmed. Stayton, j.
Mary p. Braden ct al VS.. John A. Gose
sheriff ct al; appeal from Lamar colnty
Appellants brought suit to enjoin the sale
OF a portion OF a certain tract Of land, the
wife claiming it as her separate property
purchased with $500 given her by relative
AS a separate estate, and 500, the accrued
interest thereon. Held: The interest ac.
cruing on money, the separate es-
tate of the wife, is community
and land purchased with money, the sepa.
TGIt tSItlt VI lllt WIG, VIC dtCt uNh liz
terest thereon is subject to execution rs
community property in the proportion
that the principal bears to the accrued in
terest. Affirmed Stayton,j j.
Pauline r. Sellers VS.. Ann c. Vogel
ct al appeal from Comal county
Their mutual equities should be adj
iUsted, if parties to a suit unite III asking
for revision Of a contract for the sale OF
lands When the vendor had a superior
I l., .tr,,
tain by diligeut observation, and there is
evidence of misrepresentation of material
facts by the former, the court below erred
in refusing to charge upon the validity OF
The sale made through such representation,
the suit being tor foreclosure of the ven
doris lien, and the Alternative relief of re-
cssion of the contract, and restoration OF
the land being asked. The purchaser has
a right to have his purchase money and the
interest that remained after deducting the
reasonable rents, when the facts show such
fraud a. will yitiate a sale and entitlc a
party who has purchased and paid part OF
The consideration to Il RECESSION OF the con
tract. Al Texas $50; 80 Texas, All Re-
versed and remanded. STAY ton, j.
7. IL. p railroad VS.. Mary a. Durrett;
appeal from Dallas county. A husband
cannot convey alone to "a railroad com
pany the rigtt-otway over land, which Is
the separate estate of the wife, the latter :
objections being is pressed and known to
the officers OF the company, and With the
rightof the company to use the wood, tim
her and water, such privileges as AN inter
est IN land operate as a perpetual easement
and can only be created by deed or grant,
and when valid. are not revocdDe There
fore, a conveyance, az the ABOVE must bc,
as required by statrte, the wife joining,
$50 X. s.; Z Ohio / .-1he proposed to De con
veyed is something more than d lega'
, aseInent, AMI 4ssimilales the term known
As pGup'ta Bfendie. The railroad is liaUie
for the Inconvenience of crossing its track
from op1pirt OF Il tract of laAu to another;
aud lile damages can be given in under the
gTi eTal allegation without special plea.
Allirmod. Stiyton, j.
Nancy Carter VS. L. Wheeler ct al; APP
peal from Denton county. Where AN lu-
tention. coupled with a removal is clearly
evidenced, un ahaudo mont OF the
homestead by the wife though
is sufficiently established. The property
sued for was the homestead of appellant
a I'd her husband in 1859; ana shortly altrr
removal, IN 1869, The after 5 ld the same
without his wife lining in, and the pur-
chaser WIS particularly informed uy ine
vile tina, she did not claim it a. her hOiue-
stead. Tney lived near the property
twenty-five years, and appellant Jailed, on
the stand, TO explain why the claim was 80
long delayed, aud old hot state the exist
cnct OF u continuing intention 10 return 10
IL as her homestead. Held: Voluntary
Affirmed. StaVton, j.
A. Duess VS.. Wenzel Fuedrick; appeal
from Beyar county The steuographer's
report gave In full every question ana an-
swer, and even counse's remarks, COM
prising 20 pages, when the simple facts
could have been stated in one tenth OF the
space. The rule, from early decisions
down. only requires the testimony of wit
nesses when there is a reasonable doubt of
the sufiiciency of the evidence to establish
a fact. The statute regarding the employ
ment Of q stenographer does not authorize
the incorporation of testimony 80 taken
down into the statement of facts, the dis
trict court should not allow the adoption OF
the statement OF stenographsr's report into
the statement Of acts; and this court Will
discourage the course by the use Of proper
means. When the question Is one Of actual
damages, irrelevant testimony, calculated
to excite the sympathy Of the jury, should
be carefully excluded. Reversed and re-
Gould, c, ].
5. A. Cook vs.. J. NJ. Lindsey ct al. An
instrument called a power Of attorney.b in
fact showing a contract by a cOlonist IN
1895, 20 sell the land to be granted 20 him
AS a CpIolleis Dtltlt TIC A-1halt1 " AtAAtf =
In violation Of the Law then In force. and
hereby Invalid; aud the court was correct
IN excluding deed supported by
such a power of attorney. The record
loes not show any evidence
raising any question Of acquiescence or raj.
ication, Or Of presumption Of yalii
power OF attorney. u Porter, No, i4s'
HOLMES v. Johns, Tyler term, lsol Al
irnfd. Gould, c
Juan Villa ". Julian Herrea; appeal from
wilson county. When the land can ne
Identified by the piai aud ceiect-
We description together, b u SUI
icieuf. and the au hOniies require tue
,outr.rt 10 be substantially ct 5onh hud
proven, (i7 Tex. G57) That the discre-
Dancy j. Only ID the amount Of cInsi,iera-
ION. i nj salh ieuf D. set aside the indg-
n,eni. as Tex, 20l. - Tex, PSI Affirmed
Gould. Cd
J. T. Jones et al ". Octavia fyron e. a.;
- r. na.fIfr ruumfw fuuNImnIr