The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-05-18

10 the contrary that somc one u
tho causes theroln enumefpted existed |
which rendered the action Of the colt at
The time u proper exercise OF lis dscte- |
ti1nnry powers, the emergency WIN pe pre-
sunird 10 have existed. Affirmed Wink
lr,j
Opinions Of tho supreme Court-huSt'n
Term, 1889.
Sam G. Bennett ct al vs. San Antonio H.
-. and l.. Association appeal from Be1nr
county. The authorities are conclusive
that gross negligence in the officers OF the
corporation, in failing TO examine the hooks
ana detect frauds committed by an olliciil,
will not.lischarge on that oihciaPs DOho
given thereafter, if such frauds were I'M
known to and uususpected by the officers.
llG Mass, 275 50 Pa. ST., 3i3. the case oil
Graves vs.. Lebanon Nat. Bank, Sup. CT. OF
KY, 90 Rush) cited by tho appellant not
in point. For here there is no evidences lhit
the approval of the said officers account
was an act intended for the iniormauon oil
the public, or that there was any publlca-
ton thereof. Had there been fraudulent
representation or fraudulent conccament
on the part of the directors the suretics
would have been discharged because OF
fraud. The court regrets that The above
question alone REQUIRES discussion NJ pres
ent. Affirmed. could, C. ],
| TNoTE-The several reports OF the COM
misgoners, adopted at this sitting of the
supreme court, were published ut the time
Of their delivery by the former; ana Tor thelr
particuarizing reference is made to the INST
of cases decided by the supreme court at
the time Of the above opinions
S. Deutsch & Co. VS.. i. Wal,,en; from
Bexar county. The husband bavng
decided the land in controversy, subse-
que1tly the deed given by his wife, who,
when she gave the deed, was not
Joined by her husband, and the
deed being executed and recorded pr!or
Deutsch & Co. claim title was valid
conveyance, and as The husband bad the
right 10 make the conveyance without beng
TONED by his wife his deed was superior 10
| tne ST eritfs, unless otherwise detective
The ecution under which the sale was
mcdc il rued more than one year next ailer
TIE preceding execution, and no suiDcleht
excl Sc was shown, for the want of greater
diligence any Judgment lien which had eX-
listed on the property was lost Where the
testimony was sufficient to make out a
prima facie case of valuable consideration,
| In the absence OF other testimony Will be
held sufficient to support the judgment
| Affirmed, Bonner, ].
Aaron Wolf VS.. Emma IL. McMat on;
|
| the issue in the court below was the gen.
rineness ola de ID from the original grantee
to the party under whom the appellant de-
raigned title, the deed being attacked
for forgery by the affidavit of the appellee,
and the dispositions taken by the appellant
were directed owards this issue, and Incl
dentaly the facts of the grantor in the, al
legged forged deed, being at the date
of its execution resident OF the
CITY of Houston, and living there
at the time of its execution, defendant
| had no notice from any irregularities filed
by the plaintiff that it would be relied
upon to establish the forgery of the deed;
that at the time of the purported execution
of the deed the grantor therein was several
hundred miles distant from inc pace OF l.s
execution. Defendant had, by credible
witnesses, whose dispositions were taGen
and proved by them with great detail, the
| facts which, if true established the genuine
ness of the deed, and of course the subor-
dinate fact, though no direct evidence on
that point, that the grantor was present III
the city OF Houston at the time OF the exc
cution of the deed. On the trial the plain
TIFF introduced several witnesses who les
tify as positively to facts which, II true,
| establishes that the grantor at tie
date of the execution of the deed, was
several hundred m les away from the place
of its execution. Verdict for plaintifi. HELD,
| that after discovered evidence showing mat
the grantor at the time of the execution OF
the oeed was in the city of Houston, the
! place of its execution. was not under the
| facts. cumulative evidence, that plaln,lit
might well claim surprise, and that he had
| exhibited all the diligence required OF nm
under the facts of the case evidence Is
not cumul.,tiv merely because former evi'
dence may have indirectly tended TO
establish The same facts. If so, after any
| tsNA a
the deed and Of the whereabouts OF the
grantor ut its sale, would have been cum
Native because whatever tended
| TO show the genuineDess of the deed, tend-
ed also 10 show that the antor was IN
Houston ut the date of its execution. III
reason OF The rule prohibiting new trial
for the purpose oil admitting cumulative
Testimony uoes not apply where the paity
has had no lair opportunity to procure aud
adduce evidence on an issue raised by ms
adversary for the first time during the trlu
by TIE introduction OF evidence winch could
not be anticipated. Reversed and remand
ed Gould, c.. ].
A. +. Roundtree VS.. George Ollroyi IRON
Llano comfy. The fact that one who is
appointed special Judge is a member OF the
| legislacur docs not d'sqpalihy him, nor lsa
persnn holding another civil, ONCE
OF emolument disqualified thereby.
The Judge having appointed JUICY
commissioners for certain ume
and mat lime having expired before, The
adiourrment of court it would have been
more orer TO have reconvened the same
commissioners and then to have selected
the Jury. bat if the judge appointed Other
commissioners at the expiration oil ther
appointment and they selected jurors, It rs
moi such an irregularity as would justify a
reversal on that ground. Evidence OF prior
or 'contemporaneous verbal agreements to
contradict, vary or aod To Mil.ten con,
tract, is not allowed. US Texas, ooo')