The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-16
THE APPELLATE COURTS.
Synopsis of Opinions Of the supreme Court
Tyler Term, 1882.

from Delta county. Where a verbal con
tfac, is entered into between contractor
and the trustees of a township for the pur
pose Of building school-house, and suot
bond contains toe constituent elements o
the verbal contract and Is duly signed by
both the contractor and the trustees, the
recording of such bond fllfills the require
mcnts of the statute regulating the me
CHANCES lien, and bill of particulars Is
not required. If the specifications of the
building are contained in the appendix t.
the bond il Is not necessary to record them
Reversed aud remsnded. Gould, G. ].
Turner vs.. Ferguson OF al; from Bell
county. Unless the party giving the in
formation knew the facts In regard TO the
abandonment of the claim, his promise
made without consideration and in ignor-
aloe of his rights did not estop him. With
out knowledge Of the facts or gross negli-
geuce in failing to know them there would
DO no proof Of wrong, no actual or con
strGGted fraud, and that essential element
oil estoppci would be wanting, Reversed
and remanded Gould, C.
Snow vs.: Nichols from Kaufman county.
The appellants deed being one OF general
warranty, reciting consideration paid,
the failure Of appellee to pay oil the pur-
chase money gave him no right of suit of
tespasi to try title; (52 Texas, 252) State.
megts Of appellant as to his Intention, or
Che understanding OF the parties before the
contract, cannot vary the legal effect of the
language Of the deed. II an executory con-
tract lac waived his rights under it by OBJ.
tanning judgment on his purchase money
notep, he could then only ask RECESSION OF
contract by doing equity with the money
received; (7l Texas, 7ji) Because the
decd was not acknowledged or witnessed it
was not therefore Invalid. Affirmed. Stay
ton /.
Walter vs.. Weaver ct al; from Hopkins
county. The officers certificate to the sep
arato acknowledgment of the wife to u
deed is conclusive evidence of the facts
therein, when the grantee acts in good faith
and pays a valuable and adequate consider
ton for the property; (2l Texas, 6i0.) The
acknowledgement therefore being of vital
Importance IL must be given great weight in
the absence Of fraud or duress No fraud
is shown by the evidence, nor duress, and
tue allegation on the part of the wife of the
want OF understanding is negatived by the
Csytiiicate OF the clerk. Affirmed. Stay.
ton
Tent VS.. Waters; from Kaufman county.
The signing of d deed by u person not
party thereto as witness will not of itself
DO notice of the contents of the deed, but
when one acquiesces in the appropriation
" the land by his brother who pays for il at
the time, and witnesses the deeds of parti-
ton which passes between his brother and
the Joint owner, knowing the nature of the
transaction ana consenting thereto and con
tinuiDg so to acquiesce until others were
induced by his conduct to purchase and
pay Tor the land, and until it would be in
equitable for him, or any one claiming I'M
DEE him, except nj innocent purchaser, to
Dispute the title OF those claiming under
Lis brother, the rule does not apply. AT
Grmod. Gould, c. j.
Moore ct al. rs. Fuller ct al; from Hop
hna county. The property ordered to be
sold was conveyed by V. M. Kelley to John.
Kelley, and the estate of V. NJ. Kelley had
az the property alone OF Mrs.
Fuller. the sole heir of John X, the sale
was rightly ordered, and made by the sher-
i'll, tDibrell vs.. Smith, 10 Texas.) Those
claiming under Mrs, Fuller cannot attack
the Judgment by collateral proceeding.
Reversed and remanded Gould, c. !.
Pace ct al. vs.. Smith; from Hunt county.
> & u, attached pcrishable property which
belonged to Smith, which was sold, and the
proceeds paid into the hands of the clerk of
Che court, The attachment WINS quashed.
=, & d., however, garnished the clerk for
tile amount in his hands. This 10 man
money over to Smith presenting the
question, is money in the hands OF clerk
Ia custodia lesis aud not subject to garnish-
ment Justice Bonner, though delivering
the opinion 81 the court, holds contrary to
them. The majority, however, hold the
money was not subject to the writ of gar
ni9hmcnt, affirming the judgment.
Sexton and wife VS.. CLANCY; from Raines
county. Where the case has been tried
without the intervention of II jury and tho
judge finds his conclusion, both as to the
law and The facts, and the appellant fails to
incorporate in the transcript an assignment
OF error, we can only notice such errors rs
are fraudulent In character. After very
careful Inspection of the record we fail to
hnd such error in this case, and the judg-
mont Is affirmed. Bonner,j.
Putnam CT al. vs.. Young ct al :; from Nc.
iennan county. This is companion case
to Prcssly's heirs VS.. Robinson, published
recently, but there being an administration
pending upon the estate of tho heirs
father when this cause was filed, and at the
date of the trial the heirs could not prose.
cute n suit alone to recover real or personal
property. which would be assets in the
hands OF the administration for the nav
ment of debts. Tho plaintiffs eau recover
the excess Of their fail er's interest in the
land over aud above the home
stead. As there was no admins.
uetion upon their mothers estate they
wore the only rroper pnrties to recovery
OF their mothers interest in the community
ea,ate Of the first marriage, inc uding the
1interest in he homestead at her death. If
S!he estate of their father was insolvent un.
Gcr The law then in force, the homestead
Veaccnded in foe to the widow and minor
dhildren in Joint interest, neither being en-.
tailed to exclusive possession; (52 Texas,
l1D Reversed and rcinarded. Bonner, 1,
H'etcrs am wife VS., Clements: from Cass
eo(nty. Where there is no statement OF
fio(s Incorporated in the transcript, the
Judgment oi the court In admitting aud OK.
cluJtng evidence cannot be revised, and
fan{'amental errors in the charge can alone
be Rcoked to for reversal, but where there
weto special findings Of the Jury, they will
be )coasldored In conjunction with the
ohafee. la this case the special findings of
the Jury did not warrant a Judgment In ia.
vor ht Peters aud wife, and such being the
case, the judgment must be affirmed.
Stapton, ],
Norris Va. City of Waco; from McLennan
county The question, and only one pre-.
scented in this case, Is, can lands situated
within the city limits, which are used
solfly Tor agricultural or pastoral purposes,
bebuhjco,ed to the same rate OF municipal
taxation as property which is strictly urban
aud which may be, therefore, more directly
benefited by the expenditure of money
raised bylsuch taxation, Held, the lcgisla.
turc having the power to authorize the
levy of such N tay anu having yran,ed th.