The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-10
-ur APPELLATE COURTS
81. of Opinions OF the supreme Court,
~ r,ler Term, 1882.

..;r,y,. Jackson. from McLeunan
when "a motion to Quash Il
S-l,; s.ous,tr4Hou, and bond is made,
" v, ~, Marty maGing il fails to call the
- ~, NJ the court to il and get the
~. ,. ,rlirss thereon, j, will be eonsid-
- rsiy,d: Is Texas, $50; 81 Texas, 4SiJ
s~ ao,ion fled after Judgment asking re-
,f.urif.as on rcployin bond, because
~ ,r,,rtv rep..yiel has died, is largely
I5Isl 10 The courts discretion, and
Iu..rt abuse must be- shown in order For
NPSC1rt ,o grant a refusal. fhe burden
ls.,srpr'lae To show purchase Of the
s,tg u controversy with his own
s Os Reversed and remauGe!; OPP
Mats, Co, adopted,
rS-a..I5v's heirs VS.. Robinson 1t al; I...
ant county. The OMISSIONS here pre-
Ian,c5 are briefly; Pre- married in lS5l,
s.rlrs i've children by ais first wife and
.1.nninlatiug some property and a home
WI His wife afterwards died, what
s.lts tben accrued to his children He
S.,rords married aga II and then died
aS,siC what rights then accrued to his
I iJ5ren What to his widow She after
us. .a,Js married; how did this affect their
,.i.,iye rights? When PresSley's first wife
H.J the community estate owed no debts.
TSsn he died it owed no debts. Held, l..
wan YAM tbe death of Pressey's first wife the
,mm,,nitv property descended one-half to
.ontiHs and one.half to Presley, subject
I. ali inst debts, etc; 10 Texas, 1870; "a
T,vas So; 50 Texas, No. Held, >. No
',rtition having been sought and
S.Ssley. the head of the family, accu.
vino The homestead, his estate is not
a,nseable with rents. In addition to
Somestead rights, Presley had title to an
,cdiyiled one-half interest Of the land in
%ntroyersy. BY his second marriage his
.shts remained the same. AS his wife,
lTSring his life, she WAS protected in her
iomestead right. ID. The second wife
Al moi receive any right to the homestead
At Presseys death. Sd. At his death his
Siiren we're entitled, in addition to their
nothers halt interest, to the remaining
~a.haf subject to lifetime interest OF
methird in the second wife. Her home,
sp,d being acquired beto re their rights, a
artlti0n Of her homestead cOuld not be
demanded, but that of the remaining lands
mnM lth. The second marriage OF the
| SC0nl VIE ulu Apt lLhpol uCA uOllsecd''
ishts during her life. Reversed and re,
landed, Bonner j.
lee AZ Co. VS.. Stowe & Wilmending; from
Washington county. In addition to the
wints decided by the commission Of an
pss in this case, published October IS
~, the supreme court hold, if the plant,
H. at the request of the firm of Lee & Co.,
rrbally guaranteed the payment of bills
d goods which they purchased, they, upon
pyment OF such bills by plaintiffs when
ley become due, are entitled to re.
over the same, whether such payment:
we're made before or after the dissolution
athe firm, and, if after whether there
ns notice or not, and this not
outstanding the plaintiffs might
Aye interpOsed the statute of fraud as de
hHse had they been sued upon their verbal
warranty. Reversed and remanded. Stay
Ton,
Gaphaus VS., De Lefez; from Bexal
Nlnty. The facts in the record (see this
bis raSe, published October %, lSS2) do not
5idenCe any right of the surviving widow
9nCumber or sell the interest of her. mi
lMChildren if the property was Commu
tiy but that was Il question for the jury
Ndetermine. There is no law depriying q
mother, she being widow, of the power t.
sl her interest even though the property
nay be homestead. Appellant sued fol
ieentire lot. Held, if he showed title tC
nyp part OF ii, he was entitled to recovery
nfthe quantity for which title was shown
Reversed and rcmanded. StaytOn, j.