The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-21
raE APPELLATE COURTS.
Synopsis of Opiuions OF the Supreme Court,
Tyler Term, 1882,


Marks VI. wingleld. from Van Zandt
county. The question in the case arises
upon the proper or improper description
OF the land in controversy in this case OF
trespass to try title. The land is described
in the petition as an "undiviGed lG6 acres
out of tract containing COS acres" The
petition also contains an allegation that by
agreement with the owners of the balance
OF the ,09S acres plaintiff had taken her I66
acres out of the north end, and that part
taken by her was the part occupied and
claimed by defendant. The description is
the same in the Judgment which contains
the order that "the 100 acres owned by
plaintiff be taken of of the north end"
Held, there is such inconsistency between
the description as first given, and that
avcrmcnt Of the plaintiff that by agreement
sha had taken her part of of u certain por-
tran OF the entire survey The avcrment Is
an imperfect attempt to describe specific
quantity of land, and the contradictory
averments and misdescriptions are in con.
tfayentiou of the statute. Reversed and
rcmanded, Gould, C. j.
Waterhouse y3. Blount from San Angus.
tine county. The court holds that though
no motion Tor new trial was made in the
justice court, yet that is no good grouI d for
dismissal or appeal to the county court.
One Price raised a crop on the land of appel
laut, thelatter.urnishing teams, implements,
etc, anu agreeing TO divide the crop. Price
bought his supplies from appellant, and
@hea the crop was raised gathered and de-
liVeIed the cotton to appellant to be hauled
10 The gin and told appellant when the
crop was sold, that he (appellanO SHOULD
take out the amount due him for supplies.
When the crop was gathered Price was to
receive 500 but owed appellant $S1 30, and
was therefore still in debt. While the cot.
ton was at the gin appellant attached it as
the property of Price. Held, the case pre-
sapts one Of pledge, not mere mortgage,
aud the pledge cannot be disturbed by the
levy of an attachment, Appellant had the
Iight to protect the property. (by claim
ing 1t uncer the statute. Osborne vs.
K0enlghcim, Austin term, lSS2), re-
ynsed aud rendered in favor of Water.
house, Gould, g i.
Missouri Paciii railway company w.
hyde, from Anderson county. The court
charged the jury as follows: "a master Is
hound to the exercise of reasonable care in
reference to all the appliances of the bust
nes9 and is bound to protect his servants
from injury therelrom by reason of Intent
o. unseen detects 80 far as human care and
foresight can accomplish that result, but
hS AbVo NV iAulll III ll' TtldIlpI ol Nh III
sule' to the servant against injury and can
only be held chargeable when negligence
can be properly imputed to him.
Held, the tost of diligence applied
By the court that the company should pro.
tcct its servants from reason of latent or
unseen defects, SO far as human care and
foresight can accomplish the result, is
greater than theaaaw allows. In Pierce on
Railroads., $40, the proper law is laid down.
where reference is had to authorities In
notes herewith; 90 Texas, SAL The
plaintiff, in his plendings, alleged that he
was poor man and without means with
which TO engage in mercantile business"
Defendant excepted thereto, and the court
oyerruled the exception, Held, where the
party sues himself for injuries received by
him. although plaintiff may show the ma
tufe of his business and its value rs
grounds for damages, his wealth or pow
eIty Is immaterial, calculated only to intlu-
cnCe the verdict, Evidence is not admissi-
bic in that issue. The exception should
have been sustained. Reversed and re-
manded. Bonner, j.