The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-12-21
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis of Opinions of the Supreme Court
Tyler Term, 1889.


Sbryock & Rowland VS.. Lattimer ct al;
from Bowie county. The property IN con-
troversy was purchased by appellant at ex-
ecution sale Oh judgment against Latti-
mer Gully. Lattimer claims the prop
erty exempt under the constitution, as his
place of business, for although at the Time
of this levy and sale his business was cioSGi,
vol he intended to resume as soon as his
financial condition allowed, Hello, 10 hoiu
exempt his place of business which IS sep,
arafe from his homestead, two things must
concur. He. as head of q family, must
Sove a calling or business, and the properly
must he held adapted 10 such, and be rea'
sonably necessary for such, and the properly
must be used to exercise SUCH business vi
calling of the head of family. because
Lattimer formerly did business ~ ene pl ,.,i,
artv in controversy and intended to resume
When able, does not alter the case he
versed and rendered. Stayton, j.
Newcome ct al. VS.. Light; from Grayson
countv. Nancy Light brought SUIT against
ID. w. Light for divorce on the GROUND OF
cruel treatment. This suit was dismissed.
Afterwards D. w. Light brought SUIT Tor
divorce against Nancy Light on the ground
of abandonment. The. second sun Mhs
granted. The judge trying Inc secG Hn s srlt
snit. Held, tie Judge trying the second
snit was disqualified, having beer OF couh'
.el In fine first suit, which was suihclent 10
disoualifv him. This suit, being Tor division
or 1ronaytv. and based on the judgment In
The second suit, which was nullity, can
not be sustained, and the Judge erred IN
his charge 10 the jury, wherein MS cnaIse
was based on the legality OF the luusu1eII
in the second suit. Reversed ana 'euanoeu'
Hum ct al. VS.. Webberwak ct al; from
Rnsk county. Appellants obtained Judig-
ment against appellees., Motion i9r
~, rial made January l6,
1880 which was oyerruled, APP
neIIees anpealed. Execu' ion issued onthat
Indictment and levied on money February
s. 1852; on the same day appellees hled their
9npeal bond and supersedeas. Inc same
day one of defendants maue new niotioh
TO- new trial. etc. The next day the re-
maining defendants made motion to set
aside ihe iudment formerly rendered, FEB
rnary /. 1852. The court set aside the former
Indictment and uuashed the execution ana
retnrn. Appellants excepted, because
when this last order was made defendants
had perfected their appeal and obtained
supersedeas. Court ADJOURNED feprusry
III 5000 Tho nevc term the case was called
nm plaintiffs declined 20 announce ready
,dr trial and the case was dismissed Tor
800 ~ nrosecution. Held, the district
court had authority at any time during the
49,, AZ which the Judgment was rendered
40 10 set s,s II aside. Affirmed. Gould, c. J.
Rattle VS.. Guedry; from McLennan coun-
Nv. The only question IN TINS case Is,
xouId an execution issued against L. D.,
CIomeuts issued ON judgment against -.
p y Clements support title 10 land sold I'M
a.. sucb9 The record contains no explain
storv evidence. IL Is shown that there Is
no snch person as "P. b." Clements,
"a that there was ne Judgment rendered
assinst him. Held, We cannot conclude
u3thout other evidence that they are one
and the same person, OF that judgment
against ~. p" Clements would support an
asscntion against "P. b." Clements. ano
ne Indictment Is affirmed. Opinion OF
Indge Deiany adopted.
Hoard va Kopperl; from Bell county.
A,.,,.liee claims through a deed from the
- - Marty AZ appellant. Appellee's deed
--ss rfcorded In Falls county, in 1855. and
IN Bell county in 1876. Appellants deed
from the same party was recorded IN Bel
county seven months pre'i1 w. ~ VA 49,.
vsre recorded the land was In Bell county,
esvfne been cut of OF Falls county. Held,
the court erred in charging the jury 10 ei-
,eet that the deed Of appellee, having been
rscorded in Falls county, was constructive
uotfce 10 appellant that his NeuoOr haa
,,,,vs.vionslv conveyed the land 20 another.
/ Rsrer.ed and remanded. Stayton,
CORPORATION Of seguin " lrelandi from
cnedaiupe county. Previous decisions
vel supported ~ the weight Of authority
recognire the night Of an owner 20 MAINTAIN
= NIT AGAINST q corporation where sue
o-rner possssses lots abutiing on . public
I sgnere ''dedicated ns en- open pu0ii,
s5nere.r and such c0rpOra'l0n has erected
rnarket-h0use and calhOoose thereon
which IL q public nuisance ano oepfe,is.s'
he value 81 the lots The p'etltion inl,lnl
10 ufate facts showing that town hntne-iIle
verr not auih0rized % ere5i ms Etl-. e 49, ~.
on this square except IN plle1ly lIon ess,t
,.-fi,,r Il - 4 dedicated o. en- open punll
rrnare. demurrer 70 ne ps..i.S. - -,
80 80 sustained. for which The tude
49,, \. 5000 ard the cause remandsd
n---s,.-.a ~ rrrnauded. 8unId. g. ].
rr;-Er " Morris: from WOOD county
re- -rss al Morris 20 the administrnlo
i.-s-.- ,-frrr lor the purc1ase m0nfy or -
800 - efrriuistrni0r's sale. he a1mlDl.
t--sr- therefore Ibid q len upon tbe lad
a. 80 rnnuer. Morris having 1olroEe
~. --r--rr from Hlcks With whlch - p
- - IN. and having aEres1 wlt1 a. ~
- s-rrgfrr the len, HicEs narlnf loane'
No. ffr rn1usT. wn1 sut-ornted ~ -
- ~ a. ertart thnt he rurcnese none.
1i.- - I'D 81 ~ ne money lo1ne1 D
rri-tr ~ Morris. knd Ho-Il. h1Tlrr -
49, - r-rIrsl rfren ~ Hicks - ne -
80 as Enct NOE - ~ ~. 49, !.
- --r-t ~ ~ = rr-ToEs1 -,rr'I
- rrris1 rn1 p ~ - ~. n,,1-
y 80. !. !. -. : sos'1' = !