The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-04-20
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Chief Justice, R. $. Could: Associate Justices,
NJ. II. Bonner, J. W. Stayton;
Clerk, c. :. Morse.
From Wednesdays Dailyl
r. L. Parker ct al VS.. J. L. Spencer;
appeal from Grayson. Referred by re-
quest of both parties to commissioners of
appeals.
J. E. Jones ct al VS.. o. c. Pyron ct
al; appeal from Collin. Submitted on
brief and oral argument of both parties
Nancy Carter VS.. w. Wheeler and B.
f. Cobb; appeal from Denton. Trans
ferred to heel of second assignment.
William Caruth VS.. NJ L. Swindle;
appeal from Dallas. Submitted on
brief and oral argument of both parties.
Walter Caruth VS.. NJ. L. Swindle; ap-
peal from Dallas. Submitted on brief
and oral argument of both parties.
Western Union telegraph company VS..
Joseph H. Brown; appeal from Tarrant
Transferred to Tyler term on motion and
by agreement
j. Lyle Smith, administrator, VS.. w.
E. Shinn; appeal from Wise. Reset for
Today.
From Fridays Daily
John II. Belcher VS. Mulhall & Seal
ing, appeal from Cooke county; iudg-
ment reversed anG cause remanded
Orinion by Justice Stayton.
L. III. Sanders vs. Richard Hart, ap-
peal from Grayson county; Judgment
affirmed. Opinion by Justice Bonner.
George Pfeuffer VS.. Katarina Stem
pei, appeal from Comal county Opin-
ion of the commissioners of appeals (deliv-
ed by Judge Watts examined, their
opinion adopted and the judgement al
firmed
c. H. Stith VS.. Gilbert Jackson, error
from McLennan county. Opinion of the
commissioners delivered by Judge
Watts examined, their opinion adopted
and the judgment affirmed.
J. P. Davidson VS.. William Gibson;
appeal from Eastland county. Opinion
of the commissioners delivered by Pre-
siding Judge Walker) examined, their
opinion adopted, and the judgment re
versed and cause remanded.
The clerks, by working large force,
have at last finished removing their eff
fects to the Brueggerho1f building, and
the first session of the supreme court was
held in their new quarters on Yesterday.
1t WILL yet take several days to finish fix
ing up all of their things in the proper
places.
SYNOPSIS OF OPINIONS.
Theodore Tobin VS.. Houston and
Texas Central railroad company error
from Grayson county.--The statute in
force prior to the adoption of the re-
vic
tions for injuries done to the person of
another, as of assault and battery,
wounding or imprisonment,
shall be commenced and sued within
one year, next after the cause of such
action or suit, and not alter" ap-
plicable to any physical injury, and
the enumeration of particular classes
only given for examples This suit
brought for damages for injury TO the
person by the railroad, and dismissed
below on grounds Of limitations as above.
Affirmed. .-Stayton, ].
w. A Kincaid vs. II. Butcher; ap-
peal from Collin county-Where the
surveys of two adjoining tracts
| of land have been made at the
same time, and the boundary line be-
tween the two differs as to the distance
called for, the excess should be equally
divided between them. Weider VS..
Hunt, "a Texas, 46]. When conflict in
testimony exists about an agreement
which was claimed to operate as an estop-
pei, the verdict of the jury, having evi-
dence to support it, cannot be disturbed.
1t is not error te refuse a charge after
the court had fully, clearly and accu-
rately charged upon the subject. Affirm
ed.-Stayton, J.
John Nevans ct al VS.. John j.
Collins appeal from Grayson county
An assignment having the term that, ''all
assets whatsoever belonging to said
bank, " included whatever was due from
stockholders for stock unpaid, and that
by deed of assignment, the right to re-
cover of stockholders what was so
due by them, vested in the assignee
Having accepted dividend under the as
signment, plaintiff could not appropriate
to his exclusive benefit assets which be-
longed to the assignee for benefit of
all The creditors alike. Thompson's Liza
bilities of Stockholders, section 340-1. I
The statutory remedy was not designed
TO interfere with a valid assignment of
an insolvent incorporation, covering
what due from stockholders as well as
Others Reversed and remanded. -
Gould, G.. J.
A. W. Morton VS.. A. M. X. Sowell ;
appeal from Dallas county. The
court says, in the language
of the chancellor, in Rockefeller VS.. Don
nelly, 8 COwen, 629, quoted by Oh. J.
Hemphill in Pope VS. Mays, 10 Tex,
37S, when an obligation is TO indem-
nifty against damages or expense, and
the obligee has become absolutely bound
and liable to pay the damages incurred
by the charge, and his demand against
this obligor upon the bond of indemnity,
by reason of the charges against himself,
is reduced to certainty, it would surely
be reasonable, and not in violation of
law, TO permit him to enforce his own
demand against the obligator in the first
instance, and before he satisfies the
charge against himself" That an ac-
acknowledgement, taken by a trustee
primarily empowered to act, would With
ate the record, expressly decided in
Brown vs.. Moon, 38 Tex, 645, and
other cases. No opinion given as to the
application of same principle to a substi-
tuted trustee, when he appears as such
on the face of the deed. Affirmed
Bonner, j.
E Gold en- vs. T. G. Patterson ct al {;
appeal from Grayson county.-It was
assumed in the charge of the court below
that certain signature was proven, as
question of fact, to be that of the orig
inal grantee, without even the initials
beng the same, or other evidence of
identity. And, therefore, the charge
was not simply upon the legal effect of
undisputed documentary testimony, but
an assumption of material question of
fact, which 1t was the exclusive right of
the jury to decide. r. S. 1917. Re-
versed and emanded.-Bonner, ].
SYNOPSIS OF OPINIONS
of Commiasionera of AppeaIE. of