The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-15
THE DALLAS WEEKLY uERALD THUsnDAY.JUNE 10. 1882.

doris lien had. ever existed, but the pur.
chase was satisfied when sale vas made to
the C's by NJ. lplaintllf and appelloel.
The error assigned Is that the court oxclud.
Of tho evidence Of l., TO the olloci thnt g.,
after tho purchase from NJ. aud while In
possession offered 10 sell hun % the prop
eriy and that g. told him that he paid NJ.
81 800 Tor the snme, In debt due him from
NJ. Held, that the court did not err IN ex-
Guiding such evidence. Affirmed. Wal
ker, y.
Butler VS.. Pierce ct all from Live Oak
county. Suit by u. vs.. s. j. and J. 7. to
foreclosc mechanics lien brought in district
court with. allegation that the acGount$I2.SO,
was made by defendants, and that work
and material was done and furnished in aid
of construction of u house on the lots
described. The work was chiefly on
repairs of household furniture, mechanics
tools, etc. Petition averred that j. 4.
owned the lots and that description OF the
ground and buildings was flied for record.
Mrs. Z. excepted, and the Others demurred
to the petition. Another answer, without
date, sets up plea to the jurisdiction be
cause the amount is less than 500. Amend
ed petition sets up that Mrs. i. was having
Il stone building erected on the los; that
she was managing and experimenting the
work separate from her husband that the
demand was against that building; that
she promised TO pay the same
%na s9' and fP Recorded a nGG00 served
her, defendants excepted because the
amendment sets up contract by married
woman without her husbands consent,
which was sustained. Held, not error, be.
cause such sui, could not be sustained
against Mrs. p, and when she passed out
there was no jurisdiction. Affirmed. De-
lauey, j..
ii. Il j. C. railroad company VS.. Burke;
from Washington county. In charging on
| the measure ofdamages the court instructed,
You may ascertain the value ofplaintiif S
| services to himself before the in
jury and their value since, and
ascertain the difference, and then
the Jury would be authorized TO give such
n sus us would at legal rate of interest pro-
duce sum equal pei. annum to that differ
ence, and not greater sum on this item y
Held, error. The least Objectionable rule
on such measure OF damages would be that
from the facts and circumstances of each
particular case, the jury should award TO
the party injured such sum as in their
Judgment would compensate him for the
injuries received. Reversed and remand
ed. Watts, j.
Lane ct. al. VS.. Culver ct. al; from
Travis county. charge of the court to
the jury which instructs that an
extension of time does not
necessarily release q surety, but that it
would release him if he was injured by the
extension, since it applied to the facts in
this case, was not error. See IL Texas, 694.
The only question in this case was whether
the postponement of the delivery of part
of the cattle from the LIST and 10th of July
to the 25th of July was such a change in
the contract as 10 discharge the surety,
and it is held not to have been. Affirmed.
Delaney, j.
La Rue VS.. Bower; from Grayson county.
The submission OF special issues to the jury
by this court without request from either
party lies within the discretion of the
court, and is not error, if given in clear and
proper form on the issues raised by the
pleading. Where a jury has interviewed
and all the issues been submitted to their
decision, their verdict must constitute the
basis of Judgment, and the court cannot
look to the evidence on which the verdict
was founded to determine what judgment
to render, but alone to the verdict. This is
the applied rule, but it does not follow that
the special pleading would not support
Il Judgment rendered thereon by the
court. AS to whether the due bill in
this case was given in settlement of
the account or to enable the plaintiff
to raise money was presented by the court
to the jury and by them answered in their
verdict. Affirmed, Watts, j.
Texas d Pacific railway company vs..
Fort; from Dallas county. The court in
this case holds that "when several carriers
unite to complete line of transportation
and receive baggage for one freight and
give through bill of lading, each carrier
is the agent of all the others to accomplish
the carriage and delivery of the goods and
is liable for any damage TO
them on whatever part of the
line the damage Is received. This was
a recovery against the appellant for the loss
ola trunk which was checked through to
Dallas from Memphis, Tennessee, on
check which read Memphis-Dallas, Texas,
via NJ. d l.. Ry.. c, q F., T. d. p" which
indicated the different railways over which
the baggage would come, "T. IL Pr indi-
eating the appellants railway. Affirmed.
Delaney, j.