The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-21
THE AFFILIATE COURTS.
,,.ppsis of Opinions of the Court OF Ap-
meals, Tyler Term. 1899


sanity. Suit against appellants for dam.
avs for illegal seizure ard conversion of
,SOellee's goods, claiming them to belong
,abis brother. Appellee did not allege in
N,pettion that he was clerk, or that, as
NH. be was entitled to a certain salary per
nOuth, lost through the illegal seizure,
rbeh broke him up in business. On the
nal he was permitted to testify to such.
usd. error. The wrong-doer is chargeab!e
nth al consequences of his wrongful act.
The dam ages were not too remote, but not
Ming alleged could not be proven. 1t was
anon appellant to show that the sale was
s,udulent, as charged. They relied upon
srumstsnusl evidence to do so. (See o5
TeIss, 99i) That case governs this. Re-
roSed and remanded, Wilson, |.
DayisVs Diamond Smart; from Camp
SuBty. Suit by injunction to restrain
,Dpellees from selling cotton by virtue of an
| Order of sale from the justice court. The
! wtton had been purchased by appellant at
constable sale as the property Of Bolton,
10 satisfy q Judgment in favor of appellant,
Who was in possession of the cotton before
enclosure OF the mortgage in favor of ap-
reliant, DAVIS was not made party to
| NE suit of appellants against Bolton, in
| which the mortgage was foreclosed.
| although in possession of the cotton at the
. tine The injunction was Dissolved. Held,
me appellant by purchase, holding the
equity of redemption, and being in poses
lOn OF the property, was a necessary
Darty to the suit Tor foreclosure, and being
slCh, the Judgment of oreclosure against
| Bolton could not affect his rights. His
remedy was by injunction. Reversed and
nmanded, White, p. j.
n Euish VS.. Docket; from Washington
county. At common law, where land was,
rented for Il money rental and the contract
contains no stipulation as to time of paw
ment it becomes due at the end OF the
year. Our statutes make an exception with
regard to landlord and tenant, where before
he expiration OF the lease the tenant seeks
10, or does, remove agricultural products or
other property liable to landlords lien,
ron the premises without consent of such
landlord. In such cases. though the rent
may not be due, the landlord has the right
pdistran Tor his rents. The tenant herein
having sold some Of the cotton, and being
shout To sell more, the distress warrant was
properly sued out. The evidence does not
sustain the verdict. Reversed and re-
handed. White, p. ].
Wood VS. the State; from Hunt county.
The jury i'll this case having concluded
that appellant was guilty, agreed to make
up the amount OF punishment thus: They
we're to set down any number of years not
toexCeed atty years and not less than five
years, and divide the sum by twelve, the
9uoteint to be the amount OF punishment.
They also then agreed to abide by the re
suit. Held, the verdict should have been
Maslde. The verdict may not have been
decided by law, but it was not q fair ex-
preston OF opinion of each juror. The
agreement to abide by the result was fatal,
Or Inc Jury cannot agree before the
amount OF punishment is ascertained to
aOlde by It, The improperly consisted in
such an agreement. Reversed and TO-.
handed. Hurt, j.
Wilkerson VS.. the State; from Rockwell
county. The record fails to show plea.
Held, there can be no exception TO the rule
without u plea by the defendant either of
guilty or not guilty, there can be no issue
%the jury to determine, and without such
'lelr verdict, ii II conviction, is nullity
aud must be set aside. Reversed and re-
handed. White, p. i.
Vhlcagn, Texas x Mexican Central rail.
way vs., Ritter and wife, from Dallas county
me elements of recovery in a suit
w damages tor condemnation
hRht,ot-way are found in these
aoss' l. The legitimate damages sustained
'he condemnation and appropriation of
we 'and Tor railroad purposes .. A re-
@gry can only be had for the value of the
1nr actually condemned and appropriated.
ins oenelts, II any, resulting to the re-
aailder OF the land by the construction
S SM opera'ion OF the road are offsets. 4.
Suvu oehehts or injuries as are sustained in
wmIioh Dy 'he public generally and not
sIu'lar 10 the complaining parties are not
S%NcohSldered. .. The value of the land
uue lhe condemnation less the value of
ws porll0h not condemned after its appro.
S,,auOh 0y lls railroad is the measure of
s4i'ages' reversed and remanded. White,
, ttoas st. Louis railway VS.. Reid and
,.n Wy. roIl navarro county. In the original
SSa ne parties claimed damages because of
Ius 10 the separate properly of the wife,
S,,i. sue was proper p9rty, but the suit
.ins been amended and the cause of
SS.,n as amended set up cause of action
SMmuAtnageS to the husbands crops, his
S ,ta'ugs' eIc, and for exemplary damages
SsWle should have stated her suit, she
S sno longer u proper party. The basis
teavnvo'ery under the suit as amended was
Ss s .alue 9i the crops at the time they were
Paoyeu and interest thereon from date.
,'v r ana romandcd. Wilson, j.
nIock vs. loty, from Falls county. The
sN ',H sought to be set aside was statutory,
ron mSnt oil appeal was reserved The
S , Tor setting aside are gross mistakes
tio LOWING an item of damages for dissolu-
b,ta,,o VI .ne hrm and perjury in appellee
M , s ,ne commission. Held, either of
Smcs ,ou'ids II sustained by the facts are
bs nS'eht 10 set aside the award. The suits
SoS1a properly consolidated, the court
mi, "" n3' nave separated them. In one
6s 'ppeliSht lead u judgment enioined by
t,y,aaI Ppelier, In the other both parties
lT,,Ju sugh to be allowed pro tanto on the
~ u Held, the matters not being mat
le,Sg " ";, upon In the award and the facts
Avs bSn.ns equity in appellant they should
leaa wi ,I considered. Other matters being
SS,j wn'oh were not passed upon in the
nj uu'ht TO have been examined in'o
Do SONeu III view OF the insolvency Of
lulson, N'''' anu ''"''''''"'
1onrad 4 Co. VS.. Walsh, from Grayson
~r,Ei, Where authority Is given an
1s s' ~ ihe nature of personal trust il
nx.. NV invest the agent implicitly with
A rw substitution. 1t is purely personal
Il iS.'ess from the Ian guag used, or
pnSnr Presumption from tie particular
nIs y, tue transaction. or the usares OF
me-, a. broader power was to be given, IL
M, Sn 90 Considered. Declaration of an
prove agency cannot he admitted.
nse violation of law for a judge to re-
M , nU Tile aud change n bill OF excep-
Nfs hitQr ia. 4