The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-27

Win u tne rgnt 10 the judgment on the
principle that the assignment Of q par
ticular claim passes to the assignee all the
remedies and liabilities which the assignor
had to secure and recover it, though thsy
were not specifically mentioned In the as
signment.. Neither the assignor or
assignee knew at the time Of
the assignment that any Judgment
had been rendered upon the note, and the
intention Of the parties was that all Of the
interest of the assignor in the debt should
pass by the assignment and rest in the
assignee. Upon this view it shows that appel
lees had such an interest or right to the judg-
ment as would entitle him to maintain this
suit; % Tex. 473. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion by Watts, com.
Franklin ct al VS.. Herman; from Calves
ton county. When cases have been pend
ing in the court length of time like the
present case three years. no motion to dis
miss the appeal will be noticed, unlessas to
the question of want of juris-
diction in the supreme court.
being for a debt or damages, there is no me-
cessity to make provision for them in the
bond. The transcript of the record from
the comptroller's office was regarded as a
nullity by the court below, simply because
some of the entries were in pencil writing.
These entries so written in pencil, not af-
fecting the main question at issue or being
germane thereto, were immaterial and did
not invalidate the document. Reversed
and remanded on rehearing
County OF Galveston VS.. G. NJ. Noble ct
al; from Harris county. One A. j. Walker
being charged with murder in Galveston
county obtained ii change of venue to Lib,
erty county. He was afterwards granted
bail which was taken in Galveston county.
Not appearing bail was forfeited. Noble
as sheriff collected money on the forfeited
bond. The question presented is to what
county does the money collected belong
! Held neither the old or revised Statutes say
in express terms to which county the money
\ belongs. Under our statute the state pay:
| but limited amout of costs incurred IL
criminal cases, the county having to beal
the burden of the expense. To recon-
pense the county money collected or for
feited bail bonds was required to be pait
into the county treasury. Therefore tn
money should be paid into the treasury o
the county bearing the burden Therefor
the money belongs to Galveston county
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Rogers ct al. VS.. Bradford; from Victorl
county. Although the officer had duthorit
to levy on and sell the individual propert
Of either X. or o., or their separate intel
est in property held by them as tenants. /
common. vet as he actually levied on ar
sold the interest of the firm of II, II o., an
as that firm had no right or interest wha
ever in the property sold, the purchaser az
, quires nothing. Interest actually ofiere
for sale and sold is the only Interest whic
, passes by the sale. Reversed and remande
on rehearing.
Eritts VS.. Robb ct al; from Wise count,
This court does not regard as desirable III
practice of submitting motions to dismi'
appeals at the same time that the cases al
submitted. Motions to dismiss appeal ft
f non.description in bonds must be taken i
, time, that is, when the assignment is callet
! If the appeal bond is filed within twent
{ days after adjournment OF the court
which the judgment was rendered, 1t is su
+ fcient, otherwise this court would not hay
, jurisdiction, aud would take notice OF sue
, facts ITSELF Motion overruled.
) Henry I.oggins VS.. the State; from Wall,
: county. On motion for rehearing. Upo
p: affirmance of conviction of murder in sc
| ond degree, fifty years in the penitentiar
+ But q single question is presented in u
t able and exhaustive brief and argument
/ counsel for rehearing. 1t is that u graz
4 error is contained in the doctrine that
3 case will not be reversed for errors cor
: mitted in the lower court in overrulir
{ challenges for cause to jurors even thoul
defendant exhausted his challenges perem
q tory unless it is further shown that an o
i iectionable Juror was, forced upC
J. him. and set upon the case aft
2 he had exhausted his peremptory CHI,
lenge. In other words that error of det
s sion as to jurors qualification is not cur'
@ by tie subsequent exclusion OF the lur
l. although the prisoner had not exhaust
l. his challenges even to the last. Held, tn
/. while we are aware that such rule pr
). walls in some of the states, in most of Il
If other states the rule is otherwise and ii
IS rule is well settled that ii an incomplete
/. Juror is selected and the prisoner fails
A exhaust his peremptory challenge the 0
. lection is waived, and 1t has so been he
Q time and again in Texas. 1t is con tend
" in this case that the defendant having {
C ercised his peremptory challeng
n that it therefore differs irc
e the line of cases esta
n fishing the rule announced. The law
e where prohibits the defendant from usi
n his peremptory challenges when he has
D. reason for or cause to rid himself of an {
h noxious juror, or that he shall not use
10 challenge upon disqualified juror. but
,e may do so or not just as he pleases. If
Ia does so, he has excluded the juror a
i, rdded himself of him and the object,
B. and consequently has no just ground
{. complaint. If he does not, then he wai'
his objection and cannot complain until
is has shown the expenditure of his pereu
b, tory challenge, and that he has had an
as noXious juror put upon him whom
Of could not get rid of. The motion for
IL hearing is overruled. Opinion by Viii
ia u. 1. Hurt, Judge, dissents.
frhe opinion in this cause is exhaust
and reviews all the authorities pro and C
p -Rep.]
=. AVA, Ills, January q, 1sSl.-CARrER MEDIC