The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-01-26
o0Gnf DfoiafOss.


county domestic couhs NJ record wi
general jurisdiction carry with them &
reasonable presumption of validity lfn
record shows nnirmnHyey that thcFourt Ia
no Jurisdiction over either the subject ma
ter Of litigation, or over the person, u coi
trary presumption will not be ontertainc,
but short Of this, the presumption In fayC
! jurisdiction will prevail, and the mef
rendition of judgment will carry with II III
impress of absolute verify. And to detei
mine the character of service disclosed b.
| the record, the whole OF 1t must be consid
cred together. Domestic judgment of {
court OF general jurisdiction is not sublec
to collateral attack. Reversed and re
manded. Bonner, j.
Stewart vs. Heidenheimer; from Rusl
county. While il would be iarer practice
for the appellant 10 notify the opposite par
ty of the filing of his affidavit of inability 4
pay costs in District Court, there is no rul,
of law requiring such notice to be given. |
the affidavit Is filed within twenty days af
ter the adjournment of the term at which
the Judgment is rendered, it is in ample
time to enable the appellee to institute con
test, and services, unless contested, to per
feet the appeal. Affidavit of inability tC
pay costs is not defective simply because il
onits the clause "or any part thereof.
That the petition was not sworn to, anC
that the affidavit for attachment states the
demand at So less than the petition, but
corresponding with the amount named in
the writ, does not constitute ground for set
ting aside the attachment Affirmed
Gould, C. j.
Scott, Administrator of Bills, deceased,
VS.. Cunningham ct. al; from Lamar county
1t was held in Green VS.. Crow, 18th Texas,
ISL, that under the act of 1913 Hart. Dig.
Art ll5i), that the property OF deceased
person, which during life was exempt from
forced sale, upon death of such person, such
property belonging to insolvent estates,
vested absolutely in the beneticiarieS therein
pointed out. There is nothing in the act
of August -, 1870, which Indicates an
intention of the Legislature to inaugurate
different line OF policy and right. The
purpose of the act in question was to with
draw exempt property from administration,
except for partition OF solvent estate, ii
deceased left constituent of his family
surviving. And, under it. the value of such
property may be withdrawn from the cS-
tate, when it did not exist in kind. Bills
died in February, 1876 leaving his wife sur
viving. The land in controversy was their
homestead, and also community property.
On his death it vested in her. Affirmed.
Staytou,i j.
county. Though vendor of real property
take other security for the purchase money
than lien on the property sold, the title to
the said property does not pass out of the
vendor by reason of the execution OF bond
to make title upon the payment Of pur-
chase money until the payment of pur-
chase money, as the property was sold I'M
der proceedings TO be instituted by vendor
or others holding the notes by transfer.
The title continued, and the vendor in de-
fault of payment may repossess the prop
ery, or sell it to some other person. Liens
pass with the notes which they secure to
the purchaser of such notes. Appellant in
this case was not released as endorser by
the failure of the appelees to enforce the
vendor lien on the property sold. The
lien arising upon the original sale is supe-
rior to that arising upon the subsequent
and must prevail. Affirmed. Staylon, j..
WoilOrd VS.. fingers from Anderson
county. The suit was to ioreclose mort
gage On the separate property Of the wife,
executed to secure an undivided debt of the
husband. A short time before maturity OF
the note, the husband went into voluntary
and the holder of the note
proved up his claim. Subsequently he
withdrew the note to institute suit in
the District Court, where the
defense was the Statute of Limitations.
The judgment was, a personal
one against the husband. Held, correct.
The bankruptcy proceedings operated to
suspend the statute as against the husband,
but not as against the wife. Affirmed
Bonnerj
Carey VS.. Rives; from Marion county
The motion in this case was to affirm on
the record filed, being certified copy OF
Judgment and bond or, to dismiss because
no assignment of errors has been filed, nor
briefs filed below or in the Supreme Court
in accordance with rule 3D. An inspection
of the record disclosing The existence of
these facts, the motion is sustained and the
" rit of error dismissed. Gould, C. ].
Wood VS.. Messer from Smith county.
The motion to dismiss the appeal in this
case was based upon the grounds, first,
that the affidavit OF the appellant of in
ability to pay costs in lieu of appeal bond
was insufficient Second, That the order
of the County Court to which appellant
made the application for order to appeal
without bond, and by which the order was
made, does not show that appellant made
strict proof of inability to pay the costs
or any part thereof. Third, that in various
respects rs TO assignments under PROPOSE
tions the brief of appellant was defective.
An inspection of the record does not sustain
the motion, ana it is overrued. Gould, C. ].
Hall VS.. Dotson; from Marion county.
The question in this case is whether or not
a married woman, joined by her husband,
without consideration accruing TO her
own benefit, can secure the debt OF 5, a
third party. by deed of trust upon her sepa-
rate property, duly made and properly
in form prescribed by
the statute for the conveyance of
such property. Tested by the va
rious authorities applicable to the
question, tIg deed OF trust 80 made Is bind
ng on the married woman, and the court
below erred in holding otherwise where
fore the Judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded. Bonner, ].
Lamar County vs.. Werner ct al. irem'
Delta county. The assignments OF error
are too general in this case to be noticed,
being in disregard of rule 20. The charge,
Ms given, IS not ut variance
with previous decisions of this court ~ 10
school lands surveyed for counties. (33
Texas 500: 81 Texas, 800 and $40; "a Texas,
l53. 1901 But in the opinion of the writer
it Is defective in falling to instruct that
the record Of the field notes in Lamar
.ounty. made when that land district
embraced the lands sued for, was mo-
tee 10 any subsequent locator. In his Opin-
ion sec. Of the act of January %, $50
lP. ID. 1906 was designed TO furnish tacili-
ties for pcriccllng ltles 20 sCuopl JANUS au-
llitional 10 those furnished By the general
laus regulating ordinary surveys. But as
no charge on the subject was asked, iiilure
10 give il i not error which will require re-
versal. Affirmed. Gould. c. j.
seny ex rel. Stone W. Hunt from Dallas
county. In this State IL is settled law that
the determination of the result OF an eicc-
ton Is a question Of political nature, and
therefore one which is competent for tie
power 10 refer TO other trihu-
mails than the constitutional courts. On
principle and authority the question OF
eligibility 20 Office is one Of q like nature,
being one which the public welfare demands
should be promptly decided prior 20 the
into Office Of the party elected.
This was a proceeding By quo warranto
fpr the possession Of the Office Of Mayor Of
Dallas The charter Of that city make the
city Council the judge Of the qualifications
and election Of its own members .. who