The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-03-08
COURT DECISIONS.
synopsis of Opinions of Commissioners OF
Appeals

Appeals
TIP. Williams VS.. Ii. W. Robinson; ap-
peal from - county. 1t was proper for
the district court to determine the issues
between the parties and to direct in legal
way its classification and payment IN due
course of administration, but 1t is conceived
that when the district court did determine
such rights that it then exhausted all its
rights and powers over the subject, and
any decree il might make whereby direc-
tion was sought to he given to the probate
court in the mode of adjusting preferences
and priorities as to debts Of creditors not
before the district court, and of limita.
tons and exemptions and OF homestead
rights affecting persons not before that
court would not be binding upon such non
litgating parties, and would be an invasion
of the prerogatives and jurisdiction of the
probate court. Affirmed. Walker, y. ].
John r. Peel VS.. Frederick Schoield; APP
peal from ---- county The judges sig
nature is absolutely necessary to the valid
ity of n statement of facts, and without
such signature the supreme court will not
notice it, although the attorneys OF both
part cs agree to it as correct ana IN Wrltlhg
waive The omission of the judges signature
and request the supreme court to act upon
it. Affirmed Walker, =. j.
y. d. Brown VS.. Y, W. Causey; appeal
from - county. The necessity Of con
testing facts which warrant Il discharge in
every court in which She discharge may be
pleaded is a hardship never intended
to be imposed upon the bankrupt, and
all ordinary principles of Jurisprudence
that nothing but the plaincst terms OF the
statute can justify such construction. A
bankrupt can plead his discharge In bar OF
an action against him by a creditor whose
debt had not been scheduled, and who had
not been served with notice from the bank
rupt court. Affirmed. Walker, p. ].
j. w. ID. Chalk ct al VS.. Foster ~ Blessing;
error from Harris county. If the descrip'
ton given in the deeds affords sufficient
means for ascertaining and identifying the
premises to be conveyed. the conveyance is
Valid or the true location OF the land may
he rendered certain by reference to other
corveyances made in the deed. Affirmed,
Watts, j.
synopsis of Opinions of Supreme Court
4. w. McMahan vs.. Louisiana Western
railroad; appeal from Orange county. An
injury to stock in charge of driver, har-
messed to n wagon unloading at railroad
depot in town is not an injury to stock
contemplated by article 1925, II. s.
Affirmed. Gould, p. j.
peal from Galveston county. If a note is
payable to the maker or his order, and in
dorsed by him, one who puts his name on it
after the maker, but before delivering to
third party, is liable only rs an indorsec,
and not as a joint maker. Affirmed. Gould,
i. J.
+. W. Smith VS.. A. J. Uzzele ct al; ap-
peal from Montgomery county. |
BY removing and changing ones
domicile from this to another
state, the wife relnquished her right of
homestead which she might have hid, had |
she continued an inhabitant of the state
Her removal from the state is inconsistent
with any right remaining to her former
homestead, and eilectually pr,cludes her
from asserting such right, Reversed and
remanded. Stayton, j.
NJ. NJ. Crane VS.. Leon & Il. Blum; APP
peal from Johnson county. The term
privity denotes mutual or successive rela-
tionship to the same rights # property and
II matters not whether sucl relationship be
by voluntary or involuntary transfer Re-
versed and remanded. Stayton, /.