The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-02-02

plit necessarily VOi0 M w Tie cklHilnf tfcu-
ilofs. The rule ls, he must reserve ample
property 10 pay his debts A giit on he
eve ol insolvency cannot bc upheld. Dis
positions taken without notice 10 adverse
parties, are inadmssablo, Reversed nnd
demanded Qunan,c G.
Williams Il Co. Va. Dennis ct AZ; from
He'll county The right of intervention IN
. pending, Is dependent upon leave
gi1. by the court, and notice to the par,
} Ic.. The mere filing OF a bond or tle trial
o. the right Of property, and affidavit, WIN,
intervention by ID. in the pending litiga-
ton. In order to give the County Court
Jurisdiction by appeal, motion for new trial
must be made In open court, ut the term
of the Justices Court at which Judgment
was rendered. Motion for new trial filed
subsequent to the adjournment OF the court,
could not operate to make d. &c al parties
to the original litigation. Motion i'll the
County Court to dismiss DIS. appeal should
have been sustained. Reversed and APP
peal to the County Court dismissed Quin-
an, C.
b. &. +. ]. Umscheild vs. Schuette; from
Cexar county. NJ, A. executed his note to
appellee Nov l, 1873, due two years after
date. NJ. A, died Dec. u, 1873, willing his
property to NJ, his wife. A. A. admins
traitor joined by his wife executed new
note in place of the old one, NJ. always re-
cognized his claim as binding against the
estate. She died, ma. X A. A. her eXecu-
,or under an Independent will which was
admitted to probate July 81, 1876 The
properly was bequeathed to appellants. A
A., the executor, continued to recognize
the claim as Just against the estate OF NJ;
I A deceased, and las deceased wife, lana
paid the interest thereon. He, as executor,
executed another rote therefor The suit is
against the lovatees who had taken posses
SION of the p.vpelty under the width
; Judgment was aoainst them. They TOOK
the property buruened with this debt ana
ere bound to pay the same Affirmed
Watts, C.
Boulton vs. Sadler; from McLennan
county. The act of 1874 provides for the IS
suance of distress warrant, and enumerates
the grounds upon which it may issue, tC-
gether with necessary prellmi-
nary proceedings. In this case
! the distress warrant was nor issued Dy
the Justice of the Peace before whom the
oath was taken and with whom the bond
was filed, and it is only that Justice who IS
authorized to issue it. Again the affidavit
was based upon claim, 1.-THE same being
due" The petition in the County Court
shows that the amount was not due.
Manifestly, under such affirmative
showing, Il distress warrant could not legally
issue. And the bond filed in the first i'll
W
the basis of subsequent proceeding before
another Justice, after the amount became
due. The defendant should have been per-
mite to show that the notes sued on were
not in fact the property OF the plaintiff, but
| held in trust by him for another. against
whom he, defendant, held three valid judg-
ments which he pleaded in tie set-off. The
court erred in refusing the motion Of d.
fendant to quash the distress warrant. Re-
| yerSpQ and remanded Quinan, C.
Cullers & Henry VS.. Houston " Texas
Central Railroad Company and Union
Trust Company; from Grayson county.
This was a suit for ne recovery OF damages
for flour which had been shipped over
several lines of railroad. The issues in
volved presented questions of fact, and the
jury found as matter of fact that the
Hour was not damaged on the railways
operated by the appellees. The main
charge, and those given on request, pre-
senting correctly the law applicable to the
case rs made by the evidence, and the evl-
dence being sufficient to sustain the finding
of the july, this court cannot interfere.
Capell VS.. Houston; from Red River
county. This was a trial of the right of
property to certain goods appellant caused
to be attached as the property of another.
| Appellee made claim TO the same under
the statute. The cause was tried before
| the court and resulted in a judgment for
appellee. The issues OF law present no
former decisions of this court, the
Judgment of the court sitting as
jury, carries with it the same force
as a verdict of the jury; the Judgment is at
iirmed, the evidence being found sufficient
10 sustain the judgment. Affirmed.
O. i. ar. ]. Moore VS.. Long, from
| Wood county. This suit was brought by
the wife, joined by her husband, to recover
| damages for trespass and conversion OF
her separate property, upon an execution
against her husband. The defendant,
| pleading in reconyention, set up an indie
pendent claim for damages, of like nature,
| but which was not connected with, did not
arise from, or grow out of the cause
OF action on trial. Held, that the
court erred in overruling plaintiffs mo-
| ton to strike out the defendants sup
! elemental answer, setting up such de-
! fence. 1.-THE pleader sought TO res his
claim for damages upon malice OF plant
| IFS in prosecuting this action, he was seek
! ing to assert u defense not recognized 10y
! law. 1t is not acionab'e to assert an UNI
! founded claim, by II suit at law for damages
committed by an alleged tort to property.
1 A failure to maintain it entities the de-
PENDANT to his costs and no more. Reversed
and remanded. Walker. c.
Galloway VS.. Baldwin, from Harrison
county. Under the Revised Statutes, it be-
comes the duty of the Clerk of the County
Court to endorse on the transcript the day
on which the same was demanded, by whom,
and the day on which it was delivered, and
| to whom, and to sign his name officially.
/ See Arts. HIGHT. And when it appears
that this duty has been neglected, motion
! 10 dismiss the appeal will prevail. Appeal
dismissed. While, p. j.
/ II.p1in ,yq kNorI from nd aot1nfu
| In trial of the right of property seized UNI
der execution against third party, the JUS
| tice sustained a motion to quash the claim
ants affidavit, rendered judgment against
| claimant for cost, and held the property
subject to execution. At a subsequent day
of the term he amended the judgment,
| holding claimant and his sureties on his
bond liable for value of the property. The
claimant then sued in the County Court for
damages for illegal seizure and sale of other
property of his under execution by virtue
of the amended judgment. The
Court charged substantially that
the amended judgment was void,
AID the claimant recovered both actual and
exemplary damages. Held, error. The
statute, Art. 4S43, X. 3, prescribes the proper
proceedings when the claimant fails to e.
tablish his right TO the property. The
court has supervising control over It's judg-
ments aud DEGREES, until the term at which
they are rendered is closed. The judgment
of the justice was not void, and could not
be- attacked in a suit for damages for seiz-
ure Of his property under execution by vir-
tue thereof Reversed and remanded.
Watts. C.
Bach Muse & Co. vs.. Ginnouhio; from
Harrison county. Judgment was rendered
iu Justices Court on Aug. %. Appeal bond
10 County Court was flied September 10.
Held that urder Article 1858, X. :. that
where the right Of appeal from justices To-
County Courts 1.-THE Judgment exceeding
s2g obtains, tue appeal bond must
BE- fled within ten uays-oiherwise tie
County Court acquires DO jurisdiction, afu
can direct no proceedings no tbs case. Ile
rfro-Y1 in this case disclosing that size bend
- Id auhadnrraftf Ia fha rrrtirtfffrrf All