The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-08
THE DALLAS WEEKLY HERALD THUsnDAY, JUNEs, 1872.

Miller Vs. CITY Bank Of sherman; from
Grayson county. II this case was enter.
tanned In the county court ~ m original
suit the record fails to furnish u basis o
jurisdiction. The rule for determining the
Jurisdiction requires the record to show af
TENTATIVELY how. the county court acquired
Jurisdiction, and this court cannot ascertain
the jurisdiction aliunde the record. 81
Tex, 46I. II the county court acquired
Jurisdiction by appeal from u iustice'i
court, the record must show the necessary
iursdctional facts TO invest IL with juris
. diGtion. The county court not having jur
isdiction, the court Of appeals has none.
Tex, 3lS; Tex, l57; 6Tex;, $685. 4 Tex.
| 223 Appeal dismissed. Walker, p. /.
Taylor VS.. Collins; from Johnson county
No court can alter, vacatc or ann dna
judgment regularly entered in Hs.' o
which it has jurisdiction after the Iu.r.
, ment of the term at which such il men
was rendered A right to ameId II Judg
ment for mistake therein exists only under
the statute and Its benefits can only be OBJ
tanned by a strict compliance with tn,
2 statutes. To constitute final judgement
} there must not only be an order that thu
defendant recover his costs, but also an or
der IL at the plaintiff take, nothing by hi
suit or some other definite sentence equiva
lent thereto. There being no final judg
ment, this court has no Jurisdiction OF the
appeal. Appeal dismissed. Walker, p. ]
Talbot VS.. Dyches, CT al; from Travis
, county, The amount of business of prac
J teal importance would forbid this cour
, from occupying its time in considering
! cases wherein there may be questions of i'm
portanCe after their decision has become
useless by reason of compromise and set
Element or otherwise merely to determine
who shall pay costs. 40 Tex, 769. Dis
missed. Walker, p. j.
{ John ! Adams ct al VS. John T. Dug
gan; from Guadalupe county. Parties are
held bound to take care of their own inter
est on the trial of causes. 1t is not the
duty of the court ordinarily of presenting
and acting upon all questions which the
rights of the parties might involve. Tex.
1886; % Tex, pa; 81 Tex, So. Where a case
is brought before the court which presents
the question as to whether the party con-
planning or the court was in fault in not
rendering particular kind of judgment,
which, according to the evidence adduced
after the trial, might have entitled him to a
particular judgment, the party must clearly
show the court below to have erred. AT
tirmed. Walker, p. j.
Wilkinson VS.. McDonald: from Bastrop
county. Plaintiffs action was based on an
agreement in writing absolutely to convey
a certain designated tract of land whit
said written agreement acknowledged the
receipt of a certain specified sum of money,
+
was based. Defendant offered parol evil
dence to show that the contract sued on
was fraudulent, and therefore invalid, with
out attempting to impugn on the language
and terms of the bond. Held, this evil
dence was properly admitted. list Green.
Ev., sec. 277 and 2S4-S5. Affirmed.
Walker, p. j.
Stell, administrator, VS.. Amos Morrill,;
from Lamar county. Plaintiff offered In ev-
idence written contract, signed by one M.
as agent, no proof of his (M's) agency was
shown. Held without proof of Ms agency
by some competent evidence tending at
least to establish that fact, there can exist
no valid contract which can be enforced
against the defendant. The mere produc.
ton of the letter, which stated that Nj.
was requested and authorized to make the
contract does not evidence the truth of
such facts. and unless authority to make
such contract existed, and was proven, his
affirmative declaration to that fact, as con-
tanned in the letter, cannot be considered
IL Tex. 40 Where the option of two Of
fers in one letter is made and the selection
of either depends upon specific
performance of certain work, though
the work may have been properly
performed as desired, to effect contract
| between the parties, the party to do the
work should have indicated which of the
optional provisions he would select. An I'M
|
would be considered refusal accept the
offer made. 8 Tex, 129. Reversed and re-
manded Walker, p. ].
Gordon vs. Vaughan ct al; from Guada-
loupe county. The supreme court would
hardly revise ruling which permitted an
| amendmen mt after the parties had announced
ready for trial, unless it appears to be ar
bitrary, or had resulted in injustice to the
opposite party. 20 Tex, 10, Where the
court finds the verdict in the absence and
without jury, the court will not revise its
rulings and findings unless shown to be
clearly erroneous. Affirmed. Delaney, ].
Mays VS.. Cckrum, ct al. from Guada-
loupe county. Though there are few no or
decisions in this state on the subject. the
rule as laid down in South Carolina seems
to have followed in this state. In South
Carolina they do not hold that where two
persons are on JOINT and several bond, one
being surety and the other obliger, and a
person who takes joint judgment against
both that he could not after the death of
the surety enforce the judgment against his
estate, but have held the surety liable as il
the obligation had been joint and several.
Reversed and remanded. Delaney, j,
Rhodims VS.. Cornell from Uvalde
county. Where there is nothing in the
record TO show that the court acted
on a demurrer, it will be considered
waived. 1t is not a good ground for
u ~
filed in due order of pleading. A sworn
account is prima facie case, and unless
rebutted is sufficient TO support verdict.
II is only when parties sue as partners that
thc denial or The partnership must be IN
der oath. 81 Tex, 100. Objection to the
charge that the Jury could find against APP
pellant without finding against the firm IS
uutenable. "A Tex, 81. Affirmed. De-
laney, ].
Pierce, ct al, VS.. Logan, ct al On re-
hearing. With or without administration
the heir takes the inheritance burdened
with the debts Of the ancestor. If there be
an administrator the probate laws prescribe
the creditors remedy: if none, he is remit
ted to the general principle applicable to
the case. The record showing no adj
Manifestation and a lapse Of time which
would bar the right Of administration the
provisions Of the probate law could have
no application 10 the case. The Tact that
the purchaser at the sherii's sale knew that
the defendant in judgment was dead, or In
what manner he was informed is not mate
rial, the sale would only be irregular aud
v1idable but not void. Rehearing refused.
Watts, !.
Allen ct al, VS.. Hale: from Fannin coun-
". 50 long as the property remains the
Homestead partyis creditors have no in
terest in il, and il is only after The sale is
complete that creditor could subject the
proceeds thereof to the payment Of bis
debt But IL be chose 70 mske a gin
tO,his wife Of his interest in the homestead
his creditors could not complain. SO also.
IL. before the sale, be agreed 20, and did.
makea gift 10 his vile Of the proceeds. %
induce her 10 join In the sale, then such
proceeds would be the separate property of
The vile Affirmed. Watts, ].
Pucket et al. vs.. johnson e al; from
McLennan county. A certificate which re-
cffsH that fha Marty ruuanfIsd and A.
Euouledred that be signed and delivered
the instrument 81 writing IN the reverse
side hereof p is sufficient. Lacll heir On per
sonaliv resp1nrisie for The Obligations 0i
the ancestor only 90 the extent Of The value
OF fhe property Inherited and actually re-