Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-17
COURT DECISIONS.
supreme Court.

hearing by Chief Justice Willie. Mo
ton for rehcaring in this case Is gran
ted. The original opinion IL again
adopted in 80 for as IL DEGREES the land
TO appelIces us homestead, and holds
that the bankrupt court had no juris-
dlction to order its sale under the deed
of trust, and the opinion Is also mp
proved i'm so far as il adjudges to the
appellees the amount found to be due
for the rent Of the land, and the court
now holds that the appellants We're en-
titled TO recover not only the amount
ofSI066 30 and interest paid on the
Murphy q Co. debt, but also the sum
OF $5S5 cash, ordered to be paid to the
bankrupt Hillburne and actually paid
him. These two sums together, with
interest on them, are ut least equal to
the amount found to bc due for rent of
the homestead of IIillburne and wife
and should have been set Off against
that amount and extinguish it. Hence,
there should have been no Judgment
for money rendered against Maxwell
in favor of appellees, and the Judgment
will be reversed and so reformed ~ TO
decree in favor of Hillburne and wife
n recovery of the twoI hundred acres of
land in controversy aud all costs III
the court below and to charge tho APP
pelIees with the cost Of this appeal,
and il IL so ordered. Reversed and re-
manded.
Grcenleve, Block & Co. Co. ct al. W.
Leon & III. Blum.From Milan coun-
ty. Opinion on rehearing by Justice
Stayton. This cause was before re-
versed and remanded. This motion Is
based on two grounds ; the court was
in error In regard to the law OF the
ease, aud the evidence In the court be-
low was sufficient 10 support the find
ing. Held, the right OF a creditor to
receive property from an insolvent
debtor, In payment OF debt due To
him, If the same be openly done, and
more property IN not taken than Is
reasonably necessary to pay the debt,
although the creditor may know mt
the time he so received the property
that he will thereby prevent other
creditors from enforcing their claims,
and although the creditor may know
the debtor is prompted to give them
the prefe renee through motives OF
friendship, IL well recognized, such re-
ceptiou of property however must be
bona iide, L. C., for the sole purpose of
securing the debt, and not with intent
20 cover up any part Of the property or
its proceeds for the benefit of the
debtor TO the prejudice of other cred
itors. 10 Tex, lSS-506. A purchaser,
not creditor, who should buy the
property of u debtor, however adequate
might he the consideration which he
paid, with knowledge that it was
the intention Of the debtor by sale to
put the property beyond the reach of
creditors would be u maa-lide pur-
chaser and entitled to no protection rs
against creditors. The evidence sup
ports the verdict and the case Is af-
firmed.
Houston County vs.. Dryer ct al
From Houston county. Opinion by
Justice West The effect of the pct OF
I'D Of April. 1871. was not to reease
the sureties after that date, por would
the net Of the county court under the
act of February 10, 1874, prevent the
appellant from recovering the true
amount due by appellees. In the view
taken of the case, however. these mis-
directions of the court become imnla-
terlal. This court will not reverse n
case because of an error of the lower
court In its charge, il II appears from
the whole record that the Jury were
not misled thereby and that the final
result has not been affected by the
error. II Tex, 05i; Al Tex, 5i7. 1t
is evident that there was an entire
absence of proof to show the appellees
liable for any amount, and hence the
other errors OF the court complained of
become immatcrial, for had the court
on these matters charged the law with
entire accuracy the result would have
been the same, owing 10 the failure ,,oi
appellant tn prove to the satisfaction
of the Jury the facts from which the
liability of appeliees and the amount
OF il could be ascertained. As Tex
III; IS Tex, al; AZ Tex, $50; 81 Tex.
$50; - Tex, 100, - Ten, Cos; i5 Tex.
BIZ; AZ Tex, 53i; i3 Tex, 067, AZ
iirmed.
Houston, East and West Texas Rail
way Company VIZ. Smelling From
Rains county. Opinion by Stayton
j. ifby mutual mistake of the par
ties items of an account sued upon
were not brought intoa previous set
Element OF an account, they may b.
considered and a suit may be main
tanned upon them In this suit. II
roses of deviation from the stipulation
uI the original contract by mutua
agreement between the parties, tn
contract price governs, SO far ms the'
are applicable, on so far as the worl
can he traced according 10 the stipula
lions OF the contract, but if extra worl
not provided for IN the contract, an,
80 which Its provisions rs to prices cal
not be applied, the employe ma,
recover therefor rs on Il Quantuu
ncrulL \ deviation by consent ma
be treated as u new contract, SO far !,
the deviation Is concerned, and mod
ilicatlon IN that respect where tn
circumstances require il. Field o
Dam, 3t3; Sedg. on Meas, DAM, 40.
4 careful consideration of all the cl
rors assigned may discover 70 " non
OF which applicant can Justly con
plain, and the Judgment Is affirmed.
Galveston, Houston & Hcndcrso
Railway vs.. Moore From HURT
county, Opinion by Justice Staytor
The charge in all cases should he mad
with reference TO the case as made b
Ndle evidence. This case presents, i
che judges charge, fairly and clearl
the question OF negligence IN the plaiI
tin and defendant, and unless IL l. III
law that the act of the mother In sent
ing the hoy, who was between liy
and six years Of age, in company wit
an older hoy, upon an GRAND whic
required him TO cross the railway, b
lt.x.e Ia. II