The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-12-06

mar couniy OdnlIn hy VISITS J., elVi. |
"a. Noteifhst adding ~ ius'fumen, IN we |
record " certified ~ no ni hffpeu ,ta ,''., !
mtni Oi facts when W. iHni " " sltns .,l W. ts
bv hut one party, Tue pre-. umWlun w Nv
indu ped that " Wns pOhhy crtiihed 70
nv lie Judge. ljj frxts $50 Ihe stare
t,.put Of The prtldiug lu ge lltd hupte'
duent 30 the ndiuurnnent Tor ne teI"l Nv
which tbe Ca8o was tired WI MOI Dv uon
sldered Va relcrruce 10 Wheln,
or or not tho statement OF
fscta was properly certified to
or approved by him upon mo
lions TO strike cut ANA suppress sle'emenI
o, iaot, on the Ground that the Juugs ma
bspsu tpoucpd To- approve ana ctfuIy me
same because Of deccit prdciced by one OF
the pariipA, as their couusei, suptolteu oy
prpppr sfiilay its the qu",ti)n VIII oe enter
| tained Whore the leuets OF one party Is
stricKeu out nv oiher competent evidence
| Ia admitted, aud tue contents OF these III
GUIDANCE me error is not sufficient Tor
reversal Affirmed v1a,
Gammon vs. Cannon from Van Iindt
county. Opinion by Wes', j. Inc Jug
ment in respect To the CUSTODY OF the ep!iu,
rem is reversed, and II - ordercu Ih4I ua,
sheriff or any proper officer OF Van hahut
county or any other cOubiyin this state I'd
winch the children are, restore teIn W
the custody of their father. Snould tneie
he n necessity for further ORDERS tle US,
trict court OF Van XiDdt county Is dltecteu
to make and issue all the necessary orueis
ana take the proper steps 20 caiIy tn,o
Judgment into iull effect. opou Van
spnIicatiop to the district court ol Nau
Zsndt county or the district judge III cR itn,
. hsrs inc mother will be permitted from
time 10 time to visit said children on sucn
terms az the coutt or judge may ueem
RIGHT and proper under the circumstanoes'
Reversed ana rendered t.o,, Ia.
! Cochran va. Marmaduke ct al. rom hl
NOR cn,,nrv ODIniou by Watts, J. adopted
+ Roth at common law and equity, where |"
Marty nv agreement had rlght IN 'he GU.
/ ,irn npI nrufits which entitleu hlIil Io
definite share OF pr0iits, he was cous''iei W
n partner. IL is not essential 10 consUie.toe
partnership that the parties oy
are to share in the losses, puS II Is
# they are to have a community oi luVSlI I
. in the nrofits as such He who IS 10 taHe
part OF the profits snail by operation OF la"
ns' Liable for losses as to thlrd persons.
! In determining the question Wy
court will look TO the no. ~ .,
relation consequent upon tnI
) sy'Is,yt nnent of the parties ard III iaVoi VI
, cradi7ors viii ordinarily apply the doctrine
that he who shares in The profits must VIZ
near his share of the nab ities. AS 10 th ill
narlies it is sufficient TO show comiluutHS '
~ inreTest ia he profits To estabIlsh the
! relation of partnership: Amrmeu, n lilac
! Dennis, Guard, VS. Elliott; from D li Ia
] county. Opinion by Watts, J., aaopteH.
e In this state a Judgment renGereua a = not
! Innate is voidable, not void, ana IS no.
subject to collateral attack. Alter the Htsl
1 LdacTea was entered, CONT and wiie h+u W
homestead right, TO the properySi sney
ONLY had title 10 one-sixth lnteres,, anu w.
; whole was ordered sold for partl,
i ton. CONT purchased the properly a. tne :
t sale, and to enable him TO 90 40 se trnst to
CiSbg vas c~Gcrrr1 simultaneously WIN
he deed 10 Goiaf, They 'ormed one ts .a;,',
} action, and 10 homestead r2h5 or 7' ct'tl,
/ was ssgared ny hHu as agah's' "'"lo''
4 irued,