The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-02-22
O0Uaf DtoisiOss
syoop i. NJ tie Opinioo. ~ the sapftme
loUft

Stake YH, htn'r ~ NlN lfNW No"l'H
B,unty n was necessary for appellant to
show That lee bad such nn Interest ln INC
estate as Injured him Ia order tnal hr
mifht have tho pfOUhte courts rQlpn fv
yisci In the district court, lie inade
such an attempt by an oudeayor 10 snow
that ho was u creditor Of the estate, ana
that the management Of the estate injured
him. 10 entitie him to rol'ol, V rested upon
him TO show that be WAS creator OF
the estate. His claim 10 based on the
final exhibit as the administrator
Of the estate, which showed II
balance due him which the court 50 de-
creed The record shows an exhibit, lehv-
inga balance due tue administrator, but
me record fails to show that the court APP
proved the claim or took any action what
ever upon IL. In fact the record utterly
fails 10 disclose any action Whatever thht
went TO show any approval or ratification OF
the claim, and relying upon this alone, the
appellant has utterly failed to show any
right to have judgment in his favor, and II
is therefore affirmed. Stayton,j
Watkins VS.. Willis & Bro; from Calves
ton county. This is a su on four promls-
sorry notes, executed March II, 1877, due
one day after date. This suit was hled
March 81, 1881. The question presented IL,
were the notes barred by the statute OF
limitations? Held, the notes, under the
statute, were entitled to three days OF grace,
and in computing the time the day the note
natures is excluded. Hence. note would
not mature until the expiration OF three
entire days after the date OF payment and
suit on them could not be maintained untli
after the expiration of these three entire
davs; ri Tex, IS; "a Tex, 1i3; 2S Tex,
Iii; 80 Tex, 7GS) Affirmed. West, j.,
Lowell vs. Ball, Hutchins " Co.. from
Galveston county. THIS cause was once
before this court; (J6 Tex, 54 On
that occasion this court reversed the cause
and directed the district court as to what
Judgment they should render Accordingly
and in strict compliance herewith, the dis
trict court entered its judgment. This ap-
peal is taken, ana the supreme court Is
asked to revise It's former action. Held,
there is 10 precedent or authority Whlch
would authorize such action on our part.
As we reversed ana rendered the judgment
before, we will not attempt to revise our
own action Oh this appeal. Affirmed
West, j.
Luffin vs. City of Galveston; from Gal
weston county. Most of the questions in
yolyed in this case were settled by those OF
Galveston VS.. Heard (54 Tex, 400; Calves
ton vs.. Loonie ga Tex, 81; Roundtrees vs..
Galveston az Tex, 612); Allen VS.. Calves
ton (5l Tex, 1922. The main question as to
the power of the legislature 10 levy or 70
authorize the levy of local assessment
without prescribing some just and equitable
rule OF apportionment is not before us III Il
manner in which we can consider it. AS to
the questions of Homestead" ana bad
work. and "sheil pavement" the last two
being submitted to the jury upon conflict
ing evidence, ard no manifest error appear
ing, their verdict will not be disturbed. AS
to the question OF homestead, the constltu-
ton makes 10 difference between the
homestead and any other real property as
to its liability to be sold Tor taxes que on IL.
A Affirmed. West, j.
Barnett & Ross rs. Sullivan; from Calves
ton county. The Judgment herein rendered
couipues with Art. 1916, Rev. Stat. The
objection that no discontinu4nCe was taken
as TO the partner at or before judgment was
against the firm, and the partner served Is
uneDable. The taking of the Judgment as
above operated as an abandonment oil the
n. oceedlngs in this particular action against
the other partner, so far as execution against
the partnership property was concerned. Ii
a continuance as TO the partner served were
entered, il is Questionable whether judg'
ment could be rendered against the part
property. Affirmed Willie, C. j.
Bensier VS.. Edmoudson; from Galveston
The questions herein are, II the
landlord, seeking his lien for rent due, fails
10 S'lc uuJ u NllSLTCSS Hdilaht' Scuiu 'lio ilCh
e io!cclosed after the expiration OF thirty
days from the time the property was re-
moved from the rented premises? and, is
the property sufficiently described to au-
thorize foreclosure Of the lien when desig-
mated n, "a large quantity of household
furniture and other personal property
placed OF said premises" Held, we an.
swer both questions IN the affirmative. II
the landlord choose 10 take the chances OF
finding the property out OF which TO make
his Judgment after the same is recovered,
he can do So The lien is neither lost by
the failure to do so, or gained by suing out
q distress warrant. Affirmed. Willie, Z. ].
Sun Mutual Insurance Company vs.. See
ligson d Co from Galveston county. The
petition herein failing to state the names OF
tue defendants, averripg they were I'M
known, but staling,the name of the partner
ship ana the citation following it, they be-
irg served Oh Henry and K. p. Row ell, and
they falling 10 answer, admitted tbs iebt
and that they constituted the firm. Thus,
there was Sufficient to give the court juris.
iction of the subject-matter and the per
sons, and the garnishee therefore could not
inquire further into the validity of the
Judgment between plaintiff and defendant.
rhe citation herein, however, is fatally de-
tective. II directs appellants agents not
appellant, to appear, and answer. The
reason. Reversed and remanded. Stay.
ton, ].
Weyer VS.. Weaver; from Galveston
county. This action was founded upon an
illegal entry upon appellee's land, carrying
with il insult and indIgnity to them, there
fore, whether present or not for the purpose
Of showing whether the entry was yexa.
tious, wanton or malicious the acts and
of the parties at the time, CIV.
-, n thn Qhnusin ~ -
pose, were proper TO be shown, % Tex,
,G2 Being warranted by the facts. the
court correctly charged the Jury, IL yUu
,hould further believe from the evidence
did 80 wrongfuliy enter upon
plaintiffs premises, with malice or evil IN
ent, or vexationsly, or in an oppressive
Dr. insulting manner, then the jury would
,e authorized, in addition 10 nominal
damages, TO lind verdict also for plaintiff
or such primitive or exemplary damages |
IS the Jury might think right and just |
inder all the circumstances OF the case |
nd. further, that although the entry was
legal. il il was peaceful. the damage could |
,nlv be nominal. Affirmed. StayJon,
King & Co. vs. the Texas Banking and In
urance company; from Galveston county. |
n the absence Of a contract regulating the |
natter. the pledge, in default Of payment /
m the part Of the pledger may, upon CIV
nr reasonable notice, sell the pie 'ged prop
rty at public auction and apply the pro
eeds TO the payment Of the deb, unless
he character OF the pledge be sud- that The
az will presume that IL was the tntertion
I The parties THAT money should in some
tber way be raised from the pledge. The
ate of interest at which they agree shall
m before maturity Is the rate OF interest
rat will run after maturity. Affirmed.
layton, ].
ynopsis OF Opinions Of the Commission OF
Appeals, Galveston Term. 1888.
Lee & wife VS.. Sullivan; from Matagorda
,uuty- There being NJ proof OF Occn-
.ncv AZ homestead, that Dranc1 Of the
Sc isils without foundation 70 support 81,
r. nc urinary aud most essential require