The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-05-31

of insurance Upon This life CT her de-
ceased brother which was made paya-
bic to her. If the appellants desired
10 counterfeit this proof, by proof that
the particular sheep in question were
not identical and paid for with the
separate means of the wife, but were
part of larger flock all of which
was paid for by community funds, as
well as her separate means, and that
therefore the community had an in
Cerest in each particular sheep in the
larger flock, that fact should have
been shown by a croSS-eXaminatiOn
of the husband, who was the only
witness to the purchase and pay
ment, or it should have been shown
in some other manner. As to regis
tration of separate property of wife
acquired after marriage, the statute
does not provide that the wife's fail
ure to make such registration will in
validate her right, or have the effect
of making her separate estate liable
to seizure and sale by creditor for
the debt of the husband. Judgment
affirmed.-Stayton, A. j.
John A. Daven port VS.. Miller Bios.
appellees; from COryell cOum Yin
this case the land, which was s ,Znt
to be enioined, was bought by Daven-
port from Webb, and to secure the
purchase money unpaid, Davenport
executed note to Webb for $1l01.
In suit in the district court in which
n. w. Battle and both Davenport and
Webb were parties, judgment was
rendered by which title to the land
bought by Davenport was vested in
Battle, as was the title to the note
which Davenport had executed to
Webb; but it was provided in the
judgment that upon payment to Bat
tie of the note which Davenport had
executed to Webb. title to the land
should vest IN Davenport. Whether
title to the note was in any other
manner vested in Battle doeS not ap-
pear; and it becomes unnecessary
to consider whether Davenport SO
renewed the note as to take it out of
the bar OF the statute OF limitations;
for that Judgment fixed the liability
of Davenport upon the note at the
time of its rendition, ana whatever
right he had to the land depended
upon his payment of that note.
Justice Stayton, as the organ of the
court, discusses the law and equities
of the case at considerable length and
renders the decision of the court, Or
dering that the judgment of the lower
court be reversed and the case re-
manded with instructions to the dis
trict court to enter judgment in ac-
cordance with the opinion OF the
supreme court.
Jno. A. Davenport ct al, appellants,
vs.. Miller s. Brothers; from Coryell.
Revised and remanded. Stayton,
\.
T. j. Stuart, plaintiff in error, VS..
G. L. Broome, defendant; from Fails
county. Af1rmed,->tayton, q. J.
Commissioners opinions were
adopted as follows:
Calvert VS.. Roche ct al: from
Karnes county. Revised and re-
manded.-Watts, j.
Houston and Texas Central railroad
company vs.. Loving; from Collin
county. Affirmed-Walker, j.
Mccormick & Bro. VS.. Bush; from
iirayson. Revised and remanded.-
Watts, J.
c. %. So Relic ct al vs.. Woodbridge;
from Les county. Affirmed.-Wa ak
er, J.
Edgar VS.. PIERCE ct al. from Cald-
well. Affirmed.-Watts, j.
n. D. Los Santos VS.. Houston; from
Wilson. Affirmed.-Delaney, j.
Heirs of D. N. Brown vs.. NJ. E
Brown. Submitted on brief and oral
arguments of both parties.
Chas. n. Brown ct al VS.. Mary Z.
Brown. Same disposition as above.
Heidenheimer Bros. VS., J. II. Brent's
sureties. Same disposition.
Joseph Prater VS.. J. S. Daugherty;
from Mitchell county. Transferred
by mutual agreement TO the commits
sfoners of appeals for fiaal determina-
zion.