The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-07


concerning the higher courts will receive such
| by writing our court reporter.
Supreme Court.
The following is a syllabus 10y
Judge Terrell, supreme court re-
porter, of an able opinion by Chief
Justice Willie, delivered during the
present term of the supreme court, in
the case of Hillebrand VS.. Malone
ct al {:
1. Article 5, section s, Of the con-
stitution of 1876, vesting in the dis
trict court jurisdiction of all suits fol
the recovery of land and the enforce
ment of liens thereon, confers OF
them exclusive jurisdiction over all
liens created by act of the parties and
which existed before the suit was
| begun such as mortgages. vendors
liens and the like, the adjudication
| OF which after requires degree
the peace, were mot supposed to pos.
seSs. But that section does not con-
fer exclusive jurisdiction on the dis.
which are fixed by operation of the
verdict is required, and the forecloS-
| III . VI " h1Oll lO11OnO ctO q llbOOCl VI
right on a return of verdict for the
monied demand; to secure which the
writ of attachment was issued.
2. Since the constitution of 1876
| (article 5, section 81 contains the
same language used in the former
constitutions. in comforting jurisdic-
tion on the district court for the en-
| forcement of liens, except that it re-
strictS instead of enlarging that jul
rISdiction, it can not be construed TO
deprive justices of the peace of the
power to enforce attachment liens on
lands for amounts within their juris-
diction, which under former constitu-
sions they have exercised without
| question for thirty years.
| 1t must be construed to limit the ex-
elusive jurisdiction of the district
courts to that class of liens on land,
of which they Qad taken special and
sole cogniZance under previous con-
StitutiOnS, with power still existing
| in justices of the peace to foreclose
such liens on land os under previous
constitutions, and without reference
to. the act of August 13, 1870, they had
enforced againt property of all
kinds.
NJ: D. Scarborough, appellant. VS..
| Burkett Il Murphy. appellees; from
| when the term of the district court
ended. Same case having been
brought here by writ of error and
Judgment reversed and case remand
ed, diSpoSing of all questions here
raised. the appeal is dismissed.-West,
a. j.
r.. w. Walton, administrator, ct al
VS.. X. Talbert ct al; from Robertson
county.-In the present state Of the
record we cannot say that the court
erred in the Judgment rendered, and
the Judgment is accordingly affirmed.
West, A. j.
j. NJ. Cox ct al VS.. j. w. Cook; from
Falls cOunty.-Land controversy pre-
senting no new questions for determ-
inatiOn. Held: A proper conStruc-
tion Of the laws directing the issuance
of patents to lands surrounded by Yir-
tue of Il land certificate, is that the
authority (that is the certificate) by
virtue of which the patent exists
should be recited in it. The patent,
as evidence of final severance of the
land from public domain, should
state the consideration on which it is
pftoOu anu lul1J liCHtII1 CllC tAiOlIOllGy
on which it rests, and 10y virtue of
which it is made. The mo-
tion t. re-tax the costs,
however, should have been granted,
the court having no authority to tax
the attorneys fees of one defendant
against another They will be re-
taxed in this respect under direction
Of the district court. The Judgment
is affirmed with directions thus indI-
cated.-West, A. j.
b. S. Byler for use of G. N Martin,
appellant VS.. E. Wadlington, appellee;
from Williamson county.-Held: The
Judgment in favor of Byler for the
use of Martin is conclusive Of the
right of Martin against Wadlington,
so long as it stands unreyersed or not
in some manner set aside; and that
the fact that Wadlington may have
permitted a Judgment to be entered
against him as garnishee in garniSh-
ment proceeding instituted against
him by the state to recover debt due
to it by Byler cannot effect the right
of Martin. Wadlington having per-
mitted the judgment for the use of
Martin to be rendered against him,
no arrangement which Wadlington
could make with the attorney for the
state and one of the attorneys for
Byler, or even with the attorney for
Martin, if made without Martins
consent, could affect the right Of Mar
tin to have the Judgment in his favor
fully paid to him, or if not paid to
have appropriate process to enforce its
payment. Decree: The judgment OF
the district court will be reversed
and Judgment will be here rendered
setting aside the satisfaction OF the
judgment in favor of Byler for the
use of Martin to the extent of $535.12
and the interest due from date of that
judgment. and directing process to
issue as therein directed to enforce
said Judgment with costs and for
costs of both courts.-Stayton, A. j.
County of Kendall, plaintiff in error,
VS.. John j. Studebach, ct al.-Suit
against s. and his SuretieS, on his Off
of taxes OF 1877, alleged to have been
collected by him and not accounted
for to the county treasurer. Defense
of counter claims and general denial.
Exceptions that the suit had to be
brought at the instance of the county
treasurer, and not the county COM
mlssioners' court; and that the bond
is not properly approved, and is given
to the members of the county court
instead of the commissioners court.
AppelleeS cited section Of the act of
April 2S, 1873, relative to settlements
of sheriffS' accounts with the state,
which raises the question whether this
act deprived the county or commits
sioners' court of all power to direct
the institution of this suit. Held:
There is nothing in the act of 1873
that indicates any intel ltion upon the
part Of the legislature to make that
the only or exclusive mode of insti-
tuting the suits therein named, or to
deprive the county or commissioners
courts of any power over, or duty,
with respect to suits i'm behalf OF the
county, whatever might be their ma
ture. Further held: There is moth
ing in the objection to the bond upon
which this suit is brought because OF
the unusual approval thereof. Wheth-
er given to the members of the'county
or commissioners court, the bond is
an obligation to Kendall county, and
suit can be maintained upon it in the
name of the county. Judgment
reversed and cause remanded- Adopt
! ed. Opinion by Watts ] >,
John A. Biffie, plaintiff in error, VS..
E. L. Percival. Suit for damages
\ against Biffie as sheriff of Bosque
county, for seizing and selling wag-
on and two yoke of oxen, which Per