The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-01-18

: country already penetrated by railroad
and tle trade and traffic Of the Fort, elm
2 mating windage, Is not q. 1.-THE OF that [
I | Dallas, and the management Of the Gul
Colorado & Santa Fe road know 1t.
--so>---
COURT DECISIONS
} synopsis of Opinions OF the Commissioner
} of Appeals, Galveston Term, 1883.
Stell, administrator, ct al. VS.. Lewis
Dilworth, from Gonzales county. The frs
: proposition answers the third in the con
struction placed upon it by the court. |
Is: Did the Law and facts authorize the
court to adIudgea preference in favor Q
the subdivision of the 81 500 note over tina
for 81 ,0OQ2 Being secured by vendor
lien upon the same land, because the go
note was subdivided into severa
smaller notes owned by the, party owning
the $3.50 note was not los
by such subdivision. as Tex, ~ Th,
notes were both for the purchase-mOney o
the same land, and were, therefore, of the
same class .or degree and all the claims
were duly presented and allowed within 9
year alter granting the letters Of admins
tration, and no doubt or reason appears in
1870. =. ...as In, ~ N, 10 -
,to,,y .fosapros ~ ~ nv sS,,ac;ai ono va
eso pI Ia ~ Ts 600. k y1'
242; IS Tex, 563; 50 Tex, 12.) Notes secured
by vendors lien are equal, and the one ma
turing first has no priority over Others. (49
Tex, 368; So Tex, 24) The court erred in
is1 r. ..Sa ~ ,.,,.t j., .,,h;.o. ~, :.
va esrvt ~ a,os tpe1snJ - sv, ~
~ aS,,;, =; costs arst haforl d;str
S trv - Tha TS,d chts,nad sboniS he a.
ni;ed arst hsfora d;str;hmtion oniv with tx
as.s nc ~ !, rscea,,;ng ,ha .sils
Ho''s r ~ sI Uds rasI;xaT ~,
is, ~ snr the ,sv,ant ~ the COTS If "a
r,;n;st ton a. ~ sde othsrvise n denends
- ;,;c ~ ~ ~ -
Gn..lely upon tne Snt n;rav, .no oosS ~
Ss..I u ~ ,,lst he ra,ssrtx ~ ~
,'anJ "a .a.;st.;, ~ re sdn,;r;S
, u.vg - 'as payarssS ana re,nsrdaS WsItar
n m
r. I, 49, a n EI,,s. f-or,,
nounam =. a. VI w. a1,iv u ;ss,la , i, ,H;s
AntasI oSi. n.ht u rass'ass ~ trv
s su,t, wnicn 40 piousn. ~ uspasS ~
titlo - ~ " Mne.nel =, ~ w a.. aos ~
.ne norton suIssy, 90 V'aa a, ,;y SPPS.,
isnls. ~ .ne uau " sno - ~ osI
nofson lI f,hs Ia.;ss ~ asv .hs
former line being 10Y varas snort when II
reaches said Lewis Survey apPeilants
claim that as the last line OF SAID Lewis
survey ID an open line ~ Ing prairie
that It should give way 70 tne call ior tne
east line OF the Horton survey, wnicn y
call Tor distance, ana citS pSoth w. o.np-
pleman, ~ iexas, 400. meiu' .ne III. arc 10
circumstances N ms case
which would require tne cal ior tne Lewis
line to give way 10 the caii OF me saor.on
line for distance. In TINS cas-, unlike mat
above cited, the Lewis east line was capaoie
OF being easily nscertaineu, lL the Two oiuer
surveys upon when tnat Oh Lewls hoouss
and greatly depends. are oio, Wen estap,
!ished and certainly aeslgnalea Dy MARKED
Affirmed. Watts, ].
Z smith jenkins vs. diii omitn; from
Dallas county. Tbs court mas oeen IN
1rmtd ny counsel iur potn parne-i tnat as
eiveen them ttne parties), tne sun mas
bean Sc tiled. mere Is no agreement, now
sger 70 that elect, apparent OF rscoru NOT
8 The court informed as 20 Wnicn party -
2 pay the cos.s' ncoon,'n gss,, ~ 'ne piao
ice therefore, formerly settieu ~ last
Austin term, DAY must pc specihed Win .
. which counsel must ME IA TINS court an I
green ent as 10 the disposition OF the APP
leal n we'll as 10 name we party VINO small
ny she costs ana IN tine even. no eucn
green ept IN me- tne appeM VII, oveis n
aisseo 81 nppeusns,s cos tve,sr;
~.r--- II
Bodies et ~ W. putoIu, ito ~ SS 5u {
ounty. William "a. 5lmpson uieo isaslns
y estate 70 MS siIo; Le'i''a o'u pson. LIS
III was propateo ~ p Az Aufu7siilo eoseuef.
Ire simpson oieo sl.er"a,us; nea VIII was
y her will abe devised one.hah 10th Of her
roperty 70 buio,q IN ms OWL mo ss'ou-i
X and 9nens' s,S - ~ this Mi; H. M
10 ac'ion should be taken IN the probate J.
lurt except 70 probate ."s ~n e anu h,e 1
le Inventory ana kave 70 pu.olu; ner :
recutor, "or 70 tne trustee, VINO m'ent oe /
opointed In ms s.esu' ~ sne enena =, n's q
=ath. removal OF NANNY - aos po~sr %
annge aud control we .n'u pIops'1s, ,f a ppsi- {
nss Or ~ yessrs,p Bus5 from any further further
sps,sit.oa. .. s.,e properly. tbe case pre-
nts the sole question IS To tne rniing Q .
10 lower court IN Refusing 10 take Jurtdic-
,n ofthe cause hell IN succession o. h
q estate of william ~ simpson nnd his r
lie. still being open ana me sdm,nistrh-
N pendins 40 san A :, '. e1 "a .ne b
ierson county u H. s,',, ~ sr.n1, H. d
:ecusor Of simpsons etis.e lPAs. Die, Il
r.. 1913. Sec. q ItxHs, ~: . Isx.s. ~. a
quifed under 'be will Of her d ceased hus: y
nd, whose estate YES u.aer M conifo, o. II
probate cnns. ~ oan - , ~ III, .. G.
,etber pisin''fs bFyukn. 'n,s fnr nfa'"s, v
y. simpson or not. The probate court of :. :,
n Aukn-sine county va tnr trop.r fn'- n
IL for lie anjuoicanon' nmrheo' De Al
y, J. NJ. . n, O.
WESTON county. Paf-os,s, 70 al s,ssr, n X
sment for d. ior the pnpi,e p1n''ns q r,
, city o. o.'s <ser.t I ~ 80, %, ~ "a. W