The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-05-12
THE COURTS.
Leafs From the Records OF the Tribunals OF
Last Resort Excellent synopsis Of De-
cisions of Importance to Liiissn,s and
Lawyers.

Lawyers.
SUPREME COURT.
Harris VS.. Musgrove; from Atascosa
county. Opinion by Delany, j., adopted
Tue disability Of infancy is the personal
privilege of the infant himself, and no one
bat himself or his legal representatives can
take advantage oft. Other parties, there
fore, who contract with an infant are bound
by it, although it be voidable by him.
When an infant, who has purchased prop
crty, disposes Of it after coming Of age, this
must be regarded as a confirmation of the
contract. When an infant has sold prop
erty, and afterwards reclaims 1t, this
would be regarded as disavowal OF
the contract, aud he must return the
purchase money. An infant may
disaffrm sale OF personal property
before he attains his majority, though the
rule is otherwise as TO real estate. Acts OF
membership to amount to disavowal of
the previous sale must he distinct and une
quivocal. Reversed ana remanded.
Rupard VS.. Coon "eset al, from Dallas
county. Opinion ~ Walser, p. j.. The
certificate of the p.Yper officer taking the
acknowledgement OF q married woman to a
homestead, is conclusive of the truth of
the facts recited as to those matters con-
corning which he may by law certify, un-
less fraud or notice of this falsity OF the
fncts recited in IL are imputable to the
guarantee. Affirmed.
Douglas VS.. Moore ct al, from Guada.
l0upe county. Opinion by Walker, p. j.,
adopted. A conveyance Of surviving hus-
hand Of property belonging to the estate OF
himself and his deceased wife, made after
her death, without authority to con-
vey II greater interest than his own share
does not convey title or colorof title to the
interest which descends to the heirs of the
wife, and as to such interest, it will not
support deence of the statute of limlta-
ton OF three years, as Tex. 500 The
so far as 1t relates to the question oflimita.
ton (57 Tex. 1922 The interest which Mrs
Moore inherited directly from her mother
Is barred by the statute OF limitations. Mrs.
Moore is not barred as to her interest in
the estate of Mrs. Collins. Reversed and
rendered.
Sartnr VS.. Ballinger from San Saba coun-
ty. Opinion by Willis @. |. When an in
Htrument written in any other language
than our own, Is sought to be introduced in
evidence, 1t must be translated into Eng
lish by a competent person having knowi-
edge of both languages. II is the duty OF
the party offering the paper in evidence to
have the Interpretation made and not of
the judge before whom the case is on trial
to supply him with all English venior OF it,
in order to enable him to get in his evil
dence. There is another fatal objection TO
the instrument, as a certificate of aoknowl.
edgement 1t does not appear to have been
taken before any officer authorized by our
laws to take acknowledgements. Affirmed.
Goldman vs.. Blum ct al; from Victoria
county. Opinion on achieving by West, /.
The original opinion was not intended To
override the cases of Lindsay vs.. Pr co (33
Texas, 2s2), and Frank VS.. Kaigler $50 Texas,
3O5). There Is marked diff renee between
those cases and this one. This, like Knight
vs.. Holloman 20 Texas. 1922, was really a
suit to establish rejected claim against the
estate OF deceased person, and was also in
effect bill ofequity for the foreclosure of a
lien on real estate secured by deed of
trust, which deed, by reason Of the death of
the maker and the refusal OF the admins.
traitor to act, could only beenforced through
the fundamentally Of the district court.
For these reasons, as well rs many others
the court held that under the facts of this
case the appelees could not maintain the
suit; a Texas, ll3; Texas, 10; IS Texas. $50:
10 Texas, 81; 22 Texas, GIL The only
point noticed in the rehearing is as to the
facts but careful examination of the
transcript shows c0nclusively no misappre
hension Of the facts as originally understood
aud therefore the rehearing is reprised.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Murray ct nj. VS.. Woodward; from Cole.
man county. Thiscaus is before the court
upon motion to dismiss the appeal, be.
cause the appeal bond is insufficient in that
1t 10 not conditioned that the appellant will
perform the judgment sentence or decree of
the court oil appeals, but in lieu of the words
court OF appeals the bond contains the
words appellate court" Held: The bond
Ia sufficient. Motion oyerruled.
Brinster VS.. the State; from Ell Paso
county. The states attorney moves to dis.
miss the appeal because of the escape of the
prisoner pending the appeal Held: The
proper aindavit as required by law having
been made by the sheriff, and being on nle
herein, the motion will be sustained and
the appeal dismissed ' ""'
Missouri Pacific Railway Compapy Va
Reeks IL Daley, from Grayson coiinty
This cause having been compromised and
settled, and this court being Informed oi
such disposition OF the cause, according TO
the practice OF this court, the points in
viewed in the case will not be passed upon.
but the case Will be dismissed at the costs
OF the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
, Saunders ct al, VS.. Hays ct al, from
case Is as to the liability of the snreties mn.
on the guardians bond for property in the
lands oil their principal. One bond was
gwen in 1874. The wrongful act complained
Of was committed in 1875. A new bond
was rlven in 1876. The court held the 60.
curities upon the first bond were iiahle
apd entered judgment accordingly. Held
ssrect. Affirmed.
Schneider and Davis VS.. Douglass, from
qalin county. This is the trial of tbe
ttht Of property. The facts are these:
Appellants hao sold the goods to one
Leach. They had been shipped to him had
been received by his agent and was in the
latters possession when DOUGLASS levied
"a auachment upon the goods. Appel.
!ents claimed them by right Of stoppage In
transit. The court held the goods to be in
telrent. Affirmed.
Noble VS.. Hall & varley, from Dallas
omdn,y. Suit In justice court for balance
due on note, about $l.2H. On a plea in
reconvention Judgment was recovered for
$lsb IN The county court. The main ones
ton arises upon the jurisdiction OF the
oMrt, Held, the amount was clearly with.
Ia the Jurisdiction Of the justice court, and
j. did not err in entertaining jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
White vs.. the State from Comaucbe
county. This is an appeal from conyc.
ton ofmurter In the second degree. Held
!. The objections to the Indictment are not
tenable. 2. The continuance was properly
refused as the national witnesses were
present and besides the application shows
no merit. 3. The charpe Of the court IL
voluminous, but we think II was sum.
ciently Ineligible and presented the law
applicable to the facts. 4. The language OF
!he district attorney was not calculated to
iniure the defendant. and when called to
the attention Of the court was promptly re-
kuked. Affirmed.
kumels vs.. the State; from jackson
county. This 10 an appeal from a oonyio
9on OF disturbing religious worship. There
% no statement OF facts in the record q bin
OF exceptions. and we can only look to tina
Indictment which we think il amply sutfl.
cie.t (3S Tex. %; 2 CT. App, S0sl, The
Judgement is therefore affirmed,
naNxx Ia Nt.t,, r-...,