The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-05-24
Supreme Court.

Oup1 CAAO OOuA
Wiley Williams, appellant, VS.. J. G.
Rogan, ct al, trustees appellees; from
San Saba county.-In 1879 the district
conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal church south, in which district
was San Saba, proposed to establish a
high school in one of six competing
counties which should contribute
$1,000. Appellant subscribed 5000
The entire $1,000 was subscribed and
accepted by the conference, which
agreed to build the school house at
San Saba. Appellees were the ap-
pointed trustees. Appellant, by proxy
voted il the proceedings to select one
of two locations in town, and the
building was finally completed, after
having been commenced in 1881. In
the fall of 1879, after acceptance OF
the subscribers proposition by the
conference, appellant made known
his intention not to comply with his
subscription, claiming that he was re-
leased from his obligation. Held
this is not an ordinary case OF q
subscription to some charitable or
public purpose in which there are no
contracting parties except the sub.
scribers, which last are the parties on
the one side and the conference on the
other. Acceptance of the proposition
of the conference Lound the subscri-
bers, and acceptance of the SubScrip-
tions, ETC., bound the conference, SO
that each party could hold the other
to their agreements. Authorities
cited l Parsons on Contracts, p. 49,
and others, and Interpretation of the
Indian Contract act of 1872 to be
found in Pollock's Principles of Con-
tract. Even after. defendants promise
had been accepted by the conference,
he emphasized his intention to be
bound by joining at the selection Of d
plan for the building. Judgment
affirmed.-StaytOn, j.
Wiley Williams VS.. county of San
Saba, appellee. only question is,
did appellee show such titleas author
lied a recovery. The property first
belonged to j. Porter Brown, deceas-
ed, under whom appellant holds by
regular chain of title. Prior to the
time the administrator sold by pro-
bate order to J. III. Brown and j. w
Fleming, there had been a parol
agreement that the administrator
would not sell the land but convey it
to the county, on condition that the
county would convey to Mrs. Jane
Brown block ii in San Saba. Held
the administrator could make no such
a contract as the one in question, with
out being authorized by the court in
which the administration was pend
ing. AS to subsequent verbal
agreement between the county Judge
and B. and F. after they had pur-
chased the property, and the action OF
the Masonic lodge after Brown and
Fleming had conveyed the property
to it, the court says it is clear that
B. and F. did not purchase as agent
of or in trust for the county. This is
not case in which property has been
boughts with the money or Other
means of one person and the deed tC
these in the name of another which
would create resulting trust. The
burden of showing such state Of
facts as would have entitled the ap
pellee to have had the legal title vested
in the lodge, Invested, and invested il
itself, was upon the appellee, and il
the absence of such proof and fur
ther proof of knowledge of such facts
by a purchaser or purchasers from
the lodge, it was not entitled to re
cover. Judgment is reversed anC
rendered by this court that appellee
take nothing by this suit and that ap-
pellant recover costs of both courts
Stayton, j.
Lewis Prendergrass VS.. II. G. Beale
executor; from Navarro county.-II
this case Judge Willie concludes the
opinion of the court, as follows
From the pleadings the will was evi
IDENTIFY to be contested as void for in
capacity in the testatrix to make {
will. 1t is not reasonable that the
executor should decide tins question
which would be placed between hin
whether the will was valid or void
when, upon the decision of that ques
ton depended his own personal anC
pecuniary interests. We are of opin
ion that the district court had juris
diction of the proceeding. AS to the
objection that the application for pro
bate of the will did not state thu
value of the property; if it were gooC
the defect was cured by amendment
in proper time. The object of thiI
requisite is to inform theIjudges as t.
what the amount of the bond should
be-. and this information was duly
given him by the amendment. There
is no error in the judgment and it il
affirmed. Willie, G. j.
Newman VS.. Dodson; from Wash
ing county. Affirmed.
II. r. Hillard VS.. Cora NJ. Mcmahon
Motion to dismiss overruled.
Crescent Insurance Company VS.
Griffin & Shook. Motion to strike on
statement of facts overruled.
Houston & Texas G sntral Railwa,
Company VS.. Watson & Bro. Writ o
certiOrari ordered.
I'D. Lawrence VS.. G. F. Marsh
banks. Motion to correct judg
ment and opposition referred back T.
counsel for argument.
Herle rs. Langdon. Motion to Sc
aside former submission granted ant
| cause set for 23rd inst.