Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-25

( nBHlHcnt IN bankruptcy by ner nus
band did not have the effect 10 pass
any greater Interest In the land than
was owned by him as his separate
property and that held In community
with liis wife. The assignee In bank,
ruptey sold only such right or title to
the property as was vest In him by
the bankrupt or his representative.
[23 Wall, 10. 81 1856 The husband,
refusing to join his wife In q suit for
her separate property, she had the
right 10 sue alone, There are various
other grounds noticed In the opinion,
but none are sustained, and the judg-
ment II affirmed.
I Atcbison vs.. Owen--trom Grimes
county. Opinion Of Delany. j., ADOPT
ed. On the trial below plaintiff offered
10 prove by his own testimony that
while the sheriff. had In his hands the
execution under which the propertv
IN controversy was sold. he offered ~
| point out - the sheriff ample property
of plaintiff TO satisfy the execution.
and the sheriff refused 10 receive It.
The evidence waH excluded. He gives
AZ a reason that the evidence was re-
Jected because there was In evidence
the record Of preceding suit BY the
present parties, In which plaintiff
saught 10 set aside the sale. ETC., and
recover the land in controversy here
and that the matters were known 10
appellant when he brought the former
sui, and were res adjudlcata, said
judgment being affirmed by the SUI
premc court thus regarding the for.
mer judgment as conclusive against
plaintin to the extent Of prccluding
any attack upon the sherifiTs sale.
Held, error, 20 Texas, 53G; Is Texas,
95s; 40 Texas, ils; 81 Texas, 40; Is
Texas, 65S.l Reversed aud reinanded.
Atchins0n W.. Owen. From Grimes
county. Opinion Of Delany, j !, adopt
ed The principles Of est0ppeI. at
tached to final adjudications, are as or-
! eratiye and conclusive In proceedings |
| IN sclre mclas as in other cases Free |
/ man on FIX, sec. 30. In proceeding |
| Ike this the defendant may show that /
/ the judgment Is void. but not that 10 * |
merely erroneous. y Texas, 1870 BE. |
sides, defendant II mistaken In sup
posing that the judgment was merely
intended as foreclosure of the mort
gage. III was evidently a personal
Judgment against defendant for the
full amount of the debt, with interest
ana costs, as foreclosure Of the mort
gage. Affirmed.
4bVaAbh VI Als We FNtfftINOil tf Hi, s---
Prom Williamson county. Opinion
Of Walker, T.. j., adopted. Rehearing
refused. Appellant assigns As error
that tlle court erred In overriding de-
PENDANTS demurrer to plaintiffs mo-
ton for new trial, and In granting a
new trial TO plaintiff. Held, the pro-
eeedings referred 10. designated az !.
plaintiffs motion for new trial, !
was an independent suit, whose !
merits have been disposed of, and do !
not belong nor pertain 10 this appeal y
ana cannot be involved in it,. The :
appellant also assigns as error that
the court erred In overriding de- q
leudants motion TO dismiss the cause =
from the docket Held, 49, Tell =
thken, the reason set forth he eln- "
ply denial as u matter OF la, " the o
power Of the district court to, ecree D
he setting aside oil the form& iudu- ;,
neht, and TO award news. Trial u
,iter the end Of the term y
When the judgment complain .
~ of was rendered The contrary to o
mat claimed Ia the error assigned Is '
Wei established. It Is objected thnt !,
pc ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of The wife to y
me execution OF the deed Of trust was ).
to convey her sepernte Y
Il.
sealed and delivered This preelse !
point wns decided at last Austit, term. q
q 1TeNas 29i.52 Texas 5tI7 and held i'm. G
material. Where verdict Is deficient
~ not expressly finding one OF the y
Issues Ia the case, butmay be aided by !
lhe ploadings 80 IN to supply by In /,
icndment that which IL not expressed !
IA II, but which necessarily follows Y
rom thht Which IL expressed when
viewed IN the proper light Of the :
pleadings. rs Texas, "a; ~ Texas, 81;
IL Texas, 1868; 10 Texas. llG.l Rehpar- {
ing refused. Affirmed
MoFaddin etal. vs.. Williams. From ]
Jefferson county. Opinion OF Watts.
J !, adopted, When the holder OF n
bond fortitle has performed his part of /,
the contract the longest period known
to our statute of limitations must {
elapse before the court will refuse d |.
specific performance. [i7 Tex. ais.
Unless there were equitable cireum-
stances Of no ordinary character to OK !
ease or account for the delay, ten
years would be most ample time with !
IN which the remedy should be pur. /,
sued.' 20 Texas, l5i The cause Is !
reversed aud here rendered 80 that an !,
pellee have and recover nothing of an
pellants; that they 40 hence without
day aud recover their costs, etc, Re !
verscd and rendered. c
Russell ct al. IS, Bennett 4 Kerr
From Fayette county Opinion of
nelnny, j., adopted. When an nn- !
.horisod levy IL made which amounts !
% u ttespass, those whoaid or direct In !
he matter are participants in the !
wrong, and are liable In damages 10 7
The party injured, The assignments .
rom the fourth to tho tenth Inclusive Z
inli IN question the correctness of the
courts charge concerning the lndem. =
NIFTY bond alleged To have been given o
10 the marshal by the iirn,s of II, Bros,
ana liely n Co., which In substance.
was that the Jury should not find L
against those defendant firms unless 4
I had been proved that they had L
the officer before the levy
,nd that II was not Necessary for the
plaintiff 60 prove the date, terms, con
tltions, etc, OF the bond Held no
'rror Affirmed,
-