Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-01
COURT DECISIONS.
Condensed Report .r th- Decision vi The
Higher Courts.
ItnIvcstOn Tofni.f
SUPREME COURT.

Inc district court uiu not err IN us
solving the injunction and iismissing
the suit, NJ the allegations In the petit
lion were not sufficiently specific and
full to justify the court in penetrating
IL. The precise grounds upon which
the appellant sought to invoke the ex-
crcise OF the equitable powers OF the
court nre not stated with the
required cxactncss and particu-
iarity when AN injunction against
the collection OF taxes is
sought. Ii IL not clear from the peti :
tion, us q matter Of law, that all the
taxes, whose collection Ia sought 10 be
cni0ined, are Illegal or unjust nor Is
IL absolutely certain. from the petition
that the school tax i'm question is un-
constitutional or unauthorized. Had
the court the power to try the ques-
ton az to the legality of the organiza-
ton OF the corporation OF the city Of
Hampstead, or the regularity and le-
guiity of the election Of appellee,
sought TO be attacked, II would not he
authorized to do so under the meager
averments OF the petition Affirmed.
Simonton and wife vs.. Mayblum
and wife--From Fort Bend county.
opinion by Justice West. Appellants
pleadings recognizing the fact of sim
onton's bankruptcy aud the existence
OF the deed, and IL being expressly adj
mitted that appellecs claimed the land
under decd from Sinonton's assignee
in bankruptcy, there was no error in
the court in admitting the deed in evil
dence. Neither was the defense OF the
statute of limitations OF five years sus-
tanned. The statute runs ms well in
favor of one holding adverse posses
sion OF land, claimed to be homestead
ed for himself and wife, ms il does
where IL Is claimed to be Il mill, or
store, or farm. Under the facts the
court correctly held that appelees
showed right and title to the locus
in quo SUPERIOR TO appellants claims.
/ Is Tex. 4l5 A Tex, sos 81 Tex,
33.l Affirmed.
Houston and Texas Central Rail-
way VS. Waller From Austin county.
Opinion by West, j See this case on
former appeal. 1856 Tex, 332. On
this trial the court corrected the error
in the charge for which this case was
formerly reversed, and at the instance
OF appellant properly gave this charge;
IF you believe that the accident which
resulted In the death of III. Is. Waller,
would not have happened but for aud
on account of the drunkenness Of the
deceased ut the time, YOU will find for
the defendent. The only question
now presented Is to the sutficency of
the evidence, Upon the question
whether deceased was drunk or not,
on this trial there was other evidence
produced than on the former trial, and
rs ii was purely question of fact for
the jury 10 determine under proper
instructions from the court, and such
having been given, and after a careful
inspection of the record, falling to see
any error committed the judgement
IL affirmed,
Hubby w. Harris etal. From Wal
Ter county. Opinion by Justice Stay
ton. This cause comes before the
court without any of the plcadiugs of
either party in reference TO the subject
matter of the suit under an agreement
OF counsel that the petition and an
swef he omitted from the Transcript.
This agreement has not the approval
Of the Judge as required where por-
ton OF the plcadings are omitted from
the transcript. cart. l4l3, Rev STATS.
Nor does the tran script exhibit an
agreed case made under article iAl4,
revised statutes, and approved and
signed by the judge AZ that article per-
nittcd. In the absence of compli-
ance with the articles of the revised
statutes referred to, the transcript
must contain n full and correct copy OF
all the proceedings had in the cause.
REV Stats, art. lilt.l Az the tran.
script stands, this court cannot know
chat there Is any subject matter o.
litigation between the parties, and il
the absence of II transcript evidcncinl
that fact this court will not revise tn,
action of the District Court In dis
missing the cause for failure of tn,
appellant 10 comply with rule fol
costs, Appeal dismissed,
Griffin W.. Whecler--F From Wallc,
county. Opinion by CHIEF Justic,
Willie. The question presented is NJ
TO who has the better title to the land
a purchaser ut execution sale or on,
claiming under deed from the wifi,
of defendant. These facts are admit
ted The wife purchased the property
with her separate means the deco
was made to her; she conveyed To ap
pellant before execution sale; the deco
was not recorded until after such sale
that the land was levied upoi
aud sold by debtor o
the husband, the purchase none,
paid, and that the purchaser bough
without actual notice of the wite's It'll,
10 the land. Held, the deed to tn
wife conveyed no notice that the Ian,
MAS purchased with her sepaat
means, but the presumption from
was that such land became the con,
munity property OF herself and hus
band. ~ Texas, Ar The evldene
fails TO atlirmatively disclose that th
purchaser had any other notice of Ga
wife's title mt the time he bought
Wade on Notice, S67i, % Texas, IS.
such being the condition of the reeor
there was no error in the Judgment I
the district court and the Judgment
affirmed.
Marv c. Cline ct N, vs. Upton
From Harris county. Oplnion H.
Stayton, j. Since the former appey
the defendants have SO amended rs
set mp the payment OF the purchas
money at the sheriilPs sale. Proof |
such payment and the amount WA
made on this last trial and an instru,
ton asked 10 the effect that Ii the Jar
found the property for the plaintiff
under their homestead claim, the
they would find for defendants agains
X. a, Upton for The sum SO paid, wit
interest, from, the date OF payment
which Instruction was refused, Hell
error oh frax AAhs Hex Rig.