The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-02-01
oouar Drori,ss.
synopsis Of opinions or the suprefse Oosf,
Galveston Tefm, 1883.

taiNfHton fffiuf 1000"
Timon OF al. VA. San Particle county.
This Is suit against the suretles, upon the
sheriils bond, for an alleged defacation.
An auditor was appointed, who found tho
balance Ia which the sheriff was indebted
TO the county. Exceptions we're made TO- q
part OF the auditors report which were
sustained, and q balance of $l,27O2D, as re-
portedby him, was approved, and judg'
ment rendered thereon, with interest rom
the date when such balance should have
been put into the county treasury. The
only error noticed in the opinion is as to
the correctness Of the judgment al
lowing interest as stated. Neither
the original petition nor It's exhibits
contain single ayerment Un the question
of interest, except in the last sentence of
the prayer for relief. The auditors report
does not mention any interest due the
county, yet the judgment gives interest in
an amount equal to the principal. What
precise date, found by the court, when
money should have been paid into the
treasury, ana consequently the correct date
from which interest will be charged, cannot
be determined from the record. Held, the
better practice in this character of suits,
where interest Is sought to be recovered, is
for the petition to state fully the facts, Civ
ing the amount and dates upon which the
cain for interest is asked. The record not
showing with certainty how the item OF
interest was ascertained the judgment is
reversed and remanded. West, J..
&, yer vs.. Bulrohreys ct al; from Duval
CO. Y. Tine real issues of this case, as
= 1Ily made by the charge of the court,
re: DID the property seized by Humph-
reys, as sheriff, belong to Il. A. Glover, or,
had he fraudulently conveyed it to appel
liant, before the seizure kOr the purpose OF
defrauding his creditors? The testimony
as to who paid the taxes on the property
and how it was managed, however slightly
it tended to prove these issues, was rele-
want and admissible. The court did not
err in submitting the ques ion of owner
ship of the property and good faith OF the
evidence, by e. A. Glover to appellant, as
there was conflict of the evidence on the
question. Had the verdict been different
it would not have been disturbed, but no
error of law appears, and the Judgment Is
affirmed. Stayton, j.
Teal ct ais. VS.. Terrell ct ais; from Victo-
ria county. The court having charged
only the legal effect of uncontroyerted evil
dence, about which there was no question
to be passed on by the jury, it was not err
ror; us Texas, 81; 20 Texas, 294.) Appel
lants claimed the land from Peter Teal, an
adopted son of John Sdeck. Appellees
claimed under Mrs. Sevein, Mrs. Sldeck's
daughter; and this land at hi, death de-
seconded to Teal and Mrs. Seyein, as tenants
in common; by virtue of which appellants
remained on the land down to 1872, at
which date their joint tenancy was disputeS
and in 1858 a suit to eject Mrs. Teal from
the premises was filed. In 1872 a partition
was made under a decree of the court in
the suit above, in which partition Mrs.
Teal's improvements was found to be on
the other parties land. There was no re-
l;ot; rNF fIa nf
the date OF the partition. Such repudia-
ton must clearly appear to give co-tenant
the benefit OF the statute of limitations.
Acts and declarations of the party in pos
session are construed most strongly against
him, when there is no priyity to title; (21
Texas, 92S). The benefit of the statute of
limitations to co-tenant has been denied
where the proof of custer on his part was
stronger than in this case; (22 Texas, $50;
As Texas, 3SS; II Texas, 1885,. Affirmed.
Willie, C. j.
Ryan, assignee, VS.. Goldfrank. Frank &
Co.; from Webb county. Appellees sued
one Bruni to recover monied judgment.
October 81, 1881, a writ of attachment was
sued out and levied upon certain personal
property, supposed to be the property OF
Bruni, but found in the possession of Ryan,
who claimed it as assignee. The record
does not contain the writ nor the sheriff
return; some time elapsed, however, be-
tween It's issuance and its levy. The prop
erty was taken by the sheriff December 16,
1881, claimants bond, filed the same day,
showing that he rendered his written oath
that it was made in good faith. The
bond being according to the statute the
property was delivered TO appellant Jan
uary %, 1882, in time for next term of
court the sheriff returned the bond and
oath to the clerk, the latter filed them.
The paper supposed to contain the oath,
and either had not on December Is, 1881,
been sworn to, o" if it had, the officers
iurat or claimants oath. or both, were
wanting The court allowed the jurat to
be attached as of date January %, 1882.
At the next Term of court sppellees moved
to uuash theoath and bond because Ryan
had not properly filed his affidavit. The
motion was sustained and the proceedings
dismissed. Held, the court erred, be-
case, through some inadvertence of the
sheriff or the officer taking the oath, the
oath ofincomplete would not, when cured
in time, deprive Ryan ola right Of trial to
this property. The amendment of the
affidavit was proper; GO Tex, 1885, % Tex,
3Sl). Reversed and remanded. West, J.
synopsis of Opinions of the Court of
Appeals, Galveston Term, 1888.
Allen VS.. the State; from Bexar county.
This IL conviction of Undertaking a house