The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-11
COURT DECISIONS,
synopsis of Opinions of the SUPP ono Court,
Galveston Term, 1888

synopsis of Opinions of the SUPP ome Court
Galveston Term, 1883.
City National Bank Va. Cupp & Co.; from,
Tarrant county. Oral opinion on motion
to dismiss. Although a stakeholder Is
president of an appealing corporation, and
signs the appeal bond as such president,
yet he may further sign the appeal.bond as
u surety. The fact that al attorney in the
cause may appear as surety upon the ap.
peal-bond will not, of itself, vitiate the
bond, ard where nothing to the contrary is
shown, 1t will be presumed such attorney
appeared on the appeal bond as surety
with the permission of the lower court.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.
Everheart VS.. lsbell; from Grayson
county. Although the appealbond in this
case clearly and accurately describes the
Judgment in every particular except AS to
amount, yet, although the bond is given for
u mucn larger amount, tho variance is ia.
tai. Nor can appellant cure this defect by
Offering new bond curing the defect Ap.
peal dismissed. Wilson, J.
Mack IL Co. VS.. White & Son. from Collin
county. Where the note sued on is at
tached to asd made part of the petition,
and imports u consideration it is unnces.
sary to allege consideration for the note;
(article Ass; Law Review ld3 and cta.
tions). Affirmed, with damages. Will
son, /.
Haningheiler VS.. tho State; from Dallas
county. The evidence in the case being to.
tally insufficient to indicate any intention
to voluntarily return the stolen property,
the court correctly refused to charge the
law governing in such cases, The evidence
is sufficient, there IL no error, and the iudg.
ment is affirmed. Wilson, /.
Want VS.. the state; from Tarrant county
The defendant beng present in court when
the conviction for misdemeauor was had
the Judgment should have recited that the
defendant he committed to Jail until such
tine and costs were paid; 90. q. p, articles
500 and 10N. AS rendered, that the state re-
cover OF the defendant the amount of the
fine and costs, there sno valid Judgment
Appeal dismissed. White, y,
Heatherly vs., the State; from Grayson
county. Where defendant was convicted
| OF u misdemoanor and the punishment ms.
sessed only fine, and where defendant
was not present, IL is held that Judgment
which commands that execution or COM
mitment may ISSUE is not good, but that
1t should be that u capias forthwith issue
commanding the sheriff to arrest him and
commit him to Jail until the fine and costs
ARE paid, and that execution issue against
his property therefor; (art. sos, q. Z. P.).
Appeal dismissed. Wilson, !.
Fort Worth & Denver City Railway vs.
Lamphear& Sanders from Wichita county
Because appellant also filed opposition to
the award does not dispense with the re-
quircd citation, without service of
which upon appellant, citing him
TO appear and answer the oppo.
sition to the award of the commissioners
filed by appellee. The court is without iu.
risdichon to render Judgment by default
Or. s., art, 1902. The Judgment should de-
scribe tho land contemned and vest the
rifht.ol-way .ther,in In appellant. Or. s.,
art. los ~ Tex, 723). Reversed and re.
handed. Wilson, 4.
Braden w. the State; from Lamar county.
Defendant was present In courtthe assessed
penalty was fine only; the Judgment rem.
dered therefore, thut the state recover of
the defendant the amount of the fine and
costs, etc, and that execution issue there.
for was not a valid final Judgment, APP
peal dismissed.