The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-02-08
COURT DECISIONS.
synopsis OF Opinions of the Commission OF
Appeals, Galveston Term, 1888.

SOAn DGNA,tVNS.
Synopsis OF Opinions of the Commission OF
Appeals, Galveston Term. 1883.
Whiting VS.. Goss; from Colorado county.
Information has been received outsideof the
record in this cause, that this cause has been
settled betweenthe parties, either by com.
promise or full settlement of the debt. in
accordance with the established practice of
the supreme court therefore we will peport
TO the supreme court, as a proper DISPOSE
ton of this cause is to notify the respective
parties or their attorneys Of record, that
unless they hle IN that court in reasona-
BILE time, an agreement as to the proper
disposition of the cause, that the same
should be dismissed at the cost of the
plaintiff in error, and such is our report
Welker, p,j.
Haokbarth VS.. Meisner OF al; from Austin
county. On motion of Hackharth two
cases were consolidated in the court below,
over objection, and the cause then pro.
oeeded as one. Judgment being rendered.
HacSbarth's attempts 10 beat the judgment
are divlsible, seeking to leave one part Of.
| fective, and TO reverse that part which is
| against him. The petition and bond for
writ OF error is Ia accordance with that de.
sire, and only makes defendants in error
parties. Held, the record estops Hack.
barth from treating the cause otherwise
than as single cause, but whether so or
not, all parties will be affected by q decis-
ion Of the cause and thepetition and writ of
error bond failing to cite all parties and
| make them proper parties to tile writ of
error must be, and Is dismissed. The writ
of error should be dismissed. Walker, y. j.
Gillette VS.. Lee OF al. from Harris
county. The question presented is, was
AIRS. Mason precluded from . further re-
coyery by the Judgment rendered in II for
mer case. She was a party to that case,
acquiesced in the decree and took under it
a large amount OF property. She does not
question, but claims she does not come I'M
der the general rule; that "when judg.
ment of q competent tribunal Is rendered
between parties on any point, that 1udg-
ment, until duly set aside, is conclusive
against such parties on such point when 1t
is again brought i'll question" Under the
first suit she claimed as the
heir of her grandfather, aud
here she claims as the heir
Of her grandmother. The parties In the
first suit treated the entire estate as one,
and considered that the estate of the grand.
mother passed by the will of their grand.
father. Appellee had opportunity in the
first suit TO claim the right she now claims.
Held, such being the case, she is preciuded
from a recovery in this case, for whether
her failure to claim the right held under
and through her grandmother was from
ignorance, neglect and caprice, yet the
bar.exists; GA Tex; II; Al Eng. Com. Law
Rep, G3l) The Judgment ought to be re
versed and remanded. Delany, j.
Peters ct al. VS.. Hackbarth; from Austin
county. l. An instrument, in the form OF
a statement of facts, signed by tie attor
neys for Hackbarth, and Meisner and wife,
and approved by the Judge, cannot be con.
sidcred such statement rs is required by
law upon the appeal of Peters and wife; (55
Tex, COZ; AZ idem, 2S2) 2. Without such q
statement, in order TO view the whole evi.
dence, any errors, If abstractly maintaina.
ble cannot be considered as prejudicial TO
appellants rights. 3. Without state
ment OF facts showing that the attorneys
and parties were different, we cannot con
sider an alleged error Which rests upon th,
negative OF that question. 4. In the aD
sence OF q statement Of facts the suprem,
count will not revise any ection of the lowe
court relating to its charge; (55 Tex 459
The judgment ought to he affirmed. Walk
er, p. j.
Tooscan vs. Harris county; from Harri.
county me district attorney brought
THIS suit to restrain the county judge
county clerk, county treasurer, and mem
bers OF the county commissioners court
from paying appellant certain warrants is
sued TO him tor services, rendered, and pre-
vent the issuing OF further warrants for ih'
same purpose. No fraud, collusion, or act
OF IKE character were alleged or proven
Held, 1t deVolyes upon the county commits
sloners court, and they have the power t
institute SUIT Ia the nane and for the bcne
NJ OF the county, except where aconcurren
rignt OF ;t an exclusive night Is given SOM
other tribunal or officer of the government
and thatcourt is the quasi executive heat
OF the government to determine when sui
. shall be instituted. The district attorney
| therefore did mot have the ri pht ia instit,tt,