The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-28

,onnty; 5urleson VS.. the State, from
iiS county; Pbantoah VS.. the State,
rVh = RIO county. Reversed and remand.
eu, sutton vs., the State, from Bexar
~" ,hty. Motion 10 set aside Judgment
Gle transcript granted in Packer vs..
dsgget, from Bell county. Submitted on
motion for rehearing: Day VS.. Keaupg,
rom Johnson county. On briefs for both
parties: Gallagher VS.. the State, from
Guadalupe county.
The supreme court affirmed: Hubbard
vs.. Bigham, from Coryell county; State of
Texas VS.. Sais ct al, from Travis county:
Edwards ct al. VS.. Riglee, from Hood coun.
tyi English VS.. Hutchins, from HAYS coun-
"; Welch VS. Barry, from Navarro county;
thompson 1T al. VS.. Rutherford, from Tray
Is county; Bureeois VS.. Mills, from Dallas
county; Reese Il Jandon VS.. Patterson, from
McLennan county; Cook VS.. Washintona, ct
al, from Collin county. Reversed and re-
manded: Baker VS.. Denton aud wife, from
Fannin county; State OF Texas vs.. Wygal 10
All from Travis county; Morris VS.. Ennis ct
a., from johnson county; Malloy VS.. Cal
iahsn, from Navarro county; Rudd VS..
Johnson ct al, from Tarrant county:
ihohpson ct al. VS.. Jones ct al, from Fam
MIN county; Life Association of America vs..
Goode, nom Grayson county; Kniehtly VS..
Seydell, from Dallas county. Reversed
and rendered; Wells vs. the State, from
washington county. Hughes ct al. VS..
duncan ct al. from Dallas county; Ssyers
Hill county. Dismissed: Talbot VS..
DVches ct al, from Travis county; McMil.
Ian VS.. Frost ct al, from Navarro county !;
Robertson VS.. McCreary. from Robertson
county. Motions for rehearing overruled ::
LOOMS IL Christian VS.. Tumey e. Jones,
from Travis county Armstrong VS.. Bean,
from Bosque county Russell VS.. friedman,
rom Navarro county. Motion to dismiss
overruled: Kaufman 4 Runge VS. Wicks,
rom Robertson county. Submission set
aside and re-argument ordered: Duke ct
al VS., Read ct al, from Caldwell county.
The court OF appeals to-day affirmed the
case q, oil ketchum vs.. the city Of Galveston.
ms sun, test case, was brought by the
CITY against ketchum, who was a surety en-
the bond OF one Mitchell. who contracted
70 dig an artesian well for said city and
ialieu IN his contract. The decision of this
case determines many others, and virtually
gives the city in all judgment for $4,000
Briefly stated, the court holds that the plea
to the jurisdiction of the county court vs.
not good; that the bond was several and
not lndivisible; that the principal being
outside OF the state and totally insolvent,
the snit was properly brought against the
sureties without joining the principal in
the suit; that as the contract was several,
a change made in the terms thereof relative
to the piping used did not discharge all the
sureties because of the want of the assent
OF one or more of them to the change; that
so lar as the joint liability of tina prinCipa!
and all sureties for 5000 was concerned it
was tot an error in the court to
give. Judgment against the par
ticular surety in this case for
the full amount of his obligation. to.wit,
$3.50. because the difference between the
original contract, for which they were
bound, and that for which they were
actually liable was matter to be adiudi-
Gated and adjusted between the sureties
themselves by an equitable proceeding for
that purpose alone, after the 81 900 had
been collected, and was a matter that could
not arise nor be pleaded in the case at bar.