The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-07-05

concerning llGler VIII receive SUCH
by writing our court reporter
FRIDAY.
+. w. Mayors VS.. J. A. Easterwood;
from johnson county.-Question of
arbitration of land controversy. In
dications were that the parties In
tended to arbitrate under the statutes,
but they had only one arbitrator
while the statute provided for two,
and an umpire in case Of their diSa-
gIeement. Held: The parties in
tended such an arbitration as would
be enforcible by the courts, and to
have known the law applicable to
their agreement.
"The award of the arbitrator" say
the court, sis substantially the agree
ment of the parties, for they each
empowered the arbitrator to ascer-
tain and declare the terms of the
agreement, and by his award when
fairly made they ought to be as much
bound as though they had made an
agreement directly between them
selves embracing the terms of the
award.
ION the question raised that real
estate cannot be made the subject
matter of arbitration, this question is
well settled to the contrary. Morse
on Arbitration, "a. The agreement of
the parties and the award were in
writing and satisfy the statute Of
frauds. Judgment is affirmed
Stayton, A. j.
New York and Texas Land COM
pany Qimited) VS.. Santiago Sanchez
ct al; from BeXar county.-Suit to
recover land from Sanchez's heirs, by
action of trespass to try title. The
main issue was whether the land lay
in the Bexar or Webb land district,
the suit having been brought in
Bexar county, and the defendants
filing plea to the jurisdiction of the
court, which plea was overruled.
The only question is as to jurisdic-
ton. Appellees, who were defend
ants, are alleged to be residents of
Webb county, and the land is con-
coded to be within the boundaries of
Webb county. as now defined in art.
921, II. s., which article, however, it is
contended, is in violation of the con-
stitution; art. 8 sec. 1, paragraph 3.
1t is alleged that the land sued for is
still in Bexar county, and in the ju-
risdistion of its district court.
The records say the court does not
declare such condition of things as
would lead this court to suppose that
the state of facts contemplated by
this clause of the constitution eX-
listed in this case. AS it is likely, they
say, that the question here raised may
be presented again in some other
form, it may be proper to state that
such evidence as the letter of Mr.
Graves, commissioner of the general
land office, to F. E. Hall, dated Sep
TENDER Ia, 1877, is not calculated to
throw any light whatever on the
main issue, and should not be conSid-
cred by the court in making up its
final Judgment in the case. The con-
illusions and opinions of the commits
sioners in certificates of February IS,
1881. and certificate of September 80,
1881, to the sketch found on the rec
ord, us to the construction and effect
to be given TO the different acts OF the
legislature therein referred to, ana as
to the limits and boundaries of the
counties of BeXar and Webb, are not
evidence on these points.
These different certificates, say the
court, are given under arts. 1858 and
1872, r. 5. The provision which orig
inally constituted the first section of
the act of March 20, 1913, regulating
the fees to be charged by the different
heads of the departments, has been
more than once the subject of judicial
comment and construction.
Held Where such certificates are
offered in evidence the officers are al
lowed, without being compelled to
give eXhasutive copies in extenso, OF
papers. etc, in their offices, to furnish
abstracts or statements of their con-
tents, without, however, permitting
them in any manner to substitute for
this short summary or digest of the
contents, their own conclusions or
judgments, or private views of the
ordS, or their opinions as to their
proper construction or legal import.
Judgment affirmed. West, A. j.
In another case. same company VS..
same parties, the Judgment is also
affirmed for same. reason, that the dis
trict court of BeXar county hal no
jurisdiction.
Sanger Bros. ct al. VS.. heirs of u. A.
Moody, from Navarro county-Ques-
ton as TO community property of the
wife, and suit by the Moody heirs to
recover an undivided interest in no
acres of land. The original estate
was a large one. embracing about
fifty negroes and 5000 or 10000 acres
of land. There were large commu-
nifty debts, and it is admitted that all
the appellants were purchasers of the
land for valuable consideration, paid
without actual notice of any adverse
title. Soon after the sale of the land
in controversy by Moody to Berge,
Moody went into bankruptcy. The
papers in bankruptcy were destroyed
by fire. The cause was tried without
jury and judgment was rendered in
favor of the plaintiffs for one half of
the land, and partition directed to be
so made as to give to the appellants,
who had made valuable improve
ments on the land, the land covered
by the improvements.
Held: The marital survivor, with
out administration of the estate,
has power as survivor to sell the COM
munity property to pay debts, charged
on it and contracted during marriage.
Under the facts proved in this case
the court concludes that the survivor
utQ OllO pOWCl W Illdh0 bu0 Sdl6 III
question, and that the purchasers
were not bound to see to the applica-
ton of the purchase money, and that
their title to the land should have
been sustained This conclusion
leads them to the reversal of the
Judgment, and they say as there is
no probability that stronger case
could have been made by the appellees
were the cause remanded, to decide
that the appellees take nothing by
this action. and that the appellants
recover the costs of both courts. Stay
ton, A. j.
Houston and Texas Central Railway
Co. VS.. s. p. Simpson. plaintiff in err
ror; from Grayson county. Action for
damages in injury to child playing
on an unfastened turn-table of the
road which was not left fastened so
children could not turn it. Held. it
was for the jury to determine whether
the plaintiff used such care as is re-
quired OF one of his age. AS the
damages are not so excessive as to
Justify a reversal, the judgment is at
iirmed. Stayton. A. ].
Kaufman 4 Runge VS.. 7. w. Nor
ris ct. al from Burleson county-Ques-
ton Of adequacy OF price. Judgment
affirmed. Willie. G. j.
Wiley & Porter VS.. J. III. Garner ct.
al; from Milan county Held; A
suit before a justice of the peace is
not commenced until the citation.
which is the leading process, is is
sued. Judgment affirmed. Willie,
I