Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-31
COURT DECISIONS.
GALVESTON rERM--lssa.l
Supreme Court.

w. i. Laughter vs.. Jonathan J.
Seela--From Johnson county. Opin-
ion by Justice West. Cases are cited
TO show that the judgment had be-
come dormant, and that Its lien was
lost by the failure to issue execution
i'm twelve months from the date Of the
Judgment. A sufficient ans wcr IL that
the record does not show aflirmatively
that such was the case. Even If such
was the case, under the laws then in
force, IL Is not certain that the pur-
chaser, under sale made by virtue Of
such an execution, would not be pro-
tected. III the absence of evidence
TO the conrary, presu mption will be
INDUCED that the execution was law
fully and regularly issued, and that
the levy and sale and sheriffs
deed were all In due form. The
statute requires that in proceedings OF
this character In the probate court for
the distribution and partition Of the
estates of deceased persons, among the
parties entitled to It, that where there
are miners their interests shall he pro-
perly represented by guardian; but
If such minor has no guardian already
appointed the court should appoint
him Il guardian ad Item, whose duty
IL Is to look after and protect his inter
ests In the proceedings for partition.
Where there Is service upon the minor,
even though no guardian nd Item be
appointed, the Judgment Is not void,
and Is not subject To collateral attack
by the minor whose land was sold un-
der IL. After most elaborate review
OF the many decisions and points Of
law, the learned judge concludes, the
sheriif's sale and deed, executed in
pursuance of such sale, vested a good
title to the purchaser under whom APP
pellant claims. Reversed and render
cd in favor of appellant.
Galveston, Houston and Henderson
Railway Company vs.. Allison.--From
Galveston county. Opinion by Willie,
g. j. Where there is no express
statute forbiding it, carrier may CON
tract not to be liable for damages
which do not occur from the negli-
gence of himself or his servant as
agent. When he undertakes to carry
goods over connecting lines, he cannot
contract that his responsibility termi-
mates ut the end Of his own line. He
will still be held responsible for the
negligence, not only of himself and
his servants, buts of the connecting
lines. If he deviates from his route,
or forwards the goods by different con
veyances from those contemplated by
his agreement he becomes an insurer
of the goods, and can not avail him
self OF any exceptions in his behalf in
the contract. Affirmed.
The County of Anderson vs.. Ken
nedy ct. al.-Fr0m Anderson county.
Opinion by Justice Stayton. This
case Involves u construction OF section
q, artiol 5, OF the constitution, under
which 1t is held shat the district
courts OF this state have the power To
issue writs OF injunction in cases
Where court of chancery under the
settled rules of equity would have the
power to issue them, and this without
reference to the amount in controversy
under the express COVER given in the
constitution See the case of An
derson county ct ais VS.. /. and q. n.
railway, mira. Affirmed.
Coddington ct al. vs.. Wells ct al -
From Grimes county Opinion by
Willie, c. j. On rehearing, original
opinion sustained. The whole ease
presented to the court below made out
clear allirmance of the contract of
sale before the bringing OF this suit
After such aflirmance IL Is too late to
seek RECESSION OF the contract and re-
cover the land. This court was mis-
taken In supposing that none of the
purchase money had been paid in the
case of Harris Va. Catlin, but ii Is
matter of no Importance, rs that case
went oil ON demurrer put upon the
ground that plaintiff had elected to
have the claim for the purchase money
allowed and approved against the es-
tate of the vendee and was thereby es-
topped from maintaining n suit against
those claiming under the vendee for
the land. Hehearing refused.
International and Great Northern
Hallway vs.. Anderson County ct al
From Anderson County. Opinion by
Justice iStayton. The material ques-
non In this case arises upon the
eleventh conclusion of law found by
the court, viz, that because Anderson
county had donated it's bonds to aid
In the construction OF the Houston and
Great Northern railway prior to It's
consolidation with the International
II was the intention of the law that
the international railway should not
he exempt In Anderson county.
Held, error. |. For as ii does
not appear that Anderson county had
donated bonds TO aid In the construc-
ton OF the road sought to be taxed, Ii
has no right to collect the tax. @ The
acts Of August 5, 1870, and March 10,
1870, are not unconstitutional in so far
as they exempted property from taxa
tion, g. The court did not err In hold
ing that the act of March 10, 1915, CAV,
valid exemption nom taxation to thG
IA, -. 4
court did, not err In holding that til,
consolidation OF the two companies OF
the 9th September 1878, did not re
move the exemption given by the ac
of August 8, 1870, nor did IL err II
holding that the sales OF October IL
1879, did not defeat the exemption
given by the act of March 10, 1875
Reversed and rendered In favor of an
pellees.
----------s -s-r------
A NABDB's WEDDING.