The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-05-31
APPELLATE COURTS.
Synopsis Of Decisions Of the Courts OF
Last Resort
on,ulons Rendered on Knotty Points
Of the Law.
Interesting and Invaluable to Lawyers
SUPREME COURT.

sUfkEMh AoNhi'
CALDWELL ys. Johnson from Clay county.
op,nion by Willie, C. j, The main and only
cnastion in this case has been decided IN
Hilebrand VS.. Mcmahon. Here appellant 5
title to the land sued for was derived
thronrh a sale made in pursuance OF
Judgment of a justice OF the peace, iorecios
INC an attachment lien upon the lana. Inc
court admitted the judgment in evidence,
Int excluded the order of sale upon II, on
the ground that u justice court could not
order a sale of land levied on under an az,
tachmeut. This was error. Reversed ana
Snvaer ct. al. VS.. Wiley e. Porter; from
Williamson county. Opinion by west, j.
The amount in controversy not being WIN
in the jurisdiction OF the court, tne only
ground upon which the power to retain tue
Ease could rest, was that appellees were en-
titled TO ioreclose the lea set out IN the
HEADINGS. Having failed to establish TINS
riobt there being no other feature IN TINS
case authorizing the court to proceed lurth-
or the suit should have been dismissed for
want of Jurisdiction. (Bowser VS.. Watson
6 Texas l73. Girardin VS.. Dean' AZ Texas
2As:) 80 ..o o,;,;o, :,
seems that appellants had been lawfully
elected trustees OF the NJ. L. church oil
Round Rock. Such an organization was
then and is now body polite and corPo'
rate with powers defined by statute,
Hart. Dig. Art. 324l. Par. Dig. Art 4St
and 6,OOO. Rev, Stats. Art; 631-63S. >,
In such cases, even II the amount ltsell
was within the jurisdiction OF the Distrlct
court. it has no power to render judgment
against the trustees in their individual ca
nscitv. unless they undertook to become
liable personally for the debt of the corpo'
ration. dyer VS.. Sullivan, Is Texas U2.)
Reversed and dismissed.
Ian, bier VS.. Hickey ct. al. executor
from Kendall county. Opinion by west, J.
This being an action OF trespass to try title;
defendants in error, G. IL +; Hasten, had
the right, on being sued under the statute
IR. s, Art. 472S) to call in the caimentin er-
ror as their warranter and make him par
ty defendant. When so called in, he is en-
titled to set I'D such matters OF defence as
he could have done had he been the origi-
nal defendant in the suit. When thus cited,
he has every right the original defendant
had. Accordingly, the plaintiff IN error
was, after the proper pleadings mad peen
fled, showing that he was tbe warrahtor OF
G. q f, Hasten, was properly cited to ap-
near at the May term, 1882, of the District
court of Kendall county, and deferred the
suit. That court, under the law liking the
term of holding court, met on the I'd OF
Nav, 1892 (Genl. Laws 18th Leg. p. 6S
The plaintiff IN error had until the iiitn day
of the term to enter his appearance. ".
s. Art. 1891 The court therefore erred III
peremptorily calling this case for trial en-
teripg Judgment by default against said
DialnIiff In error on the 25Ih day of May, it
being before the time when the appearance
docket could be called or Judgment by de-
fault could be taken as far as concerns
plaintiff in error. Reversed and remanded.
and because OF Its Vagueness
and generality will not be considered. A
court judgement Is manifestly within the
control of the court during the entire
term to amend, alter, and correct the
minutes of the term and can allow the
judgement 20 be amended after the motion
for new trial has been presented and argu-
ed by council. The fifth assignment OF
error Is too general to be considered, it is
1.-THE court erred in everything defendants
motion for new trial." and they have
referred to said motion specifically
assigning the overrnling OF each clause
therein as error. The motion embraces
four several grounds, and they are not of a
character to require us to consider them.
nempkin VS.. Merrill, 46 Texas 5l Affirm
ed.
Edgar vs., Pierce ct al, from Caldwell
county, Opinion by Watts ], adopted.
Appellants answer contained no arerment
that he had been received by any false or
fraudulent representation made by Perce
or any Of the officers, or agents OF the
railroad company. The defence asserted
was that OF violation Oh an agreme en-
between him and the company to the
effect that the latter was not TO forward
any merchandise beyond the terminous
of the road and by reason OF violation
of this agreement he had been damaged.
He made the company a party and plead
his damages Ia reconvention. The amend
ed answer alleges that appellant was in
duced to purchase the lot for which the
note ied on was given, by the false and
frauu ulent representation set IN this
original plea in reconvention.
III. q T. O. railway VS.. LOVING from
Collin county. Opinion by Walker, p. J.
adopted The first error assigned is, the
court erred in oyerruling defendants mo-
ton challenging the array and panel
of Jurors tor the sixth week OF the term.
the motion being filed February 4th 1879,
for the several reasons assigned in the mo-
ton. Held: Inc record only shows the
motion ITSELF and the order of court over
ruling IL and that defendant excepted TO the
ruling. but there is no bill of exceptions,
nor does the record otherwise show any
evidence whatever in support OF any OF the
grounds OF the motion, nor does II appear
IRON the record that there was any irregu-
panellng the Jury. The action OF the
court therefore cannot be revised, besides
n defendant desired TO rely on the ruling
com planned OF, he could only do so by com
plying with rule 60 for the district court "a
Texas G29) Under the well established
rules LAID down in railroad company vs.
McNama nc Texas Law Review p. 2i4) IL
is not clear that the judgment is excessive.
Affirmed.
So Relic and Sinks VS.. Woodbridge from
Lee county. Opinion by Walker y. J.
adopted. There being no bill OF excep ions
showing that any objection was made to
the Introduction in evidence OF the deed
OF assignment provided for by the bank
rupt law OF the bsnkrupt's estate to the
plaintiff assignee In bankruptcy, that &C
tion Of the court in admitting IL will not be
revised: The second assignment falling
20 point out specifically the alleged
error Of the courts judgment rs
10 defendants soRslle ind Sinks,
Held: In the construction OF the statute
th.n In force the defendants right TO plead
IN r.copyention bss been limited by the
court 20 cates where the defendants claim
IL necessarily connected with and incideD-
tai 10 the subject matter OF the plaintifis
sction. Duncan W. Magette. . TEXAS
sl. ,,aralten ". Tborp. q Texas. 36l; Wal |
colt W. Hendrick, Texas, 40. Appel |
lant's claim does not come within the |
limits prescribed, the asserted claim was
no. such AZ could be plead In reconyeution. |
Affirmed.
s.ut0s ct al. W. Houston Sheriff ct al; |
RON Wilson county. Opinion BY D-lsry, /
!. adopted The sfiiadavit 70 the petition
made By attorneys who knew notning o.
be facts. and made only upon iniOrms-
bon ard belief was wholly insufficient, and |
he Injunction was properly dissolved /
roIlsn Baker Al Te1as, 4lsl. The Iudg- /
neut agninst plaintiffs was not VOID. They |
we're served with process and were con
.frucfiveiy present IN court. Though u Be
admitted that the judgment h erroneous.
md that Judgment should bsFe been rem
Iered arsinzi them only for the srnount for
rhich fhsv hsd bound themselves In the
Nuuu1. sffI fhev. IN this suit, Occupy tie
1910. ~ one Who eut'IIes 20 the court Tor