The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-21
corRr DECISIONS.

...syrnfnt Is mere TNNSFSeV anu ~ ieA-
=, hat appellants recover fappellees
..in This behalf expended, both in
.,n,t and the court below; such judy
r,usyer. is not to be construed as in
fnh ~ nreiudice the right Of appellees
w IN he distribution OF the trust es-
eiAl- - creditors. Reversed and rem
~. S " Brown, from Parker county.
~ - a 40 here made 10 the case OF
ieie - Randall ct al, and herein the
syIon Il reversed and rendered in ac.
'sa with that opinion so as to give ap-
uaH' he rirht 10 claim as creditors in the
e.S,ron of the trust estate, but to tax
s'.S sgainst them. Reversed aud rem
,sS stayton,l.
~, inc rs. Steagall; from Dallas county.
minority OF Meyberg vs.. Steagall
S@s g,n. Judgment in this case is re.
- and remanded, with instructions to
lstT S court to proceed with the trial
= .s u'I ease in accordance with the views OF
. us expressed in the case cited. Re
s,.sd and remanded. West, j.
rsmeron VS.. Roemilee; from Collin coun-
The paper attached to the transcript pur'
'.,,ng 40 be the statement OF facts not
s,nr Fled as the law requires cannot be
{ensdered, and in the absence of such a
.s,omen, we find no error in the Judgment,
~ statement was not filed III time before
hn adjournment of court aud no order is
kr,srsd in the minutes of the court during
~ term granting leave to Ii Q the state
tnspt after adjournment. Affirmed. Stay
Xon
clsy,on vs.. Randall ct al; from Parker
.onnty The provision OF the statute is
tSst the bond OF an assignee shall
H. approved by "the judge OF the
|s.,,jci or county court" and the
|Sr, mat jurisdiction to try civil causes was
ITithdrayn from the county court did not
,snder the person holding the office OF
Eopnty Judge poWerless to fulfill the re-
[cnIrements OF The statute in this respect.
Reversed and remanded as in case of Clay
han vs.. Kendall, ct al, supra, Reversed
md rendered Stayton j.
Evans and Martin VS.. Tucker;
from Wise county. An omission
IN the affidavit to state that the
Sesndant is Justly indebted to plaintiff
/. fatal to the writ. The affidavit alleging
a psrt OF the debt to be due at the time and
a part to- become due upon future day it
IA sufficient to vitiate the at
tachmsnt. Affirmed. Willie. C. j.
Cohen VS., Munson; from Grayson county.
APPELLANT being resident of Harrlscounty
when suit was brought, and the administra.
Tor g bond upon which he was surety not
specifying that the obligation was to be
psyable in GraySon county, appellants
plca Of personal privilege should have been
sustained. Reversed and dismissed. Will
lie c,
Houston & Texas Central railway VS.. Nc.
Namara; from GraysoL county. The charge
asked by appellant! not being applicable to
the facts of the case and the instructions of
the court giving the law of the case, the
refusal was not error. Is Tex. Law Review,
III. idem, l3i). Under the facts of the
case, the judgment cannot be said to be ex.
cessive. Affirmed. Willie, C. j..
Truitt VS.. Bundell: from CLAY county.
No statement OF facts filed in vacation will
be recognized unless it is filed within ten
days after adjournment, and is authorized
by au order OF the district court, entered
on record during the preceding term a
Tex. Law Review, 81; 10 idem, l52). Neither
the approval of the judge in vacation or the
tlng OF the written consent OF counsel to
such action made by them during the term
vOudavail. Affirmed. West, j.
Garrettys. Long, etal, from Lamar county,
This case involving the same points rs are
passed upon in the case of Long ct al. VS..
Jarrett ct al-reierence TO that case is
made: Affirmed. Opinion of Delany i.
adopted.
Strong vs.. Milett; from Wise
county. The record filed in this case fails
70 disclose an appeal bond, without which
this court has no jurisdiction. and the ap-
peal must for that reason be dismissed
Spears vs., Lyon; from Lamar county.-
The clause the will give and bequeath
% my beloved wife all my personal proper
y OIL every kind, also the remainder of nv
ald tract OF land, to dispose of as she pleas
y requesting her that she will so dispuse
)lher property at her death as to make nv
younest SON an equal legatee with the bal.
ince OF my children, does not crea'. q pre.
story trust in favor of appellant: Opinion
u Watts !, adopted.
Eu0ank u Co. vs.. Landram; from Collin
.9uhty; Inc constitution protects the sur
living husband or wife in their homestead
ignl whether as against the heirs of the de-
'eased, or the creditors of the survivor so
Song as the survivor occupies il as auch.
inls exemption does not depend upon the
iue oeing IN the survivor at the time of the
'ealn oil the marital partner: Affirmed.
'RRlnlon by Watts j. adopted.
= ihompsOn,vs. Miller; from Lamar county,
Iue nrSt assignment of error being too gan.
val Is not noticed. The motion for n w
rial was properly overruled, ii possessed
% merit nor was il entitled to considera-
uon without showing that defendant had
SEQ proper diligence TO discover the evil
ehce before the trial that he alleges @
rrs N, after. Affirmed. Opinion by
'alEer, p, ], adopted.
oehter u Co. VS.. Lambeth, ct al; from La
lar county. The purchaser having notice
lhe Time OF the sale OF appellees rights
aihot be held purchaser without notice
Though he had no actual notice of when
ae lien attached. If appellants had pur-
,i,S ~ uirectly from the judgment debtor
a ara .ne same notice of the existence of the
e ',n hen, that they had when they OBJ
,i,'eu MS title at the sheriti7s sale, the re.
". Vi Inc case under the statute would
" eeen the same. Affirmed. West, /.
s,atshal vs.Heard ,etal; from Collin county.
1--WE party injured the right of action
s s the owner for damages arising from
81. 10 rented premises he must show
10. such defects existed ut the time the
. ..,iies were leased, The demurrer to the
esl.loh was therefore properly sustained.
'nm'Inleo' opinion of Watts adopted.
warner ct al. VS.. Thompson ct al; from
;aaysoh county. The first point raised is
vnposeu OF by the case in 50 Tex. $50.
'neIe the legal title to land is vested in
~ community. estate of husband and
Nv me purchase from the survivor
i,l the death of the wife is chargeable
y; notice Of the community rights of the
s ~ Oh the deceased affirmed. Watts. /.
,S,a,, VS., Gray ct at; from Grayson
'uu'y The first objection to the judy.
ens Is inlly answered by tho cases of
,owh vs., Wall (23 Tex. $50, johnson VS..
oyior, l5i Tex. 1921, and Grathans VS.. De
Op.l lately decided, After the death oil
~ =, wlle the husband could sell the proper.
S ioI Tue purpose otpaying tue communi.
T ,t without frat qualifying as survivor
'ue community; but II tho law may be
i "vsMlss' the conveyance OF the land by
, n Tor the purpose of paying the
an, u,uli'ty debt was an ollectual bar TO u
ylyINsry OF tue land or any part of II by ap.
,lcah, affirmed. Opinion of Watts j.,