The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-05-26
APPELLATE COURTS.
Syaepsis of Decisions Of the Courts Of
Last Resort.
ODIulons Rendered on knosty Points
of Law.
Interesting aud Invaluable to Lawyers
SUPREME COURT

Opinion by Willie, c. ], Inc main ana only
question in this case has been decided III
Hillebrand vs.. Mcmahon. Here appellants
title TO the land sued for was derived
through a sale made in pursuance OF a
Judgment of justice OF the peace, foreclos
ing an attachment lien upon the land. The
court admitted the judgment in evidence,
hat excluded the order OF sale upon it, on
the ground that justice court could not
order a sale Of land levied on under an at
tachment. This was error. Reversed and
remanded
Snyder ct. al. vs.. Wiley & Porter; from
Williamson county. Opinion by West, j.
The amount in controversy not being with
la the jurisdiction of the court, the only
ground upon which the power to retain the
case could rest, was that appellees were en-.
titled to foreclose the lea set out in the
pleadings. Having failed TO establish this
right, there being no other feature in this
case authorizing the court to proceed furth-
or. the suit should have been dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. (Bowser VS.. Watson
G Texas l73. Girardin VS.. Dean, 40 Texas
A8)
From the averments Of the petition, il
seems that appellants had been lawfully
elected trustees OF the NJ. Il. church OF
Round Rock. Such an organization was
then and is now body polite and corpo.
rate, with powers defined by statute.
Hart. Dig. Art. 32il. Par. Dig. Art. 4SC
aud 6,OOO. Rev. Stats. Art. 637-63S.)
In such cases, even ii the amount itself
was within the jurisdiction of the / istrict
court, 1t has no power to render IA judgm' NJ
sgainst the trustees in their individual ca.
psoity, unless they undertook to become
liable personally for the debt of the corpo.
ration. dyer vs.. Sullivan, Is Texas 772 J
Reversed and dismissed.
Ian bier VS.. Hickey ct. al. executor
from Kendall county. Opinion by West, /.
This being an action of trespass to try title,
defendants in error, G. IL h. Hasten, had
the right, or being sued under the statute
Or. s. Art. 1929 to cali in the claiment in err
T0r as their warranter and make him par.
ty defendant. When so called in, he is en-
titled to set up such matters Of defence Gs
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 had been
q. & +. Hasten, was properly cited to ap-
pear at the May term, 1882, Of the District
court Of Kendall county, and deferred the
suit. That court, under the law fixing the
term OF holding court, met on the 22d of
May, 1882 (Genl. Laws 18th Leg. p. 63 J
Tue plaintiff in error had until the fifth day
of the term to enter his appearance. Or.
s. Art. 1891 The court therefore erred in
peremptOrily calling this case for trial, en-
tering judgment by default against said
plaintiff In error on the 18th day of May, 1t
being before the time when the appearance
docket could be called or a 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
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
Tor new trial has been presented and argu-
cd by council. The fifth assignment Of
error is too general to be considered, it is
1.-The court erred in overruling defendants
motion for new trial." and they have
referred to said motion specifically
assigning the overruling 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.
U.empkin VS.. Merrill, 46 Texas 5l) Affirm
cd.
Edgar VS., Pierce ct al, from Caldwell
county. Opinion by Watts j, adopted.
Appellant answer contained no arerment
that he had been received by any false or
fraudulent representation made by Perez
or any of the officers, or agents of the
railroad company, The defence asserted
was that OF q violation of an agreement
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 agreemenche had been damaged
He made the company q party and plead
his damages In rec0ny ention. The amend.
ed answer alleges that appellant was in
duced to purchase the lot for (which the
2otc leo on was given, by the false and
fraudulent representation set out in this
original plea in reconvention.
II: & L. G. railway vs.. Loving from
Collin county, Opinion by Walker, D. l..
adopted. The first error assigned is, the
court erred in overriding defendants mo-
ton challenging the array and panel
OF Jurors for the sixth week of the term
the motion being filed February 4th 1870,
for the several reasons assigned In the mo,
ton. Held: The record only shows the
motion itself, and the order Of court over
ruling II 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 il appear
from the record that there was any irregu-
larity in the selection, summoning or EN-.
panelling the jury. The action of the
court therefore cannot be revised, besides
II defendant desired to rely on the ruling
complained OF, he could only do so by com,
plying with rule GO for the district court az
Texas 620). Under the well established
rules laid down In railroad company vs.,
McNama (l6 Texas Law Review u. OH II
II not clear that the judgment Is excessive.
Affirmed.
SO Relic and Sinks VS.. Woodbridge from
Lee county. Opinion by Walker y. 4.
adopted. There being no bill of excep ions
showing that any objection was made To
the introduction In evidence of the deed
oil assignment provided for by the bank.
rupt law Of the bankrupt's estate to the
plaintiff assignee In bankruptcy, that ac.
ton Of the court In admittingit will not be
revised. The second assignment failing
to point out specifically the alleged
error OF the courts judgment as
70 defendants 6oRelle ind Sinks,
Held: In the construction of the statute
thsn In force the defendants right to plead
In reconvention has been limited BY tho
's w So.Ns WhViV thc utltUuunt y Clulm
Is necessarily connected with and inciden.
tai to the subject matter Of the plaintiffs
action. Duncan vs.. Magette, 25 Texas
1l; Oaralten VS.. Thorp. 81 Texas, S6l; Wal.
colt VS.. Hendrick, o Texas, 4l2j. Appel.
lant's claim does not come within the
limits prescribed, the asserted claim was
not such as could be plead in Ieconyention.
Santos ct al. VS.. Houston Sheriff ct al. /;
from Wilson county. Opinion by Delany,
j., adopted, The affidavit TO the petition
made BY attorneys who knew nothing of
the facts, and made only upon iniorlna.
ton and belief, was wholly insufficient, and
tho injunction was properly dissolved,
lrullan Baker, IL Texas, 4i0). The iudr.
ment against plaintiffs was not void. They
were served with process and were con.
structively present In court. Though Il be
admitted that the Judgment Is erroneous,
ana that Judgment should have been rem.
dered against them only for the amount for
which they had bound themselves In the
bond; still they, In this suit, occupy the
position Of one who applies TO the court for
2 new trial after the term al which the
judgment was rendered, and In such cases
tho OnftV nhNuld vsnt -.t. - = a. =. =, :