The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-18
couNr cf,Ioys.
sso'-as's ol o..iii"'ss .f the Supreme Court,
Gs.vssiSl :eim. 1898

sso'-as's OF o..isi"s.s 90 the Sspreme Court,
Galveston :eim. 1898
Llns V Bgtnaeiaan, from Lamar county.
The judgment by default reciting due ser
vice upon the defendant, will be held cor
elusive upon collrteral attack. The record
being silent upon the question or notice,
the presumption in favor of the recital in
the Judgment OF proper service by pubica-
ton, and suit to vacste such judgment
parei testimony is inadmissib!e to oOn,ro.
vert the recital Of service therein affirmed
Wihie, C.
Monin V. Bartlett; from Red rivercounty.
In this case motion 10 set aside the judg.
ment filed, based on the ground that the
CHIEF justice delivering the opinion of the
court was of course in case wherein the
same land was in dispute. Held, ms the
facts show that the chief justice name was
S.Sued 10 tbs petition without his knowl-
edge, and that he never knew OF the case
~ !. nov, tho ground 10 untenable
lI1Veror for the purpose Of giving ap-
police. . C0aLce of ~ amending the motion
a. 50 So, up any other ground upon which
t..e ,.,,,.es may rely the motion is held up
70: ireuty days.
williamson etal V. 0'Connor, from La
Ui, county. Toe evidence sufficiently
shoas That w. e b. by taking separate
notes and mortgages to secure to eAon a
certain portion OF the land they intended
TO partition the land heretofore held by
them IN comm0n-the evidence
shows th5m the sale to have been
eKecu,ory III character, and therefore the
deed from the attorney IN fact and admin
istrator OF L. TO G. W. W., with the decree
o! the District Court upon c5rtiorari from
the probate Court confirming the sale, was
properly admitted and conveyed good title
Affirmed. Stayton,
Soversv. Peterson; from Dallas county.
Where the certificate OF the officer (under
the law Of lSiD showed upon ite face that
the grantor in the deed"w nude known to
him, the fact that he failed to endorse on
the back OF the deed the manner of its be-
ing made known is not valid objection, as
it will DO presumed that the means OF OBJ
tanning the knowledge was proper and le-
gal. The error of the court in refusing TO
admit the original deed after admitting
certified copy thereof, wasimmaterial AS the
court tried the case without a Jury. The
failure OF the subscribing witness to state
that he signed ut the request of the grantor
was cured by his stating on oath the same
day heloro the proper officer that the grant
or dld acknowledge on that day ia his pres
ence that he did execute the deed for the
purposes and considerations therein named. |
The rule now is, ms it was before the Re |
vlsed Statutes, that IA tenat in common,
can, without Joining his co-tanant. bring |
suit against q Nr0ngdocr. Affirmed. |
West, /.
Settle vs.. Lcathers; from Montague |
county. The only question arising Ia this |
case IL as TO the suiliClcncy OF the evidence |
TO support the allegation Of failure OF con. |
siderauon of the notes sued on. Without |
Holng INTO discussion OF the evidence IL is
sufficient to say that the evidence does'not
support the verdict Reversed and re.
manded Sayton.
Stephens vs.. Galloway from Fannin
county. The decree In the suit between
The widow and heirs Of Male, IN favor OF
Fuller vested in him as against them, title
70 one third OF the land, the same which
Male would have been entitled to if he had
located the land and sued recovery, was
complete bar TO any claim Male or his
heirs could, set up for locating the land as
against Slaughter. Slaughter, who alone
could urge any objection to the substitu-
ton of Fuller by Male, having by agree
ment recognized the fact that Fuller To-
third oi the land for his services and waived
any objection thereto, appellee claiming
under aquit claim deed made after the
ratification of which he had notice, cannot
object that Fuller and not Male located the
claim. Reversed and remnnded. Stayton,
Browson W. Lloyd Seaman ct ais; from
Walker county. Parties cannot claim tho
benefit OF three years title, or color OF
TUE, when one Of these deeds
through which they must trace
title back to tho sovereignty OF the soil,
was executed by party who had previous.
ly parted with all his interest in the land
by deed to another, and that deed was ac
corded at the time of his making the sec.
oud conveyance (Long vs.. Brenneman, de.
c'd5d at this term.) Sk0nAel being in con.
dlti0n TO claim title under five years limi
cation as to him the case is affirmed but m
TO- Rainwater is reversed and removed.
Willie c, ].
Russell ct al VS. Freedman &
20. nom Navarro county. The question AS
20 removal having been decided in Lewis !
u helsmor (at Galveston term) reference to
that case " made. .. The court having
erred III instructing the jury that If the
assignee had no notice OF the fraudulent
intent OF the assignor, the suryeyancc,
though made with the fraudulent intent
ON the part OF such assignor to hinder n
delay creditors would not be invalid and
void, the Judgment is reversed and the
cause removed reversed and remanded
opinion of Walker, p. !, Adopted.