The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-05-29
APPELLATE COURTS.
s,.oosis Of Decisions Of the Coarts Of
Last Resort.
o.,nlops IeDdered on kaOtty Points
of the Law,
,.,,res,ipg and Invaluable TO Lawyers,
srPRENs COURT.

SUPREME COURT.
r.,,r Adams ct al vs.. Bledsoe, from
hi fr5nnty. opinion by Willie, c j. The
ground upon which the injunction
en ned ou. which Is considered, is the
hat appellee had been discharged in
nt-up,cy after the date OF the rendition
- he Judgment euiOined. The bank
van,cy proceedings were commenced before
~ Judgment was Obtained ana no steps
.uS assn taken TO stay proceedings in the
hsi wnerein it was rendered. The delhi
tsaJ on was prlvable in bankruptcy, and
sls~..sJitor was forbidden to prosecute il
Is,sl Judgment until the debtors dis.
,sa snouid be determined, (U. S. Rev.
S,s,s sos. If the suit could proceed 10
se'S,r,ent. il was only for the purpose of
aiming the amount due which amount
ash he proved in bankruptcy Ubid). II
.hes1sotor was discharged before Judgment
.,wss ms duty 10 plead such discharge In
- If the action, ana falling to do so il
esrid moi avail him in any othar proceed.
~, "a A protection against the demand
W;llsr vs.. clements, 81 Tex. 35l. Coffee vs.
han a. Tex. l6). But having been dis.
n mar, after judgment his appropriate
.ar,edy was by Injunction to stay proceed
;crs upon the judgment. In such case il
l. moi improper tor the court to inquire into
.bs nature of the demand upon which the
;Sd,meut was obtained, in order to ascer.
IAN whether or not 1t was provable in
bankruptcy, and released by the dis
charge Flanagan VS.. Plerson, ~ Tex,
Wade VS., Clark, 81 Am. r 262; Anderson
&c. Anderson, 80 Am. r., 1917. The authori.
c,iyinal dent or the judgment should he
nroyed in bankruptcy. (See Bump on
Bankruptcy, page JOS). Same courts have
Mold that neither the debt nor Judgment
were proyable in bankruptcy, and hence
were not discharged by it. bradford VS..
Pice 1902 Mass, 472). The great weight {
authority is to the contrary, and such is
he effect of the discussions of our courts
flanagan VS.. Person, II Texas, y. The
deot or Judgment being provabe. it mat.
,ersrot whether it was actually proved or
not. as it was scheduled by the bankrupt
among the claims for which he was liable
The law provides that the discharge shall
release all debts which were or might have
heen proved against the es ate in bank.
rup,cy. u. S. X. s.. Sec. 5ll9). 1t is not
required that the injunction should be an.
piled for within one year after the date of
the Judgment where it is sought on account
Of some defence arising subsequent to its
rendition. Or, s., Art. 2S75) Affirmed.
johnson vs.. Skipworth; from Mitchell
county. Opinion by Willie, C. j. The suit
being an action for debt upon Judgment,
the proper venue was the county of deten-
dsnt's residence. (Rev, Stats. 1888. 1t
was new suit and not mere continuance
of the former one as in case of sciro facias
and the authority Of Peakins VS.. Hume no
Texas SOY is not applicable. 1t was not re-.
81. hot ha a VAR mo nj pTt Il
Of the judgment III the petition should he
sworn to. 1t was matter of evidence and il
was sufficient, If the proof showed the in.
strument was destroyed, to let in evidence
Gifts contents. Green. on Ev. Secs. 81 and
800. Free, on Judg Sec. 400. The uispo.
sitions of Templeton were properly ad.
mitted. No objection to them can be con.
sidered here that we're not made in District
court. The grounds of obiectio 8 were he.
cause passed proof was not admissible tn
prove the contents OF destroyed Judgment
except in the county where the loss DC
cured, and because it did not appear that
Templeton was the custodian of the records
at the time of their destruction, hence his
testimony wasnot the best evidence of their
contents. AS the court below had iurisdic.
ton OF the cause, 1t was proper to prove all
iscts necessary for a recovery in that court
Art, $3.50 Of the Rev, Stats. was intended Ia
furnish rule by which a lost or DESTROYED
record might be substituted, but not to pro.
hibit party from burning up such a record
and proving its contents as at Common
law. 1t gave an additional rem.
sty to what was already provided
but did not take any away from the one,
We know of no rule of evidence recurring
lost recoTds to be proved by the person Ia
whose custody they were at the time the
were destroyed, Counsel furnish us au.
thOrity to that effect, and the rules of ey
dence seem TO admit OF such proof by any
one having knowledge of the facts d
Green ey. section 500 and authoritie,
cled), Besides the dispositions are not
made part OF the bill of executions and
as the statement OF facts has been stricken
out We have no means OF knowing wba,
proof wa made by the testimony of the
witness. Affirmed.
ode VS.. Frose, Barry e Lee from Ma
vaTro county. Opinion by Willie c. i. Nv
idence upon which the court rendered IN,
judgement cannot be inquired into n,
collateral attach upon that judgement
~ Texas, 6l7 Id 259). Nor is there any
thilg in the objection that appellant wa,
Slea out OF the county of his residence
hNihg been duly served and failing tC
appear, he waived the personal priyileg,
VI oelng sued where he lived. Had tn,
money never been 1t cannot be doubted
mat Inc owner of the debt may admit ,
PAYMENT oil =, either of principal or inter
eN wnicn VIII prevent him from ever aftel
gnSsIhing the amount credited 90 Texa,
nv whether the creditor can. bv pivin,
suoh credit bring the claim within the i'm
nsuletlon OF the justice when it other
WISE would not be, is not a ouestior
"a lne case, but 1t has been decided in tn,
a aEie IN this state. $50 Texas, 1881
Mlnt5 ct al. vs.. Arlington ct al. from
S ssnii county. Opinion by Watts, /,
HuOp'eu' Inc record showing no actor
spGn sppelant's demurrer..t is considered
navel navel but If urged, the fact that The
cna avs SUED by nest friend, and not by {
i naomh' II error, would be immaterial
aspp claimed and recovered the land
in se euah.s IN common, and under the statut,
ta;n wv, one tenant In common could main
S .,s al action OF trespass to try title agains
ON Stranger. Pitcher VS.. Kirk, IS Texas
Mnm, Ma. .nuer authority of Mcdonald VS.
KSssoa,, W Texas, 500, the deed from
in aviae w MORRISON was properly admitted
ifit NV. AS the original was admitted
itwa wa? error 10 admit the certified copy
c %Ms immaterial, as no possible injury
nowo now" ma nave resulted to appellants. I'll,
Y bn, Oh an otfcerto sell property for take.
cou uuI naked power, not in any wa,
ips p ,No with an interest, and the law requir
eIs, rla' every preacquite must precede tn,
lev s,S r OF the power (Hadley VS.. Tankers
rcy , ON Texas, l0), and upon the change O
bS,h a aae, not only did Burns cease /,
ward assessor, ETC., but no such was after
dsaS KNOWN to the law and IN,
out on msue by him being with
aoris dhu,'nority; appellants could CLAIM
S,o,pyp 81 not being parties to the suit o
man, vs., vs., Lane, are not bound by the iudc
Sta, en Ne therein (Byles VS.. Johnson
Affirmed, 'eeinah on ludg, Sec. l5i
Co male vs.; McComas ct al, from Lam,
ltSa Ny, Opinion by Walker, p. adopted
wbicS NV error to dismiss bill of Injunction
no, s,,, u defective, when the plaintiff doe
with is,..nns mat 1t be continued for hearing
q, S-TT a0e 70 amend "a Tex. 800, 5l9 Tex
susainn;enaS, oSo). The court did not err Il
ianc,onn the motion to dissolve the in
isctivso u Tor want of equity. Merely do
~ service does MT - ,sa.,f l.....'y y, !.