The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-11-11

lNSt.iuOatts lOF anrmance of-the judgment |
sent up TO The supreme court.
bail, Hntchins & Co, vs.. H. NJ, Warner
u u4 MeLennan county. Opinion -
WsiAer' p The report Of the commits.
sion oil appeals examined, aud without
adopting 10 full the reasons given in their
opinion for the results ut which they have
arrived, We concur in the following cone u.
S,ohs, l. That under the evidence Ball
husohlngs 20. were innocent pufchas-
ers Tor the vaine OF the land IN controversy
Sho are entitled TO protection as such.
second, that the appellee having bought
the land al administrators sale under tie
circumstances shown by the evidence, had
no equitiesto protect, but held the land 10
trust Tor the creditors Of d, A, Warren, de.
ceased, Third, that there was not sun.
gent evidence TO show that the deed TO
BAH, Ha,chings & Co. from John W. War
rem was . forgery, Reversed and remanded.
Lennon % oil, vs. Freeman ct all, from
Ellis county; opinion by Delany, /.
adopted. The assignments Of crror pre-.
sent nothing definite for our consideration,
ana the judgment OF the court could have
! properly been rendered under the plead
iugS, and there Is evidence Ia the record 10
sustain il, il is efllrmed.
@. $. Nideyer vs.. H. s Bennett, from
Hopkins county; opili0n by Slaytor, I
This cause is referred 70 counsel Tor appel
lant and appellee, and TO appellant Tor
iurther brief, same TO be filed in the court
oy December lst, next, upon the following
point: DO the findings OF fact by the court
below Justify the conclusions OF law upon
which the cause was disposed ol2 And the
clerk OF this court will furnish counsel who
| appeared in the court below Tor the respec-
tive parties as we'll rs the appellants with a
copy Of this reference.
Peters vs.. lawson ct al, from Hood
county, opinion by Watts adopted This
IS u suit by the clerk upon motion TO have
an order entered us to whom money Ia his
nan Is should be paid to. House record d
Judgment against Peters, Lawson ana
| Baker for certain land they had against
him for improvements. Pending the al Z.
| peal the matter was settled and House paid
the money o the clerk. Lawson and Bak, r
| answered to the motion OF the clerk that IS
between them there was no dispute nj 4
they claimed the money as they were the
owners and IN possession OF the land in
| which the improvements were situated
when the suit was brought and the recovery
was had. That they purchased from Peters
and made improvements in which Peter
agreed to protect House. Peters admits
the We bal sale, etc., but claims that be.
fore the recovery rs above they gave up
the purchase and held as tenants That ne
had paid the taxes defended the suit etc.
The court decided the money to Lawson
and Baker, Held correct. Affirmed.
! Walas vs.. Lewis from Willis county,
opinion by Watts adopted. Parol eYi.
dence IL not admissible change or alter a
written instrument, nut is TO show that T.
deed absolute on its face, is In facs secu
rity for debt and is therefore mortgage,
or that such deed was executed and de.
livered on certain trusts not reduced TO writ.
ing which the grantee agreed to perform,
as to establish resulting trust. Where
the grantee conveyed the land to enable an-
other to qualify as a surety on the land and
to hold the same TO protect him.
self in case Of forfeiture OF the bond, TO the
extent only of this particular trust, the
title was vested in the grantor but upon
their determination the title vested in the
giaNtee again. Such transaction is not
illegal or rendering 10 subornatlon OF per.
jury. (i0 Texas S0.) Affirmed.
Half, Weis, & 90, W. Allyn & Co., from
Navarro county, opinion by Stayton /.
Goods are In transit, not only while In the
possession OF the carrier, although named
and appointed by the consiRnee. but when
they are In any place Of deposit connected
with the transmission and delivery of them
and until they arrive at the actual or con.
siructive possession OF the consignee ut the
place named by the buyer to the seller as
their destination. A vendOe acting In good
faith has right to intercept the goods be-
fore they reach their destination and by
taking possession Ol them defeat the ven.
doris lein, or hight to possess himself Of the
p Nperty. II a delivery to carrier, OF
agent OF the yendee, be for he purpose OF
0 nveyance TO the vendoe, the right OF the
st0ppage continues notwithstanding such q
delivery TO the yendee, out II the goods be
delivered TO the carrier or agent for safe
custody or deposit for the yendee and the
middle man is by such arrangement con
yerted into special agent Tor the yendse
the transit OF the goods Is ut an end rnd
with it the right OF stoppaee. Reversed
and remAnded.
King ct. al, VS. Gilhland ct. al. from
Parker county; opinion by Willie
. Where property Is purchased with the
separate means of the arst wife, upon the
death OF the husband, there Is nothing to
which homestead right can attach ioT the
benefit OF the widow ana children OF the
second marriage. The burden OF proof /,
9 not only upon the children OF the first mar.
rage asserting it, TO prove this fact, bal
they must trace the separate means OF the
i wife into the purchase Of the land, and thi,
must be done by clear and satisfactory
!; proof. Whilst 1t is not necessary to prove
4 1t beyond reasonable dount, Dolhlng mus
be lett to conjecture, nor must pre.emp
c tons be INDUCED which are not the usua
and almost necessary conclusions OF Thu
e fact proven The interest Of the surviyin,
vile and children OF the second marriage Il
e the property would have the same relation
to the whole tract as the fathers interes
d in the money paid for it, bore to the who'll
amount Of consideration paid, Reverse,
:, and remanded
d A western paper says that "by this tim
all down casters have got their morse
Q banked up aud have laid In supply q
Jonnson's Anodyne Linimsnt.n IL woul,
n h. a mi.n Ihinn lnr nnnnln hnrnnhnnIa IN La