The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-01-12
COURT DECISIONS
synopsis Of Opinions OF the Supreme Court
Galveston Term, 1888

Galveston Ierm, 1888,
san patricio county vs.. MCLane; from San
Patricio county. IL was decided on the
former appeal Of this case that the contract
upon which the warrants here sued on was
legal IA Texas, 392,) but the cause was re-
versed because the warrants had each necn
presented to the county treasurer Tor regis
trAton, (Sec, 4, Act 1870, L. ID. Art. GOLD.
The eyidouCe upon the last trial shows that
before the institution OF this suit the war
rants had been presented TO the treasurer
for registration but he declined
to act without order from
the county court. The evidence also shows
that the warrants were issued by order of
the county court, after full settlement
that before instltutng this suit, the war
rants were presented TO tho county court
for allowance, and action thereon was post
poned by them. Held, these facts author.
lied the institution of the suit Tho power
given to county courts to issue warrants
| (Art. 1919, Z. d. Is broad enough TO author.
| ize them TO issue warrants bearing Interest
to pay their Indebtedness incurred by au
improvement expressly authorized. % Ne,
yada, 1907 The warrants herein expressly
providing on their face for the payment OF
interest, this case is not governed by that OF
Ashe vs.. Harris county 100 Texas, 52) Al.
iirmed, Stayton, J.
/
nal county Briefly stated, the question for
determination in this case is, is the mother
ola deceased son such constituent member
OF his family as would entitle her TO the ex-
empted property under the statute to the
exclusion OF creditors, the son having sup.
ported the mother during his lifetime.
Held, our former probate laws, in their wise
policy, restricted the benefits of the ex.
emp,ion in estates that were insolvent to
the widow and minor children surviving
the deceased whose exempt estate was
claimed, and all laws of our state since
adopted have determined that those receiy.
ing its benefits should be "the constituent
members of the family" that is, the sur
yiving widow and children, and our laws
do not intend to hold the mother fit
= party to claim the exempt estate, she not
being u constituent member of the family.
Reversed and remanded opinion of Watts,
!; Adopted,
Corporation of San Patricio VS.. Mathis OF
AL, from San Patriotic county. Where the
location of u disputed line between adjacent
surveys has been determined in an action
OF trespass to try title, and there is no Ques.
ton as to the title IN either survey, the dc
ieated plaintiff Is not entitled to second
suit, In order to have another adjudication
OF the same question az Texas 3Ol; but as
our Revised Statutes provide that such
suits can be brought only when the frs
SUIT was begun before September |, 1879
this question will soon lose its practical in.
portance. Affirmed Willie, 9. /.
Thompson ct al. VS., Graham, from DC
Witt county. Appellants sought by in
junction to restrain the tax collector from
collecting u special tax OF onc'hith of pc
cent. levied by the county commissioners
court to erect new court.houSe. They
LII. s1..N Nl.. tlt.s. ill.,
have no authority to levy such tav. Held
the constitution ART s, See. 0) unmistak
ably gives them the right TO levy tax TO
the purpose of building courthouse, M,
80 does the Revised Statues, and whethc
the act OF 1870 repeats by implication
article 1918 Revised Statutes or not Is imma
terinl, and both acts contain the same gen
eral terms, and the authority TO levy tn,
tax for the purpoe of erecting court
house may be derived from either, II |
but reasonable, and II certainly and neccs
sarily follows by implication, that u iai
and reasonable construction Of the Ian
entire building would expressly authoriz
the construction of a portion Of Il. Al
hfmed, Willie, O..
Brown VS.. Dnnn, executor; from Fayett
county. Brown and Dunn as executor o
j. \. Burlcson for the alleged balance du
on lost note executed and delivered b,
said Burleson 70 Brown. Plaintiff was re
fused the right to testify that no had ha,
note OF the character alleged, signed by j
\. Burleson and that he had lost It, an,
wps permitted 10 prove by witnesses tina
he had been seen with such a note, an,
further, that Burcson had statcd that h
was largest indebted TO plaintiff. Held, oil
though the bill Of exceptions does no
give the reason, yet Il plaintiffs testimon,
was ruled out, because (as stated In briet d
counscl) Brown was plaintiff against the eS
ecutor of Deceased person, the court di,
not err In Its ruling. The execution an,
delivery Of the note and a part payment wa
evidently n transaction with a docease,
, person, whose executor plaintiff was suing
and Is within the prohibition of Art. 22is o
the Rev. stat. Held, also, the fact tina
plaintiff had In his possession a note Of Oh,
description alleged, was no proof that
llurleson executed that nolc, and the cour
rightly refused 70 render Judgment fl
plaintiff on such meager and unsstisaetor,
'xfirmeA willie, Q. 4.