The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-23

.. .r;,r. and outhouses, and other i'm
eN. .ameuts, when they sold the land, exc
Nc IN, their bond for title and accepted the
-, nsvment, together with notes for the
+ -. defendant cannet now claim the
Ya, in the title without surrendering pos
''..ion Of the land 81 Tex, i96). Defend
:. 49, case showed no equities, the contract
"a. syecutory, and when defendant, on ae-
- w." Of failure of title. decided to resist
..vr,ent of the notes, the land should have
Ssep surrendered to the vendor. Affirmed.
oninlon of Delany, J.
NcPaGdin ct al VS., Langhaw; from JEFF
t.r.on county. Without going into the de-
,sns Of this able opinion, it is sufficient to
ro,s IFS decision in brief. The question is
a. IN the constitutionslity of the "act to
,oonire persons enclosing public free school
lands TO pay annual rent therefor" The
cou,t holds that the obligation therein inn
noSed is legal one te pay an annual rent,
ard This is but a debt, and cannot, there
,nre he collected as tax on its citizens,
and the remedy therein prescribed is I'M
unconditional, and the court below having
bsij otherwise, therefore erred. Reversed
and remanded. Opinion OF Walker, p. j.
Smith ys. Gillette ct al. from Harris
county. There being nothing in the will to
indicate that the statute should not run
rom the time of the qualifications of the
executors named, the general rule applies,
which is, that the statute runs from the
-. I'll, ~.
nromise. The court knows oil no case
p rbsrein il has been held that "an executor,
rlothed with power TO sell property, real or
personal, to pay the debts due by the estate,
rom that fact sustains such trust relation
IN creditors as to prevent the run
ming of the statute of limitations against
their claims As far us creditors are
concerned, executors and administrators
are only trustees by construction as be-
tween them and the estate represented the
statute runs 40 Tex, 246). Affirmed.
StaytOn, ].
Moore vs.. Moore from Houston county.
The court erred in charging the Jury that
the Injunction originally granted in the di.
yorce suit was revived by reason of lhe writ
of error sued out by Jane Rice to revise the
final Judgment in the divorce suit, and con
se0uently any purchaser from the defend
ant c. A. Rice, her husband, between the
date of the final Judgment in his favor and
the time when the judgment was reversed
and Temanded by the supreme court, would
be charged with notice of the existence of
such injunction and would therefore be
bound by it. Reversed and remanded.
West ].
Galveston, Houston & San Antonio Rail
way VS.. BraCken ct al; from Harris county.
nutHn mat Ill.
involved as applicable these Every one
about to step upon rail- Dad track must
listen and look before making an attempt
to cross, in order that sucn person may
avoid any approaching train, and such per
son must not walk carelessly into place of
possible danger; (95 U. s., 702). ii any
person fail to do so it does not become mere
imperfect performance of duty, but is an
entire failure OF performance, which bars
the right OF person to the recovery OF
damages ii by his act he contributed pr1xi-
mately TO the injury; ti9 Pa. ST., COZ. One
voluntarily exposing himself to such dan
ger from which he might have saved him
sell by proper use OF his senses, contrib
utes directly to his own death, and he has
no cause OF action Tor any injury he might
sustain; (Gj Md, 6lS) Reversed and re-
handed. Willie, C. j.
Hawkins, et. al. VS.. Nye; from Mata-
gorda county. Appellants claim title 20
land in controversy, through deed from
one Duke (the original granted, to one
Sheppard conveying 1000 acres more or less,
contained IN certain named boundaries.
Appellees claim under u deed from the
heirs OF Duke, conveying the unsOld por-
tion OF the grant. The case turned upon
the southern boundary of the land con
VpVpI IN a ,t.
nation by competent evidence deyOlyed
upon the plaintiff us defendants were in
possession OF the land; e Bib, 4S7; Is
Wheaton, 5S2D The charge of the court
informed the jury if from the evidence, they
could not determine the true boundary,
they should find for defendants as to the
quantity OF land beginning at the admitted
corner, Held, erroneous. Reversed and
remanded. Stayton i.
Galveston, Houston &c Henderson Rail
way vs. Moore, from Harris county.
The sole question arising in this
case is as to question whether or not
Inc negligence of the mother in sending a
boy between five and six years of age) with
an older boy, upon an Grand which re-
CURED them TO cross the railway where the
boy was injured, could be imputed to the
enid: The learned judge, after ably con-
Siuerlng all the leading cases, pro and con,
hnally adopts the language OF Brdwel, C.
l., IN the case of Government Street rail
road vs.. Hanlon, (53 Ala. S2)
ana holds the negative OF the proposition.
w lex Law Review Affirmed. Stay.
Lanier vs. Perryman ct al; from Liberty
COUNTY Inc court entered an order dur
ttu6 lhe term authorizing statement of
facts to be filed within ten DAYS after the
auJourument OF court, inasmuCh as the Or
DER was disregarded, the statement of facts
cannot be regarded; (Rev. Stats, art. 1879;
hoss VS.. McGowan, 10 Tex. Law Review.
IN the absence OF such statement of facts,
th's court cannot determine whether the
uls.rlct Judge ruled correctly or not in ref
,se 10 the various points raised. For
.nls reason The question cannot be consid-
eleu ihqurlng into the correctness of the
tSts ruling in refusing certain instruc-
sohs, Nor can we examine any alleged err
Tors IN the main charge. Reversed and re-
mended. West, /.
Howard vs.. mayor, inhabitants. etc. of
houston; from Harris county. The act in.
cooperating the city does not prescribe the
summary remedy oi seizure and sale, but
specially permits an action OF debt, ana the
statute since adopted prescribes this sum
Ielneuy, ana therefore is cumulative
~ 'he remedy instead of being exclusive of
II, me chatter in force made ali taxes a
neii anu charge upon the property, and all
,e We're allowed TO be collected by an ac-
~, Ion ol ueot IN any court having iurisdic-
uon' IL any additional and different
iisne9y was prescribed by the law, the city
onen hau two remedies to enforce her taxes,
w action ~ law and summary proceeding
p.escrioed by the statute. Affirmed vii
r. dillon VS.. Kaufman & Runge; from G al
nvs!oh county. d. and Ii. having dissolved
mel partnership, ID, agreed with II. in the
u ,n setlleneat that Ill. should convey d.
~ iHe haii interest in certain property, and
~. would release II. from all liability and
mouid take up u large outstanding note and
ENe MS individual note therefor. X, aud
, ", .ooN up the said note, and NJ. and X the
vWherS and holders thereof transferred II
' W mem by endorsement without recourse
a.so ueuVering them the deed of trust given
, W. SECURE H., ID. then executed new note
pS{aole TO h. aud Il. for the same amount,
~ w ueur tne same interest, and executed d
NV trust deed upon exactly the same prop.
wy as was embraced in the first deed, and
Vas y, released on the latter by the trustees in
IL