The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-01-18


that the warrants were issued by order Of
the county court, after . full settlement
that before instituting this suit, the war
rants were presented 70 the county couri
for allowance, and action thereon was post
poned by them. Held, these facts anthor.
lied the institution of the SUIT. The power
given to county courts to issue warrants
4 (Art. 1870, p. d. Is broad enough to author
| ize them to issue warrants bearing interest
| TO pay their indebtedness incurred BY an
| Improvement expressly authorized 10 Ne
vada. 1907 The warrants herein expressly
providing on their face tor the payment OF
| Interest, this case Is not governed BY that OF
Ashe VS.. Harris county. (55 Texas, 62.) At
firmed. Stsyton, ].
| Menzenheimer ct al. vs.. Boehn; from 20
NAL county. Briefly stated, the question for
determination in this case is, is the mother
of q deceased son such Gonstituentmember
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-
empiion 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 It's benefits should be 1.-THE constituent
members of the family" that is, the sur
viving widow and children, and our laws
do not intend to hold the mother mt
party to claim the exempt estate, she not
being constituent member OF the family.
Reversed and remanded opinion OF Watts,
]. Adopted.
Corporation of San Patricio VS.. Mathis ell
al; from San Patricio county. Where the
location ofa disputed line between adjacent
surveys has been determined In an action
of trespass to try title, and there is no guess
ton as to the title tn either survey, the de.
feated plaintiff is not entitled to second
suit, in order TO have another adjudication
of the same question (53 Texas, 3U); but as
our Revised Statutes provide that such
suits can be brought only when the first
suit was begun before September !, 1879,
this question will soon lose its practical ina
portance. Affirmed. Willie, 9. j..
Thompson ct al. VS.. Graham: from De
Witt county. Appellants sought BY in.
junction to restrain the tax collector from
collecting special tax OF one-hfth OF per
cent. levied by the county commissioners
court to erect a. new courthouse. They
claim that under the constitution they
have no authority to levy such tav. Held,
the constitution TART. 8, Sec. 81 unmistak-
ably gives them the right to levy tax for
the purpose of building a courthouse, and
30 does the Revised Statues, and whether
he act of 1879 repeats by implication
article 1915 Revised Statutes ornot Is immar +
terial, and both acts contain the same gen.
sral terms, and the authority to levy the
lax for the purpo 9 of erecting court
house may be derived from either, 1t is
)ut reasonable, and 1t certainly and neces-
Iarily follows ny implication, that lair
Ind reasonable construction OF the Ian
,uage is to hold that authority to erect an
'ntire building would expressly authorize
he construction OF q portion OF IT. Al
imed, Willie, c.j.
Brown VS.. Dnnn, executor; from Fayette
.unty. Brown and Dunn as executor OF
!. s. Burleson for the all ged balance due
N lost note executed and delivered by !
aid Burleson to Brown. Plaintiff was re.
used the right to testify. that he had had
note Of the character alleged, signed by :;
|. Burieson and that he had lost 1t, and I
TBs permitted to prove by witnesses that 8
9 had been seen with such note, and
rther, that Burleson had stated that he
'as largest indebted TO plaintiff. Held, al
lough the bill of exceptions does not
i've the reason, yet l. PLAINTIFF testimony :
as ruled out, because las stated in brief OF
,unsel) Brown was plaintiff against the ex. i
tutor Of deceBsed person, the court did
OF err In its ruling. The execution and !
tlivery OF the note and part payment was Q
transaction with Q deceased u
arson, whose executor plaintiff was SUING,
I'D is within the prohibition OF Art. 224S Of
le Rev. Stat. Held, also, the fact that =
Iaintiff had In bis possession note OF the Q
sscription alleged, was no proof that D
urleson executed that note, and the court i
Chilly refused to render judgment FIR q
aintiff on such meager and unsatisfactory 2
II nsi. Willie, G. 1.