The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-01-25

Itht' = pKcHUtituis' /, W " admitted ihht
thp p1wtfs " attorney we're moro tliun
tblfty year ODD wnon The case wa tf'od,
but oIinyel ClAins they must have been
more than thirty vests old NJ the do'e Of
the iustutioH Ol this suit or they were not
propeny ancient Instruments. Held, th ht8t
Question must be auswertd alllrmatiYuy,
0l Texas, ~, 80 Texas, 52l; " Texas, Oh }
u hc plea Of former judgment was
that vt former time SEWER and wife, par
ent5 of Gppelleos, sued one Holiday Tor the
llani In question:; that holiday claimed Us
tenant IN common, and was in possession
under the same title asserted by appellants
that Sewer aud wife relied upon the plea
of limitation of ten years, and that upon
the issues thus presented Sewer and wife
obtained Judgment, which the supreme
court affirmed upon appeal. Held, the
second question must receive an affirmative
answer. The .leas set up in the SUIT
against Holiday Night, as against him, be
available, and yea as TO these appellants,
| be perfectly worthless; (62 Texas, ISL
Affirmed. Opinion Of Delany, j., adopted.
Timon VS.. Whitehead from San Patriclo
county. The validity OF the titles OF both
parties is not disputed. A regular chain OF
title TO the Riggs grant was SHOWN III APP
pellee, and appellant was shown title in the
Juan de la Cara grant. The conveyance
from San Patriotic TO Timon was made con-
ditonally. that the pending suit, in which
| San patricio was plaintiff and appellee and
others were defendants, be decided in favor
OF San Patricio. The title TO the land was
| in dispute in this suit Judgment was rem
dered against San Patrcio, and no appeal
had been taken. The court, therefore, did
not err in charging the jury TO disregard
the deed from Timon. Having purchased,
pending the suit, with full knowledge OF
the facts he, in effect, agreed TO receive no
title should the suit be decided adversely
o his grantor. At the time, OF this
suit, the Judgment was to all effects
final, and the fact that there
was no appeal taken differs not. White.
head was party to the first suit and an
outstanding title in San Patriotic could not
await limon. That Judgment was bar
to any suit between INN and any one claim
ing under the corporation involving the
same subject matter. The case turns
upon estoppel, which was correctly
charged by the court. The law OF estoppel
is wneu one by his conduct Tilfully causes
another to believe the existence OF q GER
tain state of things and induces him to act
on that belief, so as to alter his previous
positions, the former IS concluded
from aVerring different me emit state ;,,1 t.
big. on estoppel, 40; SO Eng, Oh. Rep, III;
| IL Texas, 3l2) Affirmed Willie, c.
Sanchez VS.. Ramsley; from Webb county.
| This case turns upon the answer TO he
given these questions: Did the court err
in sustaining exceptions to deiendant's
plea of former judgement? and did the
| Judgment correctly cancel the debt from
RAMSEY to Sanchez? The plea shows that
the former Judgment was in a suit SUBJ
stantially OF trespass to try title between
the same parties, regarding the same sub.
ice: matter, and that this suit was brought
| within less than year after the former
| judgment; that in the first suit the Judg-
ment rendered quieted title to the prop.
erty in defendants. Held, this first
judgment lnterposed no bar to plaintiffs
second suit; IA Tex, 49I; p d. 520S.)
were defendant Ws 10 might S'u by SsHefSi bis
pleading upon the failure of plaintiff 10
show title in the first suit, practically re-
! peal the operation of the statute; (49
this question now of little Importance;
! Corporation of San Patricio VS.. Mathis ct
al, Texas Law Review, vol. l No. 3. This
suit was maintainab G, as the first suit was
! instituted prior to the adoption of the Re-
viscd Statutes; .(54 Texas, 232 The debt
of Ramsley TO Sanchez was. paid by the APP
preparation of the damages awarded plain
tiff, so far AS necessary, for that puypUse,
and such being the case, the rights of San
chez were not prejudiced. Affirmed. Stay
ton, q.
Igiehart ct al. VS.. Willis & Bros. ct al;
from Dewitt county. The claim of Wal
lace on the fund on its face showed that he
was not entitled to any preference over APP
pellauys HIS transfer. or deed OF trust,
upon tke goods attached Afterwards recog-
nized On its face the right Of appellants 10
satisfaction before his claim should be paid.
lie knew all the facts ne TO the financial
condition and recent TRANSACTIONS of Owens
with his creditors. Ovens was the barker, !
that he was a creditor ofthe insclVent, and |
after all these transactions, Owens paid |
him this debt that was not secured by the |
deed. Appellants executed no pond to I
Wallace, the mere iacg tnaE appellants /
by heir decd Hgd obtained q preference !
over creditors -.J4-lly maritoricus, or THAI
the transfer mad the effect of hindering or
DELAYING creditors, and was not 30 intended |
by Owens, would not of itself, II the trans /
action. bona iide on the part of appellants,
vitiate the!r transactions; (49 Texas, 30
Such decd may be fraudulent intact, how
ever, and might be so shown, but the court
erred in finding that Wallace had Valid
and bona fde deed, and that the deed to
appellants was in fraud of the rights OF
creditors. reversed and Iemandad. West, j.
Elan VS.. Donald; from Falls county. No
notice being given appellee of the time OF
sale, the intervenors having sued out the.
process under which the sale was made, tbs
land selling for far below its value, and one
Of the interyenors having made statements
causing the property TO be sold at de-
creased value, the court properly set aside
the sale, but erred in not returning the pug
chase money. Appellants not being guilty
of fraud, did not come within the excep-
ton TO the general rlle, that purchaser at
Z void sale, made under valid Judgment,
is entitled TO a return OF the purchase
money paid by him toward the satisfaction
of the Judgment upon setting the sale |
aside: IS Texas, 2,sl; 10 Texas, ia; Burns
VS.. Ledbctter, s. Texas Reversed and
rendered. Willie, c. j..
Gillian VS.. Mil ct al; from Fayette |
county. The land in controversy was the |
community property OF Richard and his
first wife, louise Gillian. At the death Of
his vile, her undivided naf interest de-
seconded 10 the four children Of their mar. I
rage. Henry, Gustavus, Annie and Susan. |
Annie and Susan dying unmarried and in |
testate, their one-fourlh interest in the
whole tract in the moieiy by Richard Gil
Ian, their father, and their brothers, q US
tavus and Henry. Upon the death of the
latter two, their interest descended TO ap-
pellees. Richard Gillian, after his wue's
death, having sold all the portion lying
west Of Noung creek, was bound IN equity I
to compensate his wile's descendants, by
giving them an equivalent value out Of
his uusold estate. At Richards death,
he owned 237-JO6 OF the entire tract, his
second wife, who survived him was entitled
TO a life estate OF one-third interest in Rich-
hrd's estate, was properly decreed the
widow. The court. however erred in refus.
ipc Richards second vile a homestead
right in the land. They had established
their homestead right upon the unsold por-
ton OF the land and lived thereon up 90
Richards death. The court denied the
wife her homestead right, because the land
va, held in common By Richard and bis
first Withholding that homestead could
not be claimed IN an undivided interest.
Held. In this the court erred, for which the
Judgment is reversed and rendered. VII
lie, c. j..