The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-14
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
VIM. Redus, appellant. VS.. Talia-
ferro Burnett, appellee; from Bexar
county. The court in this case gave
no charge of it's own to the jury, but
contented itself with giving and re-
fusing such instructions as were
asked by the respective parties. The
instructions asked by each party are
not signed as they should be by the
party or his counsel. 1t is only by
reference to- the records that the
court learns that certain instructions
were given that were asked by the
appellee. There are eighteen assign
ments of error, but few of which the
court deem it necessary to consider.
All those assignments, which being
in question: The legality of the orig
inal appointment and qualification of
appellant as executor; the action
of the chancery court in rendering
decree without first setting the cause
down for hearing at regular term
of the court; those that question the
form of the decree, and deny its final
ity, are passed by, the decree being
regarded as final.
The party i'll this case was surprised
by discovering that a judgment was
rendered without his knowledge to
his prejudice. Held: That where
an action in our courts is based on
judgment of sister state, that the
party can show by way of defense
that he was never served with pro-
cess, or that he never appeared either
in person or by attorney, in short,
that he has never had his day in
court.
Also held, that the court erred in
not excluding question to and an
swer by Gholson as to the death of
his deceased law partner, Hooper, for
truth, honesty, etc. The question
had been objected TO on the ground
that Hooper was not party to the
suit and his character not in issue.
Judgment reversed and cause re-
manded. West, a. j.
Austin and Northwestern Railroad
Company, appellant, VS.. Rucker &
Montgomery; from Williamson Coun-
ty.-This was q suit against the rail-
road in personam by "a large number
of persons; and it is claimed that the
contractor and sul-contractOr, under
contract with whom the labor was
performed were necessary parties to
OllC ctCblOIt llC OGtlJuIG
the enforcement of liens given to me-
Oh mics, laborers and operatives upon
railroads to secure the payment of
their wages, does not declare who
shall be made defendants in suits
brought to foreclose such liens; but
we are of the opinion, say the court,
that the contractor and sub-contract-
or should have been made parties.
Thar 10 tn don ht fhof thn
lien held by the laborers passed to the
appellees by the assignments made to
them. The fact that all of the claims
not affect the right of the appellees
to recover upon them in so far as
they are shown to be for such serVi-
ceS as under the statutes are secured
by lien. Judgment reversed and cause
remanded.-Stayton, A. J.
Mabel Day, administrative, VS.. r. Y.
Crop ct al; from Travis county,
Question of construction of contract
as to delivery of cattle. Judgment
afiirmed.-Willie, G. j.
Decisions by the court of commits
sioners of appeals were adopted DIS
follows:
Scott VS.. Loyns, Soloman e Co.;
Il "
manded.-Watts, j.
Zuhl ct al VS.. Woods; from San
Saba county. Reversed and remanded.
Watts, j.
Cupp VS.. Clampett; from Shackel-
ford county. Af1irmed.-Watts, J.
James Riggs vs.. Hanrich; from
Falls county. Reversed and remand
ed-Watts, j.
nnII
county. Atlirmed.-Delaney j.
Harris VS.. Coffee; form Hill county.
reversed and remanded. Walker, j.
Nixon VS.. Grove; from McLennan
county.-Question of jurisdiction re-
versed and remanded with instruc-
tions to the district court to transfer
the case to the county court. De-
lany,J.
McNally, ct al. VS.. Haynie; from
Navarro county.-Affirmed Watts j.
Il. M. Pool VS.. Syrena Terrell; from
Bosque county.-Atlirmed. Walk
er, j.
The supreme court affirmed the fol-
lowing on certificates:
From. ct al. VS.. Owen, from John
son county; Dillon VS.. Runge, from
Limestone county; Knox, ct al. VS..
Gregg, ct al, from Barbour county;
Grant VS.. Connolly, from Barbour
county; johnson VS.. kaufman &
Runge, from Limestone county; Ram
sey, ct al. VS.. Missouri Fowler, from
johnson county.
county.-Motion to affirm on certii-
cate was overruled by the supreme
court.