The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-04-26
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopsis Of Opinions of the Supreme
Gnurf
lAusT1x TERM 1888. ]
REPORTED by ED. j. mAMN Err.

Synopsis Of Opinions of the Supreme
Court.
REPORTED BY ED. j. HAMMER.
Parties desiring information upon matters
concerning the higher courts will receive such
by writing our court reporter.
Clayton VS.. Kendall ct al; from
Parker county.-For main points in
this case see Clayton VS.. Randall ct al,
this issue. Held, the judgment is
here reversed and so rendered as that
appellants recover of appellees Ill
costs in this behalf expended both in
this court and the court below, such
judgment, however, not to be con-
Strued as in anywise to prejudice the
right of appellees to claim in the dis
tribution of the trust estate as other
creditors. Reversed and rendered.
Stayton. J.
Clayton VS.. Brown; from Parker
county.-Reference is also here made
to the case of Clayton VS.. Randall ct
al, and herein the judgment is re-
versed and rendered, in accordance
with that opinion, so as to give ap-
pellee the right to claim as creditors
in the distribution of the trust estate,
but to tax all costs against him. Re
versed and rendered.-Stayton, ].
Cushing VS.. Steagall; from Dallas
county.-Upon authority of Meyberg
VS.. Steagall (51 Tex. 35D judgment in
this case is reversed and remanded,
with instructions to the district court
to proceed with the trial of the case in
accordance with the views of this
court expressed in the case cited. Re
versed and remanded.-West,J j.
Cameron VS.. Roemilee; from Collin
county.-The paper attached to the
transcript purporting to be the state
ment of facts, not being filed as the
law requires, can not be considered,
and in the absence of such state
ment we find no error in the judg-
ment. The statement was not filed
in time before the adjournment of
court, and no order is entered on the
minutes of the court during term
time granting leave to file the state
ment after adjournment. Affirmed.
-Stayton, J.
Clayton VS.. Randall ct al; from
Parker county.-The provision of the
statute is that the bond of an as
signee shall be approved by 1.-The
| judge of the district or county court"
and the fact that jurisdiction to try
civil causes was withdrawn from the
county court, does not render the per-
son holding the Office of county judge
poWerlesS to fulfill the requirements
of the statute in this respect. Re-
versed and rendered as in case of
| Clayton VS.. Kendall ct al, supra. Re-
versed and rendered. Stayton, j.
Evans & Martin vs.. Tucker; from
| Wise county.-An omission in the af-
tidavit to state that the defendant is
Justly" indebted to plaintiff is fatal
to the suit. The affidavit alleging a
part of the debt to be due at the time,
and part to become due upon flu
ture day, it is sufficient to vitiate the
attachment. Affirmed. Willie, c. j.
Garrett VS.. Long ct al; from Lamar
county.-This case involving the same
points as are passed upon in the case
of Long ct al VS.. Garnett ct al, refer
ence to that case is made. Affirmed.
-Opinion of Delany, j., adopted.
Strong VS.. Millett ct al; from Wise
county.-The record filed in this case
fails to disclose an appeal bond, with
out which this court has no juris'
dictiOn, and the appeal must for that
reason be dismissed.
Speairs VS.. Lyon; from Lamar
county.-The clause of the will, Il
give and bequeath to my beloved
wife all my personal property of every
kind, also the remainder of my said
tract of land to dispose of as she
pleases, requesting her that she will
so dispose OF her property at her death
as to make my youngest son an equal
legatee with the balance of my chill
dren," does not create a predatory
trust in favor of appellant. Opinion
of Watts, j., adopted.
Truitt VS.. Blundell; from Clay
county.-No statement of facts filed
in vacation will be recognized unless
it is filed within ten days after adj
iournment, and is authorized by an
order of the district court entered of
record during the preceding term
"a Tex. Law Review, 81; 10 Idem, 152.
Neither the approval of the judge in
vacation or the filing of the written
consent to such action made by them
during the term would avail. Affirmed
west, J.
Eubank & Co. VS.. Landram; from
Collin county.-The constitution pro-
tects the surviving husband or wife
in their homestead right whether as
against the heirs of the deceased, OF
the creditors of the survivor SO long
as the survivor occupies it as such
This exemption does not depend upon
the title being in the survivor at the
time of the death of the marital
partner. Affirmed. - Opinion by
Watts, j.. adopted.
Cohen VS.. Munson; from Grayso1
county. Appellant being resident OF
Harris county when the suit was
brought and the administrator bond
on which he was surety not specify
ing that the obligation was to be pay.
able in Grayson county, appellants
plea of personal privilege should have
been sustained. Reversed and dis
missed Willie. G. J.
II. 81 L. C. Ry.vs. Mcnamara; from
GraySon county. The charge asked
by appellant not being applicable tc
the facts of the case and the instruc
tionS of the court giving the law Of
the case, the refusal was not error
Is Tex. Law Review, III: 9 Idem
1874. Under the facts of the case the
judgment cannot be said to be eXces
sive. Affirmed.-Willie, c. j.
Garner ct alys. Thompson ct al; from
Grayson county. = The first point
raised is disposed of by the case in 81
Tex. $50. Where the legal title tt
land is vested if the community es
tate of husband and wife, the pur
chaser from the survivor after the
death of the wife is chargeable with
notice of the community rights of thu
heirs of the deceased. Affirmed
Watts, j.
Shannon VS.. Gray ct al: from Gray
son county.-The first objection to tn,
judgment is fully answered by tn,
cases of Brown VS.. Wall (23 Tex. $500
Johnson VS.. Taylor as Tex. 1922, an(
Grathaus VS.. De Lopez, lately de
cided. After the death of the wife
the husband could sell the property
for the purpose of paying the commu
nifty debt, without first Qualifying as
survivor in community. But if tn,
law may be otherwise, the conveyance
OF the land by Shannon for the pur
pose of paying the community deb
was an effectual bar to recovery o.
the land or any part of it by appel
liant. Affirmed. : Opinion of Watts
j., adopted.
Long & Berry VS.. Barrett ct al; ap
peal from Lamar county.-Ordinarily
suit for contribution cannot b.
maintained by one partner against