The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-01-11
COURT DECISIONS
synopsis OF Opinions of the Commi,s,o,e,
or Appeals, Galveston r..., ,,s,

| vi tie NOmml a
:" appeals Galveston Term, Isss
S'eii, administrator, ct al. VS.. Levi,
D""ortn' nom Gonzales county. The fir,
proposition answers the third in tha 90,
s'fuctlon placed upon it by the court
Is Da the law and facts authorize m
court TO adudgea preference in favor :
.he subdivision of the 81, 800 note over ,ha
,oF N'ooO' Being secured by vendor,
i'eh upon the same land, because the 81 40
note was subdiyided into sever,
smaller notes owned by the party ownin,
va. .he original note, the lien
,he $500 note was NOT To-.
py such subdivision. as Tex. 97\ Th
notes were both for the purchase-mon.v .
the same land, and were, therefore of ~
same class -or degree, and all the claim,
were uuly presented and allowed within
year after granting the letters of admin,s
ration, and no doubt or reason appears II
sne record TO raise any doubt as TO tbei
v9uhaaty III respect to paying them pro rata
IT, W. pr 81 TO any special one a.
lex, JOS; % Tex, Sl7; As Tex, Con, ~ TaT, W
2is 90 Tex, 563; 81 Tex, y Notes secnr a,
by vendors lien are equal, and he nne ~ s 81
turing hrst has no priority over Others "a,
TEX, Joy; % Tex, "a The court erred n
Its conclusion. N'ie" u
~ was error for the court to subject In,
proceeds OF the sale of the land to navinv
Tue administration costs first before d;.,rS
button, The fund obtained should he nm
pled hrst before distribution only with III,
iesltlmate costs of the proceeding (tbe sal. !
ny whiSh the fund was realized. A pro.
VISION lor the payment of the costs of nd
llinlstratlon Is made otherwise. 1t depend,
ehurely upon the condition of the estate Ia
GGeve I under what circumstances tn,
luh9 available might be property to Ne
,.'' 80 III SATISFYING expenses OF the admins
p. ""'A0'
fordham ct al. VS.. V. e o. Ellis; from
Lavaca county. The only issue in This
SUIT which i, brought by trespass to try
t,tie - rs To whether or not the land lies II
,ne horton survey, as claimed by appel
iants. In the call of the east line of the
norton survey, If run according to its call
conflicts with that of the Lewis survey, til,
former line being $50 varas short when i
reaches said Lewis Survey, appellants
claim that as the last line Of said Lewi'
survey Is an open line in the prairie
that IT should give way to the call for tn
east line OF the Horton survey, which IL /.
Ns' 'N' NloNauCc, uilu-tii rt'oo.sA - ali
pleman, 70 Texas, A. SS'sxs'
controlling circu W
which would requ,, q Fra call for 4 49,,
line to give way to sa.e Cd, enformatiSo
lihe ior distance. In this case, unly WIZ v
ABOVE cited, The Lewis east line was, PRES
Oh Deing easily ascertained Tor the two
surveys upon which that of Lewis n,
ana greatly depends, are old, well e,,N,
iished and certainly designated by marlN,
lines, natural objects and fixed corr A
Affirmed. Watts, |, IA.
Smith jenkins vs.. Gill & Smith. fro,,
DALLAS county. This court has been in.
formed by counsel for both parties, that as
between them (the parties), the suit has
oeen settied' There is no agreement, how.
ever, 10 mat effect, apparent OF record nor
70 ene court informed as TO which party is
70 pay the costs According to the prac.
tIce, therefore, formerly settled at last
AUSTIN term, Il day must be specified with.
IN which counsel must file in this court an
agreement as 10 the disposition of the nm.
peal as well as TO name the party who shall
pay the costs and in tho event no such
agreement Is iilei the appeal will be dis
missed NJ appellants cost. The order will
accordingly be so rendered. Watts. / wan
bouies ct a.. VS.. Buiord from Jefferson
county. William III. Simpson died leoviny
ms estate to. his wife, Letltia Simpson. Uis
VIII was probated in San Augustine conntv
MIS- simpson died afterwards; her will was
also probated in San Augustine county
ny her VIII she devised one.half of her
property to Buford in his own individual
rig ", and one.half to him in trust for nm.
bellahis. she provided by this will that
mo action should be taken in the probate
court except to probate the will and file
the inventory" and gave to Bnford hep
executor. "or to the trustee, who might be
appointed in his stead, in the event of his
death removal or inability to act" power To
manage and control the said property. Apnel.
lants brought SUIT by injunction in Jefferson
county, to restrain Buf0id from any further
disposition OF the property. The case pre-.
sents the sole question as to the ruling of
the lower court in refusing to take iurisdic.
tion OF the cause. Held, the Succession of
the estate OF William NJ. Simpson and II
wlie, still being open and the adm,nis,ra-
Ion pending Ia San Augustine county, the
1elierson co"nty district court had no iuris
iiction To naintain this suit against the
executor OF simpsons estate. (Pas. Dig.
nrt' l425' Sec. o; Texas, las; 3 Texas, 223),
hrs, simpson having no estate except as she
required under the will of her deceased hus.
oand, whose estate was under the control or
ne probate court Of San Augustine county.
whether plaintiffs brought this suit against
nuioru solely as executor of the estate of
YRS simpson or not, the probate court of
san augustine county was the proper trib- /
lnal ior'lts adjudication. Affirmed. De-
any, j.
clty OF Galveston VS.. Morton & Co.: flom
galveston county. Pursuant to an adyer. |
isement for ds for the public printing of |
ne Guy OF Galveston, appellees put in n |
'id winch was accepted ny vote of the
aldermen by vote OF eleven to one. The |
mayor vetoed the acceptance of the bill. |
ne council afterwards failed TO pass il over
ne veto OF the mayor by u requisite two /
nirds vote, Appellees bring this suit Tor
alue oi the work done and for DANA
es Ter the breach of the con.
ract, The court in effect CHARGED
he jury that tho mayor must have
etnrned the proceeding to the council
'lthln three days, with the objections
hereto, or the veto would not avail Held
ne hling OF the veto message by the ma, or
nth the city clerk, the council not being In
esSion within the time required was a sut
cent compliance with the charter. Char.
r Galveston city, 1871, section |, article
L. title lll) But the action Of the city
ouncil not being either resolution or or.
nance, as to It's accepting appellee's bid
M hxing the amount of his bond, itdid
on come within the veto power OF the
layor, 30 far as q recovery is sought for
amages Tor the alleged breach of contract
10 SUIT cannot be maintained under Sec.
Art. ", Title X, Of the charter, for the
,ancil hereunder had authority at any
me to discontinue the employment of an.
eliees' paper and designate any other az
re oiiiclal organ of the city. That section
lads: THE city council shall