The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-11
LEGAL LORE.

way vs.. Drew from Harris county. The
q only question here presented is whether or
not the master is liable for an injury to AL
n employe from the use of defective machin-
& cry OF which the employe had fall notice, as
n well as the danger consequent upon its use
when the emplOye is directed To use IL, and
simply protests against the service ana yet
i performs IL. The general rule Is, one enter
\ ing an employment attended with risk OF
injury, Of which he has notice cannot
recover If by exposure 10 such risk he is
injured. This rule applies where injury is
received from the use Of defective imple-
ments or machinery of which the servant
has notice. Reversed and rem ded. Stay
ton,
Galveston, Houston Il San Antonio rail.
way VS.. Hume ct al; from Harms county,
Where a third party is indebted 20 the
judgment debtor, or has in his possession
property or effects of the debtor, the law
affords an adequate remedy by writ OF gar.
n'shment. The statutory remedy by gar.
nishment is legal one, and embraces only
such rights, credits or effects rs are of
legal nature and VIII CHI are not encountered
as are trust estates and when 50 encum-
bered proceeding in equity would be the
remedy; (53 Tex $40, 90 Mo-, POI; 8 Ala,
442l, This case does not materially differ
in facts from the one in 50 Tex, DO Al
frmed. West, j.
Foley vs. Kennedy; from Harris county.
Where q charge in the main is correct as
tar rs it went and no additional instructions
are asked, the case will not be reversed be.
cause the court failed TO give all the law gD-
plicable to the case. The court correctly
charged the jury; 1.-THE proofs satisfy you
that plaintiff, being the owner OF part OF
building, owned and controlled in part by
defendant, knowing the u. b. +. was dis.
orderly association ut the proof show such
to oe The casr) and # it further satisfy you
thai said association by loud boisterous
aud disordery conduct, so conducted them
selves as to render occupancy of the
rooms iutolerable and cause tenants
to yacate the same, and if by
reason thereof the rooms were
rendered uureutable, OF il, after the u. j
f. committed the acts complained of ty
plaintiff, if they committed them, they 10
the knowledge of defendant continued M
such wrong dong, and were permitted to
remain and continued TO do sucn acts com
planned of, then find Tor plaintiff such dam.
ages as the proof may show resulted 10
plaintiff from such wrongful acts. Affirmed
West, j.
Williams ct al VS.. Nolan; from Fort Bend
county. This is an action TO correct n iu1g
ment rendered i'll 1850. The correction
sought is not u correction of mere clerical
error or mistake apparent OF record, but Is
an action to vaca,e part Of the Judgment
after the term. Held, in the absence OF
fraud, misrepresentation, or other
wrong doing on the part of appel
lee, the court would not have
authority to do so unless all the parties to
the first Judgment were made parties to
this. Such not being done. the court
rightly refused to correct the judgment.
Held also, appellants cannot claim the
benefits OF one part OF the judgment and
repuoiate the balance. Affirmed. Stayton j.
County OF Harris vs., Taylor & Gabel ;
from Harris county. The, court properly
assumed az an admitted faH that appellees
purchased their property with reference to
the city maps calling for the street upon
whiGn icy 'front.' The court correctly IN.
formed the jury that the block in question
was u public square, Parol evidence was
also properly admitted to 90 TO the jury,
showing the purpose ana intention OF the
donor in making the dedication. The
county having accepted the block for The
purpose of erecting u courthouse thereon
it was estopped from using this property
for different purpose, ana such obviously
tended to the injury of those who had pur.
chased lots upon the faith OF sUch dlGiCl-
tom" 40 Tex, 3l9) Ailimtd, Vest, /.
Hill vs.. F,o't; IRON Fort Bona cNraty
Had Mrs. illasreed to assume The debt in
question, c0udtional that her aun bc dis
charged, It would be au original undertake
ing, and, whether verbal or written, would
find her. If the promise is merely cOllat-
eral and auxiliary 10 the original debit 1t
would be nothing more than verbal agree
ment to pay the debt of another and is
within the statute. The agreement to take
the case out Of the statute must be in writ
ing, founded on valuable consideration.
Mrs Hill, having told appellee not TO
bother her son, that she would nay the debt
at future day, the promise was collateral
to the existing liability OF another "a
\ H.. .1...l
Parker vs. Banes; from Fort Bend
county. The act of the constitution clos
ing the land office took effect Immediately
on its passage, November 10, 1855; " Tex :,
ISL; 81 Tex, 300 The Brookshire grant
by reason fits date, was void upon its
face and actual possession under such grant
will not be sufficient to support the plea OF
limitations under certain circumstances,
the period OF three wears, rs sufficient To
support the lease; (2l Tex, ITO; % Tex,
49, 81 Tex, 1914; 2s Tex, y, The case of Pey.
ton VS.. Barton (53 Tex, SS) did not override
Jones VS. Menard Il Tex, 77ll; nor did il
announce an entirely new or different rule,
or is it in conflict with Hays VS.. Berrera, %
Tex, 8; Charlie VS.. Stafford, % Tex, 81
They only hold that, under the agreed facts
of the case, there being no actual possession
of tine part of the land in conflict with the
older grant, that the possession OF the party
not actually residing on the land within
the limits of the conflict, though it wa:
within the limits Of the boundaries named
in the deed did not amount to disseisiu
of the true owner. Reversed and remanded
West /.
Coddington ct al. vs.. Wells ct al; from
Grimes county. In this case, where I
large amount OF the purchase money hat
been paid in cash, and note tor larg'
part of the balance unaccounted Tor, leav
ing the inference either that II had beer
- ~..l n...l Ind oh
tanned on the balance with foreclosure o
lien on the property, and no reason l
shown why such judgment has not beer
enforced and no offer is made 4
return part of the purchase money al
ready paid, nor any opportunity given de
PENDANTS TO pay the Oalance due and per
feet their title, the plaintiff should not b
allowed TO rescind the contract and re
cover the land Affirmed. Willie, c.. ].
luminous and wife VS.. Bonner & Long
from Cherokee county. This is o suit upo
the bond OF q guardian. Appellant recoN
cred judgment against Reed, tn
former guardian OF Mrs. Tur
mons, for assets OF her eSta'
coming.into the hands OF said Reed. Tn
suit was then brought against the appe
lees, who were sureties upon the bond
Reed AppelleeS moved TO transfer III
cause from the probate branch OF N
county court to the civil docket. III
motion was overruled. In the district coui
upon appeal the came motion was mac
aud overruled, and the action OF that oou
is the sole error relied on for u reversal
Held, the court erred. While articles ~
2696 of the Revised Statutes are broa
enough 20 give TO the probate court juri
dction to try suits on the bonds OF guard
ans, vet In this particular they are in co..
,ict with section 10, article 8, of the oonst
tuition; they are therefore invalid, and Il
probate court having no jurisdiction OF u
ton, J.
synopsis OF Opinions of tho Court of Al