Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-17

! waite VS. NOTtncHSteTu THtlWuy coHl-
pany Gel, Bl. and El. 9l9) Is the lead
ing English case upon the subject,
aud seems to limit the operation of the
rule to these cases where the parent or
custodian Is actually present and di-
rectlng or controlling the action of the
child. This rule has been recognized
in Stillson VS. III and 81. j. X. *. co.
(67 Missouri, GIL The court adopts
the views expressed In the case Of
Government Street II. X. We Hanlon
(53 Ala. s3) and holds the negative OF
the question, and that the court did
not err In refusing TO give the charge
asked by appellant TO the effect that
the mothers negligence must be inn
puted to the child. Affirmed.
Galveston. Harrisburg and San An
tonic Railroad vs.. Bruckcn ct al
From Harris county. Opinion by
Chief Justice Willie. The legal prin-
ciples applicable to the case, as made
by the evidence are: that every one
about to step upon a railroad track
must listen and look before attempting
to cross In order to avoid an approach
ing train, and not walk carelessly into
n place Of possible danger. 50 u. s.,
702l Failure to do so Is not merely an
imperfect performance of duty but an
entire failure of performance, which
will bar his right TO recover damages,
If ii contributed proximately to the in
jury. 40 Pa. ST., go. One who vol
UNFAIRLY exposes himself to such dam
ages as this, from which he might
have saved himself by the proper uses
of his own senses, contributes directly
To his own death, and no cause of ac-
ton lies for the injury. [65 Md, 65S;
4 Am. and Eng. II. X. Cases, 573. Re
versed and remanded.
Moore VS.. Moore-From Houston
county. Opinion by Justice West.
The court did not err in charging the
jury that the injunction originally
granted in the divorce suit was reviv-
ed and continued in force by reason of
the writ of error sued out by Jane
Rice to revise the final Judgment in
the divorce suit, and that As Il conse
quence any purchaser from the de-
PENDANT G. A. Rice, in the interval be-
tween the date of the final Judgment
in his favor and the time when that
judgment was reversed and rendered
in the supreme court would be charged
with notice Of the existence of such
Injunction and would be bound by it,
4 discussion of the various questions
would be too burdeusome
as the questions raised alone refer To
the facts of this case, and the final
order Is therefore announced here. Re-
versed and remanded.
Hawkins ct nj. vs.. Nye-From Mat |
agorda county. Opinion by Justice
Stayton. The appointment Of the sur
veyor, Schley, in vacation, pending
the appointment of the surveyor,
Hardnan, was an irregularity which,
however most probably did not affect
the ease, for both surveyors made sur
veys and testified in the case, and it is
not likely that under such circum
stances either party was prejudiced by
the courts action. Appellants claim
title to the land in controversy through
a deed made by Duke, the original
grantee Of the land, to Sheppard, exc
cuted on July Is, 1912. Appelees
claim under deed made by the
heirs of Duke to him for the
unsold portion of the grant, made
December "a 1880. The controversy Is
as to the land conveyed by Duke to
Sheppard. Appellee bought only the
unsold portion of the Duke grant. The
proper determination Of the case de-
pended upon fixing the true locality
OF the southern boundary, and the de-
PENDANTS being in possession, the bur
den of establishing that fact rested
upon the plaintiff. f Bib, 4S7; 6
Wheaton, So. The charge of the
court in informing the jury that if
there was not sufficient evidence to
show where the southern boundary
was thut they should find verdict rs
to quantity of land beginning at the
admitted corner, was erroneous. Re
versed and remanded.
Lanier vs.. Perryman ct al. From
Liberty county. Opinion by Justice
West. There was an order entered
during the term authorizing the state
ment of facts 10 be filed within ten
days after the adjournment of court,
which was April 10, 1880. The state
ment was filed April %, 1880. Held,
the order being disregarded the state
ment of facts can not be considered.
| Rev. Stats, article 1879; Mcclure VS..
| Newhill, Texas Law Review, page
-----; Ross vs.. McGowan, 10 Texas Law
/ Review.l In the absence of such II
statement this court can not determine
whether the district judge ruled
correctly or not IN referenct
to the different points raised III
the bin OF exceptions. 81 Texas, 81;
% Texas, Z; lti Texas, 335; 10 Texas,
49, IL Texas, 80; Is Texas, 275; 9:
Texas, 3li; ~ Texas $40. For til,
same reason the action of the court il
refusing certain instructions asked by
appellant can not now be ro-examined
IL Texas, 6iol IL Iex:s, "a. Nor car
the alleged errors claimed TO exist II
the main charge of the conrt be now
examined, - Texas, 59I; As Texas
32o. CFhe learned Judge goes on /,
thoroughly discuss other questions
raised In the ease in view of the op
portunity and right OF appellant to
second trial, but space prevents furthe
notice of them Reversed and remand
ed.
Smith W. Gillette ct al From Har
ris county. Opinion by Justice Stay
ton The general rule Is that th,
statue of limitations runs from tn,
time of the acknowledgement or new
promise, and there is nothing IN tn,
VIII in question TO indicate that II
was not run from the time that two o
the persons named IN the will shonl,
quality IL executors. We know OF IA,
case in which ii has been held that a,
executor who is clotho,
with power 10 sell pro,
porty, renl and personal, for the pul
nflStA AT nnN. fh., .l.Ht H.. s,.s... a.