The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-05-24

synopsis OF cases Appealed 10 inc Sourts
last Resort Fresh Opinions From tn
Forum of Justice-The Lawyers Yad'
Mecum and tho Citizens Legal Library
| COURT OF APPEALS.
Davenport ct al. VS.. Millers Bros, from
Bell county. This is a motion to dismiss
the appeal, because no briefs were filed in
| the court below and because the CLERKS
certificate to the transcript is insufficient in
not stating that "all" the proceedings are
contained in the transcript, and both these
grounds being full ysustained by the record
and being sufficient, the appeal is dismissed.
Teney Pierce vs.. the State, from Bosque
county. The state attorney moves to us
miss the appe II, for, among other reasons,
because the recognizance fails to state that
defendant has been convicted of an offence
AS required by Art. 852, G. q. r, which de.
.ect existing in the recognizance, this court
has no jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.
w. W. Pearce VS.. the State; from Bosque
county. For the same reasons as given
above in Teney Pearce VS., the State the
appeal in this case Is dismissed. Appeal
dismissed.
Kerr VS.. Mitten, from Navarro county.
Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal be-
cause the appeal bond on which this appeal
is prosecuted is executed by the same
sureties, and no others, as the appeal bond
on which the appeal from the justice to the
county court WAS prosecuted, this cause
having originated in the justice court.
Held: Upon the authority OF Heidenheimer
Bros. VS., Lane and Bledsoe Q9 Texas Law
Review, this motion is overruled and the
| b md held to be sufficient. Motion over
ruled.
wills N VS.. the State, from Wilson county.
| This Is motion to dismiss the appeal be-
cause, among other reasons, the appeal
| fond is not conditioned that appellant shall
/ 'perlorm the judgment; sentence, and de-
cree of this court" and pay all such dam
ages az said court may award against him"
| but is conditioned that he shall pay all
such damages as said court may demand"
against him. REV. Stat, Art, 14O4) Held
! The bond is sufficient. demand" was
probably intended for award, y and is sub
stantlally the same thing. Motion over
ruled.
Duren VS.. the State, from Burleson county
Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor.
| and his punishment assessed at $40 hne ana
twenty-four hours imprisonment, and 1t Is
not adjudsed that he be confined ia the
county Jail for said time. Held: There be-
ing no such final judgment as is required
| by law, the appeal is dismissed.
w. NJ. Pearce VS.. the State, from Bosque
| county, The appeal in this case was per-
| tected in 1884, and should have been filed
here at the last term of this court, and be-
| cause of such failure, the states's attorney
moves to dismiss the appeal. Held, appel
! liant having no control over the transcript,
he should not be held responsible for this
| neglect or failure, ana the moIlon 10 uis'
miss is overruled.
| Kiser g. Ullman VS.. the State, from Delta
county. at the last Tyler term this cause
was reversed and dismissed, and upon tax
ing up the costs against the parties, the
clerk taxed all such costs against appellants
| as were incurred by them. They now COM
plain that the costs were wrongfully taxed,
| and ask retaxing of the costs. Held, the
costs as taxed, are fully warranted by the
| law, and the motion is overruled
Day ct al VS.. Heating from
! johnson county. This is motion
20 dismiss. because the applicant
failed to ask of the judge trying the cas-
| below without jury TO give his conclu-
sions of law and fact, and therefore there
| was no legal basis for an assignment OF
error. Held RUE q does not demand Il
dismissal of cause because OF applicant s
failure to demand Of the judge trying the
| case without jury to state his conclusions
of law and facts in writing. Motion over
ruled.
| SUPREME COURT.
Franco-Te1as Land company VS.. Laigle
i. The charte: Of appellant declaring thai
its principal office for the transaction o
business shall be at Weatherford, that III
business might also be transacted At New
York, Paris, France, ETC., gave the com
pany'no right to hold stockholders meeting
outside fthe state Of Texas, consequently
the proceedings held outside o
, and void, A de fscto authority
y could not therefore arise where there ha
been ABSOLUTELY no election or appointment
OK What is equivalent 10 one, that 10 nul
and void, and where there has been no op
Grafton OF the right to exercise the office ex
cept in the very instance where 1t 10 ques
toned, and where there has been ~ acqui
esoence in the official acts OF the 1e-soI
claiming such authority, either on the par
of the body for whom he processes TO act o
anyone else. II the power OF attorney, un
der which they sndeavor 60 hold appellee
was without authority to use IL at meeting
held without the state, the presumption 10
that il was to be legally exercised, and tn
agent transcribed his authority when N
used IL at q prohibited assembly OF tn
stockholders. Affirmed. -
! Percy vs.. Percy. from Bersr county
Opinion by Willie, ]. The general pro
vision must Weld 10 the special clause %
far Of the particular class, when the lav
makes a general prny lion apparently fOl
all cases and snrc4at provision ior par
ticular class. When the word citation !
used, a technical suit IL always meant
The court, therefore, erred in rendering
judgment probating the will when partie
named in the petition 10 probate wera no
cited, as the law requires, and were no
present, aud as all the heirs we're necessary
parties, and some were not present, th.
will was improperly probAted. Reversed
and remanded.
.