The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-03-01

eoter his distinct portion as sued for
and distinctly stated in the pleadings
an petition. Gresham VS.. De Laney
last Tyler term] Reversed and re-
manded.-Walker, p. j.
HeldeAhelmer vs.. Garten Verein;
appeal from Galveston county.-Ap-
! pellant being on the bond of a con-
tractor who had failed in his contract
TO build a pavilion for appellee, upon
certain conditions undertook to carry
out the contract and to construct the
pavilion according to the plans and
| specifications. under the direction OF
the architect. There was a disagree
ment; Heiienheimer ceased the work.
| the appellee finished it and brings suit
for the difference in cost. There was
no conflict as to the flooring about
which the difference arose, but appel
ldnt contended as the original contract
or had deviated from the contract he
had the right to continue in the devil
| alton. The court below held other
wise. Held: Correct, the evidence
undoubtedly showing that appellant
and not the architect was TO blame. a
charge of the court holding that
whether Heidenheimer or the archi-
tect was to blame. etc. did not injure
appellant and the Judgment cannot be
reversed for that abstract error. At
frmed.-Watts. J.
Ranthum VS.. Hoffman; from Colo
RADIO county.-An owner may create
highway by dedication or donation
OF his land foT that purpose, when
such has been recognized as high
way by the proper public authorities.
or when such has been accepted and
used as such by the public. An in
tent to so dedicate the land must be
shown by the acts and declarations
OF the owner, and such acts should
Enthusiastically show the intention to
dedicate the land absolutely and ir-
revocably to the public use. The
fact that a way may have no outlet or
may terminate in a private road does
not prevent a dedication to public
use. The owner may, without an in
tention of dedication. permit the pub
lie to use way, but this would only
constitute a license, reyokable at
pleasure. The charge of the court
below, not being in accordance with
these principles above announced, the
Judgment is reversed and remanded.-
Watts, j.
Kendall vs.. House; appeal from
Fort Bend county For statement
see this case in 80 TeXasl The sale
Ivy appellant being with the consent
OF and afterwards ratified and con-
hrmed by the remaining executor II
rendered the agreement binding on
the estate. 48 Texas, 535; IS Texas,
23l. SUCH agreement and ratification
being shown, it cannot he considered
personal obligation of the appellant.
for 1t is only upon the principle that
1t Is not obligatory upon the estate
that would make it binding upon the
appellant and would make him liable.
The court therefore committed funda-
mental error in rendering judgment
against the appellant in his individual
capacity for which the Judgment is
reversed and remanded.-Waits, J.
Goggan vs.. Williams ct al; appeal
from Galveston county.-The county
commissioners court. of which app /
lant was Il member, had met at a reglI-
lar term to levy a tax for county pur-
poses; such tax could not be levied
without his presence; knowing this,
he purpOSely abSented himself, where
upon the said court issued an attach
ment for him. The sheriff brought
him into court. He was released. and
the court proceeded to business. Held.
Under these facts. by virtue of arts.
1915 and 1917 rev. stats, and sub. IL,
art. 1914 rev, stats, the court did not
exceed its authority, and an action
against the members individually for
false Imprisonment cannot be MAIN
tainph a ffirmaH Watts /