The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-05
THE COURTS.
rhs Crooked Paths Of the Law Made
Straight,
!, the Inner Reeesses Of the Temple Of
Justice.
4 Valuable Contribution 10 Legal LORI.
SUPREME COURT.


District court of Milan county, which CON-
menced October 1882, ended. The appeal
is herein formas pauperis, and the oath Of
appellant is filed December 4, 1882. In the
sh,eace of evidence when the District court
adjourned, there is nothing to show that
enc court has jurisdiction of the appeal.
The questions involved in this cause were
recently decided upon writ OF error, APP
pea dismissed.
Walton ct al. VS.. Talbot ct al, from Rob-
ertson county. Opinion by West, j. The
,ecord contains no bill of exceptions, or
ststeu. ent OF facts. No question is raised As
20 The sutliciency of the pleading of either
marty or the form of the judgment. There
beinr no evidence in the record, the assign
ment of error that 1.-THE judgment is with
out and contrary to the evidence" cannot
he considered. Just an assignment as 1.-THE
Judgment is without and contrary to law"
is too general to be noticed. Under prs
vous discussion OF this court N reference to
contracts growing out of transactions SINH
lar to this, the court below might have
been justified in holding that appellants
had, Dy laches or from other causes lost
their right to a judgment Reed VS.. West;
Al Texas, 2iS. Mckin VS.. Miller; IS Texas,
SO). AIurueu'
,yler for the use of Martin VS.. Wadding-
ton from Williamson county. Opinion by
Stayton |. The judgement in favor of
By!er for the use and benefit of Martin is
conclusive of the right of Martin against
Washington. So long as it stands unre.
yersed and net in some way set aside. Be-
cause Washington may have permitted a
judgement to be entered against him as
garnishee, in garnishment suit by the
state to recover debt due to it by Byler
cannot affect Martins rights. Having per
mitted the judgement for the use of Mar
tin to be rendered against him, no arrange
ment which Waddington could make with
the states attorney and one of Byler's
attorneys, or even with the attorney for
Martin, il made without Martins consent,
could affect Martins right to have the
Judgment in his favor fully paid, and if not
paia to have the appropriate remedy to en-
force its payment. The only power the
attorney who attempted to make the set.
Element had power to collect the
judgment in money, and satisfaction of
any part of the judgement based upo any
other ground than a proper payment should
have been set aside aud in so far as the
judgement was unpaid the proper pro
cess to enforce the Judgment should have
been ordered. Reversed and remanded.
Wadley vs.. Johnson; from Hood county.
Opinion by Watts, j., adopted. Suit brought
against Wad!ey as maker and McCamant
as end0rser OF note in Hood county; ci.
tation issued to 1.-THE sheriff, or any con.
stable of Hood county" and was served by
the sheriff OF Hill county. McCamant ac-
copied service. Judgment was rendered by
defeult against Wadley only, and did not
dispose of the defendant McCamant
Had This ~ ho NJ in cd
being no final judgment, A Judgment
must dispose of the whole subject matter
in controversy as to all the parties, other
wise it Is not final; Linn VS.. Aramboula,
So Texas, GIG. A citation directed to one
county is no authority to an officer of an
other county to serve same, and is no serv-
ice in contemplation OF law, and the court
has no jurisdiction of defend ants person.
witt VS.. kaufman, 25 Texas, Sup. 1861. A
citation stating the names OF all the de-
PENDANTS to the suit, will not support
Judgment by default when tested on appeal
or writ of error; (Norvell vs.. Garthwaite.
25 Texas, 5S4). Writ of error dismissed.
Daugherty ct al vs.. Vincenheller; from
Eastland county. Opinion by Watts, j.,
adopted. Where all the defendants Join in
the answer, because the record on appeal
does not show a copy of the citation
ants, is insufficient to sustain the
proposition that such defendant was
not properly before the court. The pri-
mary object Of title bond is to secure title
TO land. 1t becomes an obligation for mon
ey only when the contingency happens,
which gives the obligee the right to ella IN
damages as secondary consequence. (Bul-
lion VS.. Campbell; q Texas, 655. Gregory
VS.. hughes; 20 Texas. a)). The petition
sufficiently alleges the execution OF the
bond, the payment of the money and deliy.
cry of the accounts by defendant in error,
also demand tor deed and pasture Q
execute and deliver it in accordance with
the bond ana proceeds to allege that by
reason of this failure that defendants are H..
debted to plaintiffin the sum OF $500, which
case like this is, are the allegations good on
general demurrer, while above allegations
are very general and do not assert minutely
and specifically the facts, showing that the
amount claimed is for damages, and how
that amount occurred to him, yet the allie.
cations are sufficient on general demurrer
Affirmed.
Merrill ct al. VS.. Shoemaker, from Wise
county. Opinion by Delaney ]. Adopted.
As the case of W. H. Merrill, plaintiff in err.
ror. vs.. W. II Shoemaker, defendant in erroi
which involves the same state OF fact as is
TINS case and passes upon the same instru-
ments and involves the same questions al
are involved in this case, was reported by
the commission of appeals and adopted BY
the supreme court at its Tyler term, tn,
opinion III that case is adopted in this
Affirmed,
Smith vs.. Duke, ct al from Hood county
Opinion by Watts j.. Adopted. Objection
Is made to the judgement that there was ne
evidence showing Mrs. Smith had taker
possession of the land as the survivinl
widow and sole heir of her deceased hus
band. Held. The record shows her to tt
the surviving widow aud sole heir and thlt
There is no administration on his estate
fresumptively the land was purchased du
ring the marriage and she had commu
nifty interest in 1t, independent of the in
herited interest, besides no personal judg
ment was rendered against her, binding heI
Individually, the decree merely declares
the amount Of the debt and subjects the
land to its payment. From the entire rec
ORD 1t appears with sufficient certainty that
!he land described 10 the petition
and the evidence shows Is is subject to the
lien. A sufficient answer to the objection
OF failure Of consideration is, that the deed
from Duke to Bachus was on record when
Duke sold II to Smith, and there is no evi
oence that Smith did not know OF the deed
or that any fraud or Misrepresentation or
Dukas part caused Smith to buy the land
Affirmed.
r, Dougherty ct al VS.. Hall ct all from
Coryell county. Opinion by Walker, p. ]
auopted. As there was neither an appea
oonu given nor an affidavit of inability &c
give 1t made, the appeal was in nowis,
contaminated. The verdict and judgmen,
could not have been properly rendered fol
plaintiff under the evidence, and therefor,
Is not necessary TO consider the numer
GUS assignments Of error. Affirmed.
q B.ilie vs.. percival; from Bosque county
Spinion by Walker, y. !. There is no state
tnent OF facts nor bill Of exceptions In the
record and under the settled rules Of tn,
supreme court only fundamental error
VIII be noticed. And in the absence of I
statement Of facts, we cannot say that the
ssyidencemay nothave shown that appellee
MS mother and sister were not sucl
= family as would have EXEMPTED
70 him the oxen and wagon, for the ileg,
seizure and sale of which he sues and tina