The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-20
LEGAL LORE.
q. nopsis OF Decisions Of the Higher
Courts.
Light Thrown Upon Obscure hooks
and Crannies.
Interesting and Valuable Compendium.
SUPREME COURT

~ Z-o acres OI tuo i"hu ~ oosAS'~'Sy So
correct. The land being the separate estate
of their father they were entitled to 2-5 oil
IL and as heirs of theirdeceased mother to
LIP more. The deed of their mother to
Womsck, made after the death Of their
father, conveyed to Womack\o only her life
estate In one-third of the land, and the l-l2
inherited by her from the deceased child,
She having died and her life estate being
thereby extinguished and three of her chill
dren being adults conveyed to Womack
their interest in the land and making no
claim to it Womack became vested with
three.fifth and one-tweltth OF the land.
Womack's first wife died March Mth, 1874.
He received his deed from the Coryells,
October 20, 1874. The deeds were duly &C
knowledged on the same day they were
made and shortly thereafter placed upon
record and were on record when Mrs.
Woodward purchased.
Held. Mrs. Woodward obtained a good
title to all of the tract Womack was author
lied to convey, unless she had notice actual
or constructive that he had no authority
to convey the land or some portion of it.
Held, further; The evidence showed no no.
tice to appellants Of the fact that the land
nity property OF Womack and wife, and by
the deed from WoMack she obtained title
10 743a acres OF the land. Reversed and
rendered.
Hamblin VS.. knight, from Milan county
Opinion by j. Delany, adopted. The ale
cations OF fraud in executing the note sued
on, that he signed the note for $l7OO as
surety for one White, that after his sigma
ture was placed upon Il, It was fraudulent
ly altered either by White, or the depart
ment. 80 az TO make 1t an0tetor $2O4 GO and
that the judgement against him was upon
this latter note; are sufficiently specific.
a preliminary injunction, and when relief
is sought after final hearing, the
petition, as general rule, need not be
sworn to. (Eccles VS.. Daniels, l6 Texas,
1861 The doctrine announced in the cases
of Fitch VS.. Bayler (5l Texas, 344) and
Lane Va. White (27 Texas, 250) is
we'll settled, but it is applied
only TO collateral proceedings. This
is direct proceeding of the
allegation is that the return of the sheriff
was false and was the result of fraudulent
collision between him and the plaintiff in
the Judgment. 1t is only In the absence of
fraud or mistake that the return OF the
sheriff is conclusive. (Ayres VS.. Dupree. q
Tex. 59i; King vs.. Russell, 40 Tex. l2i. J
Reversed and remanded.
Day vs.. Stone ct oil from Johnson county.
Opininion by Watts,j. Adopted. An En-
rOr to be material so as to require sew
erance of the judgment must be one that is
prejudicial to the rights of the party COM
planning. johnson vs.. BlOuht, 4S Tex. 1857.
Rulings Of the court with reference
10 the pleadings which did not effect
the ultimate rights Of the party, is not
Coz r,tx,
5 Texas, BIZ The court erred in excluding
che evidenc N Brown as to other sales
made Of si,Y..Ar character as In this case.
Whether the evidence involves the fraudu-
lent sale or conveyance 0fproperty, evidence
Of other like conveyances by the same par
ties, at or about the same time are admlssi-
BILE, upon the ground that where transac-
tions Of similar character executed by the
same parties are closely connected in times
the reasonable inference Is that they pro-
coed from the said motive. Reversed and
remanded.
Acers VS.. Mayne ct al; from Clay county
excluding from the consideration OF the
Jury appellants claim Of title to the land in
suit devised through tho Buffalo Bayou,
Brazos e Colorado railway and Galveston,
Houston u San Antonio railway and its sue
cessOrs. Had not the purchasers OF
the sold out company deemed 1. best to
change the name OF the corporation,
there would have been no necessity
for the purchaser of the land in
suit to have proceeded further, in develop
ing the right of action than to have ex-
hibited legal title to the land in suit, in
the corporation by name, and aconveyance
from such corporation, or from the lawful
and recognized successor of such sold out
corporation by its original name to himself.
The purchasers of the sold out corporation
having, by a special act OF the legislature,
changed the name of such sold out corpo-
ration, and appellants having shown the
purchase and the special act as above being
proper evidence to show the change OF
name, the court erred in excluding the
title OF appellants. Reversed and Re,
manded.
Christian W.. Crawford; from Palo Pinto
county. Opinion by Walker, p j., adopted
Appellant sued appellee in Justice court
Judgment for defendant, Diminishing suit al
plaintiffs cost. Appeal to the dstric,
court, the civil jurisdiction of the county
having been transferred to the dstrC,
court. Appeal was dismissed IN the dis
trict court on motion by counsel. The up
neal bond failed to show that a final judg.
ment was rendered. from which e..appea
was taken. 2. Because the appeal bono
does not show the amount of iude
ment. Held; The requirements OF tn,
statute for an appeal bond from the justice
court do not make 1t necessary for tn,
fact referred to in the motion. No appea
lies from d justice court unless from q tina
Judgment (Rev. Stats, 1888, but the an
peal bond Is not required to show whethe
the Judgment appeal, d from il final or not
The transcript from the Justice docket mus
show the character Of the Judgment. 1t Il
sufficient that the appeal bond appear,
prim facie to be given to secure an hppea
from the judgment which the justice certi
fies to the appellate court in the transcr,p
of the proceedings had before him, sn,
is CONDITIONED ,ptE s.i,. according ,abagg to tn
s Esv a stats u.s. Amt anna lS Roma Neither
the amount Of the judgment. Reverse,
and remanded.
Brown ct oil. vs.. McLennan ct al, iron
Falls county. Opinion by Watts, !. Adop
ted. Brown vs.. Seatt brought this acl IN
tresspass to try title against Mcl.pnnat
claiming the land through judgment
orders Of sale, and constable's deeds, Tn
judgments were respectively in favor q
Brown and Seatt against Morrell, oh aine,
before Justice Of the peace, on service b.
judicial attachment. Morrell made hinl
telI u party uticuuhut hs tu6 luUu lOTu
McLennan and asserted that he only owne,
an undivided interest Of one third IN III
three hundred acre tract, and claimed tn
same on his homestead. Held. In Je, kin
VS.. Valz (A Tex. 6S0), the very question
herein involved was co lsidered anu deter
mined against the view that the homestea
was limited to Morrell's interest Ia tw
hundred acres Of the land including hi
improvements and that his interest Ia ,h
remaining one hundred acres, was not pro
tected US part OF the homestead. 1t wa
there held, THAT the homestead right q
appellant was not confined to their und
vided interest In the two hun
bred acres, including their improve
ments, but extended to an nndivids,
interest Of two hundred acres out Of tn
five hundred and twenty aero tract, an,
that until petition IL had, II was out d
their power S. e s. designate their ho~es.ea
UpshAw W. Chapman; from Hill county
Opinion by West,j. A motion TO disnlls
this appeal, because there was no propp
and spccifc analUnuank of errorn In thS -