The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-01-20
synopsis of Opinions Of the Supreme Court,
Galveston Term, 1888

to two questions: Did the court err in
excluding the TWO powers of attorney from
Flores aud Manchaca to Nidanri, and the
cha of title thence down to appellantsg
and did the court err in everything appel
lant's exceptions? l. 1t is admitted That
the powers OF attorney were more than
thirty years old when the case was tried
but counsel claims they must have been
more than thirty years old at the date of
the institution Of thus suit, or they We're not
properly ancient instruments. Held thu first
question must be answered aiirmatiyelv
al Texas, AS; 90 Texas, 52l; As Texas, 53i. J
The plea of former judgment was
that at former time Sewer and wife, par
ents OF appelleeS, saed one Holiday for the
land in question; that Holiday claimed as
tenant in common, and was in possession
under the same title asserted by appellants
that Sewer and wife relied upon the plea
OF limitation OF ten years. and that upon
the issues thus presented Sewer and wife
obtained judgment, which the supreme
court affirmed upon appeal. Held the
second question must receive an affirmative
answer. The pleas set up in the suit
against Holiday might, as against him, be
available and yet, as to these appellants
be perfectly worthless (52 Texas, 3Si
Affirmed. Opinion of Delany j., adopted
Timon vs.. While lead; from san Palricio
county. The validity of the titles of both
lUEkles 10 NV hloHAACN. ~ regular Cuull OF
title TO the Riggs grant was shown in APP
pellec, and appellant was shown title in the
Juan dc liz Cara grant. The conveyance
from San PatrlciO 10 Iimon was made con-
ditionally, that the pending SUIT, in which
San PatIcio was plaintiff and appellee and
others were defendants, be decided IN favor
OF san Patricio. The title TO the land was
in dispute in this suit. Judgment was rem.
dered against San Patriotic, aud no appeal
had been taken. The court, therefore did
no. err Ill charging the jury to disregard
the deed from Tlnou. Having purchased
pending the suit, with full knowledge OF
the facts, he, in effect, agreed to receive no
title should the suit be decided adversely
to his srantor. AT the time oil this
suit, the Judgment WAS 10 all effects
hna! ana the tact that there
was no appeal taken differs not. Whitc.
head was party to the first suit and an
outstanding title in San Pdtricio could not
avail rimon. That Judgment was bar
- any suit between HIM and any one claim
ing under the corporation involving the
same subject matter. The case turns
upon estoppel, which was correctly
charged by the court The law of estoppe
. is when one by his conduct wilully CAUSES
another TO believe the existence OF a GER
tain state of things and induces him to act
on that belief so as to alter his previous
positions, the former is concluded
from averring u different state
of things as existing at the same lime;
big. on estoppel, 40; 30 Eng, CT. Rep. III;
Il Texas, 3l2) Affirmed, Willie, C. /.
Sanchez VS.. Ramsley; from Webb county.
This ca turns upon the answer to be
givetH>igsc questions; Did the court err
IN sustaining exceptions to defendants
plea Of former judgement? an did the
judgment correctly cancel the debt from
Ranslcy to Sanchez The plea shows that
the former judgment was IN suit SUBJ
stantlslly OF trespass to try title between
the same parties regarding the same sub.
iect matter, and that this suit was brought
within less than year after the former
Judgment; that in the first suit the iudg.
ment rendered qUieted title to the prop
erty in defendants. Held, this first
Judgment lnterpOsed no bar 10 plaintiffs
second suit; Ni Tex, 49l; p. d. j20S)
Were we to hold otherwise,
defendant might, by hi
pleading upon the failure Of plaintiff o.
show title in the first suit, practically r.
peal the operation of the statute 60
Texas, 336 The Revised Statutes renders
this question now of little importance;
Corporation of San Patricio VS.. Mathis ct
AL. Texas Law Review, vol. 1 No. 81 This
suit was maintainab'e, as the first suit was
instituted prior to the adoption of the he.
vised Statutes (A Texas, 1922 The debt
of Ramsley to Sanchez was.paid by the ap.
preparation of the damages awarded plain.
in, so far as necessary, for that purpose,
and such being the case, the rights of San.
chez were not preiudiced. Affirmed. STAY.
ton, q.
Iglehart OF al. VS.. Willis & Bros. ct al
from Dewitt county. The claim of Wal
lace on the fund on its face showed that he
was not entitled to any preference OVER APP
pellants. His transfer, or deed OF trust.
upon the goods attached afterwards recor.
nized on its face the right of appellants to
satisfaction before his claim should be paid.
He knew all the facts as to the financial
condition and recent transactions of Owens
with his creditors. Owens was the banker,
that he was u creditor of the insolvent, and
after all these transactions, Owens paid
him this debt that was not secured sy the
deed. Appellants executed no bond TO
Wallace, the mere fact that APPELLANTS
by heir deed had obtained preference
over creditors equally meritorious, or that
the transfer bad the effect of hindering or
delaying creditors, and was not so intended
by Owens, would not of itself, IL the trans.
action, bona Tide ON the part Of appellants.
yitiate tbelc transactions; 40 Texas 30 !
/, Such decd may be fraudulent IN fact how.
ever, and might be SO shown, but the court
4 erred in finding that Wallace had valid
4 and bona iidc deed, and that the deed to
appellants was IN fraud of The rights of
creditors. Reversed and remandcd. West, /,
Elan VS.. Donald; from Falls county, No
notice being given appellee of the time of
sale, the intcrven0rs having sued out the
process under which The sale was made, the
land selling Tor far below It's value, and one
of the intcrvehors having made statements
I causing the propertl s" % sol ii ut de.
creased value, the cLo,, ti.peily set aside
the sale, but erred in no, returning the pur.
chase money. Appellants not being guilty
of fraud, did not come within the excep-
ton TO the general rule, that q purchaser at
a void sale, made under valid judgment.
is entitled to u return of the purcha 4
money paid by him toward the satisfaction
of the Judgment upon setting the sale
aside; Is Texas, 20!; IL Texas, ia, Burns
Gillian VS.. Null ct al; from Fsyette
4 county. The land in controversy was the
community property OF Richard aud his
first wife, Louise Gillian. At the death OF
Y his WIFE, her undivided nalf interest de.
scended TO the four children Of their mar.
& riagc, Henry, Gustavus, Annie and Susan,
Annie and Susan dying unmarried and In
testate. their one.fourth interest in the
whole tract in the moicy by Richard Gil.
Ian, their father, and their brothers, Gus.
IN tavus and Henry. Upon the death of the
N latter two, their interest descended to ap.
81 pellecs. Richard Gillian, after his wite's
n death, having sold all the portion lying
NJ west OF Young's creek was bound In equity
TO compensate his wi,e's descendants, by
giving Them an equivalent value out OF
NJ his unsold estate. At Richards death,
& he owned 1886 Of the entire tfsc,, III,
second wife, who survived him was entitled
L TO q life estate OF one third Interest IN Rich.
n. ards oAlsts,' .wps. properly dccteed the
M widow. The court. however erred In reius.
t| ing Richards second wife q homestead
~ -r,riK IN the land. They had established
n their homestead right upon the unsold por.
ton OF the land and lived THEREON up 70
7hhards death. The court denied the
her homestead rlght, because the land
held In common by Richard aud hi.