The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-29

10 the homestead occupied by herself and
her deceased husband at the date OF his
death, so long rs she chose to reside there
in; and there is no controversy between her
and the descendeut other deceased husband
as TO her right to exchange 1t for another
husband; but where the controversy is be-
tween the surviving wife to her creditors.
whose debts accrued subsequent to the ex'
change. rs to her right to have the new
residence exempted as against an attach
ment and execution sold out in satisiac-
ton OF such debts. Held, she had the right
to make the exchange and the homestead
procured in exchange is exempt. Affirmed.
Austin 4 Northwestern Railway VS..
Rucker Il Montgom ry, from Williamson
county. Opinion by StaytoD, j. The statute
regulating the enforcement OF liens given to
mechanics, laborers and operatives upon
railroads to secure the payment OF their
wages, does no. declare who shall be made
parties defendants in suits to foreclose such
liens. The right of plaintiffs to recover from
the railroad upon the several claims tor
labor, which are the basis of the suit, de-
pending upon two facts: First, that the
person through whom plaintiffs claim per.
formed the work for the railroad under a
contract with the contractor, or sub
contractor, and second, that they have
never been paid for their labor. Held,
that both the contractor and sub contractor
are necessary parties, unless the claims
sued on have been established as against
them by suit prior to the institution OF
the suit to foreclose the lien given by the
statute, and judgment rendered against
railroad in the absence of proper parties
will not be permitted to stand. The lien
given to the laborer by the statute may
pass to another party by assignment. Re-
yersed and remanded.
State Of Texas VS.. Wygall ct al; from
Travis county. Opinion by Willie, C. ].
Every point discussed by counsel in this
case was fully determined by the decision
of this court in this case on former appeal !;
81 Tex, GIL Upon reconsideration OF
the opinion heretofore delivered in this
cause, we STE no reason to differ from our
predecessors in the conclusions at which
they arrived. Reversed and remanded.
Thompson ct al. vs.. Rutherford from
Travis county. Opinion by Watts, j.,
adopted. When the original instrument
itself is properly admitted in evidence, any
errors committed in admitting certified
copies of such instrument, are immateriel.
The three thousand acres claimed under
the location, were held by appellee by Il Q
bar of three years limitation. Title IL
shown by him in 400 acres of the Brock sur
very, by regular chains OF transfer from the
sovereignty of the soil, and continued
actual possession from 1857. The decree Of
partition in the suit of VIM. r. Redding
against the heirs of Robert l. Redding, de.
ceased, vested title to the 500 acres in the
former, and this decree of itself constituted
sufficient evidence of title in the said Red
ding, and it was not necessary for
appellee in making out his chain
of transfers, for the state to ad.
duce other evidence rs to this
particular link. Appellee shows title to
tiye.sixths undivided interest in the other
tract of 400 acres in the Redding survey
and clearly he held and occupied the other
sixth Tor the legatee (the oAner) for more
than three years prior to January |, 1861,
and that he had continued to hold and oc-
cupy the same since his purchase from the
five legatees. This vested in him the
superior title to the five.sixths undivided
interest by limitation and established
paramount outstanding title in his Gotten
ant, the other legatee. for the remaining
One.sixth interest. Affirmed.