The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-05-19

,..oosls of Cases Appealed to the Courts of
,., Resort Fresh Opinions From the
r,rum of Justice-The Lawyers Wade
m,eum and the citizens Legal Library,
COURT OF APPEALS.
hinton vs.. Norton; from Somervilla coun.
80 ooinion by WILSON,. No particular
s,,u of words is required to constitute a
nn,ice of appeal all that is necessary is,
,Sst there be an entry upon the minutes or
docket of the court showing with reason
ale certainty that the party dissatisfied
with the Judgment had III open court an
nonnced his intention to appeal the case.
When bond is sufficiently accurate in its
description of the judgment to identify II as
the Judgment intended to be appealed from
itisa valid appeal bond in this respect, al
though it NAV fail in some respects to de-
scribe the Judgment fully. Reversed aud
femanded.
Tsdlock vs,the State; Drom Cook county;
opinion delivered by White, p. j. Appel
liant was convicted Of the theft Of horse.
The only material question is as to the
ownership OF the horse, The facts are
these; A owned the horse but loaned it to
b TO ride to a party, and while at the party
the horse was stolen from Il. Ownership
alleged and proven in A. Held, not error.
The charge of the court is correct and the
evidence sufficient. Affirmed.
Martin VS. Merchants d Planters Bank,
from Grayson county; opinion delivered by
Wilson, ]. Suit for balance due on cotton.
Martin placed cotton in one Smith hands,
who obtained money to advance Martin
from the bank. Smith gave Martin a re-
Ceipt for the cotton, which stated that the
cotton WAS subject to the order of the bank.
The cotton was sold by Smith and the pro-
Ceeds credited to the bank on Smiths &C
count The court below gave judgment
against Smith only. Held, correct. Affirmed.
Webb ~ Bro. VS.. Harris, from Caldwell
county. Opinion by Walker, p. j., adopt
against one Thompson, and appellee
agreed to give one Lamb onethird OF the
judgment to collect same. Lamb caused an
execution to be issued and levied on cattle
belonging to the judgment debtors. They
then came up to Travis county and repre-,
senied to appellants that no levy had been
made and obtained compromise and set
tlement OF the claim. Lamb, as agent of
appellants, without knowledge Of the COM
promise and settlement, sold the cattle.
ms IS suit for damages therefor. The
defense set mp was fraud on appellee's part
in inducing the compromise through fraud
ulen' representations that there had been
no levy, etc. On the trial appellants offer
ed to prove by appellant this defense,
which evidence, upon objection, was ex-
clud'd. Held error, for which the iudg-
mtht Is reversed and remanded
Heidenheimer Rro's VS.. Lane and Bled-
Soc rom Wilson county. Opinion by vii.
son J. Inc vital question in this case turns
upon the action the county court in over
rullhg appellants motion to quash the ap-
peal oond and dismiss the appeal from the
justice court because one OF the Sureties
upon appellte's claim bond, and against
whom the judgement appealed from was
rendered is also one of the SUI ieties upon
the appea bond. there being but one other
surrey besides him upon said appeal bond.
Alter ably discussing the cases of McGav-
ransh W.. Dunn, a Texas 2S7). Labadie VS..
Dean, "a Texas O), Daniels vs.. clarendon,
~ Texas 2l6), Tramwell vs.. Tramwell, 15
mexas 29l) and Sayles VS.. Marks, (6
neAas v) the learned Judge concludes
mat upon the authority OF Trammel VS..
irammel and Taylor vs.. Marx the appeal
pond was sufficient. The identical issue
raised by appellants bill OF exceptions,
based upon the refusal of the court to per
mlt plaintiff to show fraud and collision
between the claimant of the property levied
up'h ana the defendant in execution, was
M "a and decided in Linn VS.. Wright Us
Iexas, 80, and upon authority of that
case this case sreversed and rcmanded.
Greenleye, Black & Co. vs. Roufl, from
naldwell county. Opinion delivered by
white, p,j. This is a trial of the right OF
property to certain brick levied upon by
appellants as the property of one Aexan-
der, to which appellee filed her claim-bond,
stc., claiming to have purchased the brick
rom Alexander for valuable consideration
ahu without notice. The issue being one of
laci and being fairly submitted to the jury
ana there being ample evidence TO sustain
,ne,r verdict, the Judgment will not be dis.
%, warren VS.. Masherson ct ux, from
,Ngnackieiord county. Opinion delivered by
white, p. ]. This Is suit upon q promis
Ssory note given by appellee s dead husband,
1T IS objected that defendants plea of pay
ment is detective. Ii does not particular.
ne the various alleged payments, but il al
reyes as an excuse that the note was always
III the possession OF Warren. etc, aud we
hold the excuse good and sufficient.