The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-02-07
Topic, OF General Interest TO All.

Of tAo cotton by Mcintyre to Levy was
uatmportant as to passing title to the prop
erty, and in SO far as actual delivery or not
wa concerned to throw light upon the real
Caa.actpr of the transaction between the
part.cs. the sale of the cotton by written
transfer while in the hands of the Ginners
evidences nothing that would throw sus-
pic.on upon its fairness. The record does
not show that the court erred in finding
the sale by Mcintyre to Levy was bona
ide aud for value, and without notice of
facts rendering it fraudulent, aud the iudg-
mcnt 10 affirmed. Stayton, ].
Chance Va. Branch ct al; from Hardin
county. Ia the absence of statement OF
facts, the conclusions of fact Of the
Judge toying the case W thout jury will he
taken as the fact. substantially proven on
the trial at is essential to the possession
OF land in order to defeat a recovery or ac-
quirc right under the statute OF limita-
tions that il be adv, rse.n The owner must
be dspossessedby the entry and occupation
OF the party pleading the statute. The con.
trary is the rule if he enters, and holds in
SubOriinAtiOn to the true owner. Though
the original entry be without intention Of
claiming possession OF the premises, and
the pos, ession is permitted by the owner
with the agreement that the true owner be
considered the proprietor notWitwtthStand-
ing such possession, 1t Is not adverse and
can never rlpen into title. Affirmed. Will
lie, C.
Coontr vs.. Austin, from Houston county.
This is suit 10 establish the boundary line
between two surveys, and for the difference
in the lnnd, etc. Several surveys had been
made. and each one establishing different
line. i, was agreed by the parties that Ger
tain line should be the boundary, where.
1. h.. tNV.. no
wa, hult upon the established line. After
wards another survey was made, and this
establishing n different lice, this suit was
brought. He'd, the aCqu escence and
AGREEMENT between she parties, gs found
by the Jury, upon and along the line on
wnish the appellant built The fence, oil.
though both parties we're honestly M 6
taken ta TO the true dividing line, and al
though appellee believed where The line
was established that 1t was the true me,
vet il was binding upon the appellee (65
Ten. 30. % Tex, $50; Is Tex, so and
inc authorities 90 further and hold that the
fact of the mistake or acQuiesCenCe in the
agreement, beng only for a short period of
time, dee, not vary the rule; 10 rex, 3O';
10 Tex, $50; Il Tex, 42Q; 10 Tex, 60S).
Reversed and remanded. West ],
City ol Corpus Christi vs.. Woeslner; from
Nueces county. Suit was brought upon
treasury by the mayor ana secretary ol the
CITY. Thirty-two OF the warrants which did
not bar interest, were Tor matters pertain
ing to the current expenses and were
audited by the city council. Fifteen OF the
warrants were tor the salaries OF the city
officers. such as were established by the city
council. These were made interes t'bearine
on their face. These warrants were all
drawn 20 meet the current expenses during
the years 1879 The legal taxes ieVleI
during these Yeas were more than enough
when token in connection with certain
revenue derived from whar! privileges, t.
nav of their warrants and meet the current
expenses. But the city, by wha
authority is not made to appear, appro.
puatcl large sums to various objects dur
ing the wear 1880 81. The warrants ART
claimed to he Illegal because their issuance
was the creation o DC, without making
provision to nay the interest thereon anC
create "A sinking fund OF at least , per cent.
as is commended is required by art. II
Cons. and art. i27 Revised Statutes
Held. the evidence shows a suillcioucy OF
hand a, the time 20 pay oil these warrants
and the issuance of warrants on Curren
expense not exceeding the current revenue
derived by lawful taxation TO meet the cur
rent expenses and other revenues derived
by the city, cannot be the creation OF
debt prohibited by Law unless special Ia
be levied to meet the required interest all,
create sinking fund. Affirmed Stay
ion
CARA VS.. Baker ct al from Bcxar county
This is a motion.ior mandapmus against tb
dlstrlct Judge, ctc. Realtors were Cara,
tenant. Gariaa sued them by forciblc eutr.
and detainer In Justice court and recovere,
Judgment, An appeal to the district court
was taken, where judgment was rendered
ordering restitution OF premises and 70
damages for rents. Realtors gave notice G
appeal motion tor new trial being oyerrued
and dled theirappeal and supersedeas bond
RESPONDENTS themselves being dissatisfe
with the Judgment, filed motion To sc
aside the Judgment for damages. The iudg
being of the opinion that the Judgment wa
indiy;sihSe. the RESPONDENTS filed motto
TO sci aside the entire Judgment, which wa
granted and the Judgment was set asid,
Realtors claim that they have given motto
of appcal and filed their appeal bond, etc
in lie district court, had no further iur
dlction in the matter as by the filing of III
appcM bond, etc, the jurisdiction vested
the sunrcne court, Hold, as all the mr.,
oeedinrs were had during the term, m
district court had mower to control its iud
mcnts and the mandamus therefore mn
bp refused, West, /.
lIonytou. East & West Texas railway Y
Adams and wife: from Polk county, Al
nellnc claims damages from nppeliant i
reason of an alleged trespass and unlawf
t,hinr nnssession of their land bv The con
many and erection of buildints thereo
str The Question presented IN as To ii
damorc raroynrahle Hold os the in,
found tho, the cnmnnnv had a riyht.of.wn
nynr No land by dseI &c m,ttcr Of Ia,
WHAT d,mnveS occnrre1 "a annelles fro