The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-03
IIE HIGHER COURTS.
sss FINALLY DISPOSED OF
iqns of tho Lower Courts Acted On
HIrmed, Reversed or Dismissed
Clear Logic of Lew--OInis-
sion and Commission.
SUPREME COURT.

4 SUPREME COURT.
tlker ct al. We. Bailey & Goodiohn,
5yCamp county. Opinion nv Stay
"a. Tho evidence, without material
Iflict, shows that the property was
Ight by Mrs. NJ. l.. Stalker and that
vas paid for with her separate funds,
1that the deed was made to her, and
food of record when appellee bought
NE sale under execution against j.
Stalker, and that appellees had actual
'tice of her right before they pur-
ased. The purchase of the property
appelleeS was made under an
ecution in their own favor,
q 1t is not shown that
~ paid for the property other than by
>ditng the amount of their bid on
Dir judgments. The conclusions of
by the court in the main were
aceordance with the rulings OF the
uft in Parker ct al. W.. Cross q Texas
" Review, 22l, and McKanney ct al.
/. Thorp ct al. G Texas Law Review,
0.and the court incorrectly found the
f<fonce insufficient to show that the
UVtftJ was paul WIN lIt separate
nds OF Mrs. Stalker. Judgment re-
rsed and rendered for appellants.
CaSon ct al, vs. Chambers, from Morris
unity; opinion by Stayton, j. The evil
nee indisputably shows that the note
'ecuted by d to appellee, to securo
1ich the deed Of trust sought to he
roclpsed in this suit was given, was
|rred by Limitation prior to appellants
irchase of the rule embraced in the
ust deed. While it is true that the
lbsequent renewal of tho debt bv a
eW note given by d to appellee, as be-
BtWoen them would operate a renewal
Z the mortgage given to secure it origi-
Ally. yet such renewal could not affect
opellant's right which accrued prior to
10 renewal and while the original debt
AZ Barred by limitation (fIodge vs..
aylor, 81 Texas, 1876; Riggs VS.. Han
ck, 30 Texas, so; Ross VS.. Mitchell, Is
oxas, l5i; Blackwell VS.. Barrett, 50
exae, 1861. That appellants may have
ken the mule in payment of a debt due
2011 does not affect their right. The
ldGement is reversed in so far as il
Ives judgment in favor of appellee
9aInst appellants, with costs in the
@1rt below, and in this court for 2p-
lIants. Reversed and rendered.
Qonner VS.. Comfy; from Morris county.
al opinion by West, j. This suit was
ought by appellee against appellant
d breach of contract. Judgment In
|stice's court for ton cents. Appeal to
y district court when judgement was
ndered by the court without the
lteryention OF a jury of appellee for
$50. As the court tried the case with
tajury and rendered Judgment ON
p facts for appellee, we cannot reverse
0judgmenJ rs the facts arc sufficient
snstain the Judgment rendered.
nrmed.
pampbell vs.. Smith & Choate; from
county. Opinion by Willie, @. l..
lHontract between McC. and c. was
V~ssable 10 show the character of C's
m to the property seized under the
utof sequestratiOn, and To contradict
WNldence as To the nature of his title
n tho person from whom il was de.
also to show that he bought with
MOtice of SIS prior mortgage upon
identical property, aud subject to IT,.
Anortgage was admissible as a linl,
Nhe chain of SIS right to have
sequeStrntiOn sent out and
Hoperty seized to satisfy his lien
Wtansfer TO a, w. :. on the mort.
Whyas admitted in evidence withou
jtfion. While not signed bv hi.
f(ller j. c. s., il fully appears from
in evidence that he had no claim
a mortgage on the property i'm.
~ In it, aud that they belonged IL
liant 4. w. S. This was suiIicient
ake good tho transfer. Tho Object
making subsequent Dur
ar a party to tho suit To- foreclose ,
kKRgo is to render to Judgment II
1rk q exclusive Of his right i'm IN,
I'M. The failure to make him ,
Foes not prevent plaintiff from
Jung IN another action to dives
ufrhaser Of his rights therein. In
cbse, the suit OF foreclosure is no
iusive otthe subsequent purchaser,
Affirmed.
aufman & Runger Va. Wicks; from
Qertson county. Opinion BY Watts, /
Qpted. Where damages are claimed
for the wrongful and the MALI
sning ont writo' r,tGchment,th,
oiements of damage ought zach tn
resented IN sepcratn court and the
should ho required % specify Ia,
Qnfs of exemplary damage found
{!kpnt who thus confuses his cas-,
1ldnot be allowed to gain advantar,
ltpy. II there Is no existing don't
Nmatters not how firmly defend
>u tho timo, might have believed 1
1oV the resort 10 the writ would M
ux( II. If defendants did honestly
t The debt existed, and had rras
hnd probable cause for the be
met that u did not exist wuul,
thorize the jury n infer malice ol
IIAl Us part. IL II were maliciou
Wounded, but there was prohnbl
for suing ont tho writ
uaInago Is recoverable. Ifacrad
puld sue out an RttachmoDl
Nv his debtor on the ground tina
tter Is about to dispose Of his prou
defraud creditors, whom thor
~ prohahle cause to induce TIM
other circumstances did not OK
pelllng the presumption, the mr,
tInfer malace. II probable caus,
~ malice could not hn implled
~ the absence Of probable cause
Wpltcation OF malice might be RI
LILY facts and circumstances show
Wlr and Legitimate purpose of m
W IN the honest pursuit of whn
RVod to be Just claim. The YER
INC Jury In this case showed
- Ndict than could ho claimed ia
damages, and therefore, as IN
not warrant exemplary dom
.te Judgment Is rev orsed. RE-
Wand romandod.
VSchalk vs.. Longlnn,ti; from Mar
Wnty. Opinion by Stayton, |. Th
VIC shows that appellee noitbo
ted tho debts sued on In perpo
Sent, aud II fails TO show that IA
rzed any person 10 carrv ON busI
his name so ~ TO mislead any
n, oredittng persons purporting I
anpellee's benefit. To render nm
FOR debts contracted hy anothe,
other person must hay
bis AZ NJ, or he mus
Nv nowinglv permitted sue
MfsNn 80 to hold himself ont /,
rW The oNide"cc Of appellant
M - sold goods 10 Oohhs, show
10 new of Che connection of Ia
n" For whose evidence now iris
pneh', with Dobhs, and vet no nj
Hnlndc 10 net his testimony; n
.tfi such witness as tn whit h
Wstitv Ia il o new trial wn
Wvns filed. nor was Il shown thn
Wdavit could not he procured
10y was therefore properly oyoi
Pacific Railway comnanv y,
nrcia; ffom Harrison count,
" StuNfpf 1 AFh,s, a.. 49,.