The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-25
TIE nIeurR corRrs.
supR ME COURT.

gineer of tie train on which the injury
was received, were fellow servants,
and there is no evidence tending to-
show that the employer had not eXer-
cised due care III selecting employees
who We're engaged in the common EN-
ployment with the injured party, nor
that the employer had in any respect
been negligent IN Keeping inits service,
any emplOye who vas Subsequent 10
employment, found unfit Tor the SER
vice, the injured employee cannot re-
cover, and the court ere q in charging
as to The duyy Il the employ in the Sc
lection ana retention Of employees. Re-
versed and remtndGd.
May es ct az. vs.. Jones; from Wilson
county. Opinion by Willie, c.i. Suit to
subject properly III posses ION Of heirs,
derived by descent, TO the payment OF
their ancestors debt. Only two of the
eight heirs sued appeared. they pleaded
general demurrer and statute OF limita
lions. The court's decree shows that
the plea OF limitations was sustained rs
to all The claim except S1Sl, and Tor that
amount Judgment was re dered against
the heirs pleading limitation. Judg-
meut was further rendered against the
other heirs tor 81, 51S, the totat amount
claimed. The court decreed that upon
payment of The amount decreed against
the two heirs the Judgment as to them
shall be FULLY satisfied. Also, that The
payment OF One-eighth OF the 91oi iy the
two neirS who appeared ana plUdd' d
should release them, and that upon The
payment OF one->lNth of Sl,5jS by
either OF tue other heirs should
satisfy she Judgment as to them.
The court having found that the heirs
were in possession of a tract If land ly-
L..
their ancestor, decr,od its sale in salts
faction OF the judgment. Held, /: The
Judgment against those heirs who failed
TO appear should only have been Tor the
$l,55S, less the amount decreed against
the two heirs VINO appeared (Sl06.75),
maNlUS against each a Judgment Tor
@226,S1l2. 2: The court erred IN torecus-
ing lien on the Wilson cOu' w land
and decrceiug It's sale IN satisfaction Of
the jrdguen,. 4 creditor is not given Il
lien upon amy specific piece OF property
OF the deceased dehtur by reason of its
descent 10 his heirs. The euJire cred-
tors OF deceased may subject such
property -, TO payment of their
sue the hoirs for the debt
and obtain Judgment to the
extent ol the prop rJy received by the
heirs FROM their deceased ancestor.
The suit is ia pors0ndm, aud the heir
may show in detouce that he received
10 assets by descent. Judgment re-
Versed and 80 reformed as to allow
appellee recovery against Ida Dew
ereauX and Il. T.. L.. MAYS for the SUN
of SOS BIZ, and against the other dc.
1endauts Tor $246S7}4, TO be enforced by
execution alone against tho general
purport of said debts. In other respects
the judgment : tiirmcd.
feeuan ". Jester Bros; from Ma
varro county. Opinion by Willie, c. i
Where the question in a suit is as To
whether or not the account OF appel
lam, kept by appHlees, was correct,
evidence that the books OF the county
treasurer were incorrect when kept by
}. are uadmissiDla to show
that the bonkS of j. Bros,
which were kept nv one NJ, might
also be Incorrect. Where the bill OF eX-
ceptiOns states that two witnesses were
oiftred To prove that in their several &c.
accounts With j. Bros, about the SANE
time p ttniif claimed an orrOc in his
account, deficit occurred, aud alter
long delay j. Bros. Admitted same to he
short, and since the progress of this
trial proDuSed to restore The deficit, aud
such hill Il es not set forth win sulli-
were expected to prove, or the nature or
amount ut the deficit such till does not
conform TO the rules, and the question
raj ed by IL cHn not bo revised. Al.
lirmel.
Gould vs.. City OF Paris; from Lamar
county, Opinion by Watts, , adoptrd
Suit 10y appellant, MS assignee, ON Con.
tam coupons on bonds given by appellee
for the purchase Ola ire engine. An
pellee pleaded Vine iuvalidlty ufthe bond,
he'auso no dtutcpuid ho created by IN,
couucll unless atthe time provision j,
made by taxation, 10 meet the iutere.
and create sinking mud. That Oh,
council hud no authority to levy spec
ial taN Co procure q tire engine, ctc
Held; this expense incurred was 0
part OF the current expense, OF the city
ilS .lpE Is, .nJl, and the bonds ara Vuit
and sGh,i uus debit ag ,iust the city ant
would ordinarily hc payable out Of th,
general uuiaui the city, and tho cour
below priCl iu holding the bonds void
Reversed end lpmHndrd
stephens vs., stephens; from Cam,
county. Opinion by StaytCu, i. Ia
suit 10y injunction to set aside u iudg
mout granting % divorce aud seeking 1,
enioin the husband from marrying
second time, tho record contains pupc
NllNNl NiitlfhiH W ii.' 4 AllNAl ~ lSNlffl II
accordance with Arts. 1901 ,23i, Roy
Stats, ON which f. tho ..guirrd returl
and affidavit showing service dul,
made on the wife, this citation, how
over, does not appear lu have been filed
by ,uV Jerk. Oh au issue of fact as /,
thrScrtico 10 appe rs that no persona
service was, in tact, hat, aud no othel
citation or return is shown than thi
one. Held: \ recital in the iudgmen
that il .pppared to the court 1.-THE de
PENDANT Otho wiie) had been duly serve,
with personal service as In such case,
by law is made and provided" will no
be held conclusive, aud no proper ser
vice being shown, tho Judgment shoult
be set ASIDE, and TIE court proceed u
inquire into the merits of tho case. Re
yersed and remanded.
Texas g. Pacific railway company vs
Hardin, from kaufman county; OPINION
by Suavton, !. An application for con
tinuanre, based on the absence OF cerlail
named witnesses, showing that the ap
plicant had made an effort to get thei
depositiuuS 10y making out interrogato
ries ami sending them tOa ellee's coun
sci who promptly crossed them, an,
made an agreement to waive commits
sions and consent that the deposition
nigh, be takon Ivy any officer authorize,
To take uepuSluunS, does not show the
use Of such means rs the law furnishe,
to procure testimony and the appli
cant cannot I've said To have used du,
diligence. such AN application il ad
dressed TO the discretion OF the tria
court aud a clear abuse OF that discre
ton must be shown tn authorize a RI
versl. bill OF exceptions taken /,
the action of the court In ovorruling ,
motion for continuance must inform
the appellate court Of the grounds upol
which tho courts acton was based
Where there ara no facts upon which I,
base an inquiry, u charge raising the In
quiry Is outstanding. Although the yer
uict Is large. (it being for Sl7,5UW We
where the injuries are serious ana Tn,
record evidences the fac
that the verdict Is the honest deliherat,
finding of the jury ON the facts beior,
them, this court will not reverse whei
IL Is clear that the verdict il reasonohl,
well sustained by the evidence. All