The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-30

tho mother OF Boozsr for damages Tor his /
killing ana for the decision OF this case on |
points therein. Thst case Is decisive (seo |
oupra) A failure 20 comply with the stat |
ute relative 10 the ringing ola bell or blow:
ing OF a whistle IL Begligenos per Sc, and |
the court Ahonld 80 Instruct the Jury. q, |
Texas Law Review, 1917. The court, how.
ever. hold; That whom n hwiich-englne 10 |
operated In yard, without an intention OF
crossing n street, q road N not required 10
ring It's bell, etc. Reversed and remanded. |
Bumpass Ut ~. 70. Spencer ct A.; from
DAllss county. Opinion by Waite, ]. suit
by appellees on note, also for 1851, the
estimated value OF osrtain lands In i.
which appellants Jailed to convey eppelees
according TO their agreement, in cousidera-
ton for "A lot In ID. which they conveyed
TO appellants, and that the amount claimed
WAS q vendors lion on n lot and for foreco'
are. Apostles obtained n writ Of eequcslta.
ton. When the suit was tor foreclosure Oh
mortgage and the enforcement OF lien,
the statute then In force authorized tho writ
OF representation (Pds. v~s. 2, Art. 7i3l).
Where the court later refused the intoryen'
ton OF party who did not appeal, and APP
pellants are not In position TO urge sup
posed errors the point will r no. DO no no
10 Texas, 1871. Parol evidence IS
admissible 10 show the real consid'
Grafton upon which deed Is founded, OF
made, Notwithstanding another or different
consideration IL therein r9cited. There nro
mono OF the assignments OF error well taken,
but rs there Is 40 evidence that would au.
ihorlzs M individual Judgment against Mrs.
BumpEss, hence, In this report the judg-
ment is rehrmed. (2l Texas, 200). Refined.
Missouri Il Texas Central railroad; from
Dallas county. Opinion by DELAY, !.
Adopted. "Ordlngrily when q passenger
buys his ticket and takes his sea. In the cars
preparatory TO his journey, there Is an APP
Piled agreement on the pait OF the railroad
com pany 10 carry him in safety 10 his Jour.
ney's end. Tho consideration OF the agree.
ment Is tho price which he has paid for hle
ticket, and the company becomes bound,
or undertekes, TO use such care as shall
secure the safety OF the passenger.
| III under puch circumstances the passenger
Is injured without fault on his part phma
'lcie case arises at once against the com.
pary, which must take the burden ofshow.
log that the injury resulted from some
cause which reasonable care on its part
could no. control Cooley on Torts, PIP
GG2-60 But We take the verdict in this case
as establishing the fact that the plaintiff
was not entitled to all the rights OF pas
senger properly 80 called. She was on the
cars with the intention to obteing the ride
without paying the fare. She was fraud
upon the company. She was not therefore
ia position to demand OF the company s
servants the same watchful care for her
safety which they are bound TO give regu-
Ter passengers, The most that she could
claim would be that they should abstain
irom intentional injury, or they shall not
be guilty of that gross negligence which
the law regards as equally repreheneible.
| Affirmed.
Strong VS.. Curtis et al; from Clay county
| Opinion by Watts, J.. Adopted. Whsro O
mistake occurs In reducing al ogreemen.
TO writing by which the intention Of the
parties thereto Is not truly expressed and
writing may be corrected by proper re.
sort 10 q court OF equity SO as 10 make the
agreement speak the true intantion OF tho
parties. The mistake must be clearly
established. end Generally II must be mu.
tusl rs TO the parties. Parol evidence 10
admissible 10 show the mistake, and where
in the writing fails TO tIgly express the
agreement OF the parties. Partnership
books are admissible in suits by
one partner against the other,
but IL must appear that the partner sued,
had access to the books, or in some way
authorized tho entries charged him TO be
made. and that the books were fairly kept.
The court erred in charging the iufy as to
the weight OF thia testimony. Affirmed.
II, A. Brown & Co. VS.. Chancellor & Co.;
from Ellis county. Opinion by Stayion ].
Under the law merchant a note payable on
demand 10 not entitled 10 days OF grace.
Suit may be brought on such paper, add
go tbs law merchant, without any demand
for payment being fret made. On such
paper suits have been maintained
which we're instituted on the
same day the paper was executed. Con-
STRUNG the various laws spperteiuing 10
the subject the court holds that IL was not
intended by the act Of January IL, 1862 TO
give grace TO paper other than such rs was
entitled thereto by the law merchant, aud
that this suit brought On the day on which
the suit was instituted. was not brought
before maturity of the paper eued on. Re.
versed and remanded
Western Union Telegraph Company vs. |
Hipsop: from Parker county. Opinion by |
Watts, "A dopted. A motion to SUPPRESS |
dispositions OF q witness not being presented |
until after announcement Of ready.by the |
parties, and several witnesses had been ex. |
smined, the objections thereto are consid. |
cred waived. 1t 10 now settled that |
telegraph companies may, by express |
contract, or by paper rules and regulations |
contained in printed Doiices, or otherwise, |
which are brought TO the knowledge ofits pa. |
irons under such circumstances as 10 create !
an implied contract, limit their liability |
for delay and errors In transmitting and |
delivering messages, unless such delays er |
errors be caused Ly the misconduct, fraud |
or want OF due care on the part of the COM |
paDy, its servants or agents, and that such |
condNct are not against public policy. |
When, however, the company relies upon |
such contract, the burden is upon il TO es- |
tablish the same by competent evidence. |
The evidence N this case fails TO establish !
such r contract. Affirmed.