Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-29

pvieinptory, and nothing short |
VI ..,,, showing OF compliance Herewith
VIII prevail against n suit for failure |
w make such report within the time |
prescribed. The appellant buying the
w. lap with full knowledge that the
.epot. would be due In a few DAYS. |
iuust oe held to have assumed the duty |
u making 1t. Affirmed.
Elnpger vs. Cole, from Burnet conn |
y. Action OF trespsss to try title to a |
piece OF property originally belonging
70 .ne appellant, but bought by appel |
~ iss uhuer execution. Neither the va |
,.oi.y OF the Judgment nor the regulari-
VI Tue sale Is questioned, but the |
c,aim OF the appellant Is asserted upon
iin1 GROUND That the property was and
MS homestead. There was proof
golng toshow that the appellant wned
anu occupied other property, and
wise improved this. The fact that ne
occasionally housed his stock on the
place invested him with no homestead
rights. Affirmed on report OF D.
ianey, commissioner.
Ayers vs. Enkle ct al. from Tarrant
county. Appellee first sued for certain
claims, alleging same to be her sepa-
rate property. She atterward amend.
ed her petition setting up the death of
her husband and her own Qualities
tions as surviving widow, claiming
recovery as community estate of her
sell and her deceased husband. Held.
that the amended petition set up a new
cause of action In that it changed the
capacity In which the plaintiff sued,
and was therefore subject to the de-
Tense of limitation. i3 Tex, 30
When the amended petition was filed
excluding from computation the time
which elapsed between the death of
the husband and appellee's qualifica-
ton as survivor in community, the
entire claim was barred. Reversed
and remanded. Watts, commissioner.
Adopted.
Nix & Storey VS.. Cardwell, from
Caldwell county. In suits for the
foreclosure of mortgages aud other
liens, all subsequent incumbrancers OF
whose claims notice has been given be-
fore the filing Of the suit, either by
| possession or registration, must he
made parties; otherwise they will not
be affected by such foreclosure. a
mortgage Is so far an incident of debt
in this state that il the debt be barred
by Limitation, the creditor will pre-
serve no remedy under the mortgage.
Unless, the debtor assert the statute of
limitation. either by plea or special ex-
ception, he will be deemed
to have waived his defense
under it. 1t is n rersonel
defense which the debter may assert
or waive ut option. Where, however,
he has parted with his interest in the
property which might be affected by
the defense of Limitation, either by
absolute conveyance or mortgage, the
person standing in the place of debtor
with respect to the particular property,
may avail himself of the defense TO
protect his rights. After the execution
| of subsequent mortgage, the mort
gagor cannot parcel the subsequent
barred debt itself so as to offset the
/ subsequent mortgagee's rights,
Watts, commissioner. Adopted.
5 Loeb Va. Blums, from Limestone
] county. To state the case hypothetic-
) ally: A levied II writ of attachment
upon the goods of b, whereupon b
filed affidavit and bond to try the
> right of property; subsequently {
seized and sold the goods under an ex
ecution against b, and appropriated
$ the proceeds. In an action for dam
! ages there for against c, b alleged thes,
' facts against g. Held, that the courl
/ properly sustained special exceptions
t to that part of the petition whether o.
4 not the goods were in custodia legis
: In its charge, the court instructed, IL
6 effect, that since the act OF Novembe
Z 3. 1879, an insolvent debtor canno
/ make valid transfer Of property to on
Y creditor in liquidation of debt to tn
q exclusion of other creditors, though |
n be done in good faith. Held, error
4 the converse being the true rule o
i. law. Reversed and remanded. De
q laney, commissioner. Adopted.
/ Myers ct al. VS.. Heath, from Tarran
i, county. In a suit which has for Its objec
Q an accounting among partners OF dis
e solved firm, each of the copartners i
4 individually liable to the others 10
h whatever amount is found TO be owint
by him, unless il has otherwise beer
/ agreed among them. Where 1t l
v found that both NJ. and B. were in
e debted to the firm, and there was n
finding of the respective amounts ow
q ing by each, and no joint liability upo
. the part of M. and b. is alleged,
q Judgment decreeing Joint liability
Is erroneous. The proof showed that tn
]. money invested in the partnership wa
= the proceeds of property inherited b
v the wife from her grand-parents,w Will
2 she lived in another stale, but ther
4 was neither allegation nor proof as I
). the law upon such subject in such STATE
Under such circumstances the pre-
% sumption obtains that the same rule
"a of law prevail in that state as in TIM
, and the rights of the parties must b
a determined by the laws of this state
o Reversed ana remanded. WAITS, con
Z missioner. Adopted.
N Montgomery vs. Etheridge, ITO.
"a Williamson county. The motlon
"a this case is to affirm the judgmen
ia below upon certificate. Upon examir
i. ing the Transcript it Is found to cor
Z. tain the nect s.ary caption, final JUDI
- ment. motion for new trial, notice
. appeal, appeal bond, hill Of costs an
=, certificate. all complete and correct
~ required by law. The motion must pr
"a vail, and accordingly the Judgment
40 affirmed on certificate without refe
ar ence to the merits. ~, .o.
"a Todd ct al. vs. Masterson ct al, froi
~ Burnett county. The substance OF IN
~ exhaustive and elaborate opinion
y this case Is that land located by Wit,
~ of certificate issued to heirs OF "
= dier of the republic who fell at u
~ Alamo. issued usder the act OF Decor
us her 2l, 1887, vested directly IN u
~. heirs Immediately, and was not pr
ri ceeds in the hands OF All administrato
no no subject to the grantees debts. Aiiirme