The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-12
COURT WISDO NJ.
What Our Big Wigs = saying aad
- Doing
Al The Austin Term-Impor,ant DE
clsions Rendered.
big Crib Of Ground Justice.
hprnLMK onuRr.

siuerhtion paid, aud tor tho unpaid pur
chase money takel purchase money noie'
which recites thai a vendors lien 10 Ia rob,
retained on the land, and tho descript o
therein contained Is suiiicient 20 put an in
quire on notice, aud raid notes are RECORDED
along with the deed, and d.. subs, qusnill
encumbefs the land with q mortgage 10 y,
and sfisrward rtcoDyeys he land 10 A.. 1!
constellation Il the surrender OF the un'
paid purchase money notes. Held; SaiS
notes are such "wrltten contracts Ia rels
ton TO land" ~ may be recorded, al
such were sufficient TO put u subsequent
purchaser or encum bIauctr on notice, anc
the moftgag &c Of U. was rot avpi able SPANS
tho reoonveyarce TO A. by u. Reversed
Aad remnnded.
Block ct nj. VI. Weille or; from Milan
c3unty. Opinion by Wulif, @. when
Ia a suit OF tresspsss 10 ny title 90 a hons,
md lot levied on Dy plala,iii as the com
muuity property, bnt ciulmed ~ ikn home
stead, the defendant PLEADS not guilty, anC
ga a cross action seeks TO have u decree ron
dered remOving tho cloud from his Ii:l'
created by plaintiffs levy, the plaintiff al
mia lille in the husband, but taxa "A nOu
SUIT, ard def ndAut ihtf duces 30 pront 81
tito in the property as Homestead; ii IL.
The court properly fetute1 q decree Tcmoy'
Ing the cloud, rs de- ndEnt hgd no. proved
up his case. Tit t.ktBg q tAe non.ru!t DID
not witbdT0w plaintiffs answer 10 defend.
ante crose-bil and att, that defendant be.
csme &c plaintiff 90 establish hts homettead
right in the premises, falling IN which he
was not entitled n u decree as asked. At
flrmed.
slrvin W.. Whetlur 1t a. from Grayson
county Oniuion by S.ayton, !. Wher.
the evidence d~isoloseg that prior % May l,
1868, appellant aud her husband lived on
the and in controversy, but prior 10 hat
date they ceased to ave on the l,nd, and
removed TO n place IN the town of NJ which
was probably community pror"-tv: thht
while living In ~ On May !, 1868, 5tyln
sold the land 10 7, appel,eo's vendor; thai
Il pad for the laud, and The bond Tor IN
made by Slavin was MT executed
by appellant, b%eosuso then tho
ed to be any part q tho hon astssd ny
elavin; that the testimony c~0nflIot8 rs 10
the knowledge Of, and cOrGsut to the alr
by appellant, she stating that she did not.
aud that she alway 5 Intended 90 return 20
toe land TO live, aud hat sho anu her chi.
dren cultivated II after moving 10 "; thpt
APPELLANT aud her huabaad lived
Lcsping q tavern, after when
they bought anoth y tract of Land iu Sue
Same grant as that Ia oonlroversy, ard i'm
proves same. aud moved his family here
on, whare they we'd untl June
1882, when Slavin moved %
w, where thoy lived on @ raniei form
when this suit was br11gh', ~ which sine
SlaYin still claimed The place 20 9hiih he
hai moved from NJ Bat 'ppellsut c'simed
ih9 laud IN suit az her homestead: hat th3a
t~rpo.>is equally fa!uutls, vel! i'm rcved
AID cultivated nrd conveniently locs ed n-
the lard ia suit and tha appellee patti value
Tor tue lana without notes OF appellaut's
claim: The court correctly charged the jury
10 effect, that Il Slavic, acting IN good faith
towsTC sis wife, end with no intent 10 Dc.
irs nd her out OF her homselesd righ g.,
moved upon Hnctner place Of
his IN with q view OF Abandoning hia ola
homestead AMI scqairiug a new one. 10
find for defendant, sud these fo,s var.
ranted a Judgment tor the defendant. All.
armed.
Lott vs.. K.iGsr 81 al; from Coryell
county. Opinion by Stayton, J. Tho law
presumes D detd made by a father 70 his
children upon 8 consideration Of
natural love snd Gifsc ion, purporitng
to convey IN preecrti, without any Ieser.
walton or restriction, whatever, to be
m ndv noemeDt IL the absence VI irrud,
mistake, or focidsuf, Inc detd Is c6nclu.
pively presumed 90 use LANGUAGE. when IN.
EN- piguous, truly evidencing The srant0r's
intention De6ning these terms, ths court
holds thst where tie grantees IN "A deed are
minors OF suoh tender age as 10 be- isc5pa-
Bile OF praclioins sexual or constructive
fraud on the e~rahtlr, their iather; the
grantor knew The LEGAL effect OF The Ian
guage used In the deed b. be Ia convey the
land Ia present. 10 his children absolutely. |
He talked with the attorney who be- en-
ployfd to write tbn deed heiCr. he extcu. |
led il. and was confirmed IN the cOus.rno-
ton placed on u, he can not contest the
legal effect o. the instrument bv rely.
ing on his continuous possession OF
the land conveyed, and pstol " dence Of a
secret intention which h expected 90 prC-
duce shonld the grantees at any simo as-
sert rights nbderi IL such ~ tha clear i'm.
port CT the language used conferred ON
them, md the judgment wa9 properly rem
dered tor the grantees. Affirmed.
Mays W. Hous' nn; from Wilson county
Opiniun by West, ]. Tbs f.ct8 disclosed by
the record warranted The court IA holding
that appellant was not, AZ the time OF hi
OF administration on the estate OF his
mother. AZ he Gd 40. a~oLissl, coOs
sent to n, IL is certain rat he knew of,
and acqulesced in the appointment OF ap-
psllse ~ administraior He consented 20
IL by his silence, ana Without objection IN
any form, permitted appellee 10 sot as ud.
min'strator oil his mother'n estate tor near.
ly two years. Furthtrnore. appellant.
hen originally appoint.d temporary adj
miDistraslr OF mis- mothcr's estate, failed 10
give bond as required. He also failed 10
apply for letters for permanent edm'nistra-
ton, then and tor years atlerwaic. AT.
Texas & Poetic Railway company VS.
McAttee; from Graysou county. Opinion
by West, /. This is a suit against the ap-
pellant for damages caused to appellee ian
employe) while ondeavoring TO set 3 brake
on 9 Car on n sids-lrack srid damages
being caused by reason OF tbs said brake
Dsiug sufficiently strong TO hold the
car. judgment vac rendered Tor S5,G66.
&C 23. Tho court in ig main chargs fairly
submitted the principal Issues in The Gaze
TO the Jury, and furthermore gave tho fol
requested instructions; First, II
d~evolves upon the plaintiff in this case 10
prove thai the brake or. the car was so de-
Iective that by propsr uss If IL the work for
"Stc1nd-- hat the injury toplsintif was
,sused by tbs deiects IN the brake.
"rhird-rnsth he did notknow Of tho detect
n the brake, aud by proper care could no.
"Fourih.- That the defendant or ,s oncers
Knew, or in the exercise OF proper diligence,
,r sht TO have known OF tit. II the cvidenot
Ices rot satisfy you OF the truth OF these
propositions, you will Hud for the defend
"Finh-The evidence must tatisfv you !
hat the injury received, resulted from the a.,
i-fsct In the brake, and fyou Cannot rom ,
he evidence, dstsrninet that the said brake '
lid cause the injury, you will End for
he defendant.
"Sixth-If you believe from the evidence
hat after plaintiff discovered the detective
Of tho brake, he safely discon. :
himself f.om the car, and siterward
went Into 3 position OF danger
nd was thereby injured. be cannot re- 4,
uplees you believe a man OF ordinary y
would so have acted under Ike I
circumstances.
The Jury having found, under the main q
,harRe and the special instructions given, !
at I bs iniur,ez rec>ived sulte directly