The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-21

Raeland ct al. W. Wisr OK ct oil; from
Tarraut county. Opipion by Willie O
IT. is case deYulyes upon the validity ~ tht
deed purpor,ing TO convey the land In sun.
Hell: First, II II was regular deed Of q
veyance, duly and legally executed ny th'
named grantee, aud acknowledged pT pe'lN
by Mrs. Wi5rock pr.yily and apart ir ~
bpr husba. d, the Judgment 10 erronpuua
second, il Mrf. X had COOS reason
20 suppose from all the crcumstaucUs OF
the transaction That the instrument she
was executing was q NOR gage, or u
through fraud, she was induced to be,ieSr
that the instrument did not convey M
homestead, and these or any OF these iscis
wafc known . - e. the time. or hefOr,, h'
pad the consIderlt ton, the feed dues no.
convey the homestead. Third icnorau,r
ss DO tho character OF the instrument, pr
the fraud bringing about It's tx cuinu
must concur with notice, either actual or
c0nst-uo'ive on the grantees par
10 avoid the deed, int be properly GER dec
to by tbo officer taking he separst- a'-
acknowledgement. (Coie ". Bammel, Tx.
Law Review ll6 Davis VS. KENNEDY, %
rexas, 576) Tire charge OF the court Belize
10 this effect: The verdict must stHud o
suppoIte oy sufficient evidences. F'urn
tue evidence is wholly irrecOnci!sble, there
tore 10 10 not our province 10 set aside t.
verdict. The exceptions 10 this rul' arr
where the verdict 10 without sufficient evi
deace % support II, or 80 decidedly agslnsi
the urep0nderence OF proof az TO show ha
The jury did not gl7e the cause due consif-
Grafton IL matters not that in any pfr-
ticular We would I'D directly contrary T.
the Jury upon the facts before rs IN the
record. Filth, We cannot say that the yer
dict Is not supportet by the evidence, or
chat II In so decidedly against the
weight of testimony as 10 war
rant us in setting 1t aside
sixth, The evidence showed circumstances
OF previous iebtedndne:s, and u negota
ton for loan, the old ard new debt TO b.
secured by mortgage, which are important
facts in determining that an instrument suo
seQueuntly executed was mortgage
glowing vs. Milliken, . Texas Lsw Review,
~ Tho petition OF interyen ION
can be dismissed % we'll on motion TO strike
Gus ss by demurrer. Iftne petition showed
no cause OF action entitling the intervencr
TO r5 cover or any suit or n caule deiectlvely
stated, demurrer is inappropriate plsad
Ing But the cause oil action being good Oh
its face, but not authorizing an intervention
/ in this suit, q motion to strike oct was
proper and should prevail. The facts Sc
out DID not authorize tho Intervention.
Affirmed.
Snyder, et oil. We, Ivers ct. al from Mon
tague county. Opinion By West j. the
evidence taken ab whole was sufficient 10
]
! Nimrod Suyder, had Ia his lifetime, execu.
Ted aud delivered 10 his daughter, THY
! ver9, a deed for the land In suit. but for
some cause failed TO have IL recorded. The
| loss or destruction OF III, deed was sufilc
GENTLY proved 10 permit the introduction
VI secondary evidence ss to its existence,
loss and contents. Tit court erred IN or
cering execution for costs against the I'D
rlinls;rator. In this respect the judgment
| 10 n orrccted end alfi I'm ID.
Johnson ct al VS.. Peterson from Lanai
county Opinion by White, C. The nc
ord contains no assignment az error, MOI
any error which can be noticed in their ab
sence. Plaintiff IN error files M bret De-
| iendsnt In error submits the cause iol
sf,irmsnce under Rule 10 sup. O.
| The county court when the suit wa. mend
| Ing when tho amendment OF July % 1877
VI fled had jurisdiction OF the amount 10
| c controversy. rhe record does not show
any action by the district C, urt, whom tbs
cause was remandtd, upon inc demurre,
setting up the statute Of lin tstions, ard
/ the demurrer 10 considered waved, Tue
amendment setting up new aud addition
a cause OF action was hled before the clam
was barred. The second amend
msnt was a mere replender oil plain
| tltf1s previous petitions sctting up more
/ inly the same courses OF action. Held
| Such an amendment introduces no new
! ChUee OF oCllnn atH'Uft WHICH hut cthNuA'
rms 10 date Of ding, q, rexos, GLE; Id Il
G5o a. Texas, l50). There was no erro
Overriding the demurrer. AFFIRMED.
Heirs OF Edwards vs. Mount, admins
traitor; from Denton county. Opinion b.
! West / Under previous decisions Of thi
court in cases practically involving tn,
same matter 80 10 here presented 10 tn
jurisdiction Of the probate court TO try tn
issues raised between the parties concern
inc tho ownership of the policy OF insursnc
in question, 10 must be held that the pro
cat. court had no srch tower. (5imm
W Bonuer SO T.xss, $50. Texas Law Review
Homcr's Appeal, IS onn III: II Ca, sc,
EGG. Ec. RsI. i0) The IN isment Is ~
firmed without prsjudice to appellants
rights 10 institute proper proceedings u
The proper tribunal 10 determine theil
rights 10 the matter in controversy. "A
irmei.
Giddinrs Ct 81. vs.. Williams; from Ell
county. Opinion ry Stayton, J.. Tt
evidences ii,es the southwest boundary I
the Chambers grant ~ the noTtheast bout
cary line. 81 the Dsvs sufyel
and with reasonable certainty chow
the true southwest boundary Of th
chambers erxnLacd thee claiming uni'
, u eau on,y so beyond y showing title b
limitation. Tue statute OF three years CAT
'rot avail. Tney cannot claim i've yea
because the deeds are not recorded, ~
they 10 not show paSmstt OF taxes. A
. frmsd.
couE1 OF afrEzLs.
short ct q. vs. ihe sis1e; rom Collin c