The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-22
LEGAL LIGHT.
Synopsis OF Decisions OF She Higher
Courts.
Sono Interesting and PerpieIlng
Questions Satisfactorily settled.
Iavrluabis Data for ,ho Lawyer.

iANA fNNNAH iNht w. w ftH' ~ .
tcIsnlE 1sTrt
Ftso vn NoLsno, lr1m Webb 60. oplu'
ion.a Eisyt9n, The ceusebe.rE tried
rithogt a I-ts and tue record coniN'ulog
nourtement o. I, conclusions of law and
hc found ny the udge. Hold. ahe as'
Srupcu,r OF c'tor, calling Ia question the
eorfcctno,s %. the courts endngs upon
taste with reference to which .ho evidence
we eou6cliur, osnno, 10 considered. >
n such c,s,a the court can only ioos to the
plesdings and evidence 10 see n the Judg-
weni Ia luslll ed thereby, ns the appellee
has W freLted Delay. S-4he evidences And
plendiuss warrant an s-Atmance OF the
Judgment, but O. OF with damages, Affirmed.
Mcdonnell W. International a Great
Northern railway, from Webb county.
Opinion hv Stavton, J. The court below
ere ( IN holding that paper which was evil
druce az par VS. right, could not be made
~ exhibit ~ hi petition. IL the pspe'
made IN EXHIBIT evioepcos contract which
constitutes tho plaintiff osrtc @. action IN
whole, or In part. thsr 10 vas proper %
nsle IT GA eYhib.t vithstsndlas II may
be neceeary aud proper TO uso It IN evidence
in the case lusucn case, however, a petit
ton should contain such averb,cnts ns may
be necelsarv IN the cause, the object and
parposs OF tho exhibit benz 10 Sid sud eN-
plain tho pleading. The eghicit IN TINS
cate icing IN sid ana e2plsnr .ory OF his
mat erirl nv0rnente in the petition, shovld
not have heeu detached. The power 10
estnbl sh iei rice csrrieL with Il this over Ia
do all zach acts ~ may bc necessary to Goa
.iruct perms nent ierrieG, which also carries
With Il the power to operate then either
through the nsniclpsi corporation, or
I'd rough other lawfully provided agencies,
Alder n thorough consideration OF The
peuuun and aysrnients, tbs couri no Us
that the cogrt below erred in sustaining the
demurrer 10 the petition for which the
ildyment Is. bever seI aEc rem aided,
Suprsme Lodro Z. X. A. l.. OF Ii. vs.
race e. from Favette county. Opinion
by West, /. 4 nder oil the facts dlscOted
the evidence does not satieiac Only sho"
thstgn binding 1nirHct OF inHurtnoe,
49, H. declared on vgg ever IN TACT ~ 400 ne
tween the appellant end decs aeea. There
wac no such m utu al AFRO ient and under
stsutiur OF The nlst,er between them IS i,
esss nUsi in order To Crestc contract AND
ri We II binding force OH both psrtiss g ndel
the rules ano regulations by whioa the re
lation- a tho decreased Ia the tppellsR
we're governed. Bliss on Life lnrCrsncP
7a;. EdFs v.. Duke. e /. J. Gu, lSC,
81 .
ierr.d from tho record before usth a. Grace
vgs isuorsnt 81 the isct that ms nGpe wa
not arr ong the charter NJ embers and tina;
his application for r. RELIEF certii cato WA
refused; ls $40. K. 81. There u not, how
over. sufficient Testimony 10 ehabie nB tC
say that that con,rsct itself WAS proved, a.
alleged. the contrary, Tbs evidence wal
/ iusuG Client 10 establish the ~ igsence OF The
ItCntrnct relied IN as toe iouuc dtlon OF ap'
/ re- er'r suit Reversed and rendered.
| Lewis Wise We. Nary O'Malley, from
! Cameron county. Opinion by Sta, ton, ]
/ sui by appellant brought iu the probate
court 10 recover draiL which hau been Irans
/ ferrsd nv appellee's tsststOr to sppelisut -
an instrument IN writing, 49, io.io"s'
bR1wRsyILLE, rFxsF. Aug 1882.
I'r vUIUe received, ! have tt'g day sold
Nd transferred THE. NY salary pHy) n'
Iuuued sta,cs Custom Rouse inspector loi
/ tne month Of huCUs', lirriecn HGidrec
aud Eigbty-two, amounting TO one huuu'uo
ana eight dollrfr and fily cents Uni. ed
| States GU rrencg, 60 Louis Wise, mr. his order
aud authorize shove named Il, WISE u re-
/ ocive ard receipt for the acme.
PETtFGE C'NALLEY, Inspector.
| IL IS contrRdod the probate court md
| iurisd!c.inu Of the sle under Article 2O3j,
| Revised Statutes Held. Any { aim when
tne Gnuellsnt bus under his contract wi h
! O'Mr ley 10 not oi such character rs TO au-
/ tb oriye tic probate court 10 eniorcei II under
Article 2J36; a. Texas, 10; q Texas 1885, :
Texas. 1881. Affirmed.
Snow n al VI. Tovlor, from Hamilton
county, Opinion by DelGny, !. adopted.
1.-The court die DOT err "a sustaining the
demurrer 10 the FpccGi answer o. defend
ant. Tbs question was settled on the
! former appeal; "a reras, +52). 2-hn exec
utive sale OF the land oi deceased debtor
NAV be treated "a absoiuteiv VOID by the
] E,,ns. ~ fN- NJ
who are charged ny the probate laws with
/ the settlement Of Inc estate, and by those
who hold titles made by them in tho per
| formanca OF their duties. But as TO the
heir of the deceased, sucn Gales are not
absolutely void, and by him they cannot
/ be collsteraly attacked; though no may
avoid them upon terms ny n direct pro
ceeding instituted within Il reasonable
time. 9. The ruling of the court In ALLOW
/ ing plaintiffs after the argument had closed
/ 70 release, by oral disclaimer, TO defend
ants ten acrCg Of the land upon which tht
mill was situated vas error, but not suhi
Gent for reversal 5. The defendants wer,
rot possessorsin good faith and therefore
not entitled TO psy Tor imp ovrment aud
we're therefore not harmed by above CIRQUE
Gus ruling. Affirmed
COURT or APrEALs.
! Ofty VS. the state, from webb county
Conviction for EN- heZz emelt OF goods be-
! longing 10 one Martin Shell. / The indicl'
ment is sufficient. The court did not Ell
! In excluding the petitiOn offered ia evi
dence. The account was IN evidence aud
proved all that the petition would have
shown and the petition was therefore i'm
material. 3. There is 10 bill OF exceptions
to the misconduct of the jury, or rnmarkso a
the district attorney ana they cannot b.
noticed. 4. The charge OF tbs court Is cor
rect and the evidence sufficient. Affirmed.
| Holder vs. Soper, from Calhoun county.
| Motion TO dismiss the appeal because the
assignment OF errors was not filed In time
| The appeal bond was filed IN April. 1855,
and the assignment OF errors was MED IN
November, 1888 Held under rule % OF the
district courts and rule 81 Of the supreme
court. toe appeal Is dismissed q, no cause
| Is shown why the assignmeut o errors was
not fled at the proper time. Appeal dis
missed.
Brown vs.. the state, from Victoria county.
Conviction for the Islander OF two females:
Held. The statement Of facts being hled
after the adjournment OF court, without an
order oil court allowing IL, IL cannot be con-
eidered. In their absence no error appears
Of record, and the judgment is affirmed.
| Cauova We. the state, from Webb county.
Conviction for keeping diserderly house.
| The information Is good. IL alleges the
com mission Of the offense before the filing
Of the inform alton. rhe evidence is sum
cient ard the courts charge correct. Al.
hrmed.
The best smoking tobacco 10 Little
| Jokern