Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-28
THE HIGH COURTS.
syllabus OF Opinions Rendered ct the
Galveston Term, 1851.

UdiNfsuVd atAHHf a'H
srppruy corRr
-, -, - W cho,o-
l. % a. uIay W. ", NJ, Na9
from Ausellua ooenss ~ 20 30
bonu III TINS case ooiiSa.su 'i.e atps'-
lant 70 pay hpPeliee, ~ 'N s. go 100, tne
uecislou suuusu ~ ".is . -; ..ei.'y,i
the ahiUuht Va '"e p'eFetss 49,. ~
III .ie H'' sati ~ " - 80
Money. Iieiu, 'ias az ,,t-1-'i - "a
the are iialI'e, "iI t -, -, ~.
appe.ian, 20 Pay ~ A.uu ~ ~ 30,
una. we Ia" uoes uo, re-. ni1e sun
eo ..i' .t III SPA uSnu, o
'luiies wy e.'hu il.I " &c ps9 ~
oa,e vi au ,eise luugtnsh'i uouOie ,1 nv
value OF tue properly IN money Inc
aPpeal, iIoiii ttle lus''ve eOuIt al pup
~ uls,ii's s,,s,,, IL tns coD't peiO"'
M n NJ Witt c,
hacne e., MOTIFS We. a. p ,t.,
,Ioul NsseiheVon couuIy'-N mere
homestead rights exist tlie husband
has no power independent OF the
Wiz 70 aiislate IL, uulea9 Ia GOOD
ialth 10 settlement oil ien 10 secure
Daiauceol purchase money. w ME
the independent poaer OF Tue husband
90 ADJUST III goou ialt A. equities exist
ing pfiot 20 tue complete lnYeetltute
81 we homestead fight, Is recognized;
ltis power WnIen must De exercised
IA BoOu lai.h' aud II II AZ pesirs 10 nave
9eeh eAsici-eu III oad iaitni 10 90 in-
uiN1uuaa,y what ne eouid moi GO uu-
any ana iof tue purpose OF deplvlng
tne VIE o. het holntstead right, then,
~ ieAs1, 10 az persons with notice OF
tle nHsoands design, the husbands
act Is VOID. Inc position that the
simple lAct thsl homestead has not
zen pau lol ueptlves hot the home
s.s'il cna'dcueI ana protection a.
ssIiH-' any person olheT than one
noini.is a Aeh acquired pTloT TO the
t.nle tne pruPerty became The home.
vannot DC maintained. Its apparent
ma III shis case there was combina-
'.On !" HepiI'e Ine VIE oi her home
iNsah rights me demurrer should
hANe zen oNerfuled- Reversed and
ie "a, yIoh, Justice
s- +, ;. NSi9er v. Town o. La
piHuSe' ltoh fayelie county,-Ihis
sur Wv to"u ol LaGTange TO
I'o,,sn HS IIHut 70, ana 10 nave OBJ
s..uv''ons ieinofen from, a certain
49, Mhiyn apPellhht had Enclosed
anu cIaluieu' Inc defense was, not
eullly anu zen years limitation. The
street was fenced across in 1859, and
lnciose q so lar as II rau between GER
tam iot, belonging to appellants hus-
, 80, e,.Noa ~ community with the
I VIZ " az separate property. 1t was
inI ,ts, % sne husband, who Kept II
y, ~ t''as eonuisioh until bis death in
Iop', s,nec wnicu Time appellant has
% Aepl II; Mrs, carter testified that
ehe !iau ciaiheo tue street In her own
rlSht, ana had never recognized an
adverse Iieht since her husband =
ueath' lhat iler possession was secured
10y her as her husbands successor. Two
witnesses testified that in the spring of
ioe! the town authorities thought of
taxing steps TO open such streets us
Were iound, or to have the towns RICH.
recognized, and that then the appel
tAhls husband told them that he
Fenced the street In controversy 10y
permission oil the council upon agree
Ihent 10 open II when required. oh.
lection 10 TINS evidence was properly
oVeffuled, because the declaration o.
me husband gave character to hi
noluihg ana evidenced that his posses
SION was not of such adverse character
As 70 put In motion the statute OF lini
tation. III the holding oil
me husband was such as
ina,cited oy this evidence, it would es.
taoilsh between him and the town tn,
POSITION OIL landlord and ten ant. Hold.
,' Us Is .no su,viVor OF her husband, it
was incumbent On her TO have given
hottie VI setting up adverse claim, be-
ins piaGsicaliy Tenant at Will. There
was nothing SHOWN to disclose notice
liant VIII, held necessarily as tenant al
Will, and cannot be held TO have mn,
IN motion the statute of Limitation
Affirmed. Slayton, j. 'oA
Bridge Co. from us, q buriesoi
Where there is judgment aos by So anrsyi,
the facts set out in the petition are :,
be taken as proved capnor al :, "
created by an acs of the lap p1la,,on
concerning private cornora,;on 'I ~
comes the creature Ola snae;aj ia &c
rs such the provisions of f to- , nha. a,io
must be alleged and nrovoa a qua, 'el
not come within judicial tna suH aoe e,
the court. Whei, so ailamad w I, "
in Judgment bv dasas .u :. must
than the corporation waa 5000 oe ,aRe e