Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-18
THE HIGH COURTS.
Syllabus of Opinions Rendered at the
Galveston Term, 1884.
.I..-I L.. L.


SUPREME COURT.
Seeligman n Co. vs. Brown, from
Galveston county.-This was TN at
tachment suit instituted by appellants
against Hobby, the same being supple
mented by garnishment against the
Galveston City railroad company. The
answer of the garnishee alleged that
ce tain shares in the company were
credited to Hobby, but that the appel
lee had entered, and was sustaining IA
claim To them. Brown interposed by
intervention claiming that Hobby had
previously transferred to him, as col
lateral security before the suing out of
the garnishment. The question affects
the rights to the shares. Held, that
the bylaws of a corporation of such
character as the Galveston Cityrailroad
affects more directly the convenience
OF stockholders in such corporation,
than 1t does the interest of the pur-
chaser or assignee of the stock; that in
this case the purchase Is shown by the
testimony to have been made in good
faith, and prior to the levy sued on, or
to the writ of punishment; wherefore
n complete title passes 10 the transfer
rec. Affirmed. West, j.
Wiley & Porter VS.. Rogers, from Mi
lam county.-An attachment was sued
out upon flock of sheep belonging to
appellants in this case, and they insti-
tuted this suit for damages for the
wrongful levy of the same. The
judgment rendered was for the value
of the same with damages to the
amount of eight per cent. interest
thereon. The appellant relies upon
the provisions of article GAGS OF the re-
vised statutes, to hold that, rs the
property had been in the possession of
the attachment debtor for more than
three years next preceding the levy,
the title of the owner cannot now be
maintained unless il is evidenced by
transfer in writing acknowledged and
recorded. The owner, who Is the appel
see in this appeal, offered Us evidence to
lustain his title, bill of sale to the
property, and assignment rolls against
him as the owner of the property. The |
objection was that these instruments
could not identity the property, unless
sustained by parol testimony, and that
parol testimony was inadmlssable for
that purpose. Held, that the objec-
ton Is futile. Affirmed on the report |
of Commissioner Delaney. Willie, Q.
j.
Scout VS.. ptDll ,lIOHl AIhliSc COUNTY
In a'suit for divorce it Is founded upon |
the excuses OF the defendant, it is essen
tial that the allegations in the petition |
shall be such as TO charge that they |
did, or were calculated to inflict seri-
Gus bodily harm. An exception TO
this rule however, which obtains in
this state, is TO allow the wife decree,
for words spoken by the husband
which impeach the character OF the
wife. But mere words, unaccompanied
by acts of violence upon an assign
ment of excessive cruel treatment are
not sufficient to sustain decree for
divorce. Words OF cruelty or abuse
when used by the husband towards
the wife may authorize an action for
divorce, whereas the same, employed
by the wife towards the husband
would not. A criterion is reported In
IL Texas, 52s. The demurrer, attack
ing the eufiiciency Of the allegations
in the petition to sustain divorce
should have been sustained. Reversed
and remanded. Willie, &. j.
Bonact ct al, VS.. Waag, from Calves
ton county-When exception Is taken
to the refusal Of the court to permit
witness To answer question pro-
the bill should set forth the
answer expected to be elicited-other-
wise the assignment cannot be enter
tanned. Even though In somerespects
If, taken as whole, the
charge is sufficient TO present the law
governing the case, IL will not be re-
yised. Affirmed. West, j.