The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-01
which complainant lost leg and re-


boy till after he was injured. The
company set up in defense that the
evidence failed to show such gross
negligence as made them liable, but
on the other hand did show such con-
tIibutory negligence on the part of
the boy as barred recovery for dam
ages. Judge Watts concludes that
the evidence as presented did not dis
close such gross negligence on the
part OF the company as would author
ize recovery of damages; and that a
boy of the intelligence of the COM
plainant failing to use his sense to
avoid injury must DC considered as
having contribu9ed directly to it and
hence cannot recover.
II. A. Brown Il Co. VS.. Tom Chan
| cellor, ct. al. from Ellis county. Re
versed and remanded.. j. w. Stayton
j. There is nothing in the facts of this
case, says Justice Stay ton to vary GER
tain general rules governing in mat
tiers of partnership. The record does
not present facts sufficient to enable
this court properly to dispose of the
| writs of garnishment, and for errors
indicated the Judgment of the court be
low is reversed and the cause remain
ded that it may be proceeded with il
accordance with the opinion of thi:
| court.
Amos Morrill, VS.. w. w. Stell, ad
\ misistrator, ct al, from Lamar county
| Opinion of commissioners of appeal:
| (by Judge Walker) adopted and judg
ment affirmed. This was a suit fol
| 81, 500 for professional service, on 6
| quantum meruit, brought by Morrill,
when practicing attorney at austin
Judgment was in Morrilrs favor.
| Fort Worth and Denver City Rail
road Company VS.. NJ. ID. and j. Ii
Dabney, from Wise county. Opinion
of commissioners of appeals Thy Judg,
Watts) adopted and judgment affirmed
]. This is claim for damages to crops
| fencing, trees, etc, caused by the com
pany running their track across tht
| Dabneys' land. The damages are es
| timat,d at $500 for destruction o
trees, for crops and fencing $5O(
and for wilful and malicious cursinE
and villifying of Danbey $2,0OO-in all
$1,000. Judgment allowed only 500
| fer complainant, and condemnation O.
| right of way for the road.
| Western Union telegraph company
VS.. WIN. HitSon, from Parker county
Report of commissions of appeals ex
amined and their opinion (by judge
| Watts) adopted upon the point dis
cussed in it and relied on in tn,
assignment of errors and the judg
ment affirmed. This was suit tt
recover $500 damage, for error in /;
message. Judgment for $3.50 and
costs.
| T. e. Peyton, ct. al, VS.. j. l.. Leon
ard, receiver, ETC., from Dallas county
Opinion of commissioners Of appeals
(by Judge Delaney adopted, ant
judgment affirmed. Suit on note, pre-
senting no points of special interest.
II. Il. Bumpas ct al. VS.. M. j. Spen
Gel ct al, from Dallas county. Opin
ion oil commissioners of appeals CD,
Judge Watts) adopted and the judg
ment reformed in accordance will
their recommendation None OF tn
assignments of error, says Judg
1 Whtts, are well taken. However, h.
adds there is an error apparent of re
cord which will require that tn
Judgment be reformed. There is n,
evidence that would authorize an ad
ditional judgment against Mrs
Bumpas. Hence, applying the rul
announced in Lynch VS.. EllleS, e
Texas, 230D we conclude that in thi
respect the judgmentlought to be re
formed.
G. Bomberger ct al. VS.. d. II. Nor
row, from FanniD county; judgmen
affirmed by A. FL. Willie. chief justice
The only question in the case:arise
upon a deed of G. Bomberger to hi
co-defendants which was put in evi
dence to sustain the defense of limita
ton under the five years statut
pleaded by the appellees in bar o
plaintiffs action. The question is
"Can remainder man prescribe unde
our five years statutes of limitation
by reason Of the possession of tn
tenant of the particular estate, VIII,
does not himself claim under a re
corded deed?" Held: "There was n,
error in refusing to admit the testi
mony offered by appellants. To adj
NIT proof of q secret understandin,
between the parties to the deed, or t,
allow mistake in its terms, known f
them alone, to be corrected, when i
would convert it into an instrumen
that would have awaited these partie
under the statute of limitations a
against the plaintiff, he having N
knowledge but that it evidenced thei
true intentions upon its face, Woult
be to do away with the main require
ment by which every statute protect
the true owner from losing his lant
by the fraudulent possession of
mere intruder"
The deed in this case purported Il
be a conveyance from G. Bomberge
to the appellees, one of whom was hi!
wife, and the others his children, ht
reserving to himself the use anC
fruits of the property during his life
time. 1t was deed of gift.
Sarah E. Handley vs.. Houston
Texas Central Railway company, from
Dallas county. Opinion of commits
sioners of appeals (by Judge Delaney
adopted and judgment affirmed. Thi;
was suit for $1,000 damages on &C
count of injuries received while pas
senger on the cars, caused by defect
in defendants road bed. The com
pany set up that one Hall who, at the
time of the accident, was fraudulentlJ
using pass issued to Charles DamoI
and wife, confederated with plaintiff
Handley, to defraud the company
that Hale, with her consent, repre-
scented themselves to be Damon and
wife. Plaintiff denies any fraud
There was a verdict for defendant
and plaintiff presents her suit by
writ of error.
III. 81 L. G. railroad VS.. M. J. Lea
key, from Grayson county. Opinion
of commissioners of appeals (by
Judge Watts) adopted and Judgment
reversed and cause remanded. The
facts in this case arc those presented
in the Boozer case auoye noticed the
boy Boozer who was the party injured
on the track at Denison November z
1879, being John Henry Boozer, son
| of NJ. j. Leakey complainant in this
case who claims $40, 700 damages re-
sulting to her in consequence of her
sons injuries, and got Judgment and
verdict for S27l6.
Frieberg, Klein Il Co. VS.. b. G..
Lowe; from Clay county. Affirmed.
James Strong VS.. w. II. Curtis ct al. !;
from Clay county. Opinion of COM
missioners of appeals by Judge Watts)
adopted, and Judgment reversed and
cause remanded. This is a case of
partnership.
G. ID. Wards heirs VS.. Emily viii
liams, from Lamar county. Affirme
on certificate.
Jas. 1. Reeks, ct. al, VS.. Getzendener
s. Ferris, from Dallas county. Affirm
ed on certificate.
Thos. Ross. ct. al, VS.. j. G. Jones,
ct. al, from Fannin county. Affirmed
on certificate.
Crane, ct. al, from Lamar county.
Na.-ff mol 30 -