The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-30
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

Ffelberg, Klein & Co. w. Levy; from
Clay county. Opinion by Willie, @. j. The
record contains no statement OF facts, and
therefore q charge not giaringiy erroneous
under any state OF facts that could arise
under the pleadings will not be revised.
The present charge would be entirely APP
ptopriate under statement OF facts eomis-
aibls 10 proof under the issues in the case
made by the parties. Where the point is
not served by bill OF exceptions or assigned
or error, because the record does not show
sflirmatively that the jury was sworn, is
not good ground for reversal. Affirmed.
Houston IL Texas Central railway vs.. Boo
ger; from Grayson county. Conclusion OF
opting SO much of the opin-
ion as holds that 1t is not the duty
o. Il railroad company to use as much care
in running switch-engine within town
or city as In runninga locomotive at other
poiDta upon their line ofroad, we think the
evidence shows that the appellant was not
guilty OF gross negligence In this case, and
that the appellee contributed by his own
negligence TO the injury received, and that,
under the evidence, the verdict should have
been FOR the appellant" Reversed and re-
manded.
Peyton ct al. We. leonard; from Dallas
county. Opinion by Delany, ]. Adopted.
The court below correctly found that the
note sued on was given in part payment OF
the purchase money Of the lands. Appel
lsnts in their testimony denied that this
note formed any part OF the purchase
but fall to give IN Ineligible &C.
count OF the consideration for which IL WAS
given. On the other hand, tae iced con.
veying the land against which appellee
eseks TO enforce the vendors lien, includes
this note as part OF the consideration.
Hughes explains the execution Of the note
thus: Peyton and wife gave him IN part
for the property the furniture Of
the San Jacinto hotel. There was lien
on this furniture, however, for 5000, and
appellants gave the note to COM
iufniture, caused by the lien. Affirmed.
Morrill, vs.. Stell ct al; from Lamar coun.
~. Opinion by Walker, p. J. Adopted.
The determination OF this case devolves
upon the one question a. to whether or
not appellant accepted the proposition OF
5tell, for without an acceptance BY appel
liant there could be no binding contract by
which Stell could be held. The court be-
low determined the question adversely 70
appellant, and this court after carefully re-
the evidence holds Il sufficient 70
support the finding. Affirmed.
Fort Worth q Denver City railway We. |
Dabuey ct. al. from Wise county. Opinion |
~ Watts. J. Adopted. Where the record
Ices not disclose any cotton taken BY the
,onsidersd waived, and unless the objection
. fundapental, the same will not be con-
Iidered. When the objection 20 the intro
iuction Of evidence Is general and no
yrounds are assigned, II such evidence
would tend to prove any feet In issue, it
,ught 70 be admitted. The evidences was
conflicting. To the purposes OF this appeal
he verdict dsteFmines that the road was
lot constructed on the land condemned for
hat purpose, hence the only remaining
usue IL AZ 10 the measure Of damages. A
areful review Of the evidence shows the
10 Be supported thereby and the
Judgment 10 affirmed.
Houston 4 Texss Central railway W.
,aakey: from 0faypon county. Opinion
= Wsttsi. Adopted. This e . suit pyi