The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-12-12
THE HIGHER COURTS.


j. d. Hartman VS.. Mary Butler, from
RRockwall county; opinion by West, j,
The district court erred in sustaining
the motion to dismiss the appeal. The
record before ii from the Justice court
sufficiently, for all practical purposes,
disclosed the disqualification of the
county Judge. The transcript from the
inferior court also showed that as a mat
ter OF fact an appeal had been taken
from the Judgement there
entered, and sufficiently under
the circumstances disclosed showed
mat notice Of appeal was in fact given
at this time. The entry ofthe announced
purpose OF the defendant TO appeal.
made at this time by the justice OF the
peace on his docket, was in substance
notice Of appeal. The variance be-
tween hejudgment entered and the one
set forth in tho appeal bond is slight
and immaterial. The bond sufficiently
Tor all practical purposes described the
Judgment appealed from and was in
terms good bond, and secured the
rights OF appellee. (Knight VIZ. Old n
kagland, 3 Texas Law Review, 7; Chris
tan vs.. Crawford, 90 Texas, As; Davis
vs.. Pinckney, % Texas, $40; CLAY VS..
clay, Texas, $50; Perry VS.. Mckenzie,
IeXas, 1919, Under the facts disclosed
Dy the record before us it appears that
the district court had rightfully acquired
jurisdiction of the suit, and 1T was error
IN that court to sustain the motion TO
dismiss. Sayles' Treatise Il, 1882. M.
565, ct Sep. reversed and ramanded,
Balm VS.. Balm; from Travis county.
Opinion by Watts, j, Adopted. Suit for
divorce brought by appellee, the wife,
against appellant, her husband, and for
division and partition of their property,
me ground for divorce was, among
other things, that appellant had called
appellee prostitute, The evidence
shows that appellant i'm conversation
with his daughter, called appelleo a
prostitute. rhe daughter also testified
that q few days before that conversation
she heard appellant in conversation
with appellee call the latter chad
names" The record is silont as to the
former life of the parties, and in such
case 1t viii DO presumed that it had been
reasonably quiet, moderate and respect-
ful TO each other. The court, therefore.
did not err under the Attending circum.
stances IN granting the divorce on tho
grounds set forth. Affirmed.
Windheim ct al. vs.. Patty q Matthews,
from callahan county. Opinion by De-
fancy, j., adopted. BY an agreement of
council the only question in this case is
well stated to be, was the deed of assign
nlehJ suthclent to pass all
the property of the makers, Partnership
rs wei as individual, to the assignee,
ahd were the makers insolvent? If
answered in tue Affirmative, the motives
OF tho makers, whether fair or fraudu-
lent, are matters of little Importance.
(Blum vs.. Wellborne, 50 Texas, l51 Tho
deed sets out that the makers are din
aeDted To divers persons, in considera-
Die sums OF money, which they are Mt
present unable to pay in full, and thew
are DESTROYS TO convey all their property
lot the beneht OF their creditOrsn They
sheh convey "all their lands, teuements,
ANNOUNCEMENTS, goods, chattels, property
anu shares in action of every manner.
nature and description whersorver the
same may be, except such propertv as
may be by tho constitution and laws on
the state, exempt from forced sale.n
= pon lls Taco tho dGoi cuntemplates
three parties or sets of parties. tho
makers, the assignee, and "tha several
| persons, creditors of tho parties of
the first part the mako
who have executed or shall hereafter
execute Or accedo to these pre.euty ("
me closing deed is; "Aud the partips
OF tue third part (tda crcditOrs) bv their
SIGNATURE hereto, express their con ont
| 70 this arrangement and accept the pro-
! vielouSin Tor them made hcrein,r T6ere
sre no signatures TO the deed rxrcpt
those OF tho makers and the assignee.
nor ~ thoro I'm the record any evidence
! t,ht the creditors or any of them had
signlh"i In any way their acceptance ot
tho terms OF the deed. Held: Vho decd
| was sull'i0nt To pass to tho agsirnee Mi
sh9 property. whether partnership or
individual, which belonged to the maxi.
| 9ts' ana was not void, (6l Texas. 1l6
nd blS)' Although party owned no
property ~ all, ofony kind; was not "A
5 Par,''eI IN Una business; that he was In
uept' and was made u party TO the deeJ
OF assignment, for tho fraudulent mr..
| pose ot procuring release or payment
OF ms individual debts with funds which
should have gone to thu payment of the
uoo,s OF tne other assignor II would
not avoid the assignment. Affirmed,
Plumoa, tipps and fanny Eo,t,,,..