The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-25
THE HIGHER COURTS.
The Law ~ E,iderce and The iiabl.
Ivy Ut torporaiions.
Seals are Mt R',enihl "A WHO'S
p,r0ga,irc.
Light On O,hrr legal noraTses
turREn COURT.

Aroa and wife W. web ,nueii, iTomWebt
county. Opinion by stayton, ! Aotion
brought bi appelisnis 20 recover leo acres
OF land. the tiil' TO which they 'et out In
their petition. Appellee plead not guilty
aud died %, bin setting up titls - the
land. Tn record contains no st1iement a
facts and hus one bll 10 exceptions, whlch
relates To the adnii' sloa uisfioeno'. drld;
The character ~ tnr evidences rs suoi 'hAl
the error uunpi suNou ui cauuoi DEE I"tc'd'
Affirmed.
T,1ss q National Raliwsy md MeI.o,n
Nationol Cone ruclnH CamEaur ~. liJ-
b,ck mad wiig, irum W'pn ouuutY, Osih'
ion Nv sin,tou Su,J by HpprlIeeS Tor
damages 10 tnstr uirur child, alleged 90
hayt basn rann'it'i By appellate oy
leaving lumber piIcd upon i've n'ert "a a
Ca.olns. MANNER, me cfrlfI noticed "a hN
brief being al that gil bo noticed, The
opinion !. Coz tifcG 90 tpcm. They relate
TO tho issuilici'nct OF tho evidalcr, The
evidences wholly illt 20 Cunntut the mp
pellgnis with tha commission of the acts
cOmulaiuod O.. The appilin'- sly 'uty
refused 90 tign Tho rtNi"msnl bsosuso thr
was umittes, pld haiti wa 10 proc. Ite
Judgment sss tl7D unAu'horssl ~ giving
The mothrrN portion ~ she damages, ~
thcf. wa ra prbuf -llitrd that sue Wg,
the mother uf the manor child. Reverted
ami fomaudas. a.,
Th.sAd.il 70 u. W Batter, nom. Nc.
Lehman con lty' Opipiot ny H.lt''
Adoptsd sues ], hare hseu hNonshtd
The roizht a. al norip - 10 The eifsf; ths'
any ope aciiug u,dyr psrol authority rn
fiji blacks ana pst'oct las rumens "a &C.
oordiuoe With The iutsntioa 81 ser parties.
Ifit Ne mu,iipst TINT u wan lbs tut-niinn 81
the Marty by whom iHs iu1'fnmonl vas *
eouied a. ths tiiue II "as rI.ou'"d' 'hr1 ths
faaaaIF tFakg 49,
eitery,,ds inherited by the nefspn To whom
the instrument ~, delivered. tnon tho iulo
of Law i.tbat tina n,fnH can be euppll'd 10
as 1, ai,. tue effect 20 the instrument thnl
was Intended. Affirmed ~.
Moore o. At vs.. H,z sTood, from Fans
county. Opnisn hy D"s " j. hInp,eu
Nh, can, of Stsiln W. Fly GA Tex. Ji5) ~
decisive oi this case ga rs merits, out mo
iudemopt In tbs case IS not II ISL Judg
mani. UuOu the suggestion Ui tne DEAN
OF tho a.. s-,aant his three executors were
made psr,is, aud ipdgmeni "'s rendered
agaidsi toem, hat 40 cntencg "a Wy ppi|
two ~ ,b.pi were menuon,d. ~, W."
not a upl i.dyinc' :. Alpaca d,smls''a
Spenosr We. X sley e. al. from Fails cn1h-
ty. Oh ton b, Deianey J. Adopted. thr
coutL does nos express IA uplui'u On mo
ouc,tion A. TO iisht o, he appellant ~
recover had ne nrnNsd ihe ali'ssu'n' 81
his petition Appellee flies no bFiei ava p
pe.l.nj CITE. @ 80 nv horny 10" us
Of apoe.lnnt Vns act uO.iccd "a lhe court
below. The Gaze = ems 90 have hsen DC
cided on the merits. This evidence = -
strongly counicuue and thefo hei ~ b0lh
cient 70 support tno Judgment IL Ia al
hrned.
Boomer vs. Stephens - a., from JGhu OF
county. Omuion by Delay, J. Adopted
The evidence IA Toe c''n war fl'e.' ti'e
Indictment reuderr9 nuioinR That thr cppri'
liant mad notice OF the figns 81 ne mp
lee Mrs. S ephrIs. Bus de from MS
fac. tho land h,i ing hOugNt wiih me Oep-
arata funds OF he wiz ~ was ner separate
property and appeliaur ktew ms oe'ofp no
pou..ht. rAe hoe OF decl'lnna, some"hS,
jeopardizsd IN Wallace ~. Camp9ou lof
!rey s7l nys been ~ established Parker We.
Coop. Texas Law R-yisr) II plnin'lh nao
boupbt from th, huahand nth no1ce OF lne
wife's right he would not have bosn "a IN
nncsut nurcnsser q inter ya Lambeth, l
Texas Law Revisw, 253). Affirmed,
Holloway W. l. q II. Bum from Fayotte
county. Opiuior ny West, J. Who're a
arreed 70 release b from III existing inds,,
ment. any thnt might be obtained and al
claims srsins, the partnershp to which A
belonged upon certain coma iions "h'c9
were nsrlorui,d, aud . IS sued upon note
upon which the paftutrsh'p we're euteues
and brings A ia 10 ~ 5tcc. hun aud the suit
Is brought oct OF :" Gour oil AZ RESI-.
dence. Hello: !. r.ss :" \" ''uioi'o"
by A was properly sustsirFc. so.
Hemphillvs W. Watson, fSnr P.-.' "'un-
iy Opinion ny Willie. C. ibo cnpa re-
aflirus ;ae decision IL the case or WATSON
VS.. Aiken (55 Tex. 1861 AZ far as 1t relates u
the question OF usu5y where the usufious
contract was projected by mortgage ADO
the only objection raised 10 tue mortgage Is
that fact. He'd: The pinclpsl nov hss,i
been lost. the mortgage early prote'ted H.