The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-10-20

SUPREME AND APPELATEC COURTS
Litigation Reaches the Pinaclo-Reversals'
Remembers aud DiSmissals-CiVh
and Criminal CHses-Causes
Detailed In Full, Rte.


= II
"A suit for damages for the wrongful and
malicious suing ont of an attachment,
which attachment was sued ont by an
agent, if the principal authorized and
directed the agent 10 sue out the attach
meut, or knowing his purpose to do so,
sanctioned his action, he is liable for the
malice OF the agent. If the principal,
though ho did not participate in any
manner in the malicious acts of the
agent yet if he aiterward rati-
fed, ad"'ed or approved the same,
he d. liable for the malice
of the a. nt The want of probable cause
Tor the suing cut OF a writ of attach.
ment heluE proven, malice in so doing
: may be inlerred, and this inference will
supply the proof thereof. If the agent
who makes the affidavit and gives the
bond for q writ OF attachment acts ma
liciously ir doing, he is responsible,
yet his nHii.e will not he imputed to his
prluci al by presumption, while
his bad Judgment in wrong
fully suing out the writ will be affirmed
SUPREME COURT.
stuart W.. Harris from Fort Bend
county; opinion by Willie, G. j. Where
an affidavit for au attachment was made
=. Y
ing iu AUSTIN, that the allegations of
fact i'm the petition were true, and the
other residing in Fort Bend county, as
To the statutory grounds for the attach
ment, and only four DAYS elapsed be-
tween lho dates at making the atlida-
Wits tho same are held sufficient 10 ius-
tlly th" issuance Of the attachment. II
is not necessary that every fact required
TO justify the VIII should appear Ia one
-In Ia,
party; tne revised statutes themselves
settle lpa, question. Parties may make
alDud'lt, va substance, complying with
the requirements OF tho statute. Whore
the statute required all ulddlvits for att
tachmeut % Ne made by the party hiu-
SELF IL Wits held That an
alat2rme{ e,. could ,,,,. make sueh
have been EPaeid, though she petition
was moi sworn to, when tho affidavit in
ciuded the material issuablo facts and
matters OF ,nv petition, Although the
statute requires the amounted the plain
MI $ claim To u9 sworn to, an affidavit
was hctt good, which merely stated that
defendant was indebted to plamun in
the several eUms mentioned an the ne.
tltou Nherc the statute required that
an aJl'chment sh aid be gwen with
surelita, and the same contained a pro-
vision, tnut tho singular number should
lhcluae The plural, and yico versa, one
surely 70 sUci, bond was held sulli-
cltut. reversed and remanded.
Thomas ct a, W. Chapman, from
GRAY sou @ unJy; opinion by StaVtou, /.
w mere the assignee under deed Of as
SlguWeui, made uUdor the act of March
-, Io'", had given his bond, which had
been approved, land bed taken possession
Oh thH goods aF Nou, ot1 such goods
had been seized under wits OF attach
ment, It in a suit tor damages for such
levy, II was only necessary for such as
!, slSnce 60 aiiege ownership in himself, rs
the deco through which he claimed
passed the legal tltle 10 the goods con.
Neyed TO him, and said deed was adj.
lnlsslble in evidence as proof of owner
snip. The consent or nOn-cunsent OF
Greuilofs 20 take under the assignment
dOes not affect the validity
= OF such assignment. \ demurrer is tho
proper pleading to reach an improper or
del cti,e description of the goods al.
legeu .u nave been Illegally seized. The
NefuiCJ III tbs case is excessive and is
not warranted by tho evidence. The
sherlii, before nc made the levy, was
secured by indemnity bonds from eacl
OF the firms causing The writs of attach.
ment To be ISSUED, IN this suit for dam
ages Tor the Illegal levy he caused each
of the said firms to be made parties and
Obtalneu = jud Ident against them ia
gross. Held: The sheriff had a sopar.
ate ana distinct cause of action against
lach OF the firms and their suretieS foI
ihe amount of their respective bonds
aud no more, and it was error to ioir
them ana these causes of action in this
suit against the sherih for the Illegal
.tNy' Nv the owner oil the goods. Re
Ncrs'1 md romanded.
ID
JOIN pn county Opinion OF Watts, l.,
atJl "a. Generally each partner may
pint the firm by any act ol
cont embraced In the general scope
OF tn partnership business. Each part,
ner is generally considered the firm,
agent In ali matters pertaining to it,
business, As such each partner may
blnd the other partners the same rs /
acting under 4 power of attorney from
them, One partner may sell the Who'll,
or any part of the partnership assets In
the regular course OF trade, or to pay
the hrm's debts, When there is no fraut
IN the sale, Oue partner cannot sell In,
partn nrSnp assets or any part thereof {,
pay his individual debts without IN,
express or implied assent OF the othe
partners, The right of creditor to tax,
an lnsoiNent deOtor's property to pa,
ms debt Is well stated il
" I IN
Whero the contract of sale was entirely
executed ON Sunday, which sale wa
made To prevent the levy of an attach
ment, and the sacrifice of property, tn,
TUE passed To the purchaser, and, as tn
venice could not recover the goods. hi
attaching creditor had no more right
IMAM he, and tire latter could not recover
Affirmed.
Morris ct al. W.. Edwards ct al, from
ANDERSON county. Opinion by West,
Inc history OF this case up to tho tim
the luugnent now sought 10 he enjoine,
was rendered, can be found in W. az W
Con. Rep. pl. 22.276 The party seellin
relel IA equity must not only show tina
injustice has been done him, but n
must, IN addition, show that he has no
peeh Wanting in the proper diligence
anu must disclose clearly that there ha
NNpeen no negligence on his part. In thi
ase want of diligence is clearly appar
" Affirmed. '~''0'
lays VS.. the Texas ~ Pacific railway
opinion by Willie c. /. The fact that
railroad company occupied and claime
n right-of way over land purchase
4 Spy Tue Wiintilt, and also when the sui
was instituted, Will not preclude sui
ot uespaSs to try title. An action q
4 tresp ass % Try utlo serves all the purpC
SEES OF an action Of ejectment as Know
10 the common law. Whenever an nc
ton of electment would lie at comma,
law, treSpdsS To try title may be usel
under our system, 4 party i'm posse,
sion OF another's land claimn
an easement, is u trospasser
his cldinl is without foundation. /
IN suit by the the owner OF the soil, IN
plalntil shows title To tho land, and In
uelendant to an easement, the plain 4
IecoVers subject to the easement. Ifd
a senu4 a. SHOWS no title, plaintiff dispo,
sesS MN entirely. The fact that The Al,
fennant iSa railroad company does No
change the rule. Where, in an action 1