The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-13
TIL; COURTS.
sUrgEMs COURT.

'a'vestop, Houet on q San Antonio rail-
a. ". William o; fom Bexsr county
~ vi by Willie, Q. J. AS tho stAtemen'
OF is,ts found in the record we're filed after
the Adjournment OF the court for the term
and no order appears allowing this to be
done. the case will be treated AS though
there was no statement ut all In the record.
| In the absence OF q statement OF facts In
| the assignments of error are not such as de-
msnd attention. Affirmed.
Thompson and wife vs.. Henson ct OIL;
| from Guadalupe county. Opinion ny WI
| lie, @. |. Where the case Is submitted, upon
| the law and the facts. to the court, without
| the intervention Of u jury, The finding OF the
court Ia entitled to the same respect nd d
verdict of Jury approved by the presiding
judpe. The material point in the case wa
as To- tbs character OF tho transaction be-
tween the parties in which \ deed was MADE
by Thompson and vito TO g., and an sg ZEE
nent to recovery execuiee oy q. TO l., and
as 10 what knowledge q. had to the true
character OF the transaction. On this point
NM .anta werc cNrNic.ivv Plaintiffs testi-
mony tended strongly to show that the
eed was executed to secure loan of money
aud that the agreement 20 recovery wac
contemporary, aud intended TO operate as a
defeassnce by which the ususl conditions o
morteag. was engf afted upon the convey
auce; ALEC, that these facts were known TO
H., who acted for G.. In the transaction
Contra, defendants testimony July estao.
iished that there WAC 10 understanding thal
the deed should operate ms d mortgage, bu'
was to be an absolute sale, and tina, the
agreement was simply an scs OF grace By q
never alluded to until alter the deed Wal
executed aud granted upon request sub
| iect TO the making Of the indictment; also
that II. acted in the matter ss freud ano
agent of L. and wife, TO procure money fof
them by sale of tho land and that he VA
not the agent OF G.. The finding al the
court gave credence TO deiendanrs witness
%, and in our position We cannot reverss
this. holding. Affirmed.
Nichols ct al. Va. Dibreli; from Gusda-
lupe county. y. inlon by Willie, I. l
| The decisions OF court OF c,mpstsnt juris
diot.on Ia conclusive not only ~ to the sub
\ iect matter determined, but as TO ever,
| o ner matter which the parties might hav'
litIgated In the case. and which they nigh
have had decided: (22 Wis. 3l6 45 lad. 493
Johns cases 492: Rich. 3s7). Or, TIT
plea Of rss sdjudicaior applies pot on.y Y
polnts upon when the court was Hotually
required to pronounce judgment, but u
every point which properly belonged 10 I'M
subject Of litigation, and which the parties
bv exercising as3nable diligence nigh
have brought forward at the time: e WeIi
| LOG; 10 Texas, 6s; 20 Texas, 7S2, - Texas
1884,. "a Texas, $50; 20 Texas, 7os, II Texas
1S9; "a, Texas, ~. This rule has been np
pied TO cases In which the wife was part,
| 10 the previous suit, and have held he
bound BY the judgment In the same man
ner as the other Ii,;gsnt; q T.xss, 29ji 2
Texss. IL; 20 Texas, 1851. fhe only excep
| tion 10 where the claim, or demend, In tn
one case Is different from Whist It is In th'
other r. g., where the former suit wa
different from those upon which the second
suit 10 founded; (9i n. -, 35l). Or. where
wholly different tract Of land b
in the other. In such csse,. il
order to operate ~ par to another action
the point In question must actually hav'
been lifieated In the former suit. This ex
csption cannot be applied to this case, TO
Il ls clear from the plesiines thatthe forme
suit between ID. and plaintiffs involved tn,
title title TO : tract Of land which included IN,
| land upon which d. IL charged to have tres
passed. The question here 10. was thu
homestead right such defence as Nigh
have been put IN Issue. and decided Ia fh'
former action7 Where the first action va
70 recover tract cf land uuder an txtcn-
ton sale against the husband who was |
parry. and the land YES CT aimed By the wifi
o a Homestead. Held: Toe subjsct mat
ter Of the Two suite IL the ZANE. When :
party has two dsferces 20 suit be mus
urge them both, and hsve decision unor
them; az L.. Ann. 678. IA I5sm. 576)
Tue bill Of review. thcrefore, couId not b
slIoued upon the Allegations W the psti
sion: q Texas Lsu Rsviee. 205). and 10
oourt properly struck out al the sxsrme 10
q tho Supplemental prtitioD. Amroed.
1ocnaa ~ bohsG nuA 6aeas1sf'