The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-10


including properties Of all kinds no,
owned by u.s." And contains q release OF tn
] makers ~ q firm sbd 10 Individuals and
signed by the full names OF the parties
Held: TO be a valid assignment. psssinJ
titls TO the assignee OF all property 0wne
az a firm aud hs individuals, except tina
exempt nom forced SALE Reversed and re
The ssAte Of Texas Va. Wells at, al; from
Travis oOarty. Opinion by Watts, 4
Adopted. From this conclusion OF TACT,
found by the court, 10 appears that ths
bond upon which tbis suit IL based, was
disspprovsd and rejsotsd by tho comp
roller. This finding IL sustained by the
evidence. 1hs bond Was not In accordance
with he requirements sf the stature, nor,
80 IL SCENE, with the instructions emiua,ins
from tho omptrolisr's office. BY the
terms Of the statute, the bond. notwith-
standing its approval by the commission.
era court, was ALEC eubject TO the approval,
or disapproval, OF The comptroller, aud ns
IL WAS MOI such bond az the stature requir.
cd, IL wns his duty to rsjec' 1t. The comp
troller having refueed to Accept thu bond for
the state, snd having returned 1t With
appropriate instructions ~ TO the manner
III which tho pond should he prepared and
executed. IL cannot be O aimed with any
show OF reason that II was ever binding pom
the appelless. An essential element IN con-
stitute II a .ubsisting obligation Us entirely
wasting. The slate acting through her
authorized agent refused 10 accept the
bond. but rejected snd returned the same.
| Under The circumstances OF thiu oaAe, tn NJ
the purportsd bond did not constitute =
| contract between the state AND appaliess, ~
much too clear to atmi, OF controversy. In
legal effect IL amounted to nothing more
| tnau = proposal made by one party and Dc
c!insd by the Other. Affirmed.
Robertson W. Robertson; from Brown
| county. Opinion by Dslanv J., adopted. Suii
| by appellant against npslies for divorce.
H. slissed that be and appellee married
In Kentucky In 1874; that they lived to-
gethsr in that state until 1868, when abe
wilfully, voluntariklly and without any
cause or provocatlon, abandoned his bed
aud bnnrd aud has never returned; that che
left him with intention never to return. A
general denial was filed. The only evidence
introduced uas that OF John II. Robertson,
10 the effect that tbs defendant len plaintiff
In 1858, going ~ Tennessee, where she re.
manned until 1882, when she went to Wit
ness home In Missouri, where she remained
u short time, going from there 10 Cnliior-
ria, whore she has rincs remained. That
plaintiff had confortshle homo, and no
reason Is given for her leaving. Held. A
judgment for defendant visa proper. 40
cording TO the ruie announced Ia McGowan
w. MoGow<n, (oI A., xat, 657 the plaintiff
should have produced at least sons reason.
able measure that he neither caused, nor
produced, nor consented TO the separation"
Affirmed.
Chatham Va. May; from Coryell county.
Opinion by Walker, p. Adopted. From
the agreed statement OF the record submit. |
ted by the parties with the approval OF the
judge, it appears that May brought this |
suit against one Lynn, for the possession |
Of certain property descriued q. "one
certain frame building, 20 fect by Sc feet,
two stories high and known ns Lynn's |
gin house, situated in Corysl county,
fexas, aud ABOUT 200 yards VISIT OF |
south OF Whitson's mill" May caused u |
writ OF sequestration to be lowed on the |
same, and apnellast Ill d oath md claim !
bond for aud took possession OF tina prop.
erty. The Issue rendered by the claimant |
WAS whether he was entitled to recover by |
virtue Of deed OF trus, from Lynn 10 Chat |
ham IL Co., aud u deed msde 10 Il. X. Chat
ham under the SAME. Held: 1t devclvsd |
on the claimant to show a better right 10 |
the properly than eppellees claim OF own-
ership, which he asserted by virtue OF a sale |
and purchase under decree ia favor of
Roas Il Co. against said Lynn, which or |
dered q foreclosure ofa lien thereon. Also |
judgment introduced by appellee giving |
him his writ of possession OF said
house against Lynn. Tho statement |
OF facts fails to show when the
agent OF the trustee under the deed OF
trust from Lynn to Chapman s. 90. con-
yeyed the property TO the claimants, nor |
the date or character of the lien on tho |
property held by Ross & 90, nor that such |
named agent was authorized to act as such |
by Chatham, or that he sold such property
according TO the terms and conditions OF
the decree. Affirmed.
Tucker w. Missouri Pacific railway; from
Grsyson county. Opinion by West, ]. Suit |
by appellant tor damages for personal il
juries received on appellants cars. Judg.
ment for the company. Held: Where The
attending physician. having fair opportuni-
tles.oi judging OF appsllsnt'e mexta oapscty
and intelligence testified that he had the
ordinary intelligence of a tul! blooded ne.
gro, and there Is nothing to show that he
was an imbecile or non compos
mentis, and the evidence also
shows that appellant. without the
knoyledge OF the conductor, elected to ride
on the pilot near the cow-catcher, volun-
tarily and without advice from any one
and when questioned as to his motive for
80 doing, gave as O reason, that he had no
money TO pay his fare, and had given the
fireman fifty cents to permit him to ride
on the pilot. Held: No error was commit
ted in rendering judgment for the appellee.
Affirmed.
Hoover OF oil w. the Texas & Pacific rail-
road; from 1arrant county. Opinion by
West, ], Suit for dam ges for personal injus
riss. The court found, and the evidence jus.
titled the finding, that deceased was guilty
OF oontributory negligence. The general
rule 49, that a person or his heirs, In case OF
~ lis own want o. ordinary osre,
The record shows that at the period whom
the deceased entered upon tho appelless
track, the danger nom the engine was i'm.
minent and In 30 doing he was guilty OF
proxImate cause OF the injuries rscsived;
there IL no error apparent. Affirmed.
DAugherty vs.. Harris; from Wilson coun.
". Opinion BY Watt ]. Adopted. The sale
question noticed in this case relates TO the
courts action In removing the venue Of the
cause bom Atsscoaa county. The order
affldsvits pro.srd con. were considered but
the bill Of options shows that upon hear.
ing the afidavits In support OF the change
the same was granted because the
court had no right to consider the sffidavits
impesching the credibility Of the witnesses
Ing the change Il was to be granted. Held:
Error Reversed and cause.sordered return
cd to Atascosa county.
Ochor ct al. va. Cara ct. al. from Bexa.
county. Opinion by Willis, o. !. The sole
issue In this case 10 as to whether or not
Jose Manuel Uniquss va Of sound mind Of
the time he enacted the transfer to CARA
Of the certificates upon which the land in
was afterwsrd patented. With
out consuming space to set forth the evi-
dence. IL Ia sufficient to say that II was very
oonfiic ing and the court having fairly sab
mittsd the issue to the jury we cannot re-
verse without interfering with the province
Of the jury. Affirmed.
Davis W. Gray; from Hays county.
Opinion by 6tayton, The note which
10 the foundation of this suit, being nego-
table In form, and bearing no evidence on