The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-20
Little Joker "a the nes' @moking Tobacco
COURT DECISIONS.
suPRENe COURT.

tUPHENt
Hall w. Collins d Douglas; from Hous
ton county. Clinton by Stnyton, J. The
tract OF and involved in this suit is par
ofthe same tract inv lved in Woodson vs.CJl
lins and Dougl,s, (56 Tex, III Hal occu
pying the position here that Woodson oc'
cupied in this case, and appel s occupying
the same position in this AS IN that SUIT. a
careful RECONCILIATION OF the cause IN the
light OF the briefs OF the able counsel, iur'
nish MS no good reason for changing our
minds r versed and r.n,nnded.
Gulf, Western Texas q Poetic railway vs..
Monitor; from Dewitt county. Opinion by
West, |. Although the y ttion iails 10
state az clear and distinctly asst should 'he
grounds upon which 8pprllee's right u re-
cover Is based, yei 1t not b, ing specisl Y e1-
cepted to on this ground, no objection
being made /, the manner OF st'hng the
cause OF action, and more general ue-
murrer charging In very general terms me
petition to BIZ In manner aud for n Is SUM-
cieut, aud will be held good. Ga general
demurrer the ullega ion in the petition
ID because Of the gross net gence ana toe
want of proper care on appellants part the
boiler OF tue engine at which appellee
works exploded and injured him II held
good. Assignments OF error that the yer
dict was contrary tulaw,' because the YER
dict was contrary 10 the courts charge"
"because the verdict was contrary to the
Ia
ruling the motion for new trial, are 100
vague and general, and fail to specifically
point out the objection to the acton of the
court, aud will not be noticed Il Tex. Law
Rev, A4). The remittiiur filed renders
appellants comrlnnt unayailable. At
filmed.
Repiro VI, Huliug from l. impasas county.
Opinion by Wait,. J.. Appellee sued APP
pellsnt Tor balance on purchase money
note for land which reserved a vendors
lien. Appellant ans wsred, alleging the pur
chase OF the land by the aCIo an dehcit
Ia the mum Der OF acres represented TO be 10
the tract: that his vendor represented the
land to be thousand acres OF valley land
and that there vas but Ave hundred acres.
Before court opened appellant submit Cd
supplementary answer t. appellee who led
him to unders,an there was no objection
TO filing IL. The case being called aud sp.
pellee announcing ready for trial. appellant
asked leave to fie said supplementary an.
sWer. The court refused the request. This
quantity and quality o. land. asking reilef
on that account. Held: Under the peculiar
circumstances the Hmsndment should have
been fled.
"In sales OF land. though 1t might appear
nom the construction OF the deed to be u
sale In gross, yet. Il In fact II Was sa'e oy
the acre and 90 understood by the parties,
and there 10 an unreasonable deficit relief
will be extended to the injured party: un:
less he has In some way waived or forfeited
his equity. The conrps charge submitting
the issue 90 to the deficit In the trsc'. but
failing TO submit that rs TO the deficit Ia
the valley land was erroneous. Reversed
and remandsd.
Carlisle Va sommers, from Washington
county. Opinion by West Whereas A,
the wife, no ding land As her separate prom.
erty, bargeined the came to be Tor ceItsin
price. and b was about I, pay A, the whole
Of eaid amount. when U. who was = creditor
of AS husband, by threats OF legal proceed
ings etc., deferred MIN from so doing and
he oplv paid q part snd gave his note for
the balance, ana A was forced by B I, place
the note until m sturiiy in q bank 50 that "
any Judgment m'git he rendered againtt
the land, he ~ouli be protected aud q
causes an execution b issue and oe levied
on the land 10 cold aud forces A TO APT ly for
an Injunction to restrain he sale aud after
falling on this proceeding U causes writ Of
punishment 10 s ue TO b and seeks to sub
iect to his claim tna interest on the note,
which has accumulated during the pend
ency ofthese Injections. Held. the inter
eSt could not he ~ sutj 'cicd, nor are ihese
views ~ varisuc WITH tns holding III bra-
cen vs.. Cos Isl Tex 80. Under these
facts the Judgment for attorneys fees nl-
lowed the gsrni-hnebt vas an error and
should appeilas { within twenty DAYS hle
REMIT tur Of trai part Of the judgment
the judgment " IL ne ali med, Otherwise II
will be reversed scd remaDdsd.
TAYLOR VI Tow,seni ct Il from Colo
RADIO county. Opinion by Willie, c. Fraud
like any OF Der f.et may be proven by cir
cumstantisl evidence. A sale u void II
made with the intent to hinder, delay or de-
fraud creditors. " the intent be known TO
the purchaser, or by the use OF ordinary
diligence he coult have known 1t, although
the sale ives made for good aud vaiustle
"Nrtice," as used in article
2l65 revised ststa -. 10 10 lite usual s:gnii-
cation. 1. e.. knowledge Of all that IL COM
municated TO the purchaser or proper use
Of that information would enable him 10
ascertain. A knov'edge OF the fraud, In
order to avoid the convey suce, must be
proven on the vendes. Alb ough the YER
dict IL peculiar, u ~ suflciebt TO support
the Judgment End II 10 affirmed.
coUsf % 4PPsALs
Lsediksf o.. 81. ". Ratio = Co.; nom