The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-24
TIE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT,


Torrance at al vs.. Davis; from johnson
county. opinion by D.lany J. Adopted
Suit OF tresspasr to try title. Briefly
| stated, the history Of the case Is this, the
| 10. originally belonged TO Mohier VINO sold
| IL TO Written, taking the latter's note for q
part OF the purchase money $3.50, which
weH transferred to the plaintiff herein.
Wilkerson, November 10, 1878, ey agree
ment OF the parties. Written Immediately
assigned one Of the purchase. notes
given to Wilkerson for $3.50, to plaintiff, In
lien OF the note given by Written to
Mohler and assigned to plaintiff. On the
day that the deed was sckno wledged (De-
cembsr 4. 1879, Wilkerson gave Whittier a
note for $500, which In some way passed
To Torrance, who claimed that II was q pur.
chase money note md lien upon the
lot. In 1874 plaintiff and Wilkerson
owned the note and obtained judgment OF
foreclosure. la 1875 Torrance sued Wilker-
son and obtained q foreclosure OF his lien.
| In 1876 tho land was sold under the two
| Judgments, each party levying under his
| Judgment. In response to special ispues the
jury found that the note held BY Torrance
was not given for purchase money. Judg.
ment for plaintiff Held: Correct. For even
| II the Torrance note had boon for purchase
money Che lien OF plaintiff was prior lien.
A remittitur OF the Judgment for uss and
occupation OF the land having been entered
| the Judgment Is affirmed.
Cobb vs.. Tufts; from Vice county. Opin.
ION by Willeon, ]. Suit by Tufts on prom.
issory note and an account for goods wares
and mspshandlse. Deiense-want of CON-
aidoratiop. Tho proof showed that Tufts
gold Cobb soda fountain under an execu.
tory contract, conditioned that the title re-
| NAMED In TUFTS until the fountain was fully
paid for. Before full payment, without any
isult of Cobb's, the iounta was destroyed
by fire. To this plea general exception
was sustained. Held: Error. The title
never having passed TO Cobb, but rsmainir z
In Tufts, and tho latter owning II when de-
stroyed, Tutis must bear the loss of It..
Reversed and remaLded.
House W. the State; from Gonzales CONN.,
| ty. Opinion by Hurt, ]. Where tho evil
dence showed that brands on other csttle
than the one alleged to have been stolen
had been altered by defendant. Held: Ad-
missinle. When tho evidence showed that
the sccomplics testifying was probably
guilty OF participation IA the taking as well
! as after the taking. Held: A charge that
his evidence VAS TO be corroboraied only
when he vaa participant In the taking,
Was error. Reversed aud remanded.
Fam vs.. thu State; from Dallas county.
| OpuiOn by Hurt, 4. Although previous de.
c'sions held that faulty charges. by reason
oi omission or error therein. YVES less ex-
cepted to, or contre-y instruction asked,
or the same IL made under the law; Nah
vs.. Ete', Austin, term 1882. The collector
| OF taxes bad no authority under the lev 10
10 AXE the settlement he did with appellant,
ard the.siate isnot therefore bound by such
settlement. II was ultra wires. Affirmed.
Meyer vs. the Sia'e: from Hayes county.
Motion to dismiss. The appellant was cor
vic,ed, md pending the appeal to tnis
court, he escaped from prison aud 10 St N at
lsrge. The sheriff Of the county makes the
required statutory. cath as TO the escape.
| and upon this the motion to dismiss Is
based. Appeal dismissed.
Barry W. the Slate, from Collin county.
] Conviction for assault on one Ball. The
| evidence excluded was not admissible. The
charge OF the court was more favorable TO
defendant than the Law rs applicable to the
facts entitled him to- and az presented there
| 10 no error apparent OF record, and the
| judgment is affirmed.
Missouri Pacific railway vs.. Cox: from
Collin county. Opinion BY Wilson. J. Suit
by appellee against appellant for damages
TO his land and growing crops thereon, By
appellants failure 10 erect stock guards to
protect sppeliee's enclosure, eic., and for
of dsmsge from '.troubls and vexxtion OF
mind" TO the extent OF 500 yas admitted,
chat sSS they i.s night S consldsr shis lem.
ssss for injury 70 ones feelings an
& ground Of t6e motion for new trial. ar
NOT rsvsfslble unless fundamental, this
court under csr@sin circumstances has pow
a. 10 rovleo auch error. II the loroo Of the
evidences tou6fne 10 eho eelnbliahment Of
1oornoo q coIculate6 % innuo1oo The tofy