The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-05

sion N deduotd that tho former dtcialon oil
! ibi. corr IL correct and the court below
+ ,Ir.d h. its ho.diug." Reversed aud re-
mauc ed.
PARK ct al. VI. scoggIn,; from Bsiwr
county Ooinion by Slsyton !, The rights
OF tho parties hereln depend hoely on the
true location Oftae boundary lint betwef n
the Jones' had HILL grants, Plaintiff.
claiming IL 10 b. Oh the jones erunt. /,
deyolvod on them 20 establish tue line ~
claimed. Tho court b, wv evidently found
that the evidence oilefed TO prove The
boundary line 10 be as claimed by plan ns
was insufficient ana % the cause MAS fi~u
by the court witnout Jury, upon a careful
inspection Of this evidence, IL being iound
not without sufficient 10 tastain iIs judy
ment IL affirmed.
Texae & Pee flo railway w. Nicholson;
from farnLt county. o. fthearing; or.
igiusl opinion adhered to. Articles 2sl 2s2
and 2s3 Revised Statutes, merely ptoviGe
thst The common carriers Jaw liability no
fuch. shall commence from the time the
bill OF lading 10 signed, and that previous
thereto they shall be liable only ~ wlrs.
hOusemen, for the goods placed IN thoir
posas esiun to be transported, they do not
EXEMPT tho common carrier from euch
labl iiy ~ hf IL subject 10 common with In.
diyiduals. When thu bill OF lading 10 sigGed
the common carrier becomes Responsible
as such for all losses except ~ ere ccn'
stoned by the act OF God, or tho public el =
envy. a carrier may contract without a
bill OF laoing u part OF which IL 10 0e per.
termed heldfe tIn woods n'a Ia nctg,
course oi tTtutv.ItEl and IN 30 far ~
binding on individuals, u ~ binding on
such carrier. Ofdigarily the damages re-.
cDyershla fcr u oreanD OF contract are such
~ will compensate the ipjurei party Tor
ito loss suffered. The generally accepted
rule now is, I, allow such damages MS u'e
I @ natural result Of the breAcg, A. In T. o
contcmp irtion OF the parties whrn tho c3i =
tract IL made. A tender Of the gcoe
fos shipment is necessary wi n
the party proposing IL Is informed In =
vance that II will be useless aud viii no. be
accepted. Affirmed.
Adams aud Wickes w House ct Il
from San Saba county. Opinion By West
/. Under the facts disclosed IN evidence in
this case properly admitted under tho
plea OF mot guilty" appellant show
valid outstanding title superior 80 that Of
sppellees to the locus In quo existiuI In V.
O., derived from common source ns that
Texas, no; ~ Texas, G1l: 30
Tex.,, 252; Pas Dir. pp.
SOL; Is Tsx.s, 4.3; 10 Trxsr, 5l7; % Texa,
SO: 9 Texas law review, go. 50 rtkss, 502)
The patents issued TO DR.. O., VA February,
1857, by reason OF his previously conveying
the troprty described In them 81 y. 10 vested
said @. co.ipstapti nj the moment OF their Is.
ouanon. With the legal title 10 tho laws in
ono, (iS feXas, GAP 2S Texas, 30 10 Texas,
"a 20 Texas, 2ig; "a Texas, ?6l; 81 Texas,
40 Reyerssdand judgment rendered for
appellants.
pany, w. Slyron; from JOHNSON county.
Opinion by Watts, l., Adopted. In suit
Instituted ny legally nppointed and quali-
fed guardian, an obj oton THAI the
,uit 70 brought, in The mime
word, inssead Of ia the name OF the guar.
dian, is untsnsble. Since the adoption OF
the Revised Statutes, . minor msy, as
plaintiff. prosecute suits by anext Trend.
The is no provision in our statute nu' h~r'
zing minor to sue by Iert friend; ~
right Is derived from the statute OF Wvsl-
minister, and tho settlfd prsctice OF the
courts Of chsncery. The remedy thus
adopted should IS to pleading, except
where modified by statute, conform sub.
stantially 10 this requisites Of the courts OF
Q iui'y. Discussing the rule as laid
DO Tn by diff. rent authors and
d. cisions, the court holds that where the
petition prays that plaintiff. as nexs friend,
shall have and recover Of defendant for the
use and benefit Of his ward aud the judy
msnt reci,es that plaintiff as next friend (,
shall have and 70 over Of defendant, thAs
there IL q fatal objection to the parties
(vlaintif), which preoludes recovery. Rs-
vsrsed aud rsmandsd.
Houston u Texas Central railway vs.
Reason; from Grayson county. Opinion by
Sutton, |. The statute permits even lead
ing questions Ia be propounded to the OPP
posits p.rly, bus in order 10
take - confessed tuch interrogato-
rios as . party may refuse TO answer,
they should be so framed that the
court may know what TACT tbs failure
10 answer confessas. Int rtoEat0ries col ling
for DO particular answer, but to which
several answers might be given, the oue
Us applicable as the other, are not TO be
taken as confessed on refusal OF the party
10 answer them. Articles 2A3, 22i0, Re-
vised otatute,, provide as to the manner Of
proceeding when party refuses 10 answer
iuttrrogaiions. Where tire interrogstlry
propounded was "wns " not ynhr own
fault srd careletsness? Were you drunk
or not?" the court correctly charged
the Jury, ",f you believe rom
The evidence that plaintiff has 'air oppo;.
tunity to answer the rterrogsiories pro-
pourded 10 him By The defendant, and re-
futed to do 30, then such refusal 10 to DO
t. ken as u Confession by him that be was
drunk at the time Of tho tccident." such a
question II propoundsd to witness not
party 10 the suit, would be object ionable.
and II answered, the answer should be re.
iecied. Aud =, likewise, when propounded
70 party 20 he snit, Affirmed.