The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-15
THE COURTS.
Another Batch of Freshly Rendered
Final Decisions.
Intricate Questions Raised Settled Ia
Short Order.
4 Wide Field Closely Covered.
COURT.

bv Wait. /. Adopted. Buil on on in.
euraneo pcicy, The petition alleged that
q. was the local agent oil, the, Appellant
when the policy was Issued and when the
Ices occurred, but TO defeat the jurisdiction
OF the court, he had been removed n MS
authority O. agent revoked; that The prin-
olpsl Office OF the appellsnt IS ~ a. undthat
i, who resides 90 A. Is the general agent Of
appellant in the state and has charge OF the
principal Office. Service was had on both
q. and J. commanding them 10 be and
appear" before ths court, etc. Judgment
was taken by default. Held: The service
on q. wss Intellectual 10 bind spptllant, as
the petition shows thst G., was uCg tho
local agent Of appellant nc the
time of tho alleeed service on him. The
petition showing that l., was not the local
agent OF appellant, nor US president, secf8.
tary, or treasurer, service on him was not
binding on the company. (Rey. stats,
Art. 12i5) Reversed end reulanded.
Mor.en VS.. Fort Worth Compress COM
pany; from Tsrfant county. Opinion by
Watts, l., adopted. Whom appellee pur.
chased the property from S. the suit OF Nc.
s.. was pending, which was for the dis50lu-
tion OF the partnership, On account oil 10
business operations and 10 compel u spe.
ciGc performances by 3. with his contract
TO purchase Ms One.third interest Ia the
property. No lien was Asserted, Il none
sought TO be foreclOsed on the property ia
suit aud no lien was retained in Me. dCed
10 s.. The deed was made and delivered
pending the suit IN pursuance OF
the contract, o specific performance Of
which was sought. h amended petition
asserting q lien onthe property and seeking
its foreclosure was filed after the registra.
ton Of The deed from s. TO appellee, end
the latter not being made Il party TO the
suit its rights were not affected by tho lore
closure. The trial amendment, 30 far rs
the foreclosure of the lien wBs concerned,
aoEartaH "a OnOH Caffgo NJ aNElOn pWpfnEt an,
pellee. Considering the recitals IN the deed
. OF which appellee was chRrgeabla in laW
with notice ia connection with tho evidence
adduced 10 the issue, the court erred in not
submitting that iesue to the jury. Reversed
aud rsmanded.
Weis ct al. w. Davis: from Williamson
county. Opinion by Dolany, J Adopted.
Plaintiffs cause OF eotion 10 based on q
wrongful taking Of his property by the levy
OF a writ OF attachment. He proved the
taking by one Of the defendants, but in
doing so no showed prima iacie that the
taking was justifiable. He showed that
one of the defendants, by virtue OF his office,
and In obedience to q writ Of attachment,
took the property, and that ho himseli
pointed IL out for the levy. Held With
out some further proof, showing that the
attachment was ~WrOngiullY sued out, or OF
some improper conduct OF defendants, or
some Ofthem 10 the premises, plaintiff has
no case. The testimony does not convict
appellant with the taking at all. a.
agent Of plaintiff in the former suit, he
made the affidavit for attachment, and
nfter the seizure, he appears TO have signed
n bond OF indemnity to tho constable. Tue
Judgment against appellant was, therefore,
erroneous. Reversed and reminded.
Galveston, Harrisburg u San Antonio
railway VS.. Ware et al; from Kinney
county. Opinion by Delany, ]. Adopted.
Where the defect in the writ Conjunction @
OF no consequence, the court should, upon
proper application, permit tho writ TO be
amended by the petition aud not sustoin
objections to the petition or this account.
(Weod vs, Smith, II Texas, 3G7; Porter vs..
writ of injunction is verified by the atida-
Wit Of plaintiff attorney TO the effect
that the allegations therein made,
are, of his " knowledge, true,
ana that those stated upon in
formation and ballet, he believes to be true,
and goes on to say that the "facts In said
petition stated, as set forth in this affidavit,
are known to said afdant, to be true"
Held: Whether this affidavit was
sufficient to sustain a pre-
liminery injunction we need not
%inouire. For even the court called upon to
dissolve the injunction, IL was improper to
dismiss the petition al Texas; 40; 16
Texas, 1867. The ground ofthe objection TO
thu uetition, that II did not show why
plaintiff had not resorted to the remedies as
Given BIZ law IN u%rfrnehle. 40 ell the iudg-
ments were below twenty dollars. It 10 not
easy to see what legal remedies plaintiff
had In those cases wherein the judgments
by default were rendered. Besides, II the
allegations OF the petition were true, and for
the present purpose they are 30 considered,
tho Judgments are void, 0nd fhould have
been e~njoined % Texss, 5l5). Reversed and
remanded.
Garter Bros. Il Co. W.. Younger Bros;
from Montague county. Opinion by
Delany l., adopted. This suit was
brought by appellant against appel.
lees on a mercantile account OF
plaintiff, by. agent, made affidavit for at
tachment which reoites that defendants
'hsye disposed OF their property, In whole
or in part, With intent TO defraud their
creditors, and that they are about TO con-
vert their property into money for the pur-
pose OF placing it beyond the reach Of
creditors" Bond was given and a writ Of
attachment levied on appellee's property
at return term, on motion tue attachment
was quashec and Judgment rendered 4 in per
sonam against appelieee, without lore
closing tho attachment. Plaintiffs appeal
and assign as error the action OF the court
ouashing the attachment. Held: Upon
authority OF the case OF Donnenbaum ct al.
We. Schrsum go Texas, 28l), the judgment
OF the cour! below was correct. Affirmed,
Bovet vs.. Woodward; from Wise county,
Opinion by Walker, p. ]. Adopted. Where,
in q euit upon promissory. notes and FOL
foreclosure OF a vendors lien retained IN
said notes on the land in suit, the petition
alleged that defendant "for a valuable con.
alteration. made, executed and delivered
TO plaintiff the notes sued on; that thew are
each made payable to him 'or order" and
alleges defendants liability TO pay the
specified amounts, by reason OF ~defendsntt
promises recited in said notes; and alleges
defendants default In payment, with a
PRAYER for judgment or said notes. and fol-
foreclosure OF the vendors lien on the land
of pleading and not to be subject
to the objection that the petition
did not show plaintiff to be the legal and
eouitsbie owner and holde of the notef
sued on. Where, on the trial, a deed &c
appellant from appellee, signed py the lat
ter, "by Granger Solomon, attorney 10
fact" was ed nitted without proof OF any
written power under which said attorney
In fact acted in making the deed. Held
The plaintiff ratified the act OF Solomon In
the making OF the deed, BY the adoption
thereof on the record, in suing 10 forecloet
the vendors lien and rendering the deed In
evidences to establish the sale and convey,
ance made by Solomon. and he is estoppec
from denying the authority Of Solomon iI
executing aud delivering the deed. Al
frmed.
ounty Opinion by Walker, p. ]. Adop
ted. Appellant sued one Z. and sppellel
MON open account, eeeking to fDreclcse .
m~echanic's lien upon properiy which sp
pellee had purchnsed from p. under q deec
cftrust. Plant rs claim OF lien es q ma
tsrial man. IL based on an open accom-
and affidavit TO SANE, recorded January 4
1875. Corlin cla. ms under a deed Of trusi
recorded April p, 1871, and q taie ma1'