The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-29

are governed by. As II appears TO this
court that there 10 no appearance Tor the
appellant In tots court and no orief died
herein, nor anythinH TO indicate that any
sri.is were filed Ia the court below, tina
case is dismissed Tor the want OF proseeu'
ton. Dismissed,
Houston 4 Texas Central railway vs..
Wooten Il oil. mo. 3l5S); from Dir zoe
county, Opinion oy Wilson, Appellant
sued appellee ia justices court Tor s2i7 20
la that court Judgment was rendered for
Appellee Tor ooe,s. On appeal To the
county court trial do .noyo resulted In a.
Judgment that appellant take nothing by
mis- suit aud pay all costs OF the suit, The
CONCLUSIONS OF tbe Judge snow that appel.
lee Owed appellant on u contract of snip.
mss,n,, .; syiS ,s' ,s, ~ al, bill Of
smoun,; that the freight shipped weighed
l,735 pounds moro than Was estimsted In
the bill OF aiding, that the freight due for
this l,I35 pounds IL l32 6l, and appellee
having paid all bat this last amount. said
amount rs that actually IN controversy.
Motion IL made TO dismiss the sppeal be-
cause the amount la controversy Is only
s32 CT and not thin the juri.diotion OF
this court. Held; The Judgment In
this case IL only the amount OF costs
OF the suit. As general rulo
the amount claimed In the SUIT Dy plaintiff
IL the amount in onniroyersy aud deter.
mines the jurisdiction and II I the amount
recovered by the Judgment. But, when II
appears that plainIif Ia stating bic demand
has improperly sought TO CONF jGrisdic
ton, wnen IL would not attach II he bad
In good faith properly stated his de.
mRnd, his cause will bs dismissed. Nv. *
w. Con. Rep Sec. 203; Texas Law Review,
2s6; rexn. Law Review, 200, 2 Texas Law
Review, li2). IL being apparent that In
nj m I'm
and IN bsd faith sought 10 confer upon this
court appellate jurisdiction OF the case, the
appeal Is dismissed.
Weeden, tax collector, w. Martini from
Robertson county. Opinion by White, p.
!. This suit was or ginally brought against
the ~ OF Hearne IN u'tces court and a
suit OF garnish nent sued out against appel
Ian, It's tax collector. Upon his answer TO
| the writ judgment was rendered ia favor OF
appellee. The city did not appeal to the
county court but appellant did, nud on mo.
ton his appeal was therein dismissed. He
now brings up the writ OF error. A motion
Is made 10 dismsa the writ OF error calls In
question the right OF appellant TO an appeal
without giving bond os required by law.
| IL is claimed that thi, Is a suit against the
city OF Hetrle, and said city being cor
poration under the general law. and pros'
ecuta writ II error without giving bond,
ARTS. $40. 81 and 400 Rev. STATS and
that appellant, ~ the agent and representa-.
| tive OF the CITY IN suit in which such city
is party, can d. 90 likewise. Held: The
record not eno sing that the city had &C
copied provisions OF the general law and
become incorporated under IL and accord
ing % its terms aud proyislonf, the city
| could not appeal without oord, aud
therefore, appellant ~ her representative
could nor Apuesl dismissed.
Texas & Pacific Rail way vs.. Jones, from
| Grsyson county. rhis CAUSE comes before
| the court upon motion to affirm on GER
| titicste without reference 10 ths merits Of
| the case. But while the certificate is ~
proper form and fully meets the require
ments ofths Law governing IN such mat
i,is yet .he certificate must be dismissed
for want ofjurisiotion in this court il be-
ing apparent that the amount n contro
versy being for less than 500. Certificate
dismissed.
Slawson vs.. the state from Robertson
county. The motion to dismiss Inc appeal
In this case Is basel upon defective recogn.
lance in that no oifense known to the law
Is therein sta cd. Defendant was chsTzsd
with "wiltully disturbing congregation ne.
sem bled for religious worship" and con.
victed OF disturbing religious worship"
TIE recogniz ,uce states the offsnse ~ dis.
curling religious worship" Held This is
no offsnse. Mickey We. state, 8 Cs. App.
6T2). Appeal dismissed.
This Is q motion to dismissthe appeal upon
various grounds, all Of which have been ex.
amined and considered, and IL appearing
TO the court that the assignment OF errort
was not filed at tho time the bond wac filed,
aud all the parties to the judgment are not
named In the appeal bond, the motion
must be sustained on these grounds. APP.
| peal Dismissed.
Lifiiagwell vs.. Seligmsn 4 Mayer; from
Mitchell county. Motion II made Co af-
| firm the judgment ia this cass upon certi-
icsto without reference to the merlts, and
| IL appearing that the certificate filed with
tho motion Is In strict com pllsnce with the
that the rules of this court have been COM
piled with, the motion IL granted and the
Judgment affirmed.
II uston & Texas Central railway vs..
wooten. ct al, mo. 1852; from Brnzo,
county. This cause Is Substantially the
SINE as No 3, lG2, supra, and the opinion
IN that case APPLIES in this, and II being
apparent from the record that the amount
10 controversy 10 less than $40, therefore
Judgment is de minimis (Lsrd va Frebsrg
Klein & Co. last Galveston tsrm). Motion
20 dismiss overruled.
Ascue ct al. vs.. Aultman Il Co.; from
Johnson county. The motion to dismiss
this appeal is based on these facts: Abel
lanr Hinchman sought a rscovery against
| APPELLANT Ascue, and In appealing, both ep
psll ants gave a joint appeal bond, payabie
| 20 aupsllees. instead Of las appellees IL
| slst they should) and appellant giving
| separate appeal bond, payable each 10 sp'
| peiees ana tna other appellant. Held:
'rhe bond Is sufficient. Both detendants,
(,ppellants) appel and properly join In
the came bond. Motion TO dismiss over
ruled
Interna ional & Great Northern railway
ct 81. vs.. English; from Milan County. The
motion 10 dismiss the apneai herein is
| b ,sed ~ the want OF sutfirien. aopes!
bond. The following bond IS held suflicen,
! IN all respects: 1--WE, the international &
Grost Northern Railway company and Mis-
sour Pseific Railway company as princi-
pnis and aud sursties.
snknow Wedge ourselves indebted to L. Il.
English In the sum OF 81 200,
county court OF Milan county on
said d. f. English - recovered
a Judgment against the above named 80
a. def ndan,s for $500, besides coste o.
said suit, which amount TO - dollars ond
= cent?, from which thoy have appealed
to toe court Of appeals. Nov II the said"
defendants shall prosecute their said
appeal with effect, and in case the
| jud ement of the appellate court shall be
against them. they shall perform its judg.
mcnt, sentence, or decree, and pay all costs.
suoh damages ss said court may adiudgs
against them, and also pay all costs which
| b ave sccrusf In the court below, or which
NAV accrue in the appellate court" etc.
Motion to dismiss overruied.
| B,yRett vs. Packer; from Bell county.
| This cause was before this court at its last
term At this place and vas then affirmed on
| certificate, but on motion that sffirmanes
was set aside snd appellant given until this
term TO file his transcript and perfect his
appeal. This he has failed to do, and APP
| peIles having filed the req uired certificate
which complies with the law. his motion to
affirm thereon 10 granted. Affirmed.