Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-18
THE HIGH COURTS.
Syllabus OF Opinions Rendered al the
Austin Term.

jackson, Reporter OF the Appellate Courts
of Texas.
SUPREME COURT.
Hearne VS.. Gillette, from Robertson
county. An INDICATED land certificate
is, and may be dealt with as. person nj
property, but after the location il
merges into, and becomes part of. the
realty. IL then attaches to the land.
and becomes chattel real, and can he
no more transferred by parcel than
the land itself. Like deed, il Is then
the evidence of a title, and though It's
sale or assignment subsequent to loca-
ton may In equity operate ms trans
fer of the land, II Is the land, and not
the certificate, which Is sold. The 10.
cation and sale of valid land certiti.
cate Is such color of title as will sup.
port the defense OF three years limita-
tioHs, and sustain the action of tres
pass 10 try title. While the general
rule that the certificate will pass by
conveyance OF the land upon which 1t
Is located is true, still It NAV be
reserved from the operation of the con.
veyance, and by being floated its char
acter as personality be restored. But
without such reservation the located
certificate will pass with the land to
the extent that 1t Is located thereon.
IL Is not incumbent on the party claim
ing under such conveyance to show
that the certificate did pass, but the
burden Is upon the other party TO show
that 1t did not. Here it Is claimed
that by the second clause of the tri-
partite agreement the intention to re-
serve the certificate is plainly infera.
BILE. That clause Is as follows ION
the execution of deeds of conveyance
therefor reconveying to them WIS, or
such person as they might name In
lieu of themselves, the title that was
conveyed by said d. +. w. to said G.
e. H., aud also the title under said
grant of eleven leagues of land to said
~" The fifth clause is ms follows: ut
is further stipulated that all parties
hereto shalt respectively execute &c
each other deeds of conveyance for all
the right, claims and title that each
may have or supposed to have had in
and to the parcels oil
lots of ground that may b,
partitioned, allotted and set apart un
der foregoing covenant and agreement
to each of the parties hereto, when
such partition and allotments shall bt
made" In pursuance of this agree
ment partition was made and deeds
passed. There was no reservation of ,
certificate in Mrs. Hearne's deed to ap
pellant, but it is claimed that it arise
by implication from the second clause
and Is not affected by the fifth.
primary rule of construction is, tina
} the entire instrument must be con
strued together, and If thus considere,
is susceptible of reasonable coustruC
, ton, harmonizing all of its provisions
giving full force To its various parts
, then that will he considered its tru
Interpretation. The certificate TO Tia
extent located upon the land Mis-. II
conveyed to appellee, passed To an
vested in him, and rs he was owner I
that extent, he would have an interes
in the land upon which it was subst
Quently located, proportionate TO hi
interest IN the certificate 80 Texa'
la; - Texas, 305l. Affirmed on rep0i
: of Watts, commissioner.
a Kaulbach VS.. Harrell ct al, fror
d Burnet county. An indorser can NJ
+ show by parol evidence against hi
: indorsee that 1t was agreed that h
i should not be liable and that his il
S dorsement was without recourse o
n him, If so intended it should be s
e expressed, and drawer might as we
4, offer evidence that n holder agreed
r look only TO the drawee. Suit wa
!. brought against the maker of til
!, notes at the first term after maturity
n which secured and fixed the liabilit
G. of the indorsers. Revised Statue
T. article 262. When fixed, the indor
u er's liability Is about the same as tn:
ii of a surety, and the general rule is TIL
only those causes which will excuse
surety will excuse an indorser who:
liability has been fixed. Subjectil
the property of the principal in Il
debt in the mode presented 10y LAY
~ although ii might not sue for It's re
value, would not, In the absence
T. fraud or irregularity in the sale, ava
~ the indorsee as defense To an actiC
ID by the holder. Reversed and 7
d nlanded on report of Watts, commi
4, sioner.
e. Texas & Pacific Railway Compsl
n VS.. Nuckols, from Lamar county. 81
60 for $4,000 damages by brakemt
for injuries, wherein he recovered
Judgment for $4,000. Petition
legged the injury To have resulted fro
defective couplings OF the company
rs cars, the steep grade of its track.
"a. carelessness and negligence in fam
y, 10 furnish safe cars, coupling dra
ar heads, coupling piDs, and In usil
he dangerous machinery, etc., as well
Is, uneven tracks, all of which deie'
nc were well known 10 defendant. a
Id swer was by general denial, spec
y, traverse of the facts alleged In the
n, tition. and further, that the iDJu
ii was the result of the negligence
plaintiff and his fellow-servants. Il
evidence was ample to show that I
injury was the result Of II combinati
Of the causes alleged in the petite
81 II was sufficient 10 sustain judgme
yr and TO support verdict in the amou
f'h awarded, For rule on liability OF RI
or way companies under such facts,
"a Texas. 1874; 40 Texas, 80; Id. j
IN Affirmed on report OF Walker, p
in siding commissioner.
rst Texas A. Pacific Railway VS.. Bur
ne: from Tarrant county. When dept
III. t;ons have been ON file for more tn
one entire day before trial common
NO obiection to form or manner
taxing the same can be heard, uni
in writing, and notice thereof CIV
ark hefore the trial commences. Su
cci- notice Is given by filing with the
his ners In the cause and entering J
his same upon the motion docket. \
and tions which do not relate TO the mel
but may be disposed of at any time Del
.., the trial OF the cause. 1t follows ir
and n consideration of these rules In G
un. nection with supreme court rule
less that when dispositions have d.
on file for more than
day. motion to suppress the ~
~ ciud and nniina Given bel