The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-23

ths pswsr OF the probate court, under the
oircu instances, 20 order tho isu-nc oi axe
cution, - vas done In this case, has bsen
more Ian ouos passsd on by this court
he oeno'u sion rsAahsd has uniiornly
bssn. that under such a htats oi isois ~ II
disclosed by the record In this case, the
probate court has no poser 10 snter The
judsnisut that was entered; (5s TsxAs.
h55 Bse also Edmond's 5kifs W. Mouat
| Admit, reosnny published Affirmed.
| Watkins vs., DAVIS; frum Dallas county.
Opinion by Watts, ], adopted sui, of
trsspass /, try title, Plaintiff olsimed the
land by virtue Of q judgment IN n justice
that she mad 40 notice by citation ol tina
sAid cut In which rhe judgment wa Oh
tanned, aud claimed tho pr petty as her
homestead. judgement for plaintif Held
1. Tho record aud papers % ,hc csse affirm.
atiyslY show that citation was served on
dsfondsnt, and ihe judgment rendered 10,
therefore, not subject 90 collateral attack
upon the sronnd that the record was iaita
q Tho proof shows that when defendants
hubssnd dlsd they w.re occupying lot In
Dallas a. their h-ns. they nad 20 chil.
dfan. After her hnsbsnd died. defendant
being old and enfeeb,ed and unsb g 10 pay
taxes on her home, Tor which IL vas about
g. be sold, che sold that houie and with
tho procsedo purchased tho laud In sui,
Beck VI al. VS.. TarIsnt; from Grayson
county. 0pinion by Willis Que OF
the principal questions In this oase has
already bean decided 81 She lsst Galveston
term. (S'Auxhier W. O~ene, . Texas Law
Rsvie-. 2s5 The stsiut eoi limita ion be-
gins TO run bstween co-snrstos a. tho time
ths debt ia paid, Independent Of toe time
tue oh igstion was entered into or bsosme
due. BRANDY on surstyship 2Ja The
s'aiute nos barring thu CLAIM, thoro IL no
doubt OF tho right OF Tarrsnt to tbs rsiist
asked aud granted. The oa,o In that Of 4
oommor ohsrgs resting upon land belong.
ing IN sSusl shafes 10 cnrrsnt and appel
lant,. I'll. maker OF the notn conveyed TO
g., under whom aUp'lisnis claim, and g.,
undrr whom appellee dns'gns tile, in
equal shares IN the same deed. The ono
having raid on ihs eHcum brancs IA entitled
70 contribution from tho Of nor, and may
keep tbs lien alive by equitnels assignment
~ security therefor, % Pow. on Nv. ,222 }
Affirmed.
.cousr ~ hrPAh.
Ashloos ". ths 5iat";,Iom Collin county
Opinion by v ilsoo, j. When tue stoien
animsl was runniYg To her old range whore
she had been rsissa In Collin county, aHd
had been here for week PRIOR 10 tho ti~s
she wss assL in Gependnnt's posseseion or
In DC, hold tn. namo Ia Collin oon ~ was
suficisnsly proven. Tho question pro-
hssrs'y, but 81 IL wss testified 20 by the
other witnesses who tnid IL 10 o. IL 10 not
r ~ be .ror. (A6,, App. i2l; 3 CT app;
Az ESQ sisJios attorney had right to
oil OIL from dsisndsnt'I witnesses whsi they
tesi fed "a boIOrs the greed jrry ior tbs
purposs ofshouing the nise Of ihe witnesses
IL layer Of dsisncan'. &C ASP,
- -. % ip4, i 's'. '9''' til. ip'f' Ss'
ieudsnt took thu movo with the frsudu-
lont intent, etc. Bsid, thsi " in M indict.
ment tho words fraud iatsutn ns d.sorip'
tive Of thu tsking wa omitted IL would be
bad hut ~hils The charge would have been
more technical correct by using the de-
soTiptiva word fraudulent "a suolied ts tho
iakink. yet 1t ia not prsjudicisl 10 defend.
ant. The coutt'e chnrse on c'rcumsautlnl
evidence WAS substantially corrsot. Al
frmed.
Cneb vs.. the state; from WISE county,
rhis vas 50 suit bY the staio 10 recover
balance OF M occupation tax 90 liquor
dealer, duo by nppeilsni. ibis Fuit
Il maiu'ainahle. and the amount re-.
covered 10 the proper amount Tue
not rcoov, r.ble Bat IA octOp5 for tort,
where the Srongfgi act complained ~ was
yer ton or malicious or grossly negligen', |
attended with cltcums' auccS OF insult OUT. |
iago or oppression, toe party Wronged is
not limited 10 he rule Of Cctusl cnmDenra. |
llOn, out inaf rfCpF'T fleH tutu tAtNWfs |
d.msgss a. ihe evidence nay warrant. |
(F ED Oh Dam Sso.. %, 90 20 IL 599, 667 |
Sedg. on Dam, 3s; W. & W. Con. Rep, See.
255 Tho evidence ~ this case did not jus-
tiy yer act for anoh damages. The PSF
ty's opinion ps 10 the I'm cunt he had been |
thus iDiu'ed is insdmi sible Nv, Il W. |
Con. Rep, Sec. 1i09) In a suit |
tor dsmaIss for njury TO land ana |
cropo the measure at damages is
the difference between the mar.
ket value OF abe land imme.
dia'elv before tho injury aud eSch value
immsdis,elY siterwsd (W & w. Con
Rep, Sec 4i5) Drops gfowing on the lsrd
4ro part thereof In estimating damage
TO tn land cro9s are to be considered and |
form part OF the damages to DO found.
Nv. Il W. Con. Rep, sec. 232 |
The crop being injursj, the lctuel value Oh
tina. part sjured al the time. with legl ir-
Isrc,t, 10 the measure Of damsgss. v. d
w. Con Rep SEQ. 29S 4s2. ll39) II wss
The court dn y. under the facts herein TO
,herge the jury that Il vas spceilee'a duty |
10 proiect himselt, II be could, With ordi.
merry effort and care nnd ct mossrati eI'
ppnre and failure 10 do 50 pfecludes =
70 covery. (Flslt on Dam, Sec. q Re-
rorssd and reminded