Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-20
THE HIGH COURTS.
Syllabus Of Opinions Rendered at the
Austin Term.
nspor,el Expressly for the Gazette byN. +
Jackson OF Austin.


Rngland & James VS. Wlsnack, from Tar |
rnut county The validity Of the deed from
the Appellee To appellant Is the question In
OF conveyance, duly and legally executed by
the grnntors, aud acknowledged privlly by
the vile In strict compliance with the statpte,
ON the other hand, II the wife had good rea-
son TO believe and did believe that she WAS
6Mce n moi,snge, nma by nranu was m
and III csc fncts ware known TO the purchaser
before he paid Therefore the conveyance Is
Intellectual to convey the homestead. The
iule Is that Ignorance as to the character OF
tho inst ument or the fraud which brought
about Its execution must concur with notice,
actual or constructive, ON the part of the
grantee in order 10 avoid the decd IL IL Is
property certified TO by the officer taxing the
! 5ie.l A charge to this effect was not error
| The evidence harmonizipg with the rule laid
down, and showing that the conveyance OF
title: The Judgment is affirmed. Wiliie,C j.
Giddings vs.. Williams, nom Fills county.
Turned rns npom true 'h osaon case o
| the boundary lin cot the Chambers survey,
| 1t being undsputed that appellant owned the
ated. The eviocn reasonably Shows that
the corner was as sAown ny the verdict.
Se9ss sais sy nmsSn appy n n
| In fact part Of the hambers survey. Five
years limitation has no support In the evil
Peterson vs. STANDBY, from Wise county.
The motion ofthe appellee to dismiss the APP
peal in this case was based upon the follow
ing grounds: That the appeal bond ala not
describe or otherwise, on It's face, identity the
Judgment appealed I, ON: that II did not suf-
| lciently describe the jud smeDt In this In
addition TO decree of specific performance, the
judgment was that the CLERK deliver to appel
lant certain frst cash payment, together
with certain purchase money notes, subjects
oftrial--teuder, then In the clerks Gu, touy;
and further adiudcateda lien for purchase
money, in appeliant, that the bond reeites
TO corner land. and then fails to incorporate
the further statutory condition, that appel
lants will pay IN appellee, value OF rent or
hire" = . IpG suit which NAV be brought
therefor In case OF ailirmatiou as provided in
act ll5 Rev. Stat. Held, that the grounds
are wen taken. Appeal dismissed.
Heirs OF Edwards VS.. ~ounts administra-
tor, from Denton county. The principal
question involved Is this case has been adj
bs Tex, 56l 532. For the reasons therein as
serted, IL must be held that the probate court
ownership OF the insurance policy upon
which this suit was based. While atlirning
the Judgment Of NE district court !, Is but ,
proper remedy, by proper proceedings In the
proper tribunal 10 test the right TO funds
paid to tue administrator on the insurance
> policy. The condition of the insurance funds
whether assets of tho estate for the benefit
OF creditors is not 30 far involved In this suit,
ton Is finally adjudicated. Affirmed. West
I j.
. . -.
motion to dismiss the appeal In this case Is
sustained because 1t appears tina, the tran
S script does not show when nor by whom the
4, | same was demanded, nor To whom and when
~ delivered, nor that the Endorsement of the
} clerk of The district court of Wise county was
q made thereon and signed officially as re-
quired by the rules of this court. Appeal
dismissed.
n Ryan vs. Dudley, from lamar county. II
~ Texas, 2s7, IL was decided that where an az
" peal bond described a Judgment as agains
k one, whereas IL was against two, the appea
re bond was wa, bad Upon auihority Of tnat ca. e
Is not valid, because oi n variance between
the Judgment as rendered and that as dc
scrioeo in The bond; whe ,efore the motion Il
sustained and appeal dismissed. Willie
IL snyder Va Ivers, from Montague county
40 Turning as this case does upon question O
10 evidence, this court Is of opinion that the dis
y. trict court was authorized by the evidence Il
conclude, as 1T did, hat A. s.. In his life-Lim
executed aud delivered to his daughter, ar
m pellee, deed for the land In suit, but Tor som
of cause failed TO have 4 recorded; that unde
M the facts developed, the loss or destruction G
VI the deed was sufficiently shown 10 admit sec
ondary evidence of Its contents But in tn
judgment there was error, In that IL awarde
execution for costs against appellant, VIII
az was an administrator. Reformed in this II
ie spect, and otherwise affirmed. West. j.
Doan & Co. VS.. Smith, Lyon Il Co., fron
al Clay county. The motion TO dismiss appea
w assc Is that the transcript does not fully Sc
cate is incomplete; thai The same in he rec
nc tation ofthe fact that the transcript contain
true copy OF I proceedings y not SUI
y thorize the appellate court To exercise jurit
die lou over the appeal. II falls TO show th
De posed upon him by Art. I,ili Rev. Stat
II, The motion Is wei taken and the appeal di
ss missed.
default Of al assignment of error, and brlel
in by appellant, the appellee asks an afiirmanc
4ir under Rule 80. There is no question that tn
n county court, Mt the time OF the amendmer
IL! OF July 10, 1877, had jurisdiction OF the amour
ell Involved. Toe record lails to show action b
the district court upon the demurrer and
must therefore be considered AS waived III
to repleader by amendment of facts original
~ sci up as a cause OF action In order to rends
gu IL more full, Is not the assertion OF a ne
eS- cause of action, against which the statute {
90 limitation runs from filing. Afilrine,
lco smith vs.. Brown, from Cooke county. TIL
ny motion 70 dis'niss the appeal in thus Gu.
IT. sets up That no brief was He'd in the court b
mir low, rs required by The rules promulgated b
''' Us, court. aud that no briefs had been ile
in this court, The rules referred to requil
oh the Hing OF briefs by appellant In the cou
Y" below at least ten days before the first day
"a the assignment 10 which the same is return
able. II appearing that this run. was nc
compiled With, u motion 10 sustained,
COURT oF APPEALS.
Fort Worth & Denver Railway VS.. Scot
Brought by appeii ny 70 re an,s aeion wa
or manner OF tie construction OF The ,oad"be,
in General demurrer set up that the petitio
IL showed no cause of action because upon ii
he face 1t showed the carnage to have hoe
A caused by surface water, and that such /,
ma jury ddHinhDt GbsIiie f,jurid. Held TINT IN
o contrary doctrine obtains. See So Ten 10
ms W. and rs Con. Rep A. Where the d
It'll iendnnts acts contribute, essentially To IN
an creation OF the nuisance, as the erection
~. dams, etc, which renders accumul ting A.,
ist ter stagnant, causes II TO overflow etc he
led liable, even hough natural causes con,bln
,as with his act to produce The nuisance nh
M, demurrer WAS properly overrued. On mea,
>" urs ut damage the court:chargcd In su BIS Ia me-
NO- mat, the evidence warranting they inipi
liz md the value OF the corn Injured estimat1n
me value AZ tho time of the injury. m. In
land the measure being the difference in Nm
value OF the land before aud m IA edately n ~
inc ipJ dry aud for nuisan co. the amount ina
Thought plaintiff entitled to- Object ons ,h:
of value shou Il have been qualified a. ina,
IA keC' value, and that corn crop was part
IL. inc iand, and separate iuiurles snoui
ShI not be computed. are hypercntlcll. undo
or INC iacts OF this ca g. The evidence is q :,
pie Affirmed. Wilson, j. " So
Fort Worth & Denver Railway We pa,p,o
rom rarrant county. The principal ouestinr
involved In this case are identical with mo.
disposed OF In the case of The Fort Worth
Denver Railway Company VS. scott s,,,'.,
len ana upon the authorities cited In lint ~ "
,les IL IL held that the petition stated sur,ctar
cause OF action, and was go cd upon ysnarai ~ ~
mnrrer. The other questions raised m ~ =, n
record are unimporiant and present M q re-
Wilson, L. '''Vis"i' Aihtmet
, Ashiok VS.. the State, from Collin conn,
m al t,saa