The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-29

court ltne county luuko oohS "Ni""'"''
erred In dismisslus Ias appeal. hsvsrse'
and rem lnded.
Bfaaoris county ', Turner; from BrGz ri
county; Willie O. Ihs case being u
u all respects similar IN the above, for tn
reason therein given. ths i1dgncnt OF n
court In this case 10 held erroneous. Re
ver.ed and Jemanded.
ksson IT al W Mason. from Colorado couD
ty; Willie e. A ohsrse directing th'
Jury TO ind Tor ons OF tue parties upon any
OF eli OF the Issues In the case when " 1,
but the legal effect OF the uncol tfoyeited
| evidence and no question 10 made ~ 10 "
tor the Jury 10 pnss on, u may he given
| Zeal VI Terrell, IS Texas, 26i; IL Texas,
| 81; - Texas, 40 Here the father VET
BABY gave to bis son q part
and occupied it with his wife ia
SONS years; the father placed all the i'm;
| proveTnents on the plscs, except snail
| store house, which was removed there by
| the sou from the fathers premises; the
fnther paid all .ares accruing. excep! o,
cents, which tue sons wife paid alter this
suit was instituted. Under these circum'
stances IA verdict tor the sou and his vita
could not have stood. az Texas 25). The
son and his wife could hot have IN maintained
q suit for specific performance again.t the
father, and therefore could not defend sue.
cessinlly u suit for the property. Affirmed.
Miliicsn W. Davis. from Brazoris county;
Stoyton, ]. The only question Ia this case
10 whether or not the verdict Is excessive,
after the remittur entered. The verdlc.
was for 80, s57 ~. Appellee rsmitted 5000
Appellant admits plaintiffs evidences 10
show him sniiilad 10 IS V93, exclusive Of
intsreet, less S2,IIS 80, which he bad nl'
ready bssn paia Thu. balance OF nj
least 10 2lS,45 was due, exclusive OF inter
ca. Ii was - be pad m O;tobor, 1877.
The trial Nss had IA lsI5. Computing tat
intereN, va cannot say That tho verdict
vas exec sive. Affirmed.
whila ,ervs. Gee ut al., from Waller
county; Staytln /. The record Oh oWs that
Tired Wh't,ker Sas duly served ASA party
defendant la this suit. There is no order
D. dismii snl therein contained as - bin.
nd 20. the judgment rendered igno"s
him IN the disposition OF the case, OHt was
rendered Tor his CO-detendAnts ns sgeip5t
plaintiff Held: There isno final judgment
aud tse wit Of error IL dismissed.
Smith Va. Uzr ii ct nl., from 81 1nt gom-
cry county; Stayion Pee', aprelsGts
vendor. purchased the land ia controversy
st q yale under u judem snt aud execution
agsinsI Uzz,li; received deed taerefJr
Dscsnib er 81, 1872, and had It recorded two
Gays later in .the county where the lsud
lay He ocoupied the land, censinu-
ou,ly until some time In Nay, 1880. psy'ag
all taxes on the same, when he sold Is 10
appellant. Uxzeli uisd in October, 1873,
aud bis widow and children bring this suis
Sept EN- Der "a, 1880 Appellant plesd limi-
taiion, OF three and i've years. The coun
held oelow that Limitation would NOS run
against sppsllees. Hold: The land belong
ing to UIssli In his separate right, limita
tions ran against him from the Nme adverse
possession begaa, which being continuous
no 10 his death, tss I'VE years OF linitkton
had .lapsed. The court thsretors erred in
holdine thss Limitations did not rua against
the appsllees, for which the judgment 10
reversed and here rendered in invoe OF
appel art. Reversed and rendered
Hars ct al. W. AcDade, from Brszoria
county; Siaytou, The parties both claim
title through j. Il. Heradon The l'sd
patented 10 him June 24ih, $50 prior to
which time the record does act show him
to hpvs owned the land or the certificate
upon vtioh 1t WAS pstested. Cole bought
from Hsrndon June 18TH, 1871, and sold TO
NcDsd, January leth, 1878, but these dssds
we're not recorded until sone time in Oeto-
| bar, 1873 A judgment vas recovered in
April, 1857, against said Hsradon and one
| Cilyit. No execution against them 10
shown to have been issusd. In Jlly, 1881.
| a. executes i0usd uadsr judgment OF
ths ssns date 70 the 9 iudxneat aNAinst
Ne sJssutars 81 the will 81 Assndoa, under
which aals sppsll saa vesdOr purchased.
Toe desd vas sxssatsd osptsn ~ Is, 1881.
and sscorAsd OsteSsr -, lssl. The record 10
silsAt ~ - whsthss ths q judSnsst asainst
II and q vas ever revived aeaiDss HIS exc
| sussrs o. himsslG Hssndsn being dsolcrsA
| Q a.krspt. scheduled the Q alignment Ia
his isAsbtsAssss. aaA vas discAsSssd No
sspslLann showed no MAs elder In fern 10
sspsilsss, who showing = rsgalsr chain OF
hus fran the ssvsssigst y OF sAs coil 70 him
! ALT was sntilsd ~ Ne laBd, lBisss . sups-
| rior title vas sAsw n ~ appellant.
No execution having bees sAs-n ~ have
| Issued upoA Me q judsisss. tksss was no
lien on the land thsreuRds1, xsd tas pre-
sssdlnXs under which appellants claimed
title could not pan title ~ all, svsn II Ii
had not said tbs lasd prisr b tie exssn.
ten. The judgment against II and G
would not ~ rpost The Axseatisn, ~ 10 dees
not rscar to mat juasms Ksr connect
itsslf with 10 n saywsy. Affirmed.
ssUsr 81 APPssLs.
Pswsll W. We State, fren Jackson
ease has bees very safsfsll esss!dsssd and
u ts,is ,staAy " sAsv ssy sssssssfsSos
[ whatever u tbs seesa DliOs'S ssssasAy. ~
Aay nAxrial aAAAss eesnssuna APpsl'sat
Win Ire Ls0sa ssslsa sainAl. Rsvsne<
asA poeaan&od
OsSsn 70. tho eAAss, tsoa Bssssris
sosn.y;. wAiss, I, J. AGss'!s.. ~. :s, !.
death rssaity As-sAssS. 1As eAly Astsrsl
sus.tsss 10 An esE n tkak ns,ss1 N the
4snon In arrest VI jSsGosst. enssusf
I've isaie, ~ sst aasa nss SlAes 1stsc<ast
hil,sd any reasonable eassttss - ssAng'
nor eharps lhat aesSss<s was 20 psrsss I
ths sa,aas .izR ~ or rlcs." Hsis IL "a
n v. nsss ssary tA,t he ipGjstMsas Ssosi<
| eiiasa dassaiAd " "a y Sias.s ssiSk are
reasonable @ s4ttJe.' The sIlsSssi9a oil
! the naa,c Of tn csssssss ~ that his rssac
u uukuowl 10 a ssfiissst allegation 70 I
ascss.e, ives . tusj.c, OF Edrcsr. a"
| filmed
| A.dsrson W. tba sts'e. fran Esvsro
rousty; White,p charge on n III
|, isucs .ar IL unIy required in tuch rngs
where Il 9th resulied from ths ssssult.
she offsnc., would have bean ~ nrd0r, but
msnslausntcr TO red uce a on eide i.ca
murder TO ma slaugh e 40 adequate cas- e
mus, have .npsriruucsd u. Tn' eSidnt o.
q oxiH q no adequate cause, the charge on
mssslsughier was properly refused. A
GIly.st,u, Housios 4 san Antonio rail-
ysy; VS.. Como; m. & Dorado oounti.
Wat, d /. In objsotion b. th-
railing of tie court n sustainins
tn. ssc9nd r t0pt -i4o4ial mO;iJh
- difmiss the ceT.tn ~. - veil t@r-n.
raa raj, 10 we'll % ~ iAa' monor TO
dismiss or uuskb 80 ,t @ cart 'rnri can
not ne asde amer .hs r-sur- sim. The
The feet tast Q N Si,en Nns asse ~ over
ruled 81 tss retzns scfsi d"te cot sn hot
In Q sur VI asn.a ns.en eriorsctag ID
..i,iona! sr"saas - - msdf sso deter
siosd a suss.sa,sg trm vi N, court.
Rsversoz sbA ~ - asi.
s.lsrs ~ tie ot<' 'rc~n Is.sss; ssuniv.
AvPsll>os usA se~v'~sd ~ nH~ia,v 49,
sheh r. i,s,ss~Sst srsrlr reh-fcst
sss 10 enee fh- jss,i rs Sszs tee
.viaerse- oeaApse il s,,s n sransl, she ~
s~lla n VIM De si~f-s ensrs a-e ttpsns-
Ne. TIE rhj.sf,sgs Abr tsksn o. Vbe
csxre-s sf ths court csopor bs malnthtrsd
Tee svsecpse sufioent r-d lbs charcr
tess. kAsn0