The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-13
COURT DECISIONS,
Text OF Tho Causes Celebrm Before the
Superior Courts.
Declslons that Defy Dlogenes In Wis
dom aud Work.
Invaluable Addsuda 10 Law Libraries.
IrrRlMK COUNT.

SUPREME COURT.
H. q. Hnurick ", HRntick o. al; from
Williamson county. Opinion by Watta, J,
Adopted where thq ~oiiginHl petition al.
legged that O'B nnd wife ~ifaudulenily
claimed an Interest In the lend Ia suit, but
In truth they had no i%nterfet whatever, and
the amended petitioner asserted the char.
so.er OF the pretended CLAIM In full. Held (;
To Het up no new Cause of action, hut 10 be
simply az adjudication Of the previous al
I legations. (56 TexAs, 1872 30 far Gs sp'
pellart was concerned, tho iaot that othcr
p.rsons claiming under OBI and vito were
made parties defendant by The amendment,
100 Texas, Ga For tho remaining cues
lions raised zee this osua on former appeal.
(5i Texas, l0l. Affirmed.
Talum VI. Harris et al; from Collin
\ county. Opinion by Delaney, !. Adopted,
To permit wituessrs TO testify ~ to tito cots
= and declarations OF s party 40 10 certain
land marks along the disputed boundary
line when such parry waa then liYins, ana
for UuGht that appears could 100 brought
into oourr, rs reversible error. Inc oniy re-
mhinipg question discussed ~ az 20 the cor
rectnest oil the courts finding on tho looG-
tion of the boundary ltue IN dispute. Re-
yerssd bud r%emsnded.
Mckinney 90 on. We. Thorp et ali from
Hood county. Opinion oy While, O. J.
Evidence OF fraul va the acquisition OF tue
= one ilriy ahi mat tue othpf Wgs an ~
ipc.ut purchaser 10 admissible IA
an sction nt utepass 20 try title under
n plea of mot IN lty," The only defense
inadmissihlp ia that or Limitations, which
mus be st~ecia,ly pi SIDED. Where there Is
no evidence showing that the deed Was
taken iu the name Of the wile 10 dciraud
orsdls1Is OF her husband, but The whole
evidence tends 20 show mat she inherited
properly from her fathrr'e estate, which be-
Ing couvsrlCd irt0 money, waa turned over
to her husband with iha understanding that
it was to Va invested in property for her
benefit; pursuant O. which UNDERSTANDING
the property in controversy was purchased
with % part OF Che money; Held: III TIE
money r. msined the property Of the vile
while in her husband hands, his creditors
had no night 30 II, and to
invest It ia property Tor her
benoiit was no fraud on them. ~ the
transaction resulted IN hl9 becoming her
debtor, II was entirely legal ter him TO pay
the debt IN whole or in part, by purchasing
the premises and having the deed made dt-
recily 90 her. Tho deed TO the vile not re.
oitirr that the purchase money was her
separate properly, or nat the Conveyance
was ior her sole benefit or use, or any other
fact giving notice OF her ownership OF q o
land. but by ITS terms the legal title to the
land was pl ced ia the community, yet
her money having paid for the land, a re-.
! sulting trust was created In her favor and
ahe became tne 'qu'TISho,o 0T and
being afierward levied on ana
sold under an execution against beg hus-
bEnd in favor OF r.. who became the pur-
, chnFnr, paying therefor by creditine the
amount Of his bid on the Judgment on
which the execution issued ana theIe
being 40 proof that Il bed any notice
OF the wife's claims, or title, to the land.
either when the execution was Levied, or at
the sale, T. must Do tfelted as al innocent
purchaser and one Tor a valuable conaider-
alton, II by the CT diting his bid on the
Judgment he c0Hid be such, Reviewing the
various dcclaions Of this aud other
sta,es, tie court holds that 7. was
not A bona hde purchaser for valuable con
sideratioD, and, therefore, his yendees de-
rived no title by Their purchase rom hiHl
as against the wife. Reversed aud rendered
for the appellants.
Texas & Pacific railway company VS.. How
ard ard / fe;from Tsrrant county. Opinion
by Watts /. Adopted. Where in a suit
brought by The husband and VILE (tbelr
separate suits having been consolidated 10y
order OF court) against It railroad Tor dam
ages by reason of ~iujuries received at g
crossing Of the railroed with q public street
the court, in effect, charged the jury that
the mere ringing Of tho bell. or the blow
ing OF the whistle only, upon q locomotive
attached to 2 long ireighi
train standing with is rssl
truck On IEt tupS VI NhG cAitClt NAOeGAHt
the railroad track, is rot such notice to
those passing, OF an intended backward
movement OF the train a. will absolve the
companyirom the charge oineglieence;He Held
Error. Whether urder the clrcumstan &C.
the ncts of the compnny's employees was
or was not, negligence was Tor the jury ia
determine from the facts. As to the duty
of the railroad 10 do moro than this unde;
certain circumstances, the test applied Is
whether q prudent man would have done
more. Reversed and remanded.
Jones ct al. vs.. Fancher ct al; from Hill
county Opinion by Stayton, J. The only
proof offered by tae appellee, upon whom
Il devolved 10 prove title in Hill county In
the land In controversy, thy claiming
through said county, vas: First. A patent y
8. for 800 acres OF land dated May Z, 1904
Second. A deed from 8 to Hill county Tor
/, go acres of the land patented to him
dated May 9, 1855, and purporting to be
conveyed in consideration that the county
seat OF ssid county be located on said land.
Third. Thel 10. ~ describe d es situated N HI
county. Held: Admitting the truth Of
| these facts, IL does not show title IN said
! : county, 40 IL is not shown that the lot IL
controversy was n part OF the land convey
ed to Hill county. Reversed and remanded
COURT OF APPEALS.
williams VS.. the State; from Harrison
county. Appellant was convicted OF the
theft OF O COW and his punishment assessed
NI UIt NthIn III ~ ~ ~ I0.s
Tertiary. From thB judgment he appeals
An Inspection Of the record shows that the
evidence is amply sufficient to support the
verdict and judgment. The charge OF tht
court is sufficient in all material particulars
and the indictment good. The court cor
rectly refused the motion for continuance
inasmuch as the evidence sought to BIO OBJ
tanned thereby was not probably true
Thre is no error apparent and the judg'
ment must be-. and is affirmed
county. In his case the record 10 filed by
the attorneys for the appellee, together
with the certificate OF the clerk Of The court
below, to the fact that appellants attor-
neys have filed no brief in the court below
as is required by the rules and statutes
and II appearing to this court that they
have filed no brief in this court, the record
being inspected, the Judgment OF the cour,
below is Affirmed without reference to thu
merits OF the case. Affirmed.
Rasberry VS.. the State; from Guadalups
county. Appellant was convicted OF ar
assault with intent to murder Monro.
Richardson, and his punishment assessed a
seven years confinement In the penitentiniy
The record discloses evidence sufficient Il
sustain the conviction, and the charge o
the court was amply full and correct. II
defendant rs alleged, was q mental imbecile
Il was not so made to appear by the evil
depce. The motion for @ continuance wal
properly overruled, as the evidence expect
ed to be ELECTED from the desired witnesses
I when viewed In the light OF the testimony
adduced on the trial, was not PROBABLY
true. Affirmed. =,
Pickett ct al. w. the State; from Jacl
county. At q former day OF this term, thii
cause was dismissed because appellant
council had not filed any brief rs required
This 10 amotion to re,nstate, and % ground