The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-16
the uau Of she law.


bunty. Opiuiun by Watts, adopted.
Rhis In a sait hy appellspi ir pariiioD. he
Daiming a one-sixth irtsItat M tn luud
kppelloe clsimtd the whole tract ~ b's
Mud. Hell the record shnsn that q. u
mace q pnrol gilt Of tue land 20 his Ion,
NJ. Is upon condition The. the ltttef
houid imuroye iC. Up q tho strength OF
Mis- gut ne placed valuable improvements
Iho baud, aud occupied itior a home Tor
bdut slght yo,fa. TniH vr8lta in y. N ID.
ach M equitable fighi TO the ! nd as Will
nrciecr a aud enforced By thu courts;
Texaf, 4sj) by the terms Of the pArii.
on deed tu whion appellant Yves n party
belAAd ga uit We expressly excepted ont
the olef,ton II hit ur,d, nGd Vas
herein zee nigsd as he properly a MIs.
I, tue wiia ei J.. NJ. u. Appellanb is
Ustoppyf iom claiming egtinst that admis
kion. vha ey.dence c ea'lf snd unmltt AZ.
kblv lhnv- spneiiaut has 30 fight to tie
Ind. Affirmed.
INT. p. ii. Groesbeek We. City of San Az
Ionic; l.om hexar county. Opinion hy
kTesi, /. Weiegard The casCHhCfe.oioro de.
kided Sg the court In which the ritq oi q i.
EsO; 81 Texag, on, 521, 40. 81 loxas. sol. ~
trexes Gl2, ca as practically diaposinR OF
livery mat rial question Ia tDis care. Ssun
III THESE cases nave been published siQuo
Inc decitinn a lhis case n toe court bsl1v
HE learned judge, however, Ia entering NJ
Inc huni faufca citsclvirg the Injunction
Ind diminishing the bill. evidently ufd hs-
lore him some OF the decisions OF thig court
bn tbs Gnbjeol. La spraking OF the riPht
Exercised ga tnis Gaze, Of locol assessment
bgsinst tao rcbuttius properly, 20
bnlofce ptYmhnt OF the sum due
bor psviEg the street, o. inproy-
bng and repairing the sidewalk.
Judge Diion. IN his york On Munic.rsi
Corporations. Hiyt: The courts ore Yefy
Eenorally ugTeed that the authority TO re-
Euiro the proporty specially benehtui 90
lDsar tbs expense vi local improvement ~
h branch OF taxing power, or included Nith-
Bio 70, aud the many cases which hgvs bt0p
decided lnily estaoiilh tho Reneral prHpO'
hilton that a charter or s,stufe, auth0fiz ng
the municipal authorities 80 pen or sstah-
Ilisl street,, or to mako local improvements
Iof the character above mentioned, aud 30
Iassess the expense OF tie properly which,
lin the ppinion VI the designated tribunal
Ior officers. shsli be specially benefited by
1.-THE Improvement in proportion % boHGi;s,
Ior %fIontrgs, or superficial contents l., La
1.-The nbssnc- 81 gono constitutional i~osiTic-
I.ion. u valid exercise OF The power o. taxa
Hon" (Ses Lrfgin W.. Galveston.
I5s Texts. 500. The charter Of
1.-The appellee ~ u general Law,
land the coaris are require 20 take ju0ici.l
Inotico oi 81. IL coniers o. tho corporation
ample power as TO this paving aud improve
ment OF is streets. (Charler city oil San
lAAtonic, Art. s. Secs. 1877 10 2C0) Tno rec.
lord shows that In pursuance OF the power
Yso granted, ordinances have been passsd
providing for the exercise CT this power.
lAfirmod.
Intsrnationui & Great Nor bern railway
Tvs. Underwood; from B0xsr county. ODh.-
lion b. Wes', j. a large number Of CAGES
can no aDubs % found TO the effect thai -
co mmun carrier may lawfully, by stipu-
Ilatiou Va writing, require the party seakipr
to recover for iojures sustained 70 give it
notice la riting ae 20 the nature OF auch
damage, ~ sne time Of its occurrence. In
q carefully prepared opinion Walker. p. J.,
review. 10 some extent the cases hearing on
this question The authorities referred TO
in that case seem 10 support the views
therein expressed. AS TO the correctness OF
the conclusions, it IS unnecessary Ia this
case to determine. ana on that polnt
| no opinion Is expressed. missouri Pacific
railway VS.. Harfis, W. d w. Cou, R3p
49,; X dhrld on ".arr.efs and other Ball
ments," ca. IL. p. l5l In this csse, while
the wrltteu Contract offered ia evidence re-
| quirrd notice cf the damage TO be given in
writing, there was considerable proof ad-
duoed going TO show that the iroyision IN
the contract 10 this eject bau been waived
by the parties to It. There 10 teeiinony
which shows that appeilant'a agent vas, at
the time Of the Occurrences, ut oncs notified
oil the extent OF tho damages sustained,
and that he then, after looking into the
matter, agreed with appsllee 10 pay him a
fixed sun 10 satisfaction OF his claim. TIL
objection TO the Introduction OF this evil
dence aDpeArs in the statement OF facts,
which was filed after court adjourned aud
cannot, therefore, bB considered; (59 Texas,
rs; So ~ xas, 52i: idem 452) Affirmed.
international & Great Northern railway
W. Graves; from Bexsr county. Ooinior
by Staytop, J. Where the errors assigned
20 not 30 much 70 errors In the charge
given, but to tho want OF fulIness thereof,
1t Ia the duty Ut the complaining party to
ask instructions IN the matter desired. la
the estimate CT the measure OF dainaSes,
al instruction excluding tue item Of injury
as 1t had directly affected MIA business. wac
Ms !1comot!yc bell NAV be ring
inc whils the train 10 in motion,
yet II there be other negligence OF
the railway company, or Its employees,
which, without negligence on the part OF
the person injured, is the cause o. me IN
jury, snen the railway company Is liable,
even though the negligence may not DO
such 80 cat be- termed gross. In cases
Of injury resulting from negligence II in
enough, tina the negligence shown was
such as dirently caused the injury, and that
the negligence of the party Injured did not
contribute thereto. Affirmed.
Davis VS.. Dixon ct all; from Cooke cou1-
ty. On rchearing. Original opinion nd.
hered TO. Tho only question for dttermi-
nation was whether tho statute OF limita-
tons was tupepded by the death OF *. w.
Ailison. He executed the notes sued on In
Augusi, 1876; they fell due Ia February,
1876. and vera transferred TO plaintiff by
Allisoa in Jnly, 1876. Allison died in Ssp-
TENDER, 1878, and the suit was brought De-
cember 10, iSS0. Held: The cause oil &C.
tIon accrued TO the plaintiff when the notes
were transferred 10 him, and not taken
from him by tho death OF Allison. AID
therefore was barred vhen he brought this
suit. Affirmed.
county. On rehearing. Original opinion
adhered 10. Where the deed OF assignment
conveyed certain dee grated properly with.
out, ia terms, declaring tnat such was all
the assignrr possessed, except that exempt
from forced sale, but the inventory made Q
part OF the assignment n the required
oath attached thereto contained clear and
unequivocal declarations that the property
thus conveyed was all the estate OF the as
signor Of every character which be owned,
except named properly which was exempt
from forced sale. Held: Those papers should
be taken together as tue assignment, aud
when 80 considered tho decd Is valid. An
assignment providing for the relesse OF ihs
Affirmed.
Texas Central railway vs.. votaw and
Tabor; from Hamilton county. This cause
q mes before the court upon a motion to
snNvm upon certificate without reference to
sa1 merit OF the case, aud the certificate
being examined ana the same fouad to COM
by strictly With the requirement. OF the
law In such matters, n appellant falling
TO bring his case before this court No he
should, the motion to afirsz Is granted and
the Judgment Of the court below affirmed
without references to the merits ofthe case.
Houston q Texas Central railway vs..