Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-25
THE HIGH COURTS.
p.eisisas Rendered Yesterday q, the
GALVESTON Term, 1854.

',i u tbe intervention oi jury
Tn.r,. is no statement uf iaCts anu uu'
,ne NH of exception which relates ~
the admission vi evidence. la SUCH 1
cas-. RAJ, ,,,.,iun Of the court caunOl be
revised in tie absence oi s'ateiheu'
Of facts. >. Tue allure OF judge
TRYING the case without slur5 !" h'r =
statement of his conclusions oil Ia" anu
fact. cauuoi he revised wneu II uUee
not appear from The resoru tiiat ne Was
requested Ia do 80. Affirmed stay ton, 1
T.xas 4 Mexican railway company 1
and Mexican Nauoual Cnnstrucunn |
company vs. Julius Hsro,ck anu wiie,
from Webb county. Rue ~
n,oyides: "rnr appellant or
in error. in Ordei 10 pre-
mare properly "A csse for Submission
~ hen called, shall have flied a erirt vi
the points relied on in accordance
with. and condued to. tue disIiuct
specifications uf e.rUr contained ia Ms
assignments Of efrpr, ami suca iuuda-
mental erio rs OF Law Us are appsreut
upon its record. each ground VI error
being separately Presented, ahd peius
numbered, aud each and every QUE
not ~ separately presented shall oe
regarded As abauduned, I'M, rule
regulates tue matter, and whiie tnr
court Of is own motive may notice
any matter fundamental IN Character
not 80 presented, parties are deemed
10 have waived suy matter not pre-
scented as the rule requires. In this
case, winch was an action for damages
against separate curporatiOhs tor the
death OF "A child by falling from luui-
Der neg igently exposed by tue corpora
tons, the matters Presented III tue
brief relate ,leiy 20 tne sulii jiency OF
the evidence tO susta n the verdict snd
Judgment The ptiIiOn auiuug other
Things alleged that the appellees were
parents of the Guild, but as TO the
mother there Is total want OF evidence.
That Bppellers were c.'guizant that
their daughter hAbi,ualiy played on
the street aud that IL was attended
with danger, was question OF con
tributary negligence tor the cOnsideia-
zion of the Jury. Rvised aud Tt
snanded Stayion, justice.
w. III. Threadgill et al ". Geo. But
Ter, from mcLennan county. Tue
rule which fUrmtrlly Obtained. when
seals were essential, that blanks in
deeds. bonds, etc., could not be- su ~
phi ID aud the instrument perfected by
any one acting on parOl authority, has
been recently abrgated, aud since the
abolition ol seals. the converse is the
rule. Where authority Is given 10
perfect deed by filling blanks, by the
person executing II, though that au-
thori.y b. by paOl, the Validity OF the
deed 70 perfected ctuuDt I've qucs-
toned When such authority Is e..
tauli-hed either by evidence Or,Xpress
authority, or iinpliatiUu. the power
will ex'end As lar ~ the authority
given. Power to supply the blanks IN a
deed may bee given 10 AN agent toy n
person, WIN, competent 10 convey re ii
estaJe, signs and nc,n wedges deed
IN blask aud delivers IL with au ex.
press or implied authority To all in the
blanks. Wnere the intention OF the
parties was that the name uf The payet
on mortgages should bcafterwards sup
piled auu written on by the person L,
whom the instrument was delivered
the rule of law Is that the name could
he i-gtiniat-ly supplied. Affirmed
upon The report of Watts, counts
sioner. Willie, chief Justice.
X. ID. Moore, ctaL eX, cltors, vs. w
w. Ha2lewoOd, from Dallas county,
notwithstanding the correctness Of a
Judgment upon the merits of cause
&c II insufficient to support AN an ca
unless II be a final Judgment. In tn,
progress Of his case the death Of Tia,
defendant was suggested, and hi,
three executors wrrr made parties by
ScirG fcids. Judgment was rendered
against two, but not against the third
executor. Held, that the Judgment wa,
not sufficient final judgment. Al
peal dismissed upon the report OF Com
missioner Delany. Willie, chief Justice
G h. Sp-ucer w. Z NJ. Ripley, Il
al, from Falls county The Judy
ment ia this case is affirmed hecau,.
the appellant failed to tile his brief In
the court below ~ required by the
rules, and because there has been ne
citation of authority by the appellant
The demurrer fled by The defendant
does not appear 10 have been noticed
and " appears frm The record that tn,
cause was divided by the court sitting
alone, upon a direct conflict OF testi
mnny, and th,re APPEARS to have been
an abundance of legal evidence to sus
tain the Hiding. Affirmed upon the
report OF Commissioner Delaney. VIII
lie, onief justice.
A NJ. Kemphill VS.. A. Watson
from Parker county. XVI
Section IL. of the coustitu,i ion de.
nouucing all interest above 1. Ter cent.
a. uNurions IL self-txecutiug and pro.
hibltnfy, without reference To the sub
sequrnt net OF the legislature denoun..
ing the penalty under the provisions
OF thst constitution, aud interest on a
note executed after the adoption OF tn.
constitution but before the passage of
the sct, II III excess OF L. per cent, was
usurious aud fnrieiiabe. The doctrine
of such prohlbitory Law Is that usu
oas contracts We're as absolutely pro.
hibiIed by the form of tho ctnstilu.
tinnal enactment rs could have hub.e.
Quently been by the legislativ. ena i.
n,ent. The prUaity denounced ayain.,
usury Is the forfeiture of both le,rai and
illegal interest. The mortgage in this
Case contained power OF snie which
seems 10 nave 'e-n strictly followed.
ana no objections other than usury
seems Ia have been Urged against III.
sale. under the rule that the princi.
pal was not affected ny the u-ury, ia.
mortgage ciuid have been enforced for
the original amount of the debt In
such case, sale under the mortgage
under the power conferred could hay.
been defeated only by tender Of
the principal sum due; if not ten
derei, a sale would carry good til.
But after the poser la the mortgage
had been executed add the land sold
Il WAS 80 lsfe 10 affect he title of the
purchaser by a tender OF the principnl.
Alter the iore'l sure IN pdis of "A mnrl.
gage an land, given 10 .cure debt
illegal In 1910. the mnrtgagee could moi
recover ,h- hand, even from III. mort
gage who purchased at the sale. But