The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-06

delivered 10 the proper off Dor - ~ kept "
his ofllcial custody az the law required. |
the oili ,er failed TO make the proper ,1tr q,
In his books showing the locations, thi,
could no; prejudice b. rights IN contrac,
between bin and ons hsviny knpXledsu ol
his locations, Such knowledge prior "a
his attempted location II shown IN appel
liant "a Texas, 27S; 10 Texas, 4s0 0 Tex
~, S2 That BIS applications and aud GER
tiliea,,s on when they were based, wer.
with other papers properly IN the surveyor
custody, kept In the safe OF u mercnant (tne
coun's having no sale plsoe Tor then) Goa d
not sff,ct Bs lights hs assiDsi appellant.
The locations sought by appel int bsing
before the expiration OF The twelve nonths
within whcn Il. could have the land
surveyed. the surveyor correctly refused to
rsceivs them. The locations. II received
under such circumstances, wGdd have
been void N 10 b. ca'ion, OF re-loc ,tion.
(5l Tex.r, 1872: % Texas, ~. Alter twelve
months from BIS original lacnlions, no sur
yays Of the land hsvlog been made nor
steps taken to compcl surveys, the land
again became subject 10 location hy b. or
any other persor. (Revissd Statutes
Article 3,.O2I. d. relocated on tue
same land under other certiHoater,
but appellant took no steps, after the lsna
80 became appropriated, to locate II. Tho
former action being null aud vo,i hs has
BAt,sva Catey & Sw1ey; irom Mitchell
county. Opinion by Willie. C. ]. This
record showing no service OF citation upon
deis ndan', no. waiver thereof bv him, 10
will not support u judgement BY d. finlt.
Tho cause was transferred 10 the district
court bsosusc the county judge was dis
qualified. Tao grJuuGs VI disqualification
are not stated, nor IN 1t necessary tina,
they should bs whsre no refuses
himself. unless they ere Questioned
la the lower court. A party wishing TO DIS
Duts the disqualification Of the lGGSe Gao,
by calling In question either in the dsti,t
or county court, have the grounes at the
supposed disqualification set forth AM es-
tsblished. Any imDroper ruling upon Lo
subject could then be raised on appeal by
bringing IL to cur attention, a. 10 case OF
other rrors. But no such question being
made below, and the recorn showing that
the Judge transferred tho cause by ieascn
oi his disqus iiic alton, the conclusive pre-
ption will be In favor Of his rulir AID
OF tho Jurisdiction Of the district court. Re-
versed and rsmanded.
sTtxss Central rAiiwAy,vs. Burnet OF. TX.
from Shsckelford county. O..irion by
West, 4. 10 ELL We. Dodsop, e Texas
law review, 3is). This court, aner \ very
careful consideration OF the question, held
that such property as IL derived during
ty reason OF q personal tespass,
community. In suit to recover dam.
ages for personal irjury done to the wife,
he husband Is the proper per.
IN to maintsin tue action
me wife is, ordinarily, neither
. proper. nor necessary party, to such !
suit. II follow therefore, that the dis.
lrict court was in error in this case in TT
IN ing to sustsin the SIP, clal exception OF |
the defendant below which brought in |
question the RICH. OF the wife to join her |
husband" (5ay'es x Bassetts n and Pr.
Sec 27s. % Texas, 1876; IL Texas. q; 7
rtxT, 1881. Reversed and emandtd