The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-05

has since been repealed. and therefore this
action must be determine, nv tho common
law rule. (Rev. btst. Art $40 Following the
rule ns laid down BY Hnlonison IN his work
on Carriers (3ecs, t0Jb0i), the oour, holds
that while carrier has tina right 10 elect
passenger for non;payment ~ his isre, no
must use a reasonable de sres of care Ia the
exercising ~ this rleht, both as 10 the man.
nor aud place ~ the sjsotment, aud that
appellant had no tight 10 elect appel
lee nt q time aud plaza which
endangered his heath or life. The qhes'
ton as 20 the use OF aus care etc. IL one for
the jury TO determine. (W. Il w, Con.
Rep. Secs, 1851. Affirmed.
Hoskins VS.. Hulin. rom Dallas county
Opinion by " illson, J. suit by appellee
tor damages tor shooting his COVE Actual
and exemplary damages are claimed. Up
OF appeal To the county court appellants
plea In reconvention Tor aciunl ana exem-
plary damages done bia crop by said cattle
was on motion struck out. Appellants
motion for new trlnl because the judgment
was excessive was overrul.d upon nppellees
remitting part Of tho damages. Held the
plea IN reconventon was improperly
struck out. Appellants fence was alleged
70 be lawful one, and he
further orally alleged that appellee had
"wiltully and maliciously allowed and per.
mitted his cows to break into eppellsnts
error eously allowed the remittliur 10 be
entered. The provisions Of the atasnte rev.
stats. 135l.l35T) do not apply 10 an action 10
recover damages for tort when the dam.
ares are uncertain End rest within the dis.
erection and sense OF right and justice OF the
Jury. In case whore there Is no certain
measure Of damages. or where tue evidence
does not clearly and definitely ascertsln the
amount TO be awarded, tho court cannot
substitute lie Own judgment for tho verdict
OF the jury. (i3 Texas, $780, 10 Texas, S19i
40 Texas, 1857 Reversed and remanded.
sUPRrME COURT.
Banhnrger VS. Morrow; from Farnin
county. Opinion hv Willie, O.. !. The deed
o. y 10 his VII. and children re tied
consideration Of .Rw ard oileciei and iur-
iheI: thereby rcserying 10 myself tho right
20 mREsso and control Gaid premises, and
have, enjoy and dispose of the occupancy,
end profits OF asid land and prem
ises, for and during my natural
lie" The land conveyed by the
deceased contained other gran.s be-
rides tho one in controversy. Held: The
reservation contained On tho deed Get out
above, rstsined 20 the grauior life estate
aud conveyed a remainder osiaie To the
named grantees after the death 81 tho
granlor. The question f0G deter ninalion
H. csu remainder msn prescribe under
iiya yeayE limitation by reason OF posses
sion OF the estate, when 10 himseif does
not claim under recorded decd? Hero the
land ~ claimed under limitation ~ parties
holding the remainder under the deed con-
taiuing tho clause ante, the particular e5-
tate being held without any conveyance
tile, none but recorded decd can sustain
such claim Of possession. The terms oi
the deed giving no right OF possession 60
the grantee, " cannot be tue basis OF .
claim ty limitation The court properly
refused evidence tending TO show .hst The
reservation Ia the decd applied To other
tracts Of land and rot the one IN contro-
yersy. Affirmed.