The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-03-05
THE COURTS.
hupRHME coURf.


Easterwood vs.. Newly, from Johnson
county; tho parties in this cause pending
the disposition OF this case on The report oil
the commissioners OF appeals, having filed
a written agreement that the same may be
reversed and rendered in favor Of appel
liant, at his cost, IL is ordered tLat hat dis-
position be made OF the cause. Reversed
aud rendered.
Ayers ct al vs. Shackey, from Washing
ton county; Delany, ]. Adopted. The
only question in this case IL. whether or
not there was an abandonment OF the
h mestesd. Appellees acquired the prop.
erty az homestead some time in 1870,
lived upon It until 1876, when they made n
contract to have erected three store houses
on II, which were completed late in
the year. The property was a part
feet on one street and ninety feet
Gu another. The three siore.houses
erected occupied the entire front OF one
street, and all except thirty feet on the
other, which strip run back sixty feet. The
store house fsrthest from the front OF the
smal lot, was sold after completion. The
dwelling and improvements, on tho lot
were removed before these slore-housea
we've erected. During the erection OF these
store-houses appellees rented d house in
town for Q short while, after which they
lived with the wife's relation In the conn
try. They stated their purpose was TO
rent these store houses until they could OBJ
tain money enough to erect dwelling on
the lot. Upon these facts the court charged
the Jury In effect: That when property
once bscones homestead, 40 long as IL 20
remains the husband cannot, BY building
houses thereon, 30 separate . portion OF IL
40 to subject 1t TO force sale. Held: Irron'
eous, NOS being applicable to the facts. Re-
yersed and renAuded.
Young 70. Young, from Bell county;
Walker, p. !. Adopted. This 10 . suit for
divorce, which 10 based upon the sole
ground that the defendant had been con-
victed OF felony. his wife not appearing
against him, and had served HE term In the
penitsntiary. Defendant plead that before
tho amended petition was flsd his sentence
was commuted by tie governor, which
being a pardon under tho law was not
rround for divorce. Held: The legal conss-
uusnce OF u Communication OF sentence OF the
convict by the governor Is not equivalent
TO pardon OF the ofisnse 30 far az relating
to the enbject Of divorce under our law
Reversed and remnndtd.
Perry ct al. va. Woodson ct 0l.; from Harris
county; Watts ]. Adopted. There being no
pretencs that Woodson paid purchase
money for the hundred acre tract of land
conveyed TO Davis, the land was burdensd
with the amount Of the unpaid purchase
money. Tho note hersin sued on was
given to Woodson for the purchase money
OF the two hundred and sixty acre tract
conveyed by Davis to Mrs. Woodson. The
the consideration by Woodson for the two
hundred ard SIXTY acre tract Of land
therefor, JUS. the sxaeas II the note had
been given directly 10 Davis and trans.
ierrod by him to Mrs. Perry
in the place Of the first
notes. Ths evidence shows they asked
81, zoo FOR the property and understood
that to be the price asked, but would only
pay one thousand, because the title WAS
supposed 10 be defective, and the agent and
purchaser attcrward agreed upon one thous-
and ~ tine price and received the deed
with fifteen hundred dollars as the con-
siders.ion recited, and his name was in'
serted therein ns the grantee and the wife
did not consent or know OF t,is being done,
and refused to receive any part Of the pur-
chase money. Held: She was entiiis to ne.
cover the properly from 'hs. purchaser.
U nder the facts reciied no equities exist in
favor Of the purch aser, as against the wife,
which would allow him to hold the land,
or demand return Of the purchase money,
nor can he demand pay for the improve.
ments placed the reop, he not being an in
nocent purchaser. Reversed and rendered
In favor OF appellant.
Newman OF a.. vs.. Dodson, from waning
lon cou.tv; Willie, c. !. While the ser.
vice on one Of defendants was defective, 1t
was subsequently cared by the valid ser.
rice on the other, who appeared and as at
.oiney OF record for both parties, accepted
service Of interrogatories filed and crossed
hem. Evidence Of anyone 10 admissible
% provo statements Of q party relative to
ais health and physical condition, when
uch 10 matter OF inquiry, bus statement
Is 10 who inflicted the wound. are hear say
md ipadmissable. Objections TO Jurors
come too late after the verdict
9 rendered, they must be made before the
rial commences. A charge snumerating
acts. which II proven In evidence may be
sken into consideration In making an eeti.
nate OF damages are not on the weight Of
violence. Affirmed.
Watson ct al, VS.. the state, ex rel. Jow-
re-, from Anderson county, Willie c. !. In
n action In the nature Of quo warranto,
'eigaing produce, ETC., whore appellants
lid no claim to he Office OF public weigh. |
Is. but only weighed such produce, etc., as
hey were requested to do by the owners
hereof, In . private capacity, asd were
My exercising such acts 10 were necessary |
" them In doing such weighing. Held: |
judgment ordering appellants scales re-
loved from the railroad platform, and pro
hitting their further weighing, was errone-
as. (See this case In full 3 Texas Law Re-
lew 1907 Judgment reversed and rend-