The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-02-22

the cHI struollon Of the range, operated no
jury 10 the appellee, Whatever injury hiss
fesultcd was from iis operation by Watts.
delc' The rule II that an agent II person
abs liable Ia bird perfon Tor doing fome'
thing which he ought not n have done,
oar nVt Tor doing something which he
ought 10 have done. In the latter case,
fhn accent ia liable only g. his employer,
d ID Mo go, Z Olio St. 2l2) Because ap-
p-llani, ns agent, rented tne house 20 Waite
ID Boo ua.d asa restaurant and author zei
.m tfti,tt The RANGE on the premi.es ava
DOW Wh Tst was pTgctsd aud rtlu 0i 90
pay I,F itl removal 10 another part Of the
Hulting, clnult mNka him liable, ArufF
Hul Ia mol the landlord oi Waite, nor does
aertlau0n of principal and agent, or mas
..r aud servant exist between them, aud
t4Qfc eau Do no liability in the q aonca ~
sUl1a Affirmative oct Nv appellant non,
which the iulury results, new irtl
should have been granted. Reversed anu
remanded.
Anderson W. Hmtlndale & 8ahultre
fi0m Galveston county. Opinion by Wal
lee !, The only ofof relied on 70 me
giving IT a special charge requested oY de-
ftudant. The evidence OF defendant (Which
must have been delivered by toe lufyl wAu
| ga dlfoc. conflict with that OF pihinuls,
! The charge complained u merely tells the
| Jury, in effect, thai aorrtan tact, II proves,
| would not % itself raise conclusive Pre-
| sumption that the contract WAS ~ claimed
| by plaintiff, or require settlement on she
terms claimed by him; that tney could
Ic1rsider certain other lacts, II proved, a,
! iCndirg 20 Tabu' such presumption. lt did
| nut tell tlrm what weight To give 20 any
facts claimed D have been proved ny either
! party GO Texas, 5l) lt toli them. iH
substance, that no conclusive inference
| must be drawn nom a state OF tACti cup
posed 90 be IN evidence, without outsider
| ing other circumstances detailed ny the
w.t. esscE, provided they beloved tncm
| true. go Texas. 3lS } IL wag y'rlu. Ily e
charge 10 consider the whole evidence sn
nr H3 Cleditcd; u determine the nature OBJ.
mo coutrscl aud the rights " The pant ia
under 90. and not To one particular e.lclu'
ttsnco alone, which might lead th0u @ =
din rent conclusion. ()l Texas, 1863 A.
filmed.
sattCswhile It al. ys. Rosser 81 al, nom
| Houston county. Op MON by Wse. !.
Under the facts o! this case (too lengthy 70
herein insert) the court held az follows: !,
| Chat the i1iuder IN suit OF one plaintiff,
having a legal title, oihis co-plSinlill hay
ing au equitable tile, though not strictly
proper, still by reason OF such interest suon
juinder Will b3 tolerated (Sayles Practice,
PIP. 1863, aud authorities there cited). =, In
order 10 plead adverse possession, such pos
session must be actual, visible, continuous
and hostile, and one OF such character rs
20 gs sert q aim of exclusive ownership In
the occupant. For the rule on the subject
see Chance Va. Branch, aud Angel on
| Lin. (Spc. 35D. 8, Toe doctrine OF state
demand and laches does not apply to a
strictly legal title (i9 Texas COZ; 50 Texas
2iD. 1, A holder OF a headlight certificate
~ warrantee deed from The gran tee, upon
the Issuance OF the patent, becomes, by es-
opel possegs OF the legal tito % the
l,nd secured by such certificate and patent.
Affirmed.