The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-13

This was Huit for partition OF n certain lot,
Decisive for the reversal OF tho Judgment
IL the courts ruling upon the defendants
demand, and ppecinl exceptions 10 ths sum
cheney Of the petition. The petition nj.
legged that the plaintiff owned by purchase
supreme court had decresd her, |. o., q life
estate la said property, and that whatever
title or interest defendant may have origl-
naliy owned was suspended as TO the right
Of enjoyment, leaving defendant the rever.
sion IN fec Of bis community one.half Inter.
eat after the termination OF tho estate for
life. DsfeAdant's special exception set M
that the petition admits that no owns al
interest In the property after the death OF
the one for whose lie the same Is held, ana
that there IN no law TO partition revision
airy interest" Held; The speclsl excep.
lion should have been sustained. Reversed
aud remandtd.
Aycock ct. al, va. Kimbrough. OF nj;
from Falls county. Opinion by Delaney,
!. Adopted. This was sui. BY injunction
TO restrain an execution sale. Appellants
having q Judgment against one OF several
heirs, levied an execution on tho entire un.
divided land. Tho judgment OF the court
below against the validity o.: tho execution
sale 10 based upon tho conclusion OF law,
that the said land Chat In controversy be-
ing owned jointly by the said heirs. to-
guther with Tho houses aud lots In Marlin,
az the date OF tho said levy aud sale, II was
Incompetent TO subject an undivided Inter
est OF A. T.. Morris lone OF tho heirs) In and
to said land, or u specific part thereof; that
said estate could not be partit oned In frng-
ments. This IL not the case presented In
Good va. Coombs; (2s Texas, 35); see also
Done vs.. Dupham; ga Texas, 500 Mckay
W. Welch (22 Texas, 306). The case here
presented il an attempt TO sell the undivided
interest In trsctof land Of a co.tensnt who
nwns that tract and several other tracts ia
connection with other co.tenants. This
can be done (5tory's Eq. Juris., SEQ. 1867
See the subject fully discussed and the au.
thorities examined at length In Butler VS..
Eoys; (25 Mich, 03l. Also Freeman on
Coienancy, sec, ZIG. Reversed and re-
mspdsd.
Oliver OF al. va. Mahoney; from McLen-
nan county. Opinion by Delaney, J..
Adopted. This case involves solely ques-
don Of boundary. Appsllapts insist that
| the east line OF the Anderson county sur
vey should be carried easterward to the west
| line OF Burris, because the Burris Is the old
| or survey. and tho field one too, OF tho An
derson call tor its west lipe. Appellants
invade the rule that u call for marked line
or for the line Of nm older survey will ordt'
narily control call for course and distance,
but that rule does no. here apply. In this
case there seems nsvsr 10 have been any
|
ground the northeast corner and the east
line OF tho Anderson survey. The survey
contains its full amount OF land and there
il no ground OF com plant about II. This
controversy has arisen out OF the fact tina:
The surveyor BY mistake. supposed the cas-
line OF the Anderson 10 coincide with the
west line of the Burris, and 30 called foI
that line. This mistaken call for the Burr |
line should be rejected. Affirmed.
Newton ct al. vs.. Newton; from Wilson
county. Opinion by Willie, c. J. A party
contes ing an application In the county
court may be required by the applicant tc
state bis interest IN the estate, but this mus
be dope by precise exception taker
soa his th. 'pp's sHasSon in must aas
taken In limine and can form no part OF the
inquiry after the Issue has been made up
on the merits go rexnE. 81 As tbs
matter ia heard de nons In the district cour'
on the appeal the executor or administrator
might then require tina appellant to pro
pound his interest, and when this Is don't
he might contest IL il no ssw 1T F" When
the css, reached the district court on ap-
! peal the parties occupied the same position
coward each other a, they do In tho county
court and the trial was de mons as IL origi
nslly brought in the dlstrict court. (Rsvi,.
ed Statutes 3,207) The district court erred
IN di.missing this case on ths ground that
i
not show that appellant had that
Interest in the matter that would
allow him to be- in tho case. and for thii
reason the judgment IL reversed and thf
case renamed. Reversed and renamed
The State OF Texas W. Wells It a.: nom
Travis County. Opinion by Watts, ]
Adopted, This suit was instituted by th'
state against appellees, ms tax collec or auc
sureties on his bond, for certain taxes du,
the state The sureties answered that upor
their application the cOuaty commissioners
court had released them from all lab lily
md ompsled Wells to execute new bond
THIS no did, blu, the same was never ap
proved by the comptroller. The question
! presented by this appeal IL, whether thu
sureties of tue first bond were released b,
the order OF the county commissioners
, court, or held bound until the required
! bond WAS given and approved by the prope
officers. The court holds them liable, rem
! dering judgment against appellees 10
80, S6l 10 with interest at 8 per cent, from
u Gem DER 2. 1882 with oil costs. Reversed
; and rendered.
COURT or APPEALS.
! Garz.lns vs. the st-te; from Tom Grpe'
conatV. Opinion by Wilson, !: The tes!imc
nv at Spears az 10 what the prosecuting
witness told him about tho Glieae'
essault on the day after IN
occurrence and as 10 thu bloc
no saw on her floor aud as 10 how she SAT-
H. came there, was hearsav and not res gest;
and should have been rojected. The pro Z
cutting witness having testified on cross eS
animation that she was induced bv tn
county attorney 10 make the stlidsvi
against deiendan on which the prosecution
was passed, Il was proper t. ADMIT evideDc
on tho part Of ths state, rebutting and con
tradictiDg this statement. There 4, n
venue Of the offence shown. Reversed an
emanded. -
Allen We. the State; from Palo Pint
county. Opinion by Wilson, ]. The In
formation charges that heretofore .
: in the county or ., one George ALE
did then and there acquire and obtain b,
false and deceitiul preiense and irauduien
representations with intent to eppropriat
the same 10 the use OF him, the said deorg
len, tho marty 20 acquiring, four certail
: fish. personal property I, the vaiue OF mn
| cents, belonging to Graf Bradford, by the
! aud there representing to him, Graf Brac
ford. that he, George Allen, would pa,
|; him, Graf Bradford. fifty cents In money
said Graf Bradford would deliver sal
fish nj George Aliens house, which he, sal
q rat Bradford. did then and there deliva
/, said fish at George Aliens house, and wbic
{ said representations then aud there by IT,
; said George Allen made, we're false AID un
trns. Held. This information does no
' alege facts constituting the ohsnse o
syindling, or any other ctfense known % ih
; penal code. Reversed and dismissed.
Zseipel vs. toe State. from Comsnch
, county, mo. 2s7l). Opinion by Hurs
Conviction tor SAILING liquor on eiectio
/, day. The indictment charges that defend
D ant sold liquor on the 9TH day OF Novem6el
: 1852. said dsy being then and there da
E OF general election for county and ttnt
9 officers, and that said election was the
: aud there held. Held: The indictment
Insufficient TART. l7s p. o.. as there IS o
, allegation that the election was held 10 u
I precinct, village, town or city OF defendant
: residence, or where the liquor was sold
Reversed and dismissed.
, Burton vs.. the state; from Mitchell