The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-05-15
THE COURTS.


eUfRhhE CUUhTs
Coffin We. Douglass from Gray son county.
Opinion by Stayton l. An assignment
made by partners, no. purporting to pass
title to all the property owned by the part
nership, and by members thereof in their
separate rights, except such as IL exempt
from forced r-le, ia void under the act OF
N arch "a, 1879. Where the assignment sets
forth, "does hereby give, grant,
etc. all their wares. merchandise
etc., belonging to US now on or about the
store any and all mechandise, ETC..
including properties OF all kinds now
owned ~ u.s." and contains release OF the
makers AZ u firm and as Individuals and IL
stunned by the full names of the parties
Held: To be a lid assignment. passing
title to the assignee of all property owne'
as fl III aud his individuals, except that
exempt fiom forced sale. Reversed and re-
manded.
TIE STATE of Texas We. Wells ct. al; from
Travis coat y. Opinion by Watts, j.
Adopted. From the conclusion OF facts
iuund by the court, it appears that the
bond upon which this suit is based, was
dlsspproved apd rejected by the comp.
roller. This finding is sustained by the
evidence. The bond was not in accordance
with he require meuts of The statute, nor,
as it see ms, with the instructions eminatipg
from the com ptroller's office. BY the
terms of the statute, the bond, nOtwith-
standing its approval by the commission
er's court, was also subject 10 the approved,
or oisappruval, OF the comptroller, and as
i, was Il, such bond az The statue requu-
ed, it was his duty to ri c. it. The comp
trUller having reiueed to accept the bond for
the state, and having returned it with
appropriate instructions as to the manner
ia which the oond should be prepared and
execu. ed IL cannot be claimed with any
shoe OF reason that II was ever binding upon
the apptllees. An essential element To con-
siitu e II ,ubsiating obligation 10 entirely
waiting The state acting through her
authorized agent refused to accept the
bond, but rejected and returned the same.
Under the circumstances OF this case, that
the purpurted bond did not constitute q
contract between the state and appellees, is
much TOO clear TO O init of controversy. In
legal effect IL amounted to nothing more
Ia an proposal made by one party and de-
clined by the other. Affirmed.
Robertson vs. RICHARDSON'S; from Brown
county,. Opinion by Delanv d, adopted Suit
by appellant against APPELLEE Tor divorce.
Hs slieeed that ha and appellee married
10 Kentucky in 1874; that they lived to
gether ia tnat sta until 1868, whom she
Wiifully, Voluntarily and without any
cause or prOvocatton, abandoned his bed
and board aud has never returned; that she
left him with Intention never to return. A
general denial wss filed. the only evidence
Introduced was that o. John b. Robertson.
to the : if ct that the defendant left plaintiff
in 1868, going t. Tennessee, where she re.
NAMED until 1882, when she went to wit.
ness home in Missouri, whore she remained
a short time, going from there to Caliior.
mia, where she fas since remained. That
plaintiff bad a Comfortable home, and no
reason is given for her leaving. Held: A
Judgment for defendant wac proper. Ac-
Cordine 10 the rule announced in McGowan
vs. McGOwan (52 Ttxas, 657 the plaintiff
sbould have pro iucsd at least some reason
able measure that he neither caused, nor
prnducsd, nor oDsented TO the separation"
Affirmed. =,
Unaiham vs. May; from Coryel county.
Opinion bS Walker, p. ] Adopted. From
thc agreed statement OF the record subniG
led by the parties with the approval OF the
Judge, 1t appears that May brought this
suit g ainst one LYNN, fHr the possebsion
of csrtnia properly described g. lone
certain irame bulldog, 20 feet by 56 feet,
two stories high ana kpown ss Lynn
Gin hou-e, 81 ua ed in Corvell county,
Tcxas, AID aoout 200 yards west OF
south OF Whitsens mil " May caused
writ Of sequestration to be levied on the
anne and opDel Att fl d oath md clatm
oond for d TOOK possession of the prop.
prtT. The issue rendered oy tee clsimsut
Was ,vhethfr be was entltled to recover By
vr-tns OF deed nj trus IRON Lsnn 10 Chat
han, e c..aad a deed IN 10 ~ r X Goa
a. IA uus.s tue same. He'd: IL oeyuiveu
Cd the claimant to show batter right 70