The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-12-19
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SUPREME COURT,

Clark VIZ. Hauoy; from Hunt county
Opinion by Willie, c. j. The petition
stating the cause, rs ~. /. Clark" VS.. N.
b. Haney," and thu statement in. the
petition that plaintiff makes the allepn.
tions, is a sufficient designation Of the
party plaintiff When a grant is made
on the faith OF u promise and induced
thereby, the breach of The promise il n
Irand, and a. such, ground for equitable
reiieI' "A verbal promise of defendant
10 make certain disposition of the prom
erty being the means of obtaining title
IN himself, when he practices deception
on tne grantOr by 80 obtaining the lands
ana holding and dealing with them ON
MS own account and as his own, "A court
OF equity will compel u performance of
the verbal promise. Parol evidence IL
admissible to prove that u deed absolute
ON lls t'ce was executed and delivered
upon certain trusts not reduced IN writ
Ihe 10 pe p"ritrIed by the grantee. Re-
verSed and remmded.
Pipkin O. al. Va X tufman & Runpr.
from Milan county. Opinion by Walker,
p. J. Adopted. The citation states thu
the nature OF plaintiffs demand rs fol
lows! "P Rintitls ailrgc that ON the l4th
81 January, 1873, tho defendant, II. :.
fbpkin, executed tn :. b. Leach his
pr"misOry note for 3 1860, due and pava.
hle on the LIST OF Juuu 'ry, 1873, bearing
interest, payable annually, at the rate of
y per cent. per aunum from date. said
nnlo being given ia part payment Of the
purchase money Otaud retaining "A ven.
doris lien on the following described
land" describing it, L. also rprite>
that the note is due aud unpaid, except
the admitted payments Of 81 ca, paid on
November ~, 1850, and same amount
paid April &, 1851. he noie was. In
,act, Que January |, lsS2. Defendants
oelhE residents of no county of the
suit, copy of the petition was not r..
CURED to be served with the citatinn.
ana the citation is good. Asst defend.
ants served In the c unity whore the
suit IL brought, citation which T. valid
Is served vi th an accompanying copy
oi petition, Is equally good served on
snch defendants uttaccOmpnuied nv "A
copy OF petition. The want of a recital
IN Judgment by default that defend
ant WAS served with citation and fail. a
To appear aud answer, does not inynii.
date the Judgment when itappears from
the record
Thompson va. tho State; from Bexnr
county. Opinion by Wilson, /. I'M,
act of the calleu session of tho Seven.
teenth legislature providing for the lew
"i an occupation tax on persons selling
or "ii1ilng ~ sell the Police GHZette and |
"ther like publications. is a valid law
which tho legislature had pnwer t1
enact; It Ii nm equal aud uniform tax on |
he same class of IA jects, aud il mo |
opp' essive, vague, uncelttin or 81
lehuite. The classO suljrcis embrace,
II plainly set forth la its language.
when character of publications consii |
'uto u particular cluss under the law.
distinct from her pm licatious, aud "A,
he tax levied reaches ull belonging Ia
The particular class it j. equal a d uni
form. 10 Is only when individual or IL
lnss ar" 'iigled ont for rN"m Il ,n thnl
we law is not equal aud uniform. Al
firm Il.
Mcqueen vs.. Smith ct AL, from Van
'Hndt count d imon 10y ~taytnr,i The
legal ME iultrd appearing Ia he i'm \.
aud the estate of T., une purchasing lr, IN
n. Ia good faith nd tor a vduanle con.
'u GRAFTON, and without notice Ut th.
'quiiahle title lu tNr estate of y. would |
acquire good title 10 what, upon the lac,
81 me Gcel, appeared tu be \ - Interest
u u- Hud, \ conveyed ouc.hali oftb,
-raot o! land January s, 1867, 30 tn heirs
u H., which they, Uuuug other land.
.muiipu,d uWnug themselves hv H.
u ucut dttol january l., 1877, wuich
va. not recorded ar notice uthprWis
civ II, January, 1857. \. conveyed 10 l..
20 y uudlVud u-hL utle nud iltetc>r.
ana his right uuo aud interest ~ IA
legal reprc'a ntutlvo of the r.tite at Rim |
tho entlr 'rrt uf land, and at erwtrd |
IA conveyed 10 appellant, WIN pa,u
otciOr Witnpd. ull'c" 90 ''n w'uppv
In which the llud was acquired. Held:
, 'dtr tho lHut' apnuu" O., %, .tUCuud Ip
her title tOonu-hU, nt the h,ut, that h..
ing a. extent at the -, title conceded |
b, all parties TO have vested in A. hv |
h. tnnNey0nrc tn himsrif aud the h,iis (,
at g., an the latter were entitled to the |
other half Affirmed
Leuna Il Co. vs.. Roberts, governor; /
FROM Friu county. Opinion by Willie. !
.. J. A bond taken by the governor /
rom parties constructing a canal under |
lhn provisions OF tho oct of March 10. |
1870, cntitl II IAN net To encourage the !
of canals and ditr t.s for
navigation and irrigation IN lien of the
prnni requlr d OF said parties of their
ABILITY aud int ntiOn to Keep tho canal
III proper repair for the required term,
wh"n taken as n precedent 10 the parties
rerelVing the benefits III that act, IL null |
anu void. The bud not being IN terms
prescribed by statute, and IL lot being
uleue the duty Of the tx rutivo 10 AXE
any obligation whatever FROM the onn.
lmhy constructing the canal or ditch,
the hond cannot be sust aimed except as
u common law ohliyl tion, and tho petit
non not Snnwlng that II was Voluntarily
entered into BY tue parties fIr av'lid |
demurrer 10 the petition
Shnnlu have been sustained. Reversed
and remanded,
Hammau Vs. Willis & Bro, from Rob.
e'isnn county. Opinion by Walker, n. /.
Adopted. Wherein u suit in when the
issue Is Ms to the proper amount to be
allowed AN attorney for his services,
here was evidence that the parties In
Tue hrst suit we're the weaithiest Ia
heir res pertive localities, 4 was proper
'T the court TO charge the Jury that no
greater teo would I've reasonable against
\ wealthy man than rour man for the
same s"rNice, aud that they could not
allow the wealth uf tho parties 10 the
iuKation In which tho services were
rendered to influence their finding as
20 what would b. u reasonable fee, un
ess the SAM incro tsad mr. diminished
hr burden uf services of the attorney.
>ult tlr services ~ an attorney: Tho
nrv allowed tina attorney l7k per cant.
~ tho a'nnlint collected. Evidence of
'tthrneNs shove ~ be competent and
Experienced lawyers of extensive prac.
Ice In the courts, showed that "A
h. ol ~ per cent WAS reason
,ble. Evidence Of other witnesses
shn"ed that by tariff NJ protest. nal
,hargvs In the LEGALITY where the ser
MAJ. "A. |