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

IfIHNINt NNIuN If HfH ~ ~ 10 fIfINH w Hal
snd purchase under decree Ia fsvof q
Ilo,s n %. sEAlnst said Lynn, whloh ~
defsd fofeo'nfnfe nla iisn 'h'fer1, Ati
y ia igment Introduced by appsnita gyinl
him his writ OF possession Of tal'
house against Lynn. Ine B'Aiemen
o. facts fails 20 ahow when th'
aren't IL the trustee under the deed o
lfus, from Lynn 20 q apmru d o. CON
eyed the properly 10 TIE cl-imant', noi
the dGss Or onarac or 1T the li'u nn toe
property mold h. Ro'H6 o. nor hat suon
named agent was authorized iu vet Es suon
by ChEihhm, ~ ihHt he cod EuHh properly
scoordinR 10 the terms Nld conditions nj
tue decree. Affirmed.
Tucker VS. Missouri Pacific railway; from
Grayson county. Opininu ny Wet. Sult
| by appellant Tor damages Tor persOnsi III
jnries received on aposilsnps care. Jucg.
msnt Tor the COMPANY. Hsldi Where tbs
attending ply sioiRn. having iait OppOr,uni'
ties,of judging of appellant mestal cppGcty
and lntei lgenoe, terrified thst he had tho
Ordinary intelligence OF q iul bi1odad nc.
gro, and there Is nothing 90 show that no
was an imhecuo or non com .os
menlic, and the evidence also
shows that appellant, without the
knowledge OF the conductor, electsd 10 ride
on the pilo. near the cow-cs,cher, volun.
tarily and without advice from any ons,
aud when questioned ~ - his mot.vs for
so doing, gave as = ressoc, THAT be had no
morey 10 pay his fare, ami had given the
fireman fifty cents TO permit him 10 ride
on the pilot. Held: No error was c'umit-
ted in rendering judgmsn, Tor the aone!iee,
Affirmed. -,.,-.'--",.-s
Hoover ct al We. the TcxaS & Pac dc rail.
rosd; from Tayrsnt county 0,iuon by
West, ]. suit for damsges Tor nels maj !pju,
ries. The court found, aud the evidence JUS.
titled the finding, that deceased va euuty
OF conttibutory negligence. TIE general
rule Is, that q person or his heirs, in case Of
death, cannot recover tor an
injury to which he contributed
The record shossths al the period when
the deceased entered upon tho sppfl.ees
track, the GA1ge from tue engine wes im-
minsaJ and Ia - doing he WAS guilty OF
contr buIory Negligence which Was the
Droximste caus. ~ the juriss received;
there is 70 error apparent. Affirmed.
DanGheity ~ Harris; from Wilson coun.
~, 0pimon by Wait ]. Adopted. rbe sale
question noticed in this cHse relates 10 the
opuri'a ecticn in removing the venue Of the
cause t'om Aisscosa county. The order
granting Inc change of venue states that the
ailldnvits pro. = con. were considered but
the bill OF options shows that upon bear.
icg the athdaViis in aapport OF the change
the same was granted because the
mpeaching the croiibillty of the Witnesses
out as matter OF right to the party seek.
ing the change IL was to be granted. Hell:
Error Reversed and cause. ordered return.
ed to Atascosa county.
Ochor ct al. va CARA et. el from Bexs,
county. Opinion by Willis, G. ]. The sole
issue in this case 10 as to whether or not
Jose Manuel Urriqnes va o'sound mind OF
the time he enacted the transfer TO Cara
OF the certificates upon which the land ia
controversy was ai,crward petsnted. With
out consuming space to set forth the tvi-
dence, IL is sufficient to say that it was very
c,ntlc ing and the court having fairly sub
mitted the issue to the jury we cannot re-
verse Without interfering with the province
OF the jury. Affirmed
DAVIS vs.. Gray; ffom Hays county.
Opinion by Stayton, j The note which
ia the foundation of THE suit, being nego.
table in form, and bearing no evidence on
ite face thot il was eXpected o be signed by
any other persous Than Z r Turner & Co
ard j 8. Davis. appellant, and the aver.
msnt of the answers being taken % true,
the ordinary course of business tor vaIua-
BILE cor sideIa ion, it must be held that any
agreement between Turner &c Co and
Davis. to the effect that the note should not
be used unless Ellison and lyle also signed
it "a sureties, cannot defeat piaintii''s re-
covery unless it be shown thai he had notice
OF that agreement. The signing nnd
enables the latter to deliver it to
Gray. who in the absence of not o.
the intention of ali the par les whose s,g-
natures were on 1t, to make with HIM the
contract evidenced bv the note. (Brantt
on Suretyship 1915; So Mo-, 2l2; SO N. Y,
81; 80 Grattap, sos; 80 Mion, $50; IL Lea
\ rx,fv ktay. ANo . h.,
to Gray? Held 1t did not. It alleges
tina. Hutchison prepared the note and was
TO pass on the sutficiency of the surety for
Gray; that Hutchinson proposed to take a
note signed nv Turner & 20, with Davis,
Ellison and Kyle as snre,ies; that Turner
ook the note and signed it for his firm,
thereto: that Ellison and Kyle declined to
sign the note a. sareties. after which Tur.
ner returned with the note to
Hutchinson and informed him tina.
the matter could not be cnnsummsted
because Il. &c K. refused 10 sign the note,
phereupon II. proposed 20 receive the note
as 1t was, 10 which Turner agreed and de.
livered the note without notifying Ii that
Davie had consented to be bound only on
condition that K & X. signed the noe as
sureties. Affirmed.
Hudson VS.. Wilkinson; from Brszos
county. Opision by Watts, j. Adopted
This " the third time this case has besn
appealed. (See 45 Texas, 444) Ga tie
last trial appellee recovered $24 !or vrluo OF
the team and 1926 for hire of the same
The court below erred in refusing the 7'h
Instruction asked The rule for DAMAGES
in cases of this character is the value of the
properly wron gfully converted, with inter-
est from the date of conversion. Reversed
and Iemanded.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Texae q Pacific railway vs.. Dan Johnson
and wife; from Grayson county Opinion by
Wilson, j. Suit by app lice for dam
ages, alegn that Mrs Johnson
purchased fir t-cless ticket for
trans portation from Bonham to Shrr-
man on appellants road on q first
class or; that she started to enter such Car,
when brakeman forb sde her entrance and
rushed her back against al iron railing in
flicting serious injuries upon her pc u
and forced her to 60 INTO another Ctr, (the |
smoking earl wherein were drunken men,
and wherein she was exposed TO impolite |
language and rude treatment. a trial r..
suited IN verdict and Judgment for $3.50.
The first assigned error cannot be p0tic q, |
because the bill OF exceptions is included |
Ia the statement of facts which was |
led after IN. adjournment Of court. (5S |
Texas 524; 3 Texas Law Review, 67 and 9S), |
The second assignment Is not well taken,
but the oh ree of the court Is entirely cor.
rect, and supported by the averment OF the
petition and the evidence adduGsd. (5l