Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-06

"u' p"i tiie iec out OF which no
particular estate has been carved. Tho
statutory bar being complete avains,
the owner, is complete against All nar.
sons holding under him. The statute
eXempts married women and minors
only WIN respect to property in which
they nave some estate. Reversed and
rendered for appellant. Staylon. J.
Hart ct al. vs.. McDnde, from Rro.
Zoria county-The land in controvars,,
was patented to j. II. Herndon IN
June, 1870, prior to which time he
shows no interest in either the land or
certificate. Both parties to this anti
deraign title to the farm Herndon cnn.
Neyed to Cole in June Is. 1877 and
Cole to appellee January TO- ISIS.
lhese deeds were not recorded until
october, 1883. April -, 1897, G.. re.
covered n Judgment against Ii. and G.
upon which no execution issued. ,Iuly'
1881, execution issued ON the iudg.
ment against the executors of the viii
of III. under which the land was sold
and bought by g., under which annal.
lants claim by deed recorded October
~, 1881. 1T is not shown that the
against III. and G.. was ever
revived against his executors, or that
III. is dead The judgment command
ed the sheriff to levy on the property
of ; G. and b. Nj. H., executors of j.
II. III. j. IA. Herndon was adiudged a
bankrupt and received his discharge
IN 1863. The Judgment was scheduled
in bankruptcy. Held, that appellees
showing Il regular claim of title from
the sovereignty of the soil, he was in
Titled to recover except as against q
better title, in appellants il the pro-
ceedings under which they claimed
were regular, and in any event would
pass title as against H., there vas no
lien on the land as no execution WINS
shown to have issued on The judgment;
the proceedings through which pei.
lantS claim title were insufficient to
pass title TO any one, even IL II. had
not sold the land prior to the execu-
ton. Affirmed. Stayton, j.
Stark ct nj. VS.. Burr ct al, from Or
lnge county.-On page 1870 OF the 5gth
volume OF the Texas reports, this case
will be found reported upon its merits.
There is no material difference in the
of the petition touching the
question of jurisdiction, and upOn
silhl ilbIhl tiiC Nt'tl-lh.i vi itlIiltI all-
peal is reaflirmed. Those of the de-
'endants in this case residing in ID.
county, filed plea to the jurisdiction
)f the district court ofO. county, which
was treated as a demurrer. Held, that
hat the question of jurisdiction is one
which should be passed upon before
he ease is put upon trial, even though
et down for particular time, The
ecord discloses no facts under which
plaintiffs could in good faith amend
heir pleadings so rs TO confer iurisdic-
ion, wherefore the amendment was
refused. Affirmed.
Berry Us. Texas x New Orleans rail-
way, FROM Orange, on rehearing. The
nit in this case was filed by affidavit
lndcr the provisions of article l43S of
he revised statutes. The clerk in re-
ponse to the affidavit placed the case
N the jury docket, and ii il fair to
resume that u jury was then demand
d, The case remained on that docket
Intil it was called for trial. It's right
o be on the jury docket was not ques
Toned by any one, nor was other OBJ |
action made until the jury was being
when the defendant OBJ |
ected to n trial by jury upon the |
round that the affidavit was framel. |
nder article 1I3S instead of article
067 of the revised statutes. The plain
III Immediately deposited the jury
&c and demanded Il trial by jury,
ihich was refused. Held, that the
elton of the court was error. Reversed
nd remanded.
Gale vs.. Baunnel, from Harris
n married woman has |
ontracted the sale of her separate |
roperty in land, aud has acknoWl- |
dyed the execution Of the deed thereto |
therein the price was stipulated at |
/ 800, the name OF the grantee being
If blank and the amount being shown |
5 that she WAS willing TO accept for |
he property, and IL being further |
hown that she authorized no one else
D diminish the consideration, she |
ill not he bound by an agreement |
nbsequently entered into between her
usband and her grantee STIMULATING
mailer amount Of money as consid-
ration. The prime object of privy
to notify the wife ofthe
ature of the conveyance she is called
lpon to sign. She can avoid
deed she has signed under fraud
lent or mistaken information. The
,ceipt of less sum than named in TIE
eed, by her husband, is not ratlti-
alton of the sale by her, nor Will II
stop her from denying the deed. A
larried woman's deed may be avoided
espitc her statutory affidavit, IT. IL be
iown that the affidavit does not speak
ne truth. Reversed and rendered for
ppellant.
Eason vs.. Eason, from Colorado
charge directs the
Try to find for one or more OF the par
es upon issue upcontlovered by the
il is not error. In this case
ne father had given the son by ver-
al bequest, a part of the family home
lead, which the son with his wife
loved upon and occupied for several
ears. The father made all the I'M
on the place except the
noke house, q building oflittle value,
'hich was moved by tie son from the
,ther's place. The father paid all
.xes upon the property, except MY
.nts, which WAS paid by the sons
life, subsequent to the institution OF
his suit. Under such circumstan ces
ne Jury would not have been war
.ntcd in finding verdict for the son
nd wife. The appellants could not
,aintsin suit tor specific perior-
lance, and consequently cannot
uintain an action for the property.
u,.,,
the record shows con-
u.iyely TINT Albert Whitaker was
lly served, 1t does not appear. that
Ne case, as to him, was dismissed:
he Judgment makes no disposition OF
Ne ease as to him, but was rendered