Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-02-26
THE HIGH COURTS.
syllabus of Opinions Rendered AZ the
Galveston Term, 1884.
Reported specially for the Gazette.
supEEME COURT.

| lcrs,,n cUunty.-In SettibB up " c"uSc
OF action Is necessary only FOR the
pleader Ia aver the grounds or iacls
uppn which he bases his cause oil ac'
ton, or his defense. III Is improper 10
set nm in his pleadings the evidence
mon which he relies. If the pleader
does so, II motion 10 strike out is prop
nrly sustained. 1t is sufficient to AL
lege simply the facts upon which the
action is based. Under the rule laid
down upon the subject In "a Texas,
III, there was no error in striking out
ALLEGATIONS of l,alice and fraud. Ina
much as there was nothing in the
written contract that prohibited appel
liant from establishing II log camp, MS
exception to that part of appellee's an
swer that complained ofsuch log camp
should have been sustained. In de-
Tending this suit it was competent Tor
appelicts To show inter ala that APP
pril,nt neglected their business and
attended almost exclusively TO his
own, and in this manner prove Il
breach or hon-perfurmance of the con
tract But where the contract dues
not contine one party TO the service OF
his employers exclusively, he cannot
be prohibited from making en-
terprises of his own, If not 10 he neg.
lect of his own contracted duties. His
engagements In private pursuit., ho" :
ever, was competent evidence To show
breach or abandonmeutofhis contra
The practice OF permitting Illegal evil
dence to 20 10 the jury over the oh
jcrtions of the cOnt.sting party, amt
attempting afterwards to control its
effect in any manner Is reprehens bic,
aud erroneous Briefs, in referring Ia
authorities, should not merely refer To
volume aud page, out should use also
the style of case, rule 3G.l Revised
and remHnded. West j.
Saltrrwhiie ct al, vs.. Rosser ct al.
from Houston. Under the facts OF
thisc, eth. court held proper ythat the
juinder Ia !, SUIT uy one pa ~; plaintiff
holding the legal title OF Il co
plaintiff who held AN equitable title,
though not, strictly proper, still by
reason OF suit interest, the join der " i'll
be maintained; that in order TO plead
such adverse possession, the ppssgsslon
must he actual, visable, continuous
aud h, stile and of such character MS L,
enable the occupant TO assert c claim
oi absolute ownership. The doctrine
of state demand dues not apply To Il
strictly legal iiLle The holder OF Il coun'
lycerliii ,u'e by warranty deed from the
original granter, becomes upon the *
suauCe ot the patents POSSESSED of the
legal title to the land by estopple,
, which title il secured by the patent
, Affirmed. West, j.
Carlisle VS. Summer, from Wash
ington couuty.-The court below
properly held in this case undrr tht
facts elected Showing throughout 4
= purpose to subject the property of the
wife to the paymen of the hus
bands debt that he could moi
subject such an inic,est in
The property TO such pufpose)
Judge Moore properly LAYS down the
rule rs follow: mo one could i'm.
agtue creditor could, by any direct
process, have the property OF the wife
hired to pay his DEBT or appropriated
TO mis- own use in any manner to Thu
end Would not this, il effect, bC
+ done, ii he could wrongfuily seiae
aud hold the wiie'5 property ~ az
Eek 33S. There is II variance between
this and the case of Braden VS.. Gose
~ Texas ~. Here both principal and
interest of the note, were specially
agreed upon 10 he paid for land which
f was the separate property of the wife
, The interest having been specially
> EtlIllit'ttAl I'fi AL ttlt ttt'i, anu utSltIN
= 10 be lien upon the land as part oi
: the purchase money, and was in fact u
part of the purchase money AS much
as the principal The superior right
: sttll remained, by the terms OF the
2 contract with the vendor until both
:, principal and interest was paid. When
/. hia WAS done, and the contract fully
Il complied with, then any future inter
(. est uccruing from the loan OF the
pul chpse money would be community
% property, and subject 10 attachment
u punishment or execution. 1t was
e error in the case to render judgment
IF against appellant for attorneys. 1t is
Il proposed by appellee's counsel, how
: ever, to file Il remittitor to thi.
~ amount. Ii done in twenty days tn,
Judgment will he affirmed. Ordered
accordingly. West, j.
Il Cuff, West Texas & Pacific Railroad
o Company W. Muntur, from Dewitt
Sc county The petition in this CASE
If alleges that on account of the gros.
Al negligence and the want of proper care
4 on The part OF appellant, the boiler o
+. its engine, at which appellant was al
work, exploded and Injured him. Sucl
an explosion of itself is an act OF regli.
D gence sufficient to charge the appellant
l. With responsibility on the groun o
= negligence; ut least on n general de
e murrer such petition must be held 20
a sta a cause OF action. A special eX.
q ception, requiring plaintiffs to state
d more distinctly the special facts on
= which the right to recover was based
would huve laid. The general rule gov
ernlng the question is laid down in
IS rs Texas, 27l. Assignments of error
Q must not be general. If they are to b,
d considered, they must point out intel
e llgibly the objections to the action OF
+ the court, and designate particularly
=. the exact parts of the record in whicl,
0 errors are supposed TO exist. Affirmed
20 West, j.
Watts & Wedemeyer VS.. State, crrel
lowers, from Anderson county, anc
u warrant upon relation Of j to Dust w.
g q w, as public weighers of the city OF
e Fit was shown substantially that
u since his vacation of the office OF pub.
( lie w,igher, Watts had formed part.
nership with Wedenleyer and erected
Is scales in r., on which he weighed the
10 cotton and other produce of persons
who so requested, and that he had
made no claim TO the Office or its emol.
u umcnts. The first section of the
u act Of April l., 1883, provides
l. that nothing in this act shall be con-
+ struea SO rs TO prevent any other per
/ son from weighing cotton, wool and
hides, when requested so to do by the
owner ETC. This IS not in conflict