The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-29
COURT DECISIONS.
SynopsIs Of Recent Decisions Of the
Superior Courts,
Upon Matters oi Interest 10 Lawyer
aud Ll,ignni.
Legal Lore In Compact Form.
eounr oF ArrKALs


him. Toe onmmitsioner'a court ul the
COUNTIES, In the absence Of legislative nu'
ihority, nave no power under tue conH'i VI.
Ati0nAl amendments 6doniei the second
Tuesday Ia August, 1883. changing. the
terms oi county courts 20 crate additional
toms oil the county courts, NM ltgl latVe
notlon only the cOhstiiutiunal terms can
he held Reversed aud dismissed. Wilson
J,
SUPREME COURT.
Gray e. nj w. Chnney; from Angelina
county. Opinion by WHO, Q, The
judgment rendered In the Justices oo1rt
against appellants was tor tue recovery OF
tour bales OF cotton or iis equivalent,
$3.50, ihr estimated value al the cotton
In appealing appellants gave bond bind
Ing themselves To pay appellee eight bales
ofIint cotton or the sum of SOD, oonhi'
toned that they shonll prosecute Their APP
peal TO effect, ard paw OIL and satisfy the
Judgment. which might be- rendered against
them. Held. THIS bond Is IN the Alternative,
and according 10 ils terms could be- die.
charged by the delivery OF eight bales of
cotton. as well as by the payment of $3.50
The law does not contemplate that an APP
peal bond should be 80 conditioned.
Whilst u Judgment may in homt Instances
be rendered for property or i.s value IN
money, rs Rscerlained ry tho judgment,
when nn appeal from w. Is taken the obi.
CATION should he only Tor the pas ment OF
double the amount II such yalno in money.
Affirmed.
Morris ~. Geisecke et a., from Washing.
ton county. Opinion by Stnt u, J. 1.
The ia0is stated Ia the petltioI must be
taken as true or demurrer. . The power Of
n husband, without being joined by his
wife ia roou faith 10 adj Just equities existing
prior TO the complete iuvestiiure homestead
richl mas heen recognized in many case g.
q Texas, 3Oi; 10 Texas, DIS; 10 Texas, l63;
81 Texas. 100; 90 Texas, 593; 81 Texas, G62;
| 81 Texas, 47i) THIS II a power. however,
which must be exercised ia good faith, and
hit appears that the act OF the husband in
this respect be in bad faith, and with u
view TO do indirectly what he could not do
J directly, and this for the purpose ofiraudu
lently deriving the wife of her homestead
right. then, at least to all persona who have
notice of the husbands evil design, The hus
bands act can be OF no avail. OG Texas,
III; 81 Texas, 1907 Reversed and remand
barter & Fa sn I L. G rar &C. frt m Fay OF .
county. Opinion b. btsyton Wherein
an action 20 establish the right OF The town
ID and 10 have distractions removed from
street in the town, aud defendant plead
mot guilty" and the statute OF ten years
and evidence ofstatements by the husband.
to the effect that he occupied II by permis-
sion OF the city council and would sur
render II upon request, was offered. Held:
Admissible as the declaration of the hus-
hand gave character to his holding and
evidenced the tact that his possession was
not OF such adverse character Us
to put in motion the statute
of limitations II the husband held oy
permission OF the town council his holding
was not adverse, and the relation between
him and the town was that OF landlord srd
tenant. His hol ing could not be Nv rse
to the town without. some open hostile uct
indicating clearly an intention to claims
adversely to the town. Appel liant holding
as the survivor Of her husband was In the
same position a, he. and without some
hostile act, etc the statute OF Limitations
does not avail her. Affirmed.
Baker VS.. Brazos aud Bureson Bridge
company, from Brazos county. Onlnion
by Walker, p ]. Adopted. First-Where
there is judgment by default, the facts
set out In the petition are to be taken as
true. Second Where suit is brought in
The name of CORPORATE n Incorporated un.
der special act of the legislature, which
incorporation is 80 alleged. the court vii!
take judicial cognizsnce of the pr visions
Of such special act which must be pleaded
10 enable the court to determine its provis-
ions, Third-Where q court OF one county
has jurisdiction OF The subject matter Of the
anti II defendent Is not resident OF such
county, he must plead his privilege to be
sued In the county of his reside nce Az
VI. A. Grsathouse vs.. Early Greathouse,
5m Bell county. Opinion by Walker, p.
Adopted. Suit on q promissory note
pd to foreclose vendors lien. Defend
Nd set up q counter'claim growing out ut
Il alleged partnership between plaintiff
and defendant. ii Id: Defendants coun-
terclaim setting up a balance due him on
4 pre.exis,ing partnership with plaintiff,
does not fall within the spirit or meaning
oi the we'll settled note. Rev. Stats. Art.
els; Art. 3443 Pas. Dig; 2 Texas, 1865; IL
Texas, II; 10 Texas, lof.) reversed ana re-
handed
.Nettles W. Smith, from Falls county.
bpinion by Watts. Adopted SUIT of
trespsss to try title. Netties Purchased the
land from G. on time, ANA had paid all but
about $500. c. being ABOUT to iorec ose the
lien, Smith advanced 500 which was used
in paying o. TO secure Smith Net'les and
wife executed deed ct trust on
the land. Ne'tles and wife NJ
| ,erwatds executed and delivered to
. smith sconveyancs for the land, being
| deed with general warranty with the TO-
lowing additions super 1ded ANA IL ~
nndersi God aud agreed that the said sum
| of 81 1856 (lhat being the consideration re-
| cited in the decd) was advanced ny SAID
' Robert Smith 10 enable Us TO pay the pur-
chase money OF said above described tract
nj land TO Thomas C1ubb, OF wnom we pur.
chased the same by deed bearing
date eye. Aud 1t - lnTth
err understood and agreed that
ne have the right at any time bstween
| the date hereof and the frs, day of Dec.
is76 to re.purchGse said above described
| tract of land by paying said Robert Smith
said sum of 81 $50 in god cois" AT the
time of the execution of tbs deed Smt
executed a release OF the DEED OF trust, etc,
and Neitles executed note for the rent OF
W N al
sale aud not a mortgage. Affirmed.
beatty & BROOKS, from Burnett county.
Oninion by Wslker,c. ]. Adopted. Appellant
ss,isn Ms error that IL appearing from the
evidence that the note sued on was execut
sd Ions after the land described In the petit.
ton had been paid Tor, aud that II had not
heen given in lieu OF any note gwen Tor the
nurchase money OF said land. the court
sred In rendering judgment foreclos ng
~ lien on the land. Held: Not NAM
ss;nsble. The facts OF this CASE bring 1t
Thin the decision of Flanagan vs.. Cnsh-
nan. (4s Texas 1851. (5ee also 10 Texas
As Texas 80: 50 Texas 49, Am med.
YHanrick vs.. Cavsuaugh, rom William
nm county. On rehearipg Original opinion
XII Basset, special justice, adopted. Inc
I.ets of this case are sufficient TO support
ihe finding OF the jury that the ms ruinent
In que stion was forgery. The genuine
80 OF an instrument purporiing TO be an
koal concession from ihe government
nv he attached for forgery by one claim
Inc iuuior right. Assignments and trans.
srs ol claims 80 lano flied IN the general
"a oliics are archives OF the same,
.l,bourn the final title to the land may not
ssve issued, and coriss thereof
i"lr certfi d, are admissible ss
whence wherever the original them
t'ires would be COMPETENT In the
s,irion nj toe commissioner of the general
"a o,Iice. as showa by n letter to the DIS
-, .nry,vor. il not COMPETENT evidence
~. .o',ion 10 title to iaud Affirmed.
r,sin. st. NJ. vs.. Blanks, from, Hays
.ttr. Opinion by Willie. c. !. fhe
-, couri has jurisdiction OF eli suns
~ - q .-.n rirhI If nfOnc rlY leYild