The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-11-21

on which to assert a claim against
Grants survey. Reversed and re-
mauded.
Leach VS.. Wilson county; from Will
son county. Opinion by Watts, !.
Adopted. When the petition stated
sufficiently the Indebtedness of appellee
to NJ and X; that the claim was allowed
and approved and audited by the county
court IN May, 1872, and warrant issued
by virtue thereof; that same was as
signed ny NJ and X to appellant for u
valuable consideration; that appellant
caused same 10 DO registered January
| IL, 1850, and tnad jane -, 1881, the
county court made and entered an order
directing the county treasurer not to
| pay same. This suit was brought No
vember l6, 1881. Tn court erred in sus-
tanning exceptions to the petition on
the ground that the cause of action was
barred by the statute Of limitations.
Under the statute (P, D., Art.
l,Q5; Rev. Stats, Art. 677)
when claim has been presented
and allowed, ANA warrant upon tho
treasurer has been drawn in accordance
with the order of allowance, while the
order of the county is the primary evil
dence of the right, yet the warrant is
the primary evidence of an existing and
material debt, which throws the burden
upon the county to repel by showing the
want of consideration or some other
solid defence. Burroughs on Pub. Sec,
p. 63S, ana authorities. Note ~ Under
the provisions of the statute, no cause
OF action would exist against the county
on an allowed claim, until it has been
i'll some way repudiated by the county
court. AS the claim was recognized by
the county authorities until June Is,
1881, although tho registration of the
warrant by the treasurer would not
estop the county from asserting the in
validity OF the Claim. q Texas Law Re
view.) Yet it being evi ienco tending to
show that it was still recognized az an
existing claim, the same was not barred
when the suit was brought. Reversed
and remanded.
hundinevs. Berwin from Milan coun-
ty Opinion 10y Stayton ]. Where a
cause comes up on appeal without bill
OF exceptions, or statement OF facts, il
The petition states cause Of action on
which the bill might legally have beon
rendered II proof of the facts alleged
/ the Judgment viii be affirmed. II the
labor performed by contractor is such
aud is done under such circumstances As
would enable him to establish mechau-
| les lien on the property by complying
with tho statute, or written contract
made after the work was done and the
/ labor performed, VIII, when such is
| clearly expressed 10 be the intention of
! the party, as fully give even the mechap-
/ les lien rs would the written contract
/ If made prior to the time the
work was done, if the written
contract was recovered as required by
statute. The statute Cart. 3lG5 Rev
Stats) simply places limitation of time
| within which tho contract must be filed
in order 10 fix the lien, and was not in
tended TO Operate as Il d, claration that
the recording OF the contract before the
debt WAS due shoulu not be as effective
i'll liking the lien, as though it was re-
corded after the debt became due.
Affirmed.
Ward VS.. Stuart ct al. from Falls
county. Opinion by station, j, The pc.
tition ayers that plaintiffs father prom
lsed TO convey him Oue-half of the land
in question ''if he would take charge of
the same and labor on the same and
manage the labor and superntend the
work and labor done on tho farm, and
Improve the place or land Il and
plaintiff did go on said land, and did
and performed all of the said agree
ment on his part, and said
Stephen $. Ward did receive the
crops, both of corn and cotton, raised
claimed and improved land thereon and
built houses and out-hOuses and fence,
thereon, and plaintiff faithfully worked
for more than two years, and Ouly Quit
then TO work and labor for said $, n
Ward in other business at his request. y
Held: As plaintiff refused to amend on
demurrer sustained to tho petition, and
allege that tho said agreement was in
writing, the avermentS in the petition
VIII be held To refer to an unwritten
agreement, and the facts stated are in.
sufficient to onttle plaintiff to . specific
performance. Exclusive possession OF
the land 10y plaintitfin pursuance of the
agreement is not av rred II is not
shown that plaintiff made improve.
ments on the land as owner with his
own funds, nor that his fathers estate
Is not amply able to make full compen-
sation to him for all services rendered
nor that he had done any act to take the
case out Of the sta ute of frauds, except
as partial payment may tend in that
direction, while even full payment, un-
accompanied with other facts, is not suf
hcient for this purpose. Affirmed.