The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-26
JUDICIAL GRIST.
SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS.
The Latest Cases AdJudicated by Our
Court of Last Resort - Questions
settled that Have Long Puz-
zlcd the Lawyers.
SUPREME COURT.

special justice. Inc questions presenter
in this case are substantially the same
as those presented in the case of tho
same appellants against Field ana others
from McLennan county, and the opinion
delivered in that case will apply to this.
Affirmed.
Block, Oppenhcimer & Co. vs.. Hootcn
and Townsend from Burnct county.
Opinion by Watts, ]. Adopted. This was
n suit brought by appellants against the
appcllccs In which an attachment was
levied on the goods of the latter. In the
suit appellecs recovered against appel
lants and their surctics and recovered for
damage resulting from wrongful suing
out of attachment, adversely upon the
bond, and against the principal and sur
tiles to the amount therein named. But
no disposition whatever is made of the
surities II. and b., by the Judgment.
There is, therefore, no final Judgment
such ms will give the court jurisdiction
and the appeal is dismissed.
Arnold vs.. i4eatherwood from Johnson
county; opinion by Dclany, J. Adopted,
The present case grew out OF
the case of Arnold vs.. Caudlc, GO Texas,
52I). Mrs. Caudle, the vendor of the APP
pellce, was one of the plaintiffs IN that
case; appellant was one of the defend
ants in that suit, and took the case up
ing in 1876, II certified bill of cost
was issued from she court
below against the plaintiff under
which the land in controversy
i'm that suit and in this, was sold by the
sheriff and bought by the vendor of APP
pcllant. The question is, whether the
sale of the land, made under these cir
cumstances, was valid. The court be-
low charged the jury "that the sale of
the land in controversy by virtue of the
certified bill of costs issued by the clerk
pending the appeal IN eases No; So,
under which sale appellant claimed was
void" Held: Correct. (Pas. Dig. Art.
GOi2-lG: Y Texas, sos; 81 Texas. 3Ii; 10
Texas, 2s2). After the above sale by the
sheriff, Mrs. G.. joined by her
husband, conveyed her interest
in the land to defendant. lie immedi-
ately filed his deed in the proper office
for record, and permitted IL To remain
there for some time, when he Withdrew
il. IL was about twelve months before
he discovered his mistake about the
record of the decd. lie then had ii prop
erly recorded. Al interim, the case of
Arnold vs.. Caudlc was reversed 10y, the
Supreme court and costs adiudgcd
against plaintiff. \ final judgment also
had been rendered in the court below,
upon which an execution issued, and
Mrs. t.'s interest was again sold by the
sheriff and purchased by appellant. He
relied on that title also To recover this
suit The Court properly held that there
was no constructive notice, ms the deed
had not boon recorded, and properly
charged tho jury upon the question of
actual notice. Tho evidence was CON
ficting, but justified the finding of the
jury. Affirmed.
Austin n Northwestern Railway vs..
MAYS; from Travis county. Opinion by
Watts. j. Adopted. Where the ease
made by the. petition so far as the lien
asserted against appellant, was that APP
pellcc us Il sub-contractor furnished
To-, fan. lat. In,
and :. a Co. mt II certain agreed price,
claiming that the balance due ON that
contract does not amount to the value
of his own labor expended in furnishing
the ties, and that ms he had labored per-
sonally in cutting and shaping the ties,
and in placing them upon the right-of-
way, that. therefore, he was entitled To
the benefit of the statutory lien. Held:
Plaintiff was not entitled To the statuto-
~ lien. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson VS.. Watson; from Somcrvell
county. Opinion by Watts, ]. Adopted.
First, Where in II suit for u promissory
note the petition alleges that in due
course of trade said note was traded and
endorsed 10 plaintiff, and that he is the
owner of the same; that ii is due, I'M
paid, etc.; and further, that the note was
given for the purchase money of Il tract
of land, setting out II description thereof,
and prayer for judgment ON the note, in
tcrest and foreclosure of the lien. Held:
The petition Is good on general de-
murrcr. A general demurrer will not
reach merely informal, or defective
averment, ii cause of action be shown,
but be informally or effectively stated,
the objection must be taken by II special
demurrer. Second, Where the petition
alleged an Indebtedness and prayed for
Judgment for the amount thereof,
interest thereon, etc. Held: Sutli-
cient to support judgment for in
A. liz. of -.
Where plaintiffs motion TO strike out
defendants special answer was, in effect,
an exception to the special answer, and
was so treated by the court, and rs a de-
Tense to the suit, said answer set up
nothing more than that the original
vendor sold the land for which the note
sued on was given with the knowledge
that, ut the time. IL was encountered by
Il lien upon IL and alleged that said ven
dor ''was, therefore, liable to pay oil
such lien;" the court probably struck
out such special answer because same
did not allege the purchase without
knowledge of this lien, nor in any way
negative the idea that defendant pur
chased with full knowledge of the lien.
Affirmed.
Hicks vs.. International & Great North
crn railway; from Rusk county. Opin-
ion by Stayton, !. Suit by appellant
against appellee for damages for person.
nj injuries. When appellant was in
jurod, the railway of appcllecs, with all
its appurtcnauccS, was In the exclusive
control ana management of H., who
had been appointed receiver of the prop
crty of appellee by the United States
Circuit court. isy the order appointing
him receiver, lac was directed 10 operate
the road as common carrier, and APP
pelec was cniOinel from interfering
witt his management in any manner.
Tho injury occurred while II. had com
troll of the road. Held: Tho court
CORRECTLY charged the jury that II you
believe rom the evidence that about
the 1,t day Of April, 1875, that all of the
property of the International n Great
Northern Railroad company was, by
order of the United States Circuit court,
placed i'm the hands Of III. as receiver.
: aud that at the time of said injury
for which plaintiff sues, said III. was
order of the United States Circuit court.
then plaintiff cannot recover. Affirmed.
Leon and III. Blum vs.. Nelson; from
Eastland county. Opinion by Dclanv,
/. Adopted. Suit by appellant i'm which
appellce pleaded in rcconvention for
damages, for the wrongful suing out Of
the writ Of attachment levied on the
stock of goods. The jury's verdict was
that the attachment was wrongfully
sued out. This negatives the existence
Of malice on the part of plaintiff and
prpcludes n recovery for more than
actual damages, and In this respect the
verdict and judgment was erroneous
and they exceeded the actual damages.
Reversed and remanded.
! fsulf Colorado Il Santa Fe railway vs..
Dorsey: from Tarra.it county. Opinion
by Watts, /. Adopted. This Is suit
brought by the father against appellant