The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-15
THE COURTS,
SUPREME COURT.

texas anu Hdc1lc railway company
VS.. Mary Burns, from TarIant county.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Judge Watts.
International and Great Northern i
railway VS.. Martin Nicholson, from |
Bcxar county. Affirmed. Opinion by |
Chief Justice Willie.
L. A. Franks, ct al. VS.. Caroline
Chapman, ct al. from Atascosa County.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Associate Justice Stayton.
Texas and Pacific railway company
VS.. w. II. Nuckals, frCm Lamar
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Walker.
City National bank, of Fort Worth,
VS.. i. N. Stout, from Tarrant county.
Affirmed. Opinion by Associate
Justice Stayton.
Abram Nuve, ct al. VS.. J. II. Britton,
from Grayson county. Affirmed.
Opinion by Chief Justice Willie.
Bruner Bros, VS.. James String, ct
al. from Lamar county. Reversed and
remanded. Opinion by Associate
Justice StaytoD.
S. Marx VS.. LA 60 Lewey & Co.,
from Caldwell county. Reversed and
remanded. Opinion by Judge De
lany.
John r. Hearne VS.. solomon f. Gil
lette, from Robertson county. Al
frmed. Opinion by Judge Watts
II. b. Kaulbach VS.. II. l.. Hdrr''i
ct al. from Burnet county. Reversed
and remanded. Opinion by Jud e
Watts.
Dorothea Nussbaum VS.. Dallas Car
and Agricultural Implement Manu-
featuring Company. Affirmed Ter
Gu ian, on certificate.
Hon. b. M. Baker, superintendent
Of public instruction, introduced TO
the court Jas. A. Kelly, Esq, who
presented license to practice law from
the supreme court Of Alabama, and
having taken the oath for attorneys
as prescribed by the statutes, was
admitted to practice In the supreme
court of Texas, and the clerk OF the
court was instructed to issue license
accordingly.
In Brnner Bros. vs.. Strong ct al. the
court rules that the answer to which
, the demurrers were urged, must be
considered with reference to the re
tition to which 1t was an answe
There being no pleading which put IL
issue the due execution of the instru
ment sued on, of date June 8. 1882
the question is: Did the facts statet
in the answer constitute a defens
which could be urged against the &C
ton based on that agreement.
) The general rules of evidence as
the effect of conversations upol
agreements reduced to writing ar
cited from LIST Greenleaf, 270, ant
5 other authorities. In the case befor
, the court 1t is not contended, say
Judge Stayton, that the agreemen
t which the parties made in writin
does not express the intention of tn
t respective parties, but it is contende
? that the agreement was not 10 be OF
l erative between the parties unless tn
appellants gave to the appellee, Stront
such information as would enable hill
+ to buy and deliver cattle at such prlc
and expense as to realize to himself
o net profit of one dollar per head o
the cattle out of the price which tn
appellants agreed to pay.
Suce the court concludes !
s not the legal effect of tn
written agreement. Under :.
t Strong certainly agreed to deliver tn
g cattle absolutely; but on the face
the instrument il appears, in case /
could not make, under the contrat
price fist named, profit OF one dolls
d per head, that then without referent
q 10 whether he made profit or suffere
t loss he was to deliver the cattle at tt
e advanced price named. The agre
e ment itself precludes the idea of an
g representation by the appellants whit
a was intended or understood by I'll
n parties to be the foundation on whiC
IS the contract was made; and this bein
d true, we are of the opinion that tt
+ court erred in overruling the demu
rers which went to so much of the al
swer as sought to avoid liability @
y the ground that the appellants faile
, to give to Strong such information 6
!, would enable him to buy and delivt
!. the cattle, and thereon make a NJ
q profit of one dollar per head. If W
y look to the evidence in the case it
= rendered more certain, If possibl
j. than by the written contract, that til
q parties did not rely upon the informs
|. ton which the appellants were
i give Strong as to where he could bu
v cheap cattle, for such guarantyEwi
refused before the written agreemel
was made.
II The court decides that judgmel
should have been rendered fl
the appellants, not only for the so
still In the hands of Strong of Il
u money advanced to him by appellant
! with interest at the rate of eight p,
Z: cent. per annum thereon from Il
Il first day of August, 1882; but that Il
! court should also have rendered jud
. ment in favor of the appellants Fl
q $1,664, with interest thereon from tt
same date, at the same rate, for Il
failure of the appellees to deliver s
head of the cattle which he contracts
n to deliver, the judge who tried Il
IL case having found that the cattle
q. time and place of delivery we
'e worth two dollars per head more thu
p the contract price, The judgment
IL the lower court is reversed and orde
ed to be rendered accordingly.
In the Burns case, Mrs. Burns SO
% Frank Burns, locomotive enginee
D. was killed at Baird. by the reason,
N was alleged, of the lack of prop
n Iswitches or other suitable applianc
IS to prevent accidents, such as result,
( in this case in a train of cars heavi
loaded with iron escaping from sit
IS. track for want Of proper brakes
P; hold them back from the steep inclil
~ of a hill side against which they re-
&c and colliding with the locomotive {
Y which Burns was employed, cause
the boiler to burst and sc,ild him
G death. The jury gave plaintiff We
dict for 5000 actual and 50 500 exen
v plary damages, of which 81 800 of tn
s former and s., COO of the latter wei
e RENTED by the plaintiff. AppellaI
claims that the court erred in admi
ting evidence as to the improveme1
made at the point after the injur
Appellants had retaiued the spl
e switch, but soon after the accideI
Il placed just east of IL what Is know
in railroad parlance as ''safet
SWITCH" which is rarely used upo
railroads. Held: The court erred
; admitting the evidence ov'
Y the objections of appellant
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
There was an adjourned meeting {
this court yesterday, at which the 70
= lowing additional business was tran.
Y acted:
Ordered that warrants be drawn o
the county treasurer in favor of Fran
Brown, for S16055; j. L. Hart, SI52.8(
lGeo. d. Barnard, S14125; Male & Co
, S1125; Carl Mayer, $500; B. J. Kop
perl, $50; STATESMAN Office, $3.50; g
A. Brush, 1888 20; M. M. Johnson, $500
q. L. Fillmore, $177Ol