The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-18

final Judgment, there being no declaration
ln the .. cord OF "ihe decision or hunlaNuei
of the law pronounced by the court upo
the matter contained ia the record nor
did the entry contain any declhfa'oh lha'
the PLAINTIFF Ia the opinion OF the eouIl
WAS entitled 10 recover from oelenuan,
The TACT that the clerk may have as'raseu
the damages at aeertain sum "a insulhoirhl,
Such belng the case whsn that Judgment
was recorded in Llmpasaa county, " gave
no lien on defendants properly, ana I'VE
subsequent amendment o0u Il not HlFe m
effect which H.. before, had not Ihe
amended ind ment, never reootdrd eou'u
not give such notice rs required or dnitat
right acquired before the amtndment Vas
made. e.; Judgments "nuno pro iuno'
are never permitl.d 10 Affect rights oi such
persons rs have acquired rights between the
lime Judgment IL r. ally rendered, aud the
time At which the Judgment iseniered upon
the minutes nov for, then such pertnhs
having no notice OF the Judgment Al
hrmed.
Ballew W. Casey & swassy, rom john
son county. Opinion by Wgldrr, ~
Adopted. suit by appellees agaiuat appel
liant on iiemlzed a. count Tor goods, etc,
alleged tn have been sold ANA delivered 10
him, for which he was To pay, ON demand,
their reasonable value. An account sworn
TO by one OF the plaintiffs was attached 10
the petition. The certificate OF the notary
public before whom the oath was taken does
not show his official seal, nor that he had
one. Plea, general denial. Trial by court
and verdict for plaintiff. Defrnces, l-oo'
lection to the itemized accoant aud aihda'
Wit thereto for irrevelancy, because tue petit
tions showed the suit to be founded on an
In plied.c ,ntract to pay the reasonable value
OF the goods and not fixed price M indi-
Gated b. ths account. 2 because the nc-
count nor affidavit. did not show that the
former was supported by the affidavit OF
either plaintiffs or attorneys. 3.-The pfu.
ton discloses = SUIT for reasonable value oil
goods, thereby requiring jude acertain-
ment OF that fact, ana That the account o.
| fsred was not such an account as was con-
sid. red by Article 2,2G8. Revised Statutes.
/ Defendant tostlAed that the articles speci.
fled were bought at nm agreed price, aud Us
set out In tho account. the prices charged
were agreed upon Ms the said prizes 10 be
charged him. Held, l-Deiendents eyl
dence was ani'icient To susifih tue Judr'
ment 2-Plainiifls could not recover IN
amount over that agr, ed on rs their
value, but could recover the particular
sums agreed on. The cause OF action being
for tho value OF the goods, that value may
be shown by evidence establishing the
price agreed upon. 3-This does not con-
iilot with the rule that the "alleeatan and
"prohsta' must correspond. Il Texas
ai3; Texas, i2G; 10 TeIas, 5i9 IA Tsxae,
Ili) "A distinction must be- drawn be-
tween this case and that where plaintiff
relies for recovery on allegations OF n spe-
cisl contract M to the terms aud the price
OF the goods without reference TO the spe
ciul contract. 5-When an obligation to
| pay is complete, n cause of action Mt once
arises and no formal demand Is necessary.
| (23 n. III. AL: "a Gal. IL } Affirmed.
coURT OF APPEALS.
Fisher & Weis We. Bozirth aud Melon
nell Il Co. from Washington county! Mo.
ton TO dismiss appeal for want OF jurisdic.
ton. Tho suit was brought tor about $50
rent. A distress warrant was issued aud
! levied on the goods In the store house.
Mcdonnell & Co. interviewed. claimi "g
prior lien on the ro0ds. Judg-
ment WAS rendered in the county
court Tor the appellant for 500
and in favor OF Mcdonnell Il Co. for S2l2 %,
giving them prior lien on the goods,
from which the appellant appeals. Held,
the motion must be granted, "a the amount
ia controversy IL only about $50, tina. be-
ing the value of the goods levied upon un'
der the distress warrant upon which Nc
Donnel q Co. claimed prior lien. APP
peal dismi' sed.
Hardness vs.. the state, from Reiugio
county. Motion TO dismiss the appeal 10
filed by the appellee for want OF jurisdiction.
Defendont was convicted of contempt OF
court for failure 10 rstsrn the process there
OF and Hned 500 from which he appe ls
Held: The motion must DO granted
o. contempt OF cours 10
O. iminal . .ocesdnR, and in such oaPes no
appeal or writ of error is allowed. Besides.
there 10 no assignment of errors in the
record, or briefs filed IN this court. WIT
OF error dismissed.
The above ruling was also made in ceses
No. !. sos Aud 500, between the same par
ties.-l Reporter.