Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-12
SUPREME COURT.
synopsis OF tbs Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Sitting Of the
Supreme court.
Made Up From the Full and Official Re-
port Of the Rulings and 0piu-
ions Rendered,
Complied Tor The Gazette.

/ county. This was suit by appellant
in the district court to eDjoin the COM
missioners' court and the road oyerseer
from opening second.class road
through his inclosed lands 9s ordered
by the commissioners court. 1t was
claimed that the order was void for
two reasons ]. That 1t was made
without his written consent, or that Of
his agent or attorney, andno reviewers
had been appointed to assess damages
2 That the petition upon which
the court acted IN making the order
was made on the one condition that
another road over his land should
be reduced from second
to third-olass road. With respect to
the second ground IL Is sufficient to
say that the petition does not make
the condition precedent az claimed, but
1t simply prayed for the opening of
the one and the reduction Of the other.
A. gppellaups attorney appeared on
the trial and there Is testimony, con-
dieting, however, to the effect that he,
as such attorney, consented 10 the
opening OF the road He testified,
however, that he did so on the condi-
tion named, aud appellant claims this
To be the extent of his authority. Ap.
pelant testified that ne wss still will
ing that the road should be opened on
the condition named. The commits.
sioners' court has full power over pub
lie roads, and II is settled rule that
before parties can resort to other tri-
bunals for relief in such matters, they
must exhaust their remedies before
that court, Appellants real complaint
seems TO be that the court did not
reduce the other road He ia not
shown TO have applied for sucn redue.
ton. hisremedies were not exhausted.
Affirmed.
CarroEay va. Scott, from Fannin
county When appellant purchased
the land and accepted SIS. quit-claim
tile, the agreement between S. and
Il. WAS Of record in the county. BY
that agreement $. recognized F's. To-.
cAtive interest in the certificate, and
appellant purchased with notice, az
given by the record. Therefore he
was not injured by Mrs. Fs. evidence
as TO the agreement between II. and
i. as 10 the location Of the land. Fs.
rights were fully fixed by the recorded
. agreement so that, as to appellant, Fis.
: agreement with Il. WAS OF
no practical Importance. There was
no error In admitting the certified
: copy of the field notes The recitals
therein that the survey was made for
T.. were made by the surveyor In the
/ discharge OF his official duties. Be
. sides this fact was established by the
officer who made the survey, The OBJ
lection that the jury found that appel.
leeA We're entitled TO All undivided In.
}, terest, whereas the court adiudged Ia
them specific portions Of the land, finds
no support in the record. The iudg.
}, ment Of the court responded correctly
10 the verdict, ana In directing tn,
commissioners to divide Il 80 as to Civ,
!. each his improvements acted upor
i well established principles OF equity
q Affirmed
Collins Va. Miller, from WIGHT,
u county With respect to Judgment
d of courts OF general jurisdiction tn,
+. rule Is this. If the want Of iurisdic
Ne ton Of the subject matter or person o
ID the defendant is shown 10y the record
then the Judgment Ia subject TO collat
VI eral attack. But such question of iuris
dtction, both as to subject matter ant
- person, must he tried and determines
-" 10y the record, III there be nothing II
N NHN ANNNAA NhNN lux llNN lllt COURT OIL
n not have Jurisdiction, then as TO tn
y third parties the presunption OF repu
larity Ia 90 conclusive, evidence aliar
- de will not be heard to establis
the want OF Jurisdiction, 81 Tex. Is
by the terms OF the statute then 1
force (lSSil the citation 10y publicatio
es was required TO be published once
week FOR four consecutive weeks. Th
order In this case was to puI
\ lish three times, and III
return shows that IL was pul
~ lished but three times. Under the,
ed circumstances IL ailirmatively appesl
re that the court did not have jurisdi
IL. tion on the person, aud hence Ia
Jet Judgment was open TO collateral a
tack. The judGment was void, IN
mt Judgment referred to was rendered h
I'D Justice OF the peace, and WAS IN
he foundation Of this suit In the dlstri,
as- court, Reverted and rendered In 4
to vor Of appellant.
a BrownsOn VIZ, Reynolds, from Alta
cosa county. II has been repeatedl
xt held by this court that the rulinga
district court, admitting or releotir
lg- testimony, will not be revised withol
las statement Of facts, unle' in exec
nd uonal cases The exceptional cas-
Ni' NAtu III rs mao
for perfectly apparent, without
ne sorting to statement Of facts, that N
party complaining must necessarll
ana without doubt have been danag,
by the ruling of the court There
no statement Of facts In this recor
lst aud the objection to the exclusion
rs the deed offered in evidence cannot
81 considered. Affirmed.
Jus Il Ford VS., Il. Cowan, OF. al. fro,
W TarIant county. AS TO j, nj. Cowa,
~ the Judgment Is affirmed on ACRE
~ ment OF the parties. Parties 10 ami
are made competent Witnesses
,hh' article 22i6 OF the Revised Statute
~ 10 Is objected that the witness M
!" litigant) should not have been Ie
w United 70 testify as 10 transactions h
'nt tween himself and T., who was M,
~ dead. To entiue that objection
aa' consideration, Ii should have been i
m terposed below. Mrs. t., the moth,
nv OF plaintiffs in error and throuc
~, whose community right they elain
.ho died October ia 1877 aud m ~