Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-06

|nn, .Indpment being against the evil
aia,e. II b reversed and the cause re-
L I,.ded.
ar'se Galveston, Harrisburg Il San
|nnshnio Railway w. schwartz, from
IA Eide county. In both Justices and
Va rlty court appellee recovered judg.
|fds II for board OF laborers and services
/ eotion foreman. He sued upon
|mb, aed claim Ia accordance with arti.
|ft1t',,a,t0 Revised Statutes. Appellants
|tIm'deti 4 counter claim In Justices
|en,f for balance on hand car de-
Fmved through negligence OF appellee
Ia lection foreman, This counter
lee IN la the county court was stricken
Is upon the ground that appellant
|amsnot denied under oath the just
|1ce 1. ETC., OF plaintiffs demand
|funntiifs verified account was ad-
bsd ed In evidence over defendants
|nd ,ctions. Held,
! ara Appeilants counter claim was
Ih \ pleaded and should
MAJ have been stricken out, be-
/. ave he had the right TO plead IL
|wi, .out denying under oath the plain
las verified account.
|p,aI Appellant's claim does not come
hlain the meaning OF an account rs
|bs,si In art. 1866, II. ) and the court
|srSsd Ia admitting IL In evidence. Re-
bm.se,d and remanded.
| na hlveston, Harrisburg d San Anto.
Nv Railway vs. McTeague, from Kin
M. county. Appellee recovered judg-
|"sa for Services in the construction
|p.n speilAft's road. (See former report
Tiis case, w. h WIS Con. Reps, PIP.
L.aliS The services involved were
pormed by appellee for HI, the con-
III tor, and II is well objected that the
WV was without necessary
|.spy. II il now well settled
|uNl ia this character OF cases the con-
wy tor isa necessary party. % Tex.
|Isl IL 10 only by tue virtue OF the
|slhte or s. Appendix y. 49, that u
|, uRconlractor or laborer has his action
/ pli against the railroad company for
Menforcement OF the statutory lien.
pg srtatute alone creates the privity
EtV ween sub-contractor, his employees
ups the rsilroad, and in suits against
threads by the parties, the original
|ecI tractor is necessary party to es-
fnLlish complete prlvity. Again, the
Flo vBent being personal one Is iu-
ftld, for the laborer has no right Of
|alHson for a mere personal judgment
|fminst the railroad. Reversed and
|atAnnded.
P higell a. Suggs VS., Mrs. Edwards ct
mh froui Milan county. See former
|rsvurt OF this case. . Will Con. II.
ped 27B. The instrument sued on was
nllowa: "Rockdale, Tex, Aug. 20.
PtM SIG IS, Ninety days after date
|hcI promlse to pay to the order of IL.
|ron use, adm nistrator, seven hundred
|pei sixteen, sixty-eight one.hun-
width dollars, at the Rockdsle bank,
|uth the privilege of making payment
|nmccount until maturity. Signed,
|fu w. Richardson, agcnt,N Two
arise: |. The instrument not
|nhming or setting out the names of
aner parties for whom II purported
|ist act a. agent, and whom he In
! aided, does 1t bind other parties
be IA RI . Does the evidence sustain
|ptia Plaintiffs allegation OF ownership
|ihad right - recover? 1t is general
yats that no party can be charged as
10 hiacipAl upon "A negotiable instru.
hos mt unless his name is thereon dis
ysed. The rule IL also stated thus:
Insults upon negotiable instruments
IAN evidence Is admissible to charge
|Ory person rs principal unless his
|d me 10 in some way disclosed upon
has Instrument. Dan. Neg, Inst.
h d 303. Appellants name not being
h rthe Instrument would not be bounu
twas negotiable instrument, but
h Y condition In the note, with the
of making payment on
|evount until maturity destroys its
|IyHotiable character. The evidence
n mpouds atlirmstively TO the second
LnIsstion raised No IN Aterial error Is
h pparent Affirmed.
VS.. ID. o. Crawford from
n bpward county, Appellee sued in
|elInnty court for So 10 for services and
|hsl0 as Damages for maliciously with.
jding pay. The court sustained ex-
d,Aiion 10 the 500 damage claim and
Lssldered Judgment for the S72l5.
|rr:ld, that having sustained the excep-
I'm to the claim for damages, the
I'M irt should have dismissed the case
n. want OF Jurisdiction, IL being appa-
ut that the claim for damages was
|, uected into the suit for no purpose
|srsler than to invest the court with
'isdiction. Reversed and remanded.
i Railway Va. Gwaltney ct al, from
stlnnin county, q. sued the company
M damages, alleging that he, his wife
|',s q two children took passage on de-
w. icant's cars to b., a station Ina Il.
|vvnnty, Tex; that the train merely
h lived up and did not stop long
4 ouKh ~ said station for plaintiff and
|p,mr.s charge 10 get OIL, and the con.
Y Yctor refused to back TO the station
[llSs.er passing 1t, but put plaintiff oil
|rsD yards distant. BY amendment,
|HaintiH made his wife party plain.
I and prayed judgment Jointly. De.
| laandant pleaded ip abatement the
kioinder OF the wife. The
pse of Railway va, Bur
|vNt, 81 Texas, 63S, would seem
|lle support the plea, but that case, II
p ~ overruled, was 30 far modified by
|'nle recent case OF the Street Railway
plpmpAlly Va Helm and wife supreme
|eNuit) that II is held TO be only in rare,
cases that the j0inder OF
NE wife In such causes OF action would
NJ sucA error AS that the overrul'
\ x 81 q Special exception, based upon
Cat ground, would be reversible err.
VI. This II not such an exceptlonablt
Daractcr. Limitation will not run
|n' ainst woman laboIing under the
Of marriage. Affirmed,
b Curtis va, Bernstein 4 Co., from
|wNsllas county. Appellee recovered
|gH iQmont In Justices court lima 40