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

the court failed 10 do d wuus toil pay
OF court. Several dssnni lhvgule gu
J ohh.n"iens on court, tbs y, 6ed.
90 Ely, phuLbois 70 be a.Ao Galve
lasss, wnIch, however, csns.sn,o Raj
sluereo az such, inssmuch !. ise count
authenticated aud was ~ ~ y" c svua'
adj burned, without an a.s wv ~ s1 Hna,
authorizing such flipe ns,an Z
duty OF the court 10 o.. Y MA IN. In
Time, to the appellantis ,r,.e raw
statement Of his connin',t,..t !. 40
and fact Reversed ana .' ol.,',es 49, hs
The international A a.. "a III ma,
Railway ~. German. frors n sct,on
This was q suit by appeiIa. I, III the
damages for Injury 10 H. v.non In
she was attempting 10 bos.sInot denI
at f., Texas. In substsn atss
are that when the train ss nt,lf v
depot the plaintiff who h.sed in q
his wife with a ticketI s"1 lctlons.
were about seventy. five r nneila
that they hurried TO cafcs 81,
but were somewhat rets,a.t have
wife having a large valIse Ne he he
into a ditch. Just a. ths ~ .out der
been In the rear OF n I.a varifie
boarding said train, attemn,ag' Appells
Ii, the train started. She %nain the I
the assistance OF her hushs,sl In art.
employe OF the road. to bosrSsd Ia adn
and, after holding n for som. I'd and ]
fell. A recovery under snss hlveston
stances could not be had Railway
showing contributory necII,s county.
versed and remanded. s~ for ser
The Missouri Pacific Rsnppellant
league, from Hill county. iris case,
ton alleged that the injured " n
was the property OF tbs ormeo /,
Proof showed that when iplo, TOR, anu
the homestead Of plaintlTisl wa
who had since died, and thatsy' ~
had since occupied itastbl III WE
stead Of herself and childtso tof isA
were the facts found by thai ~ ,so
ting without u Jury, and umu w w
he held plaintiff entitled INV vo u.,,' y
10 Ia correctly insisted bv A. 7 $780,
that, the petition alleging ensv.s.
plaintiff owned the proper, s, ~. y,
was injured, It devolved unm w ~ , "a
prove that It was then her Ipi.s,ana Wy IN
property. 1t was correct ! ss,sss
advanced by the appellaulp;uh Am
court should have 80 held r,mant /
plaintiff had no right TO fesd fart
injuries TO her husbands ess,nn far ,
his lifetime upon mere prtoinat IA
WAS his homestead, and that ,handad
only recover for damage b,call a i
ceased husbands estate by mai from, n
heirs, who were Joint owDersvurt OF d
parties to the sull Reversed 27B. !
manded. allows.
The International 81 Greatgs $7l6
Railway ami Missouri Paclheb proml,
Company vs.. j. T. Watt, from use, nd
county. Suit against appel sixt
recover for damages to width dol
shipp,d from Memphis to AuIs Ii the =
action was against appellann mccoun
mon carriers 70 enforce thete w. Il
law liability. Answer ple4deiestions
ly n special contract OF atlfelsnling OF
between them and appellee aaer part
and place of shipment. Thst act ~
stricken out upon exception aided, &
ment entered for appellee VA RI
error. The plea get up thespsa paint
tract and made IL part OF thai right
II contained reasonable and yhs that
ditions, limiting the common hi,cipAl
bilitY Of appellants as commpn ut unlt
ers, and, AZ that contract Vseu, 1
wholly to be performed In Ihbsuits u
these limitations were not lot eviaei
secs. 1914 A valid contract me 10 J
be avoided upon the ground Instr
party TO it did not read ltsDd d SUe.
know its contents Reversed ithe ms
manded. twas
Miles Va. Patterson, from " conan
nan county. M. sold P. csrhvilege
wheat by sample and recelwount y
pay. The wheat being delst{otino'
p, he notified NJ. that II did Mpunus
respond with sample, demantss,ion
money tack and directed NJ, pphisn'
and get IL, or he would reduSNh,.w,''
-four, sell the flour and hold w Alu
sponsible in damages NJ neliluss y
turned the money nor took the " AZ; ~
back. p. reduced it TO -four Eu ,a.s
sued M. and recovered $500 dsr,a,sS.n.,
The proper measure OF daulAg'iIS1 ", ~
the difference between the pflc,.s,e, :, ~
aud the sctual value OF the whaur ~ ~,
livered. Upon that issue lhs asant
mony was entirely silent and " tina,
ment was based upon P.'s meltsctei
ment In the evidence that an 4 n,
damaged $500. Held, insuh.,sdict
Reversed and remapded. Eaiiwl
Wilmington Vi. Butler, rcu,nnin
county. Whatever may haye@ darn,
previous law, there IL no Law d two
our present constitution suiuAl Gant'
parties TO "A suit in me eo9uvnnty,
To agree upon u special judge )wad
event that the regular county rouwh
disqualified. The proper ples char
In "a cause in the county court Victor I
the regular judge IL dlsqualile Ter pal
certify that fact to the distfND var
and transfer the cause to thHaintifl
Reversed and remanded aud
King ct al. Va. q. p. Franandant
Jack county. IT Is n general his Join
n statutory bond, To be valldpse
must strictly conform in eveIyitt,
tial particular to the status SUPP
there IL this further rule 70 u owe
served: TIA departure from tnle tees
lions of the bond prescribed blpnipai
makes the obligation less onel3uitl !
bond may be enforc I'd by q ssfcepti'
! judgment, but when it's condlp'e VIII
more operous than the tltuiem sue
such judgment ought mol Z q
entered against the .at ~
The bond tusd on this case " y
not In the exact terms OF me "Arsc1
does not make the conditions aiuss
onerous than the statute. Nsss pil
alleged that the note seed Cd ,kuFu
case of Frazer vs.. Green, wsulas
August "a, 1884, End IT siiesr 5siu'