Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-17
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the
Supreme Court.
Made up From the Full and Official Re
pOr, Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered,
complied for the Gazette.

legged thai defendants fraudulently |
claimed An interest In the land sued |
for. The amendment merely sell forth
fully the character of the pretended
claim. Held, such amendment set up
no new cause OF action, and the stat
ute only operates as bar when IL is
sought by amendment to present
new suit The joining Of other parties
who claimed under the original de-
PENDANTS did not alter the character
Of the cause OF action, and service of
the amended petition was not
necessary. Both, or either, legal and
equitable grounds for recovery may be
asserted in the same suit, the petition
showing by allegation that the legal
title to the property in controversy
was in another or others than plain
tiff. but that plaintiffs were the equit-
able owners, and that the legal title
was held only in trust for them, the
court was fully authorized to grant re.
lief In this suit. Affirmed.
Fort Worth VS.. Crawford, from
Tarrant county. The rule governing
the liability Of municipal corporations
for creating or failing TO remove
nuisance is AS follows; III the nuisance
grows out of acts done exclusively In
the interest Of the public, II Is liable
only for a careless or negligent execu-
ton of the duty. But, II the acts of
which the nuisance originated or Is
continued were done for the private
advantage OF the municipal corporation
then. irrespective Of the question OF
| xtrAt.lI lo noll. To-
sulting injuries. The establishment
of place for the burial or deposit of
dead animals, garbage, excrement,
etc, for the purpose of maintaining
the sanitary condition of city, Is an
act done for and in the interest OF
city, and therefore for the public. In
order TO authorize recovery for 3 viola
ton OF ordinances OF city covering
such otfenses by an adjoining land
owner, IL is incumbent on him to
show negligence on the part OF the
city In enforcing It's ordinances. This
was not done in this case. Reversed
and remanded,
Kahn VS.. Trammel, from Palo Pinto
county. The violation of grammatical
rules will not vitiate writ OF attach
ment when its clear sense and import
will demand construction which will
necessarily sustain it. In this case IL
was impossible for the meaning Of the
affidavit to be misunderstood, and not
being the fact, IL remains only for the
court to affirm the Judgment. Az
firmed.
Railway Va. Cook, from Bexar
county. Failure TO try at the return
term obviates error in refusing TO
quash citation at a subsequent term.
, Where a PERSONS animal is injured by
the wrong or negligence Of a railroad,
and IL thereby becomes necessary for
the owner TO incur expenses in caring
for and curing ii, the company Is liza
BILE for such necessary expenses In
curing it. The statutory provision,
imposing a liability upon railroads for
injuries to animals, unless their rail-
ways are fenced, do not apply 10 such
places as public necessity or public
: convenience require to be left un-
fenced. That this injury Is done at a
: place where public convenience will
not permit railway 10 be fenced, Is a
question OF fact which must be deter
mined by the jury. If established, the
company is liable only for failure to
exercise reasonable care. Gross neg
iigence 10 total failure to exercise
care, or an exercise of 80 slight degree
OF care as to justify the belief that the
person on whom the care was In
cumbent was totally indifferent
to the welfare OF those in
! his charge. II injury to stock occurs
in the city limits Of city whose or.
dlnances make 1t lawful for stock to
run at large within the city limits, the
entry OF the stock ON the railway IL o
q trespass, and the railway Ia not respon-
sible TO owners for injuries to such
stock, unless the conduct Of the COM
: pany's employees amounts 10 gross
| negligence, Reversed and remanded.
Texas Car Company vs. the State,
from Bexar county. The tax contem-
: plated by the act OF March "A, 1881, on
) sleeping car companies Is such tax
as is designated in the constitution as
an Occupation tax" In which the
ownership of the cars is OF no impor-
lance, except as II may tax the party
!; or parties upon whom the naoiliay IL
imposed. This act imposesa tax upon
other than railroad companies
for the pursuit. Of the named BUSH
ness. while II exempts such
companies therefrom. The business
done by corporations owning such
cars aud running them on the roads
OF others, or that done by companies
not owning but running such cars on
the roads OF others, and business done
by railroads on their own roads with
such cars. embrace the same class OF
subjects of taxation. II the thing
done constitute In one person or corpor-
alton the taxed occupation, no one DO.
ing the came things can be omitted
from the class taxed without q viola
ton Of the constitution, even though
| the excepted person or corporation
| may do more or other things than are
necessary to constitute the taxed occu-
patton, and though that done Ia ex-
| cess, may, within itself, constitute q
| distinct occupation, subject to taxR-
ton, however kindred In nature the
| occupation may be. A subsequent act
/ OF the legi,lAture changes the statute
| so as 10 make the tax upon the paftic'
i ular occupation operate upon All en-
| gagged in Il, thus recognizing the IN
Il | -..Tt.att.w - fka ont undQF Whltn Tie