Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-10-30
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis OF Decisions Rendered nj the
Tyler siising OF the snpremr onnri.

MiicI Nt NJ vs.. MOSS Ct al, appeal
from Henderson. James Miller, With
his family, settled upon and improved
the lanu ia controversy, which was in
the MISSOURI Pacitlc railroad rcserva.
tsoh, IN 1000 and occupied It until 1852
Wheh he Went into tn army. Since that
VINE tne family have not occupied IT,
iatent issued to his heirs 5uly III, 1888.
ieid, mat The issuance OF the patent is
pflma iacie evidence that the provision
vi the ACT OF august 90, 1856, (p. ID. 608s.
50iS) providing for the sale and sctrlc.
mcnt of lands within that reservation
were fully complied with, and that II IS con.
elusive OF the right OF MIXERS heirs as
against all persons who do not show
some right having an existence prior to
Its issuance. While the settlement was
made under the provisions OF the act
OF August, 1856, which required the nav
ment to the state of fifty cents per acre.
the claim is n presumption within the
meaning OF the act OF March "a, 1871,
lP. ID. 7052) and after the passage of Inc
latter act payment of the fifty cents was
unnecessary. Where there are more
than one defendant claiming the value of
improvements made in good faith, the
proof should show the value OF such inn
provements made by such defendant.
wnen 1t is desired that this court should
render u Judgment here in their favor.
Reversed with instructions. Opinion bv
Stayton, j.
w. +. Conner VS.. Belle Hawkins. ap-
peal from Morris. Execution was levied
crty OF i. r. mawkins. ri his
daughter, appellee, claimed 1t as her
own property and affidavit aud bond for
trial OF the right of property. At the trial
she filed what is called plea in abate-
ment in which she set up that II the piano
was the property OF Il. Il. Hawkins IL
was a part OF his household furniture and
not subject to execution. Tho plea was
sustained and upon the bearing the suit
was abated and dismissed at cost of an.
pellant. Held, that the plea was In no
sense plea in abatement and the cNemp-
ton in favor of her fatherwa not matter
that could be urged by appellee upon a
claim that the property was her own.
Reversed and romanded. Opinion by
Willie, CD.
Mcbride, ct al. VS.. Bauguss ct al, ap.
peal from Cass. TrcSpass to try title by
appellants claiming through execution
sale OF the land as the property of Bau.
gusS At the time of the sale Bauguss
| neld the land under bond for title from
one Blades Part of the purchase money
had been paid by Bauguss. The balance
of the purchase money not having been
paid, Blades aiterward conveyed the land
to Mooring and Lyon, who are defendants
below Held, that The interest acquired
by the sale under execution was but the
| right to complete the title to the land by
payment OF the purchase money TO Blades,
and this not having been done or ten
dercd appellant could not recover the
land as against Blades OF parties claiming
| by conveyance from him even with no
1 tico of appellants claim The subsc-
quent conveyance by Blades was reels
sion OF the previous contract, which he
had right to do. Where land is pur-
chased for the wife with her separate
means, purchaser under execution
against the husband acquires no title
even If at the time he had no notice of
her interest, if the only value paid is
credit upon the execution. 81 Tex, G4S.
| Affirmed. Opinion by Stayton, j.
/ Poland, administrator, VS.. Henry ct al !,
| appeal from Marion. Suit was instituted
I ON moneyed demand by Frost against
Smith, llth of February, 1872, and attach
ment levied upon some cotton. Smith
: iNDitN lNAl VIC NpbNhbf iiiuiN tb AlEs APP
! pellecs, becoming sureties on the repleyin
! hond. Judgment was rendered against
Smith 18th of May, 1875. The bond was
/ lost after Judgment and before the time
when il should have been indorsed for.
feited--:hc cotton not being returned.
| The Judgment was transferred TO Poland,
who instituted suit July &, 1879, on
the judgment and bond to substitute
! the bond and obtain Judgment
| of forfeiture upon il. Defendants pleaded
the statut3 OF four years. Held, that had
the bond been forfeited as prescribed by
statute, it would have had the force and
effect of u judgment, and not been barred
for ten years but not being forfeited, ii be-
came mere moneyed demand and was
barred in four years. Affirmed. Opinion
by Willie, G. j.
Burden Bros vs.. T. H. Lockct, APP
peal from Marion, Appeal taken from a
JUSTICES court. After filing in the dis
trict the papers were lost, aud plaintiff
asked and obtained Il substitute. At the
next term he declined to do SO and re-
quested the court to dismiss the appeal
The court dismissed the appeal withou
prejudice to the judgment in Justices
court. Held, that unless Il case from Il
Justices court TO Il district court is dis
missed for some defect inthe manner Of
taking the appeal, it stands for trial dc
nofo, and the Judgment Of the Justices
court Is vacated Hence, when this suit was
dismissed the plaintiff had no judgment
in the JUSTICES court. Reversed and re-
manded. Opinion by Willie, CD
Donovan vs. the Texas & Pacific Rail-
way Company, appeal from Marion. a
regulation by Il railroad company that
persons hauling freight should receive II
from the depot platform, and not Toe al
lowed to enter the wareroom TO check
freight is reasonable one, Us is also the
requirement that persons doing business
with the company should transact the
same over the counter OF the Office and
not come behind IL. The fact that the
pluintiff was discharged by his employer
Tor the reason that an employee OF the
railroad company, even IN the course Of
his business, informed the employer that
he (plaintif) would not be allowed to vi
olatc the above regulations, furnished no
cause OF action against the company. II
in assigning reasons for the enforcement