Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-10
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Sitting Of the su-
preme Court,
Made Up From the Full and Official Re.
port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.
The Case Of 0Oha Bros. VS.. Washer &
August, from Tarrant County,
Reversed and Remanded.

to solicit orders for goods in which
they dealt, and furnished him with
samples to exhibit in soliciting orders.
r. sold the samples to the
appellees, and converted the
proceeds to his own use. In this
suit TO recover the value from the
appsllees on the ground that II. had
no authority to make the sale, he
court charged, in substance, that IL the
sale OF the samples was embraced In
the real or apparent scope of II. IS au.
thority, then appellants would be
bound by the sale, and could not re.
| cover. The evidence shows that the
extent of RS authority was to exhibit
the sam Jles, 10 solicit, receive and for
ward orders, and ascertain the financial
standing Of the party making the order.
There 10 no evidence In the record re.
specting the customs or usage as to the
| disposition of samples by commercial
travellers. 1t Ia claimed that the in
| struciiOn, so far as ii related to the
apparent authority of r., was no. au-
| thorlzed by the evidence, and In the
absence OF evidence as to usage, the
objection is we'll taken. Reversed and
remsnded
Wright vs.. Straub, from Lamar
county. NJ, a married man, etc, was,
when the constitution took effect,
April is, 1876, occupying the lot in
controversy as a place of business, aud
continued TO 30 occupy II until the
house was destroyed by fire in Septem-
Der, 1877 1t, therefore, became his
homestead April1S, 1876, and so con-
tinued as long as he occupied IL as a
place to exercise his calling or bust
ness. 90 Tex, $50 While still u
homestead the lot was cold by the tax
collector for taxes due by M. and wife
for 1876 The taxes 30 assessed were
upon various tracts of Land, including
| this lot. Art. 10 zee so Of the con
stitutiOn protects the homestead from
forced sale for taxes, except such as
may be assessed against it. This
sale, although made to pay In
part the taxes assessed thereon, was
also made to pay taxes assessed upon
other property, aud must be considered
az inhibited by the constitution, 10
Iowa, 372; rs Id 144. This lot, though
occupied by M. as place of business,
did not constitute part Of his home
stead prior 10 the adoption OF the con-
stitution in 1875 The certified copy
of the Judgment OF the district court
OF q. county In favor of the City bank
of s. against appellee and another was
recorded in l. county, where the lot is
situat ed, on June %, 1875. Executions
had been regularly issued thereon, and
sheriff1s sale of the lot was made Aug.
I, 1877. Held, that the Judgment lien
attached 10 the lot At the time
tho certified copy was recorded and
continued as subslsting lien until
the sale, the Iule being that q
Judgment lien takes precedence
OF a subsequently, acquired
homestead right, 81 Tex, 3H Again,
IL has been held by the United States
supreme court that an existing lien Ia
such vested right, as is beyond the
power OF constitutional convention
TO divest or destroy, Is Wall $40
Otto 607. Affirmed
Beard vs. II. Blum, from Fannin
county. 1t Is not denied that Mod
owned the property on Nov. g. 1878
and it Is certain that IL was ther
his homestead, and continued tC
be until after It's purchase boS
Blum under the Judgment II
the attachment suit Of l. n II. Blum
on March 20, 1882, Med. conpeyet
the property, by deed, TO Booth No
vember 8, 1878, and 1t Is clear from TIT
evidence that Booth, under that deed
held the property in trust for McD
If 1t was the intention OF McD. anC
Booth that the title should pass TO the
latter by the deed of November y
/ 1878. even though Ii was their inten
Z ton to defrRud the creditors OF McD
by such conveyance, and though The
conveyance may have been MADE un
. der such circumstances that the exist
: ing creditors of Med might have se
/ IL aside had the property not been II
fact and law the homestead OF Med
Yet. as 1t was the homestead, Mod
creditors could have no such right
15 Tex. ll3. So far, however, rs tn
, record shows, l.. & II. Blum became
creditors OF Med. long after the con
: yeyance to Booth, and neither they
: nor persons claiming under the Judg
' ment obtained by them would have tn
right TO attack the voluntary convey
apce 10 Booth. II, however, the con
{ yeyAuce were made with the under
standing that Booth should hold 10
: Med, after the abandonment oil Tn
: homestead right, aud so protect IN
/. property from creditors. then aite
D sach abandonment IL would be subJec
. TO sale rs any other property 10 whicl
. McD. had legal or equitable title % Tex
ll3. Not so unless there WAS an aban
] donmeni. IA OHIO (St 29S. The dee
4 to Booth did not operate as an sban
donment. Proof shows that Booth o.
receiving conveyance executed
Med promissory notes for $1,000, an
that the property was to be recon
. yeyed upon the surrender of the notes
Med. never did surrender the note
nor demand a sreconveyance, but for
n valuable consideration sold the note
10 Baird, after their maturity, VIII
7. subsequently surrendered the same
Il Booth as the consideration upon whic
i Booth conveyed him the property
A Held. that by the assignment OF IN
II notes Med consented that Ia
AGREEMENT between himself an
Roth should DO carried out for IA
benefit Of Baird, and that Bair'
should enforce the payment 9
I the notes. These transactions must D
!. heid 10 have vested in Baird all title
A"e~ - - ala MOD n