The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-06-01

gross luadequscy OF prices. Freeman
ON executions, sectiou 3l0l.
Houston q Texas Central railroad VS..
j. G. Maddox; from Ggayson county.
Walker, p. j. Adopted. The injury
complained of occurred after the tram
Plaintiff, q brakeman on the train, was
orderek TO couple certain cars on tho
| side track to be attached to and carried
! on by the train, The INJURY occurred /
! from an attempt to use the links when |
| he found in the Drawbacks OF sal oars.
4 Upon Che question of negligence OF de- |
1 tendsnt, or contributor negn-
genco OF plaintiff, the court
correctly charged as follows:
"The law irnposes on the defendant
the duty of furnishing to its employees
machinery and appliances of all kinds,
including links and pins, reasonably
suitable anC proper TO enable such en-.
plOyes to perform the duties required OF
them and also TO use reasonable dis
gonce To koep such machinery and aD-
! Tllanc6s In such reasonably proper cen.
dition after they are furnlshe 1, ana II
plaintiff was injured by reason OF a fGl-
ure OF defendant in this respect, he
would be- entitled 20 recover unless
: you believe from the evidence
that it was part Of plaintiffs duty as
i brakeman to examine the link before
;" undertaking TO use it," AS to the mea-
Q sure Of damages, the court adopts the
q rule laid down in l Switzerland on
. Dum. p. $40, and bold the damages In
. this case not TO be excessive. Albrmed.
u Cyrena Leach ct al. VS.. A. Il. DOdson,
= from Cooke county, Delaney, j. adopt
a ed; When tho christian name OF q
d graCtee in n deed is left blank,
% eviG 3nce aiimede is admissible TO
q Identity the grantee. But tn
l. evidence must satisfactory Identity the
grantee. When the acting secretary OF
U lcuge was sick, there being no secre'
D. ta~y, and the presiding officer produces
10 the minutes OF such lodge in court &c
q prove that deed executed by one of the
IT, df'icers OF the lodge was recorded in the
~ nlinutes of the lodge which were sp
proved by II, tho evidence was admiBsi
y, lie. Questions which are leading anC
j. InermiL witnesses W state conclusion
20 instead Of facts are such as go Il
~ the manker and form of taking, and oh
~ ectiOn thereto should be made in writ
~ ing before the trial. Reversed and re
VI mnndod,
U.s. j. ii. James OF ell. vs.. Adams a. Wickl
,e from Bexar county. Watts, ], Adapted
10 In the paetition o! land between OWE
~ ers IN common IN this State, wheeler b
iye decree of writ or the voluntary act {
~ the parties, ord! narily "a covenant O
~" general warranty OF title to tle II
'fG spoctive GllODments will b
~ Implied. Notwithstanding COY
81 enants of warranty will ordins
pa rily be Implied in voluntary partition
~ OF land, nevertheless, if limited wal
~ ranty is clearly expressed in the dec
- il Will generally have the eitec0 OF di!
no placing the implied covenant, and n
~, striCGing the remedy to the COvenal
", expressed in the deed. Where the pa
ils ties made voluntary partition whereb
Hu they all Joined IN a common deed
ny which the allOtmonJs were set apart
lI' them respectively, which deed col
10 tanned this stipulation: ave do hereb
Ice agree and bind ourselves TO each Otht
"a that the above is fair and jul
III division and allotment of all III
5Is interest that we have owned in cOmmO
loo in said Arocha grant Of land, and thi
We will mutually guarantee tile therei
~ against every person whOmsOever, Law
lay fully claiming OF TO claim the same b,
ny through or under us, or either of u.s.
'nV Held, The payt!es entered mutual
VI bound to each other IN those pa
Liculars. Eirst-That the partitio
OF was just and fGir. @ That the lane
J. heretofore owned in common by thol
"a on tho ATooha grant only, were brOugl
US ~ into the petition. 3. That as to the
ou' respectiqe allotments upon the Aroch
~ grant, they had not heretofore, an
'Is would not heretofore, do any act whiC
'n would Interfere with the enjoyment,
VI the others, of their respective allo
el- ments. Affirmed.