The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-07-17
THE HIGHER COURTS,
SUPREME COURT.

Breckenridge IL Howeth ct al, from
BeXsr County. Without indicating to
this court any oversight which II has
made ia its original opinion, reversing
end remaDding this cause, anpellees
move for rehearing, relying upon
supposed error in our former opinion.
No merit, however, is disclosed in tho
motion. Another careful examination
Of the case treasures Of the correct
ness Of our former opinion. RehearinR
denied.
Gallagher We. Carson IL Lewis, from
Harris County. This cause W as dis
posed of at q former day Of the Gal
weston term. A motion Tor reheariug
fled calls In question the
correctness of our former
decision without indicating any new
points upon which such decision
might no different. Another careful
consideration Of tho case confirms US
in the correctness of our former decis-
ion. Rehearing denied.
Hector VS.. Gary; from Guadalupe
County. Whom the motion tor rehear.
Ing seeks only to review tho correct.
noes OF the positions assumed by the
Appellate Court in passing upon the
case In the first Instance, without
opinion or that tho court erred in over
looking some material question legiti-
mately arising upon tho plOadings and
facts adduced IN evidence. This the
motion in this case fails 10 do. Re
hearing denied
Pickett vs.. Meyers; from Wilson
County. Conclusion Of Walker, =. ].
Adopted. Suit by M.s in Justices
Court against i. to recover yoke Of
oxen, or their value. Judgment on
appeal to the District Court for $3j,
with interest. Hold: Taken Ia any
view of tho case there IL no error in
the Judgment. Had the result Of she
trial been different, under tho charge
Of the court and the facts, the judg-
mont would hayo TO be reversed for
failure Of the court to deliver proper
charges applicable to tho phaBe Of the
case msde by appolleo's evidence.
Affirmed.
GILES and wife vs.. j. ROsonLoimer
ct al, from BeXar County; Walker, p.
j. Az q mere defensive pl0G Of tho
statute defendant pleading 10 need
only alleg3 that 4 period " Time mon.
toned in tho statute rolled on hiss run
against the debt, aud il tho plaintiff 70.
lies on avoiding tho effect OF that prima
fGciO case by bringing tho defendant
within the operation OF any OF the eX-
coptiOns which suspend the RAINING of
tho statute, he must reply such facts IS
Will have tpat effect la cases, baw-
ever, Of in functions, II tho defendants
were q minor or MARI ed woman, it
would be necessary Tor tho defendant
TO plead the statutory exception to adj
nit proof thereof. Tho rule OF plead D.
iru that the statements Of q party are
10 30 taken most etrong-
Tyr. againat himself is 70
enforced in injunction suits by the
further requirement that tho material
and essential elements which entitle
him to relief shall be sufficiently Ger
tain 10 entitle every reasonable iuhu-
enco arising upon the facts so stated,
from which it might be deduced that
he might not under other suppOsable
facts connected with the subject thus
DO entitled to relief. Affirmed.
). Is. Hamilton VS.. Texas d Pacific
Railroad, from Tarrant County; Walk
or, p. ], Where plaintiffs went to q
railroad station as assistants az well as
friends TO aid two old aud docrepid
persons whose business thoro was to
90 Ike train on defendants road, the
company was under obligations to
them 10 sec that such company's
depot was in a condition as that no
reasonable ground for injury would
arise. Reversed and remanded.
Hoffman vs., Blume, from Comal
County; Watts, !. A subsequent pur.
chaser from one having o valid deed of
record from a third person for such
third PERSONS homestead, having PAID
valuable consideration without notice,
actual or constructive, that such deed
WIS but mortgage, has title TO tho
homestead, An action of lorclblo entry
and d0talner brought by q v0ndae in d
deed OF record against the vendor
thor0iu for possession Of the home
stead is no such notice as is required,
A purchaser with notice of the home
stead owners rights can only bo sub.
Tcgated 70 tho lien OF his vendor. Re-
yeTsed aud remauded,
Price W. Chadwick ct al, from vii
| Hanson County, Walker, p. l.. Tho
sole quoation passed upon in this opiu-
! ion Ia as TO the true location Of the
boundary lines between respective
surveys, Held: The evidence was
sufficient to support tho conclusion at
which the court arrived and to main
tain its Judgment Tho question pre-
sented was ss to the identity Of the
| lines and corners Of surveys IN order
TO fix the boundaries in dispute be-
tween tho parties, and the relative
vallO of tho calls or tho superiority to
DO given to one class OF calls over
another Is not involved. In this case,
In order to trace tho footsteps OF the
surveyor who made tho surveys, cir
cumstanti8l evidence had to DO re-
sorted to, aud that which was before
the court was sufficient to support the
| Judgment rendered. Affirmed.
McLanny VS.. Miller, from Dallas
County, Stsyton, !, Gross made
| quacy OF price paid for land at eXecu-
ton sale, at which the attorney of tho
execution creditor WAS the only bid
dor, aud became the purchaser,
coupled with the fact that the deed
was made to such attorney, is sulii.
cient 10 lnvslidate tho sale,