Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-06
SUPREME COURT.
lis Of the Decisions Rendered at
tMI the Austin Sitting Of the
Supreme Court.
IMP From the Full and Official Re
Port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.
San nIled for the Gazette.


M costs settled between the par
y Irrigated case Is by motion to
ed In the court below to retax the
: accompanied by corrected bill
its. II, pending the disposition
motion, an execution for costs
be issued, IL can either be recalled
Q court or its enforcement be re-
led by Injunction go Tex. Coz Id.
Reversed and remAnded.
nea w Railway Company, from
q county. Ga the original hear
this cause it was held TO be neg |
BE- on the part of the company to
Ii weeds TO grow or other obstruo-
to exist on its right OF way to
an altitude as to otstruct the
over any portion of its line, and
AIf injury result to stock or per-
(which might have been avoided
Mr. the Instructions, the company
ubie. The case went off on the
Vince. The motion for rehearing
hts no new questions which can
properly arise unon the record, and
to1lt, after careful reconsidera-
81 adhere TO Its former decision.
airing refused.
ldfrank, Frank 81 Co, vs. Young,
Bexar county. No difference ex-
stweep mortgage with power VI
DR. u deed of trust TO a third party
o in default of payment OF the
secured, and an ordinary mort
with reference to the right to
lose, either through judgment
Ncree of court, after the period of
Ration has expired. A lein through
Ilr In such cases cannot be enforced
lecree OF court after the debt se-
"a Is barred. In actions for debt
statutes of limitations affect the
,dy only. The Revised Statutes,
1896, definitely settles the effect of
statutory bar so far as ii affects
". As to personally, the. re-
N Is a enactment of the former
lite and must receive The former
truction. The legislature having
AIRED the effect Of the statutory
As to realty and no construction
K given to the bar as applied to
! r Glasses of cases mentioned in the
! lite, it must be held that the inten-
was to give the same effect to the
+ classss A PLEDGE may enforce
debt through the sale of
,erty, II tho original contract con-
the right, not withstanding the
itself may be barred. Reversed
!. remanded.
uisall VS.. Telegraph Company. On
isring. 1t was held on the orig
hearing that If message be
ten on one of the company's
ks. and the sender signs it with
dissent, he is bound by the regula.
8. Notwithstanding he may rot
sread them, unless fraud enters
the Transaction. lie may show,
ever, that he did not understand
IA. The operator, writing the mes
for the sender at his requts be-
ICES the operators agent and the
ller Is bound by the operators act.
In careful reconsideration, this
VI adheres to those declarations.
caring refused
la Vega vs.. Leagen, from Calves
county. After a defendant has
\ !, brought into court in O partition
Y and has answered, setting up
\In to title, he cannot be dismissed
U,shows any claim of right of title
lrty defendant in 3 suit for parti-
OF land may set up a superior title
claim to the entire property though
claim through the title under
III partition is sought. Where a
y would be entitled to intervene
suit for partition, claiming the
. by Superior title, he ia entitled to
Nladea party defendant to the said
ytion suit. Reversed and re-
ded.
lies and Wife VS.. Elliott Il Roe,
n Palo Pinto county. This was q
by appellees to recover upon a
for lumber furnished for the
ling described therein, and to
Hose lumber-dealers' lien reserved
he face thereof. The wife's separ-
acknowledgment was properly
n, but the note did not show, nor
italleged in the pleadings, that it
ever been recorded. Judgment
default, foreclosing the lien, was
cred against both appellants, and
ntion against the building. Held,
The court erred in rendering
ment against the wife, the
ton containing no averment that
debt was contracted for "a purpose
ch could fix a liability upon the
. IA Tex 2l5; 20 ID, 257; 80 Id,
The record OF the note was pre-
lisiie To the fixing OF the lien, and,
petition failing to aver such record,
court erred in decreelng the fore
sure Of the lien on the property, nor
he averment supplied by the recital
she judgment that the facts proved
record of the note. An allegation
the note was executed and de-
red TO A. is sufficient prims facie
lace the ownership in him. Re-
red and remanded
btrrAWAy w. Scott, from Fannin
ity. HE disposition Of the appeal
lis case, made by this court at n
. Ter DAY OF the present, has been
Etofore published in these columns.
lotion for rehearlng has been filed,
/ting the court to reconsider ia All
iatIon OF the several points die.
I'd on the Original hearing. II
ants no new questions which can
imately trse upon the errors
med. The former opinion has,
ever, been carefully reviewed, and
= ;ourt has failed TO find that 1t has
y 1 ia any particular, and the
M nal opinion Is adhered to in every
scular. Rehesring refused.
thn vs. Trammel, from Mitchell
~. Tue issue In this case arises
the sufliciepcy Of the affidavil
which the writ of attachment
gafssnsd. 1t alleged that the party
81 'herein was justly indebted u
liant, the date OF the maturity Of