Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-02
SUPREME COURT.
ecpsis Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the
q Supreme Court.
lac up From the Full and Official Re
port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered,
Compiled for the Gazette.

. oonnty. A suit against United
Htntes marshal and the sureties on his
.Uo{{icisl bond for a trespass committed
.Nby such marshal under color OF his
|sn{Iice, il au action under articles $50
aud 7s4 of the Revised Statutes OF the
United States, and in such suit as
. may also involve the construction OF
the preceding two articles OF the
said Revised Statutes of the United
States, and as such suit, arises unuer
Eethe laws of the United states, and
-,nav be removed to the federal courts
xunder the act Of congress OF March 3,
. 1875. Reversed and remanded.
| Schneider d Davis va DE Smith,
hfrom Parker county. In 5S Tex,
| 16a ii is held that mo act of the as
IaaeinIfee nor OF the assignor, after the
sssig nment is made, or preceding 1t,
mbnteven in contemplation of 1t, how
saver fraudulent the act may be, shall
Tsalvest the right of the creditors TO
have the estate administered for their
ben.fi in accordance with the spinit
.rof the statute The point urged by
the appellant in this case is, In effect,
that, notwithstanding the transaction
was bona fide and fairly intended rs
! tbetween the parties to IL, yet as II
Withdrew partnership effects such
Z
fraud on the rights of the creditors OF
the firm. The decision quoted from
applies to this case, and the appellants
must seek the enforcement of their
.atiebt against the assets OF the firm in
the manner provided for under the
law Regulating assignments, and in
The ordinary modes provided for UNI
IF der the general laws IA creditors gen.
orally, and they cannot subject the
N properly to attachment. Affirmed.
Rurns vs.. Tiudale, FROM William
" ,opcounty. hequestion in this case
was one of boundary, the issue being
p. hetrue boundary lines of certain
r. Survey made in ISL, the calls of
! Ewhich were for older and adjacent
snrpeys, the fl eldnotes Of the land in
vsontroversy being set out in the plead
. vlngs. The court in its findings prop
.aissfly applied the evidence in properly
srSfcfermining the location of the con-
fo'trogerted east line OF the Il. survey.
The stone mound at the specified dis
xyRnse and direction from the p. south
NE2st corner was fully identified by
\ Vatisfaetory evidence land was one OF
HE calls.in the field-notss) and 1t was
+. nAnifestly proper to close the T. sur
.olkSey by running to the place of begin
. ling, following the Il. west line To the
~ aoushwest corner of that survey rs
. Called for in the field notes. Under
IN ME facts in this case, distance would
FrNlearly yield TO other calls, and the
|S45xcess OF elghty-five vsras in the
. Meneth OF the line would interpose no
3Nstscle to thus locating the line in
5Xnestion. The courts findings of fact
. lxSreIsupported by the evidence aud the
E%eductions drawn from them by the
|Wtlige were unQuestionably correct.
"A Ekfflrmed.
i Wren ct al. VS.. Peel ct al, from
IL rrayis county. a judgment against
Goth the principal and the sureties on
. w replevin bond establishes the liabili-
" of each person agains, whom ii Is
'aysndered 1t does not, however,
S Mango the relation between the prin-
RN1pal and sureties, but the relation in all
enrings should berecognized in such
ottase, In this state judgment cannot
Rendered against surety on any
Ind of an instrument unless at the
- .me time Judgment be rendered
NJ, kainst the principal, except in cases
IEST herwise provided by statute. The
As .scepted cases are such as in which to
Alr palcrce the rule would prejudice the
NuN Hht OF the creditor or operate as no
|, advantage TO the surety 10 have the
IN ent so rendered Tue same
asons for which Judgment against
surety alone Ia denied, apply with
Iuo14uAl force to any process or proceed
TO enforce the judgmen against
lie surety in which an appeal or
4 nit Of error is prosecuted under a
Ipersedeas bond is perfected by a
Incipal, for the purpose of having
M dgment against himself and sure
~ as received. Unless the case be in
:. jch condition that the plaintiff
wight have issued an execution
snt i,Ainst the principal had he desired
| of doso, he cannot proceed against
sureties. Reversed and rendered
|lEI Ur appellanta.
Stien VS.. Freiberg, Klein q Co.,
pm Uvalde county The district
f11lurts of this state have the power to
81 esS'ne the writs of injunction in cases
which court of chancery, under
A. zee eettled rules of equity, would
sir-siye the power 10 issue them, and
reclp' 1T. too, without regard to the
aided Mount in controversy. They have
auiy power to enjoin sale of property
the Nder execution, which the
on w specially eXempts from forced
lie cole, Regardless of the amount in con-
on ths9veFsy, and when the district court
o. gaa = once acquired jurisdic ion by rea-
IN iai ol the injunction prayed for and
10 rraed, 1t should retain control of the
Of tuesse until the relief to which the plain
uly, y entitled to is granted. "a Tex
sc, NJ n. 2s9 Reversed and remanded
lloyd VS.. MoCombs, from Callahan
In wniy. Appellee sued to recover on
M nfoinissory note, and to foreclose ven.
wv dAs lien on land in part payment of
ana oscbase money for which the note
clalus given. Petition contained the
|,le Gal averments charging inter ALA,
- "a lien WAS reserved upon said
vasu' poFty 10 secure the payment Of said
4, as will more fully appear by ref.
-. noe TO said note, hereto attached
70 hesl marked etc. land asked
poundta made nart If this petition. y
] sen. note reads that II WAS given as
.bsoluek pprehase on property sold TO de.
m ueNt ia Belle Plain, by deed OF
~ siiA2, 1852, aud recorded intended
end 70 y corded-in the book of records
pines epunty. The note is dated May
| all pan tStR The daed M tha land unon