The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-17
I'll BIGGER CocRrs.

in evidence, and the deed taken alone
shows no connection between the appel
liant and the grantee named in 1t, the
action of the court will not be dis
turbed. Affirmed.
ID. o. CarrowaY VS., w. w. Scott ct al,
from Fannin county; Watts ]. Adopted.
Where at the time OF the purchase Of
the land by g, and when he accepted
the quit claim therefor from s, the
agreement between Slaughter and Full
Ter was of record in the county, and by
the terms of that agreement Slaughter
recognized Fuller's right TO the one
third locative interest in the land and
Carraway purchased with notice as
given by the record, the evidence OF
Mrs. Fuller as to the agreement be-
tween Noble and Faller respecting the
location of the certificate worked no
injury to appellant. Fuller's rights
were fully established by his agree
ment with Slaughter, so that as to Car
raway the agreement between Noble
and Fuller respecting tho location of
the certificate was matter of no practi-
cal Importance, and as TO any right that
CarTaWay may assert under ID, who
claims through Noble,he was concluded
as to Fuller and his vendees by the
Judgment rendered In the case Of Fuller
vs.. heirs OF Noble. Affirmed,
Texas d Pacific railroad VS.. w. C..
Graves. from Parker countv, Watts /,
Adontad A cornoration is liaRle fnr tbe
qn,e ~ its earvsnts done ia the course IF
tbe enn,,Ioymert in tba riDbtfnl uss 10
we'll az IN fhe abuee Of tbn eutboritv
ror fe,rfd unou ths,n Inv III, cnronrs,
lion. H6wscer. the hebii-
itv of railroad c,mra,,,
ior the wrongs and ir,iuries committed
nv ia servants up,u IA 0asseua,pr. IL gny.
-;ned h,, tho ,,ocI1lioy ta,,,,,e nj fba 9,C,,
tract which mo law iIuroqes mon tho
comnanv ana ina rounin,, il iiahlo On
ita tontyact for Inc sate r,nsnorta INN
of tl,n mas ey,,,er. Ion. tbe ,yronoa and in
iurios inflicted 'unon him IN ina ser.
yyo,ta If Tho con,ran, evrn tRo,,sL tho
servant at the iiueI he acting Levond
tbe scone of bis srtuai and im1liei nm
fhoritv,
In tRigca appeIiant ,yas euraged as
n oontnou carrier of p4agengars An.
pallee was riobtlplIy mon t6e Train a.
- passeuger. and mo ponducior in
nhar0e of the train cotnnittad an aq-
sauif unon md soyoreI,, Woundad him
Inv strilituU him unon Ina boad win a
nIst,i m h clained N,et ths cnndnctor
VA. ,hou i'm the di.cbqrge of what be
ooucsivel IN ma Ma duty ii, nrnventirt,
as ina tbouoht anneliea from robhir,,
auoi6er nqtaeugfr' and when tho cott-
dustor D1lIed him from the seat appol.
lee nlaced bis hand i'm such a nnsitinn
tbat' the oouduetof th.uolt nn vas in
Mo act of drawing a uistnl. and there
fore. the conductor struok him. al bo
conceived. I'm self detpnce. Ns IN tho
immediat5 transacli0n. sn.re ~ a cnr.
troriotv nj eviisr.e 'Tbe,o nrr-
io tho conductor at susnicions
psrsops bv a wntcbuau at the lSnot
who informed the cou,llctor than h ,yss
tbonght That tbaV we're i.llovinp - can.
tlenlau then on the train. with the vie,y
OF robbinp rim, Tbeconductor thourbt
appellee was one of ths threo man
pointeJ ont IN him as gnspicinus ner.
sons. and was ENGAGED I'm yvitcbiug Mn
eud two others to ureveut tbaui from,
robbinp the nsssepvsrs Held. In ,na,,
he assumed that Tho couductor VIVA
mistnken i'm the mon ,,ninted ont and
wac labaiiur under "A Observation-Disclosures
as 10 anpelleei, intcntinne and tho mr..
mort al MS get. Vet gucb mis,aLes
would not a.. rlse the coinpAnv nnr az.
empt a. rom liability for the aotual
damage resulting Ia pppellee from the
wrongful acts 0f the c6nductor. ~ hieh
would Include all damages resuitlng as
a nRtura, cDusr oueuca from The wrong
Including mental and physirl suilof,
inv. Two Thousand dollara Ac1ial dam
aces IN held NOT To be oxoessIve. and as
t6e exemplarv DAMAGES nave been re-
mitted. the INDIGNANT a. reverssd and
here rendered for the said amount. Eo-
versed and remanded.
l. A. Franxs Of al. W. Carolina Chan.
man az al. from Ata,cosa comfy.
Stavton /. ON Inc former npneai ot
this ease, II was held that the district
court had jurisdiction. Tho matter hav-
inc been sent In tho district court ON er.
count OF the decentralization of thu
county iudpe. To- hear and dotermine
the validity of the protest of tho will
formerly made ian tile county court. and
also 10 probate tho will; N nroper proot
of H., due execution was Wnde. should
at former probate for any cause bo found
invalid. TWAS also held that such time
had not ELAPSED ms would bar the right
To probate "A will under the facfs exist.
inc q Texas .aw ReView 33W. AS the
court revoked tho former prohate. N
the will and NJ All the pnr-
ties in interest. ns shown
bv The annelIants tbsmse,vos. ,vere b a.
fore the rourt In this case. IA Ia unitn.
plrtant whether the prupPr notice of
intention la probate tho win was piyen
before 40 was origilnl,v admitted Ia prr-
bate. The eyideuce of the ,yitneS ses
upon yyhose testimony the will WINS pro-
hated was sunicirui to gutLorize The
finding TINT the manor VAS duly sNecu-
ted ana published by a. W. Chairman
rs his last will. and IL is of no inipnrt-
npce tbat tho witnesses. who siunsd tho
will AS such nd inc reuuest of the testa.
tor. signed their names Inn Tho attesto.
tl0I CLAUSE and moi suer M. n Jnrmap
ON Wells. 2l6 al sea; / Rsddold ON
Wells. 2Sl al sex, XVnsbburue an Renl
Propertv, ON The f,ct thgt A.G. M9r.
Tin, who WAS the clerk of the count v
court, when called upon by CbapmaD
to witness tne will. 'attar6ed tboreto
his official eerti6cate oT tho ec.
acknowledgements of Tho execution
of the willbv tbo tesfRtor. does moi atisct
tho ynliditvofhi. sitrnntnre Ia tbe win
IA a witness tMurrav va Murray. no
Miss, 9lOl There is NO error M Tho
mdgunort and N H. ,O,rv,od
Houslon N rrxns Gen,rsl rnilr,ad
a., IL .''' '''''