Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-25
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered OF the
Austin Sitting of the Supreme
Court.
Made Up From the Full and Official Re-
port Of the Rulings aud Opinions
Rendered,
Compiled for the Gazette.


son county. This was an action by
appellee against appellant and j. az
copartners to recover of them the
amount Of certain drafts drawn on APP
pellee by j., alleging that the sums
paid by appellee on the drafts was
loan TO appellant and j., which they
had agreed to pay with interest. An
attachment was sued out and levied
on stock OF goods, which were re-
plevined by the appellant. In July,
1883, Judgment was rendered against
both appellant and j., the character of
which will be seen from an extract 40
follows: "Therefore, IL Is ordered. adj
Judged and decreed that plaintiff, Em-
zy Taylor, do have and recover from
defendants, II. l.. Jordan aud Q. g.
Bradford, the sum OF 1902 03 and all
costs of this suit The Judgment also
foreclosed the attachment lien and
went against appellant and his surety
on bis replevy bond.tor value OF the at
taohed goods Bradford alone appealed
and this court reversed the judgment
On retrial the appellee filed an
amended petition, making both appel
liant and J defendants, and setting up
the former judgment as the cause OF
! action, treating IL as valid and sub
sisting judgment sgsinst j. The pro.
ceedings had under the amended pc.
tition, treated J as % defendant, but
the judgment made no disposition as
to him. Held, that suit Is not judg.
ment from which an appeal can be
presented to this court, and cause Ia
stricken from the docket. 81 Tex 20l !;
81 Tex, 2l7. IL Ia y general rule in
| this state that the reversal OF u judg-
ment against two or more defendants
on the appeal of one defendant only,
will operate rs a reversal MS to all, IL
| the judgment be entire, operating to
the prejudice of all the defendants, and
not upon independent matters in
which the several defendants are sep.
arately interested. Appeal dismissed.
Shepman vs. Mitchell, from Travis
county. IL A. leases property to b.
for one year, and b, with AIS con-
| sent, transfers the untXpired lease to
c., even upon the proper fultilment
OF the lease by O., A, would be entitled
| to possession at the expiration OF the
term of the lease, without notice to g..
that he would not extend the lease,
unless by some other contract A. con-
sented TO g. further occupation. II at
the expiration OF the lease A. init
mated no intention TO permit C,'s oc.
cupancy for another year, but g. was
| permitted TO remain In possession and
pay rent, as he had done under the
lease, an implied contract for another
year might arise. IL before the ex-
piration OF the lesse @. wRs informed
that his occupancy would be tolerated
only as q tenant from month 20 month,
no implied con tract That no was 10 oc-
cupy the premiees after the expiration
OF the lease can obtain, and O. holding
over after such declaration, Is pre-
sumed 10 assent to the proposition and
TO hold In accordance with 1t. Al
fiTmed.
Kelley va. Smalley & Harris and
Kennedy, assignee, from Harris conn'
ty. The proper way TO reach q sup
posed error in the Judgment In this
court Is to file q motion for rehear-
ing In proper time. And though this
is n u asmotion filed in proper time,
II has been considered No error Il
perceived in the former judgment tax
Ing costs against Assignee Kennedy
Kelley sought 10 collect tho debt due
him by s. & H., foreclosing the mort.
, Kennedy, as the voluntary assignee
under the assignment which they had
; made for the benefit OF creditors, was
: properly made a party 10 that action
for he wac setting up title TO mort
gagged property as trustee fur the cred
I TORS He made defenses and foTceC
plaintiff to long ana expensive litiRa
: Iion, and denied the validity of TIA,
mortgage. The legal title passed 4
T Kennedy by the assignment In trust
, for the creditors, but subject TO thu
? prior right of the mortgage. THIS gen
. eral rule Is, I'm suits between trusteei
l and strangers 10 the trust, the liabilit,
! TO costs viii ordinarily be governed by
Q the general rule, which throws tn
8 costs upon the unsuccessful party
2 Hill on Trustees, 856; Perry on Trusts
,, sol. See also Revised Statutes, article
{ 1870 and 2il6 Motion overruled.
:, Mcdonnell d. Co. VA. Cheray eli al
} from Caldwell county In a ca
1 wherein the plaintiff would be en-
g titled 10 recover upon the facts state
? In the petition without regard 10 tn
Z value OF the property, II Us error 10 n
!. fuse an amendment to the petition
y merely charging an increased value
d the property. An amendment ma
y supply an allegation necessary 70 Civ
= the court jurisdiction, and causes hay
j. been remanded 10 give parties an Of
% poTtunity 10 make such AN amend
e ment II the value of properly b
, ayetrsd for the purpose Of giving
J. court Jurisdiction, it may be defeate
o by the defendant alleging and pro-
n ing such fact. 1t Is no ground for d.
!, murrer that the want Of jurisdiction
]. apparent on the face Of the proceed
u ings Even though the facts state
Ie would entitle plaintiff 20 an actio
OF possible entry and detainer, !
y would not be confined 10 such rem
J. dy, but could resort 10 any form Of a
J. ton by which the property could
le recovered. isv, ersed and remende'
70 Hector vs.. Carey, from GuadaluI
e county. II IL well established tn
i the beginning corner Of O survey Is
l. no higher dignity or importance ths
y any other; and when the natural o
q ject called for IL found 81 any corne
y the lines Of the survey may be dete
mined by commencing Mt that poll
instead of At the beRiUhing corner.