Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-05

isfied, to request special charges on theS
questions desired. This the appellant
did not do. No error Is apparent, and
the Judgment is affirmed.
johnson VS.. King Il Davidson, from |
Galveston county. The appellees,
upon an affidavit made 10y one of them
charging the appellant with the dis
position of his property to defraud his
creditors, sued the appellant in Gal.
vestan county district court, and
caused the issuance OF writ Of attach
ment. They delivered their writ OF
attachment to their agent, who, on
discovering that the grounds upon
which it Issued did not exist, the
writ was suppressed, was never placed
In the hands Of an officer and was
never levied upon the property, and
the suit WAS dismissed. Held, that
under such state Of facts the appel.
liant would acquire no right of
action for damages. The mere fact
that an affidavit was made and an at
tachment issued thereon, which was
never levied, would not give to appel
liant any higher or greater right than
IL the same statements were contained
in an unsworn declaration in a pro-
ceeding in which appeliees were seek
ing to enforce u right. in which such
declarations were necessary, though
found ultimately to be untrue. In.
sofar as injury to the reputation of the
appellant was concerned, no right of
sction could arise, the declarations
having been made 10y party to the
suit and being relevant TO the case.
Affirmed.
Larol VS. S.ahels, from Bexar
county. The stipulation in will
bequeathing property to the devisor's
son with the restriction that until the
said son should obtain the age of
twenty-five years. he should have no
other right over the property than to
receive and dispose of the revenues
arts ng therefrom, without having
the right to incumber the same or 10
mortgage or to sell IL, and that, If he
should die u fore obtaining the said
age, the property should pass
in fall right free of any charges
to the devisor's daughter, was
one which the deVisor could lawfully
make; and 1t being clear that it was
the Intention to create fee sim pie
title in the son without power of
alienation or incumbrance until he
attained the stipulated age, and that,
in case he died before attaining that
age, the title in fee simple TO the
any mortgage or other in.
made by the son, he hav- !
ing died before attaining the said age,
passed no title to the mortg4gee Re- |
versed and remanded.
The Houston d. Texas Central Rail- |
way VS.. Hampton, from Grayson |
county. A railway company is as
for injuries to mail agent |
as to any other person, If such injury |
results from the negligence of its en-
ployes; wherefore, IL q mail agent on |
the compsny's train, mlsIed 10y the
conduct of the vompany's agents on |
the train in giving the signal of APP
proach to station, and, slowing |
up" projects his head ouj OF his car
window, by reason of which it came |
in contact with another car, and there !
by caused the death Of the mail agent, |
the company is liable IN damages. |
a fiirmed
Iillman VS.. Brown, from Wichita |
The contested issue being as |
to whether or not the plsce levied on |
was exempt by reason OF its occupa.
ton as place Of business, the Jury |
found rs TO the place of tine defend. |
ants place of resi- ience, but contained |
no mention as to his place of business.
H7ld, that the finding was not respon-
slve to the issue. While the constitute N
accords prou G ion 10 the place where |
the head OF the family exercises his
e iliing or business, 1t will not extend |
protection to place in which the oc.
cupation followed is prohi bited by the
penal laws of the state. i versed and
Josephine H, Ryan et al. VS. the
Texas d Pacific Railway Company,
from Tarrant county. The questions
which arose in the case of Ochou q
Miller, SO Texas, 462, are involved in |
this proceeding, and the principles of |
law announced in that case are de- |
cisive OF this. 1t was correctly held in |
that case that, Notwithstanding the |
expiration of four years from the death |
OF the teststOr, his will might be- pro-
bated for the purpose OF establishing a
link in chain of title, although no |
letters testamentRry could issue. The |
sale by a devlsee of an interest, held |
under will, aud before its probate,
passes the estate A subse quent pro. |
bate would give vitality to such con-
veyance, except as against an inno-
cent purchaser from an heir. Az |
firmed.
WILLIE.