The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-04-23

retaruable to the Tyler, and not this {
branch of this court. REV. Stats, M,
Az, 10; Sol Sess. Is Leg, July 9, 1879,
set. on Sec. PIP. IL, i4). AS cases ON an.
/ peal or writ OF error from Marion
| county, other than proceedings by quo
/ warranto, are, as R general rule, return-
able To the Tyler branch of this court. /
! (h6V. stats, Art. 1906 p. 1861, this mo,
ton 10 dismiss on That ground Is sus-
tained. Appeal dismissed.
b +. Read vs.. q. w. Gillespie; from
| Iarrant county. Willie, c. !. The lien
| given by the statute TO persons farnish.
Ing material for building, ia not lot by a
failure to serve a bill OF particulars upop
Tie party owing the debt, whom such
service ~ impracticable. (Warren VS..
| smith, Al Texas, 245.) Where IL is al
ieSdu tlat tho debtor left the state before
ne note iell due, and before the time
"lthln which tho party furnishing the
! ihuteflAi was required TO iiie mis- bill OF |
particulars for record in order to ilN and |
secure his lien, had EXPIRED, and that |
muEenG efforts nUJ peun made 10 serve |
him, without etlycL, he IS e&cusable for |
MOB serving tho OH Of particulars. The /
/ Attorneys zoe allow ed the representa- |
1.-Two Of tUH debtor, vas part of the costs /
OF ant tBayisod statutes, article l2I2,) /
and as ouch might be satisfied out Of the |
pc pertv upon i, hiah the principal debt |
4 was q Affirmed.
NOusJuu & Texas Central railroad |
company Va. ~. H. Gi.mmong; from |
GrSys"n county. West, J. This case |
will uo found fully reported IN So Texas |
IS. The ploadiugs uaY6 been ammaOd |
( aHd additional evidence adduCed II ape |
poars from the proof chat appellee was
fully authorized hy appeuanJto visit tho
uaA gage sr and tuere remain a reason
able euUth Ut time, Ip wGs an eXcur.
sion train nil which appellee was iu-
Jursu, ana there were no trunks or bag
gaze OF any kiuE lp the car. the Othtr
cars were quite foil and the question a.
to rhb character ana uoErJH OF uogli-
= g6nce displayed Oy appellee in being
b. There was, therefore, q legitimate sub
d l6cJ 81 Inquiry for the jury.
b Whiio ID might be conceded that Ordi.
uarly The usual baggage car attached TO
Is regular passenger train ana used for
the purpUse OF storing truuBs and Othgr
baggage, is more dangerous than the
. coaches provided for pHssaugurs; VeJ
g there may be cases in which the rela-
tive or cooperative danger OF the two
Iaigh5 be this legitimate subject of in
l. quiry by tho jury Here tho passengers
j. were invited by appelian. TO 80 into and
L visit the baggage car, Appellant an
}. nouuced, by It's conduct, that the bag
d gage car In question was q safe place
. into which p2S8ousCrs could lawfully
"a 0ut"r and remain for reasonable tim,
O Whom the accident occurred no whis-
tie was sounded nor alarm given, or any
brakes used, when the obstacle WIS en-
b couutored which threw portion of the
a train from the track. Appellee was a
- regular passenger who had paid his fare
|. and the engineer in charge Of the train
was not prodent, careful and sober
N person. Improved air brakes were not
10 used on the train. There was no porter
e on the train 10 bring water 20 pasEen-
a gers and they were compelled - so into
l. the baggage car IN question. The YER
!. diet WAS FOR 81 900 anu ~ held not to bC
- excessive. Affirmed.
H. ID Z. Atwood Va. Brooke smith, from
l. Clay county, Willie, c, !, 4 was in
n possession Of the property when il was
D. attached by . as the property Of @.
II nled Il claim !n accordance with the
statute, ~ agent Of u, cashier of the
First National bank Of Brentwood
e, The issue rendered by i was in effect
Z hat the property levied or belonged 70
Al q, and not To ID, and a. iu accepting thi
. Issue, denied that 10 belonged TO q, anC
II claimed ownership in himself
Ma The record disUiOses that ID held lltl
]. TO tue property for Who benefit Of th
ar bauk, OF which he was cashier, and haC
placed them i'm The care and EOepiug o
A. b insists tine Judgment should no
,u nave been rendered against him
yg whether be proved tle property to he
IN louged 10 G aud subject TO the attach
,e m0nt or not; tbsg d WAS a mere agen
nal Tor the bank; could not have Orougn
le suit FOR the properly, and bad no RICH
"a 20 claim IL Ina his own pame.
.l Held, the property not being found II
"a the possession OF c. hut OF the claimgap
agent. The burden of showing thar
was CTS property Was upon \. VI
failed 20 DO rhl IL tUu proof established
that &c belonged 90 Che bank; they Wer
no more subject 90 attachment II the,
n- be DnE4d ip th bank iN1H ifil hey Dr.
go ionged % It's cashier. Ifthis was not 81
80 the effect OF tho proof being that DO
y property was held by ID. fOT tho bsueh
rs, Of the bank, the legI .itlO was iu D, TN
,y- equitable title IN The bank and il 1
IN, proper ans regular for tho holder Ot m
IA lpgri title % preserve the property tu
ne his cestui que trust ana i'm apr0p0r cas-
gl o. Las c.diiu 90 Do under the statute {
I'm prevent IFS being sold Tor the debt or
"A third parry. AitirWnd.
In W.. l.. washington ct al. VS.. Fir,
ut National Bank; from Denton county
%. Willie, G.. ]. Where tho variance bi
IL tween tho note declared on and this
offered i'm evidence consisted only
-. the commission OF the letter d In Oh
mn word guaranteed endorsed upon ID
oil note, the variance Us lmmaterial. Wher
no no other verdict could be rendered
LEA the case, or It's equivalent, the action {
A the court in setting aside an iufOrmi
,is verdict and directing the attorney fC
the successful party % write a propt
verdict, which was handed 10 the jur
who retired aud considered Of il, an
-. then returned II into court, Is not erro
III Ia the entry Of q judgment against SUR
er- ties and guarantOrs, our statntes max
est no distinction, nor between case whel
an, the party principal IS resident of u
county OF the suit or of some othe
" county, Attorneys fees provided for
1T. a suit are incident to it, and in this r
.ck spect resemble the interest therein pr
ias yided for, and bear interest at the san
ler rate as the principal and accrued int
The est to the date Of the Judgment. a
his tirmed.
mn J.E. Streeper vs.. Benjamin Ferri
from Grayson county. Stayton, ].
obtained Judgment against &, { aud
for S2,673.d6 with interest and foreclO
ing a lien on land, which Judgment WI
TO be satisfied as TO r, he having becon
re. a bankrupt, by the sale of tho Ian
alto After the rendition Of the Judgment
-, who WAS not party 70 the original sui
w filed two motions, one In his own nau
ian and one ia the name OF b, 20 set aAl,
! o. the Judgment Tor new trial, allegiI
we ownership oil Tho property ana mat
Ally had good defence 20 the action. The
motions We're Overrulei, and a
pealed, giving n bond for himself ~
also for b, but without che latter
knowledge or consent The iudgme
--t. was affirmed on appeal and ail8rward
sale of the l8ud made for 5000, + "
70 M possession Of the land from tho dl
md oftne judgment TO the time OF the sa
NJ This suit was brought 60 recover q
r ali balance of the iutgreut and for dai
am. ages for the wrongful act o. + I'm pros
cutting the appeal a. Aforesaid. Hel
He has the right 90 prosecute the appe
so far as he himself was concerned wit
out mourning any liability 20 the iud
90, ment creditor for any damages accruil
llll- by reason thereof. But he had no rig
Rus to appeal In tho name Of another and