The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-11-23
THAT GENEROUS Acr.
HIGuER CoUR's-TYLER TERM

II.
sUPnEME COURT.
.. B Stuart, Jr, VS.. Western Union
Telegraph company. from Harrison
county. Robertson, j Plaintiff, who
resided at Waco, had Instructed his
relatives at Marshall to telegraph him
the condition of his brother, VINO was
very III. This they did, telling PLAIN
TN to "Come st once; John il very
iow." Plaintiff did not receive the
message for several days after
1t wac aent, ON account of the necli-
gsnce OF TIE ageut az Waco, d when
he reached Mar hall his brother had
died and WAS barred. He recovered a
Judgment agsinst the telegraph com
pany. for " 500 damages; so cents of
which was the amount paid by him for
the trans mission OF The messase, the
balance for mental suffering, disap-
pertinent, grief and anguish, because
ne could not see HIS brother before
ne hal d'ed, and could not be present
at his burial. Tnis judgment was ar.
rested and set aside. Held: That men
tai snffaring. in Anguish, grief, disap-
pointment. injury to feelings. il
ground for aotusl DAMAGES in such
cases. Injury 10 feelings, unaecom-
psnied by and not the result of bodily
pain or injury, may in such osses
90 ground Tor actual damsges
This ease is not IN conflict with ,bs
Levy cases, decided by this coxrt.
Tbs JUDGMENT III arrest Of the verdict
and Mrst judgment are reversed, aud
'a6 ve',tict aud judgment ia favor Of
plaintiff ior s., 500 rsinslated.
w. w. Whitehead, administrator,
We. Garrity d Eney. from Navarro
county. Stayton, ] Toe first dua OF
s~O notes given for tho purchase
money Of tract oil land on which q
lieu IL reserved Tor ths payment OF
both notes, does not have 4 priority ~
lien, "a 10 'he case in SOME
of the States. The assignee of ono @i
two notes, both secured by amortgege,
IL entitled to ba paid OUT OF tho pro
ceeds OF the mor'gagod property in
preference to the mortgegee, who re-
tains one Of the notes secured
ny the same mortgage. The as
signee of ono OF two notes, given
for the purchase money Of land, ON
which a lien il reserved for the pay.
ment of both, under 3 verbR. agree
ment that bis note shall first DO salts
fed out of tho land, In default Of pay
meni, has prior and superior
lien to secure his note, In
preference TO the original payee,
who retains the other note.
The purchaser n. foreclosure sal.
in suit brought by such assignte
against the payer Of tho rOte, and TO
which the payes Of the notes was not
a party, OBTAINS tho legal
and equitable title. Under the
Headings IN this case, Plaintiff
JThitehesd, may bs eopsidered as ono
WAC o. eks 10 redeem STEER foreclosure
sale. II No Gsrrity u Huey are en-
titled 20 the foil amount Ut The note
transferred to ts8m by Whitehead's
intestate, and thst, without deduotiug
iherefrom the amount bid bY GHrrity
d Huey for Tho land, who were the
purehssers al their foreclosure sale. II
The land at the sale he'd been pufehaS
sed by some other person ott or than
Gsrrity & Huey, in order TO redeem
ihe purchaser would have been GU
titled 10 the full amount Of hi" pur-
chase money, and Clarity d Huey
tho balance due on iheir note less the
proceeds OF the sRle. 1hess two sums
will m ka tho iutl sm0uos oil tho nots
VI Garitv 4 Hueg, and the facs that
Clarity Il tuoY were the purchasfra
at the sale can msk0 10 difference. AT
armed.
R.F Hinsou OF al VS.. Ely, walker
4 Co., from Red River county. Stay
ton, /. Tho declarations of q vendor,
made after sale and without the pres
encs or knowledge OF the v6ndee, can
not bo received III evidence To oefea'
the vendee's right TO the property sold.
Nor will the declaration of Smith, In
this case, made afler the money mad
been loaned by him to Harrison, and
Invested IN whole or in part In goods,
to the effect that the goods were really
his (Smith'e), DO received IN evidences
TO show that tho loan wos
not real aud In good faith. Tho
declarations made by Smith prior
10 the lime that tina money WAS loaned
by him TO Hinson may be received, 1;
being left to the jury under proper IN
s,ru0tions, 20 determine whether they
we're made with tho knowledge OF
Hinson, aud that ho know of the
fraudulent purpose AZ the time The
money WAS obtained. Reversed and
remanded.
William Croft Va. p. A. Peck, from
Navarro county. Willie, o, j. Crof
was the holder OF the naked tito q
lau ID; he sold the same by deed Of war.
rAnty; paid the proceeds over TO Peck
the beneficiary, who executed 20 him .
bond, In which he agreed that
no would pay to Croft tn,
amount OF any judgment. whiof
Croft should hav0 rendered against
him by version Of his warranty
Croits warranty failed, his vende,
lost the land, aud wSs threatening Il
sue him. he compounded by payinl
about hall ths amount. Held: rhs
he was entitled TO recover ~ Peck th'
amount thus paid by him, although NJ
Judgment hsd been rendered again =
MIN, Equity will grant the relief. Ro
yersed aud Temaudod.
Il. A. lambert et AZ. Va. 4. " Mo
Leniop, from Delta county. Robert
son. 4. " WAS error for tho court I
| instruct the Jury to find for the appel
lee the value OF all the goods Beis d,
they should believe that he purchase
tboin or any part OF them IN ZOO