Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-27
SUPREME COURT.
,,0,is of Decisions Rendered at the
Austin Sitting Of the Su-
preme Court
. Tn From the Full and Official Re-
rort Of the Rulings and opin-
ions Rendered.
.con,n,led for the Gazette.

~ of the respective parties 10 the
y Of collector OF taxes OF Marion
10 when the action wasinstituted. !
a suit, however, was plainly not
N, under the provisions of the act of |
o 1879, to regulate proceedings |
no warranto, and for that reason,
~ The law regulating such subject,
Ilnrnable to the Tyler term, and |
"A hi this branch of the court. Again,
u rscord brings up no petition, cits-
"a and service such as is required by |
= law In cases instituted in the dis.
IA court. See sections /, 2, 3, 4, B, 8 |
4 In concerning practice in the dis
.>s court, The appeal Ia dismissed.
\ twood VS.. Smith, from Clay |
a16nty. One M. was in possession OF
M cattle at the time they were at
hed st the suit of appellant, rs the
per.y OF one S.eptow. He filed a
zI<ntory claim to them as the agent
|4ppellee, who was cashier Of the .B.
IN. The issue rendered by plaintiff
attachment was In effect that the
|kperty levied on belonged to Step
- and not 10 appellee and the claim
]f In accepting this issue denied this |
'tement and alleged the property in
l>aself. The record shows (per evil !
|2heel that appellee held title for the |
<aetit of the bank Of which he was
zshier and as such agent placed them
the care of M. This being the
Y appellant insists that the
gment should not have been
4tinet him, whether he es-'
5lished Steptow's title CT not, APP
lice being mere agent of the bank,
IA no right to claim. the proper
Such doctrine cannot be main
<lned, because
a The cattle not being found in
&ptow's possession, but Of the claim
|il's agent. The burden of showing
}Rt they were Steptow's was upon
Ia plaintiff in attachment.
3. The proof showed the property
f Is held by appellee for the bank.
De equitable title then was in him,
HI II was competent for him to show
IA defend his title for the benefit Of
cestui qui trust. Affirmed.
Washington ct al. vs. First National
&nk OF Denton, from Wise county.
here the variance in the description
II the iudorsement on the note as
ID aded, and that found on the note,
ls not such misdescription as to mis-
I'd the adverse party or surprise him,
b was properly disregarded by the
Nllrt % Tex. 20; SIS Id. $780, There
1hs no conflict in the testimony, and
n other verdict than that rendered,
one equivalent. was authorized by
lie facts. Hence, it can be no objection
Hat the court authorized 1t to be put
N writing, it having then been adopt
n by the jury. In the entry of a
,abgment, rs prescribed by Art.
rs, that statute makes no
Inference between a surity and
fguarantor, nor case in which the
incipal Is a resident Of the county in
4hich the judgment is rendered, or Is
PRESIDENT of different county. Asst
now the settled law that the inter.
~ Incorporated into judgment, II
Dove per cent, bears interest there
Ter at the conventional rate, 80 in
>arest upon the percentage for attor-
'efy's fees, properly provided for in
ne note and judgment, will bear the
|<4me. Therefore, the fact that there
Psno agreement that the attorneys
&es ehall bear interest at greater
Ne than per cent. will not affect
lie question, 81 Tex, 5ll r. s., Art.
|6O. Affirmed.
4, Lovejoy VS.. Hart, from Wise county.
nls was suit against appellant
"a one b. upon 8 note for the pur-
pase money of land, and prayer was
XU AnA fnF fnrnalnc,trn nf NynndnlG lien
me note was made by b. but the lano
Ess sold by him to appellant, who
eok possession and was made party,
y was a nonresident and was served
~ publication, but the citation as tc
M seems never TO have been served
#pveIOy was never served 80 far as APP
6tars from the ec)rd. Under such
circumstances judgment by defaui'
|'shu foreclosure cannot stand. Re
ersed and remanded.
Ryan vs. Leer, from Tarrant county
Wss shown that the appellee ant
Fle Il. made an exchange of.property
I4ut That at the time of the suit N
Feds had passed; that H., however
fau gone into possession of the lot
argained to him by appellee and re
lived the rents, ana that appelle'
al taken possession OF the lots re
lived in exchange, and placed i'm
NIovements on the same, commenclnt
Iueh improvements during the life
lme of H. The lots received by ii
3rom the appellant were original,
purchased by the former from
lac appellee, $500 purchase money be
4ng still due when H. died; hence hi
.stement that when appellee paid Tn
foVV he would have clear title. Ap
ReIee subsequently paid the amour
II 8 executors. Under such circum
eAnees the sale must be held to have
zen entirely consummated when TIM
&u,t was Instituted except as to Tn
lehvery Of deeds. The appellee hav
ing made his deed 10 the propert
ttaoed by him, was entitled to a deere
Esting in him title to the lots b
RIaded for. Affirmed.
stone & Cows. Hill, Fletcher q Co
rom Cooke county. The motion
ne defendant below to quash the p'
t,tion and affidavit for attachment !
MS case, Is not borne out by th
record. The petition alleges clearl
nn tue account il payable, or vii
All due, July /, 1854, and was file
s, 1884; and, therefore,
Eloes not, as objected, allega
be over due. This cas-
ooes not, therefore, as elaine
. ma. q