The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-06-18
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.


B. f. jackson ct ux. VS.. j. B. Nc
MILAN, from Milan County; West, j.
At a previous day of the term, on mo-
ton of the appelle, the portion of the
transcript that contained what pur-
ported to be q statement of facts was
stricken from the record for want of
the signature of the presiding Judge.
AS general rule, the ac-
ton of the District Court in the admis-
sion or exclusion of a conveyance,
deed of trust, mortgage, contract, ex-
ecutory agreement and the like class
OF written instruments, or the correct
ness of the construction given to such
instruments by the court in its charge,
cannot be reviewed here in the alb
sence Of q full and satisfactory ac-
count, either in the statement of 1acts,
bill OF exceptions, or findings
OF TACT, or all the evil
dence, written and oral, immediately
connected with and relating to ths
written instrument to be considered,
which was before, and taken into con.
sideration by the court at the time of
it's action on the matter sought to be
brought in review before us. Here,
though there is bill of exceptions in
tho transcript, and also findings of
fact by the court, neither of them, nor
both of them taken together, in the
absence Of a statement of facts, fur
nish us with sufficient and certain in
formation as to the matters that were
in evidence at the time of the. courts
action on the objections raised as to
Justify US in attempting now to revise
the action Of the court. The particular
deed, to the unproduction of which in
evidence objection was made, and to
TIE construction Of which appellants
obi is not before us. Neither the
conveyance nor the material
parts of 1t is set out with
sufficient fullness either In the
bill Of exception, or in the findings OF
fact. Without statement of facts it
il not possible for us, in the present
state of this record, to understand and
consider fully the points raised. In
the absence Of statement of facts, as
there appears to be no material error
in the action of the court, the judg-
ment is affirmed.
w. A. Dunklin d Co. VS.. Crittenden
and Dobbs, from Coryell county.
West, j. This was practically suit
by appellants against appellees for the
recovery of $1,l6S.l5. The ground on
which the right of recovery Is based is
that appellants had instructed appel
lees as to the manner in which 1t was
to BIO paid out in the purchase of cot
ton, and that appellees had disobeyed
these instructions and had paid it out
in the purchase of cotton in another
clearly shows and the judge
fnIInh fhaf fhnnOh tho
cotton was not, in every respect, pur-
chased and paid for in the precise man
ner that appellants had instructed the
appellees to pay for it; that appellants,
before receiving the cotton, had actual
notice that the sum sued for was act
ually invested in it, and
paid, in part, for the
very same cotton which they then had
on hand. There Is no pretense, except
in the pleadings, that the cotton was
not purchased at the fair market
price, or that there was fraud of any
kind in the purchase, or that appel
lants did not receive it promptly, or
that any of the facts or circumstances
attending the purchase were concealed
from them. No loss or damage re-
suited to appellants by reason OF the
partial departure of appelles from their
instructions. This was specially found
to be true by the Judge trying the case.
Under such state of facts the appel
lants can not recover the amount sued
for upon the mere naked proof that
appellees had, in some respects, dis
obeyed their instructions. Proof of
disobedience Of order will not alone
be- sufficient 1t must af-
tirmatively appear that appellants
had suffered injury, actual loss or
damage, as the direct result of their
agents disobedience of their instruc-
tions. Here no loss or damage of any
kind Is disclosed by the evidence as
resulting from the disobedience OF ap-
pellees of their instructions. q Par
sons ON Con. 20 Ed PIP. IS, SO. Allen
vs.. Suydam, 70 Wend, 30. Wharton's
Agency, Sec. 252. Story on Agency,
az Ed Sec, az c OF seq.J Affirmed.
@. b. Adams ct al VS.. l.. q. Fisher OF
al, from Galveston County. St8yton |.
Under our constitution the Lsgisls-
ture may legally empower q city to
impose ON the abutting lot owner and,
the one-third of the cost OF the
improvement of the street in
front thereof. 1t depends upon
the provisions of the special
charter or legislative act whether or
not notice to the abutter or proprietor
is necessary in order 10 make him liza
bic to pay the expense of local Inn
provement, and in what manner II is
to be given. Motion for rehearing de-
MED. Reversed and remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS.
Jerry Willis VS.. the State; from
Travis County. Conviction for muir
der in the second degree, for which
penalty of seven years in the peni-
Tertiary was assessed. The only ma
terial question is as TO the admissi-
bihty of the deceased's dying declara-
tions. II is claimed that statements
made by deceased, after his dying
declarations were taken, showed that
he had entertained hopes of recovery