Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-28
SUPREME COURT
Synopsis of the Decision, ~,
the Austin s Sitting iiae' 4 si's =
supreme Court. w
Made up From the Full and ou
port of the he. Ruling, a., and V Sai,l |
ions Rendered. 1

ruie governing the question s'as
gence in suits for damages 1f p, y !. y
received, that the plaintiff oa, ,sal|
cover II his own act copt ,auas
produce the injury, and II ,s
negligence both on his part ~, ,'s
the part OF the company It i, =, !. !,
lea t degree offaulton the NJ, y !,
plaintiff that will prevent hin y
recovering, but 1t must ba - u
uegree as TO amount to want ! ,uci
nary or reasonable care nm ' ~ o''
under the circumstances a, ~ ~ ~
OF the injury. $50 Tex DO o. "a sq !, u
The court charging the in,v laS
stantial harmony with tiny 10
In view Of the evidenodp iael
dlsclosed gross and culnsS, Nl
ligence on the part Of the sSa.p.
ala not err. IL il a corrac, r ,ps
"a carrier must allow his ~. als
time In which to get off ana y Y.
person who is feeble or inN~ ka
tied to more than ordinary ~ Y
this purpose" (5her & Red
3 Ed. S.c. 276; 70 N. Y. 60l ~ a's
Collins VS.. Miller, from " vlass
county, The record sbosi'' n
courts want OF Jurisdiction as,
person and the subject mate, y
suit, the judgment of com, y
eral jurisdiction is open to ati,ss n 4
the want OF such lu5IN
ton in either particular npsss N
termined by the record slous ,'sf
there be Z othing in 1t 10 show tb,S,
of Jurisdiction as to third psrtIa i
pre- sumption OF regularity e oIusJ e
elusive that evidence sliuude h IA
admissible to show such want d III
diction. The record showing m.
Judgment of q Justice of the ps,n n Ia
rendered upon a citation by NH "
ton which was inserted In tbs p' y
paper but three times, the Law M 4 I
Ing it to be published four time v
judgment is void, and the ssIe oIs e
erty Hereunder CONVEYS no tItls n p
to an innocent third parry purCb,s AC
for value, as against the debtor, II
Judgment is reversed and the causA
manded.
Fox vs. O'Brien, from Refugioc I
ty. The action in this case WASH !
binary action Of trespass 10 trt Ill
and involved no other question 81
the proper location OF the bCun.lSy
lines OF contiguous surveys. Thsa ~
was submitted to the court k 20
without the Intervention ola ID .
and, upon conflict Of testlmou ~
Judge trying the case found for t.i ~
pellee. The finding Of judg W
whom is submitted the Queslhn ~ .
fact as well as law, carry thi u
weight as the verdict Of d juy d \,
will not be revised by this cur \, y
not opposed to the evidence, Theft tutt
ing in this case has ample srppa " "
the evidence, and the Judgment ~ ~
firmed. ny ~
Rydec ct al. VS.. Duran It al, ~
Victoria county. The judgngi a y 4,
dered in this case was that 'AspR4 y
tiffs take nothing by their suIl ;,
that the defendants go hence VIII Wi
day." proceeding TO dispose q bs
costs of the suit. This left ndI m m
further to be adjudicated, and vhs N,
or not it was erroneous In sDy N
ular, 1t was neverthelessa ma NJ
ment, a complete disposition $50 ~
ofthe parties to the suit and IS v RI
of the matters In controveIy uloa mi
pleadings, (55 Tex 6l7l 'IbAPa VI
the Judgment which adjudlan me-
recovery of costs by certaid O M
PENDANTS against certain Of Toe M
tifis specifies all Of them excsF 7
Whether this was 30 W. wi
tional or accidental OmlSpu y col
not matter. II the court solaa' VII
who, and from whom the cSs'~ ut
he recovered, whether erlon.pa
not, the Judgment would slll
in favor of all the defeDdsl' !
any objection existed, woula
subject of complaint only oyI
injured. Plaintiffs proste, ,t1 "n
writ Of error from the judgnas,,Al,s 4 p,
no notice OF J. p. in lhelf cllhrsh o.,
is the error bond made psysapass.~,th a.
as one OF the defendanlsr sng...dsi ~ -
have failed to serve him so's In h ~
bond payable to him sens md ma an N
cO.defendants is made zoe vi, bn
the motion to dismis lns r,sy.1 Ss
error. The motion mus Nv
Error dismissed. ,r,v X hs
Archer vs.. Moan oou .;siipIA 81
Nolan county. The transc.sIrh a on
case brings up a document s s,.v R,
ports by endorsement 70 oes a,
Of facts Inasmuch, however, a. :,
bss never been signed by the =, y
in the case OF by the Juos'vs 4 n,
the case. or filed, or c einM. I'M. m
any other way recognized Y 1
of The trial Judge, 1t cannot .'s
ment of facts. Theielois All ii
i'm it's inspection OF the r.cO'J ~ q
fined to fundamental erlo' "a,
The petition in this case 49,
snffi eient and dIscloses . Cow
s sntinn No Fundamental eIm
apparent the Judgmee,n,ss s = from VI
West ct al. We. Shelby s ~ 81 ee
county. II is 3 principlsso. MA tn
settled in this state wDs .ians \,
tr;ai q, a cause the questions %
Ts, 70 and N fact. have been sum n N
the court setting wi.nVI tbe n W
courts finding upon ,,siShts ~
carry with it the same .s'.rdict q ~
clusIveness that the v .ncs vcuI y, =,
upon the same sy vice y "
and, as in the CASE 's,,srter
court will not in.e u Z IN
lsstI%on ay'i and only ., when y v
is obviously and cl s,nss d D e
evidence, so the tina, ,OIsI,.iys 4
aot,ina alone. are cOuo'e.. sE1| n