Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-30
STPREME COURT.
!. = the Decisions Rendered at
". 4. austin Sitting of the
Supreme Court
!. FINN the Full aud Official Re
y. y # the Rulings and Opin-
ions Rendered.
complled for the Gazette.

4 ..4N
the lower court admitting or
\ ,aug conveyance, deed OF trust,
,..ss execution, contract and
\ sea written instruments, or the |
D,,nsss OF their construction by
4 A.ree of the court, will not be re-
n ain the absence Of a full and sat
n ..,v showing OF the evidence, by |
n svception, statement of facts or |
,rs Of fact immediately connected
ne written instrument which |
4 siore the court and considered by |
ysltber the bill OF exceptions, nor |
snding Of the court, nor
considered together, furnish, in |
q ace sufficient in foundation as
smstters in evidence at the time |
.court's action on the objections
,oosed TO authorize this court to
in the absence of statement
Ats and an unauthenticated doc
n purporting to be q statement
NJ will not be considered by this
The particular deed to which
II zion was urged Is not before
N ,urt, aud neither the conveyance
n be material parts are set out in
M Of exceptions or findings Of
onrt on the facts. In such con.
nllon OF the record this court can.
Attempt to consider the points
+ I'd. Affirmed.
1nklln 4 Co. vs.. Crittenden &
&bs, from Coryell county. Appel
sued to recover $l16S Is. Petit
sleged that appellants had direct
B he Investment of the money in
\ on for them in particular man
n and that sppellees disobeyed the
mctiOn and paid the money out in
kpurchase of cotton in different
Miner. The evidence disclosed, and
court so found, that though the
M was not purchased and the
/ lev paid out in the exact manner
4fected by appellants, the appel
nevertheless, before receiving
N ton, had actual notice that the
Issued for was invested in part and
n in part for the very same cotton
KCh they received and then had.
tept in the pleadings, there is no
kense that the cotton was purchased
ther than fair price, or that there
irsud Of any kind in the purchase,
That appellants did not promptly
live it, or that any facts attendant
b the purchase were concealed by
llees. No loss or damage is shown
Nsye resulted to appellants by res'
&Oi the partial departure of appel
from their instructions, which
was specially found to be true
er such proof, that appellees hst
ally discharged instructions, q re
my cannot be had; but injury
81 loss or damage must be shown
be result of the agents disobedi
Of Instructions; must be ailirma
y shown to entitle the plaintiff Il
yery, Whar. Agency sec. 252
on Agency (l7 ed }, sec 2l7c e
\ Affirmed.
hdsmi ct al. vs.. Fisher ct al, from
yestn county. Under the constitu
Of this state, the Legislature ha
I IlghttO legally empower a city Il
, Ose on the sbutting lot owner ant
l ne third OF the cost of the i'm
| sment of the street in from
pot 1t depends, however, upor
l'ovisions of the legislative &C
'nd or not notice TO the abutte
pprletor is necessary to make hin
elO pay the expense OF local i'm
sment, and in what manner il il
given, The motion for rehearinl
as case must be denied. ORDERED
Ndlngly,
le vs.. Lewis, from Milan county
Instance the petition alleged tina
! aIch 80, "a, plaintiff was thu
Y and legally seized and possessed
any worth $50, that on said day
! ldant unlswfully, willfullyr
gInlly, frsudulently aud mali
" took possessi on of said dray
ON plaintiff s consent with
y to injure him by de
! Mg him Of its u.s.
sNaeand to appropriate the sans
own use; that by reason OF such
etc plaintiff was deprived o
ssol his dray for about ten days
which time he had to hire an
afsy TO his damage 800; that b.
!, a@ said unlawful, malicious, etc
!, ~ plaintiff was damaged 500
D pAry, punitory, and vindictlv
d ~. The prayer was for $50 &C
II NOO special and $1,000 exem
be Images. Supplemental petitio
b ahat plaintiff was the head of
Il and said dray was therefor
ts Y 70 him, which facts defendsu
ig eIc. Held, that the petite
u Ssuy averred facts to support q
r. w both actual and exemplar
q "s and 1t was not error to ovei
es leplions attacking the SUI
~ y OF the petition to confer jurii
upon the district court |
80 y Iowa, 622 An officer
= rOieior exemplary damages VIII
20 yer manner and good faitf
> property under writ wit
~ ne Is lntrusted, but suoh WI
ssi N protect him when he usC
4. 70 accomplish purpose TO
lss s NY law The statute exempt
x, x. lorced sale, to the head
"a one wagon, one carriage or OF
Al' $50 Celebrating III
,,G p'e' upon authority, the coul
~ ihat although a draw ia NO
~ r speaking. a wagon vet II
81 sna intent of the exemption la
o. 'o.set the drayman in the DO
3, VI ms vehicle il the head OF
y Defendant was not entitis
~ Dsoeaueted from the amount
- Ssment against him the sul