Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-02

3. That as to their respective attach
ments upon the A. grant, they had
not therefore, and would not there
after, do any act which would interfere
with the engagement by the others Of
their respective allotments, Affirmed.
Hecton w. Garvy, from Guadalupe
county. The contest in this case was
over the true location on the ground OF
the boundary line between the surveys
OF the parties to this suit, and 1t turns
purely upon n question OF fact, the evil
dence in this case being insufficient to
support the Judgment. The beginning |
corner ola survey Is Of no higher dig |
nifty than any other, and where the |
natural object called for Is found at |
any corner the lines OF the survey may |
be determined by commencing at that
point instead of at the beginning cor |
ner. Reversed and remanded.
Vance VS.. Epson, from Bexar coun-
ty. The constitution confers upon
G unity courts power to probate wills,
and in this respect district courts have
appellate jurisdiction over the county
court, but such cases appealed to the
district court must be tried anew as III
they were originally bronght in that
court, hence, the district courts may
do on appeal whatever the county
court should have done. That the
county court had formerly admitted
to probate, rs the will of the same
testator. another paper executed prior
to the time the one OIL cred WAS exc
cuted, interposes no obstacle whatever
to the probate of any paper or papers
which may be in fact and in law the
last will Of the testator. The power
of "A probate court 10 admit to probate
subsequent will after the probate of
an earlier one Is now well settled nor
is II necessary to revoke the earlier
probate in order to probate will at a
later date, for the probate of later
will incidentally has the effect of
revoking the FORMER probate, aud the
court may 30 declare, whether the
pleadings asked this relief or not.
Reversed and femanded.
The International d Great North
ern and the Missouri Pacific Railways
vs.. Brooks, from Frio county. The
action was against both companies to
recover damages for personal injuries
received while passenger on the
railway operated by appellants. From
the judgment against them both com.
panies appealed 1t is claimed that
there was no proof tending to show
| that the Missouri Pacific railway had
any connection whatever with the
operation, management or business of
| the railway on which the injury Is
alleged TO have occurred. An inspec.
| ton shows that the position Ia well
taken, and in the absence of evi.
dence tending to show such liability
the court should have awarded a new
trial. The suiilciency of the citation
or its service cannot now be called in
question, theparties having answered.
The suit WAS properly brought by
next friend, the plaintiff being a
minor. Reversed aud remanded.
Longley ct al. vs.. Caruthers, from
| Burnett county. The instrument sued
| on being attached to the petition as an
exhibit, there could be no variance
when it was rendered In evidence, the
rule being that the instrument, thus
made part OF the petition, ana filed
with 1t for the inspection Of the de-
| fendant, must control and cure any
misdescription in the body of the PEE
tition. (46 Tex, 2iS AS there was
no plea OF non eat factum filed by the
| Defendants the contract was admissi-
bic in evidence without proof of its
execution. Evidence TO prove the
date OF execution was not necessary
in view of the allegation that II was
executed on certain day, which was
not denied by appellant under oath,
| Besides, no date WAS essential to the
validity of the instrument, as II was
| good without date, or with the de-
fective date which 1t seemed to bear.
Bishop on Cont, sec. l9) Proof on
this point was superfluous, and it's adj
mission operated no injury to the de-
fafh0nf A HtrtRanA
Evans vs.. Lawson, Smith d Co.,
from Mitchell county. Ii the person
making the affidavit for attachment
assumes to act as plaintiffs agent, and
such is stated TO be his relationship in
the affidavit which he signed, and his
acts are recognized by the plaintiff as
his own, his agency Is sufficiently
shown, and IL Is not necessary that he
should swear thGt he was the agent.
II the attachment Issues for no more
than is sworn to be due, 10 is sufficient
to authorize the attachment, though
the petition shows larger amount to
be due. That the affidavit states sum
certain, less than is due, Is no ground
for quashing the attachment. Reversed
and remanded.
Allen Il Bro. VS. Melton, from Tay.
Tor county. So long as anything re-
mains to be done with reference to the
goods sold, between the buyer and
seller, no sale Ia so far complete as to
vest title to the goods sold in the
vendee. The goods sold must be
separated and identified by marks and
numbers, so as to be completely dis
tinguished from all other goods, or
from the bulk or mass with which
they happen to be mixed. The evil
dence in this case falls to support the
judgment-on the contrary IL is direct
ly against the judgment, and it is
here reversed, and Judgment rendered
for the appellant for $50 "a with inter
est at per cent. per annum from
April 8, 1884, Reversed and rendered.
The Western Union Telegraph Com.
pany Va. Foster, from Bexsr county.
The appellee delivered at the Office of
appellant message 10 be dispatched
over appellants line OF telegraph.
Upon his arrival at the office appel.
lant's clerk read the message over
aloud, and an error was discovered,
which appellee told the clerk TO cor
rect, which the clerk attempted but