Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-25
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the su.
preme Court,
Made Up From the Full and Official Re.
port of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.
Compiled for the Gazette.

Bragos county. An assignment by
patentee, within. a stated district, II for
stated and certain consideration is
not mere license to sell within the
specified district and revocable at will,
and the failure of the assignee to have
the assignment recorded will not affect
the validity of the instrument so far
as the parties themselves are con-
cerned. A correct rule regulating the
assignment of patent rights is laid
down in section 1895 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States When
the transfer itself fails TO define the
interest in a patent right whether alb
solute in q specified territory or GER
tain commission on the royalty arising
from the sales made under the ra.ent)
parol evidence Is admissible. In the
trial below this rule was not recog.
nized, but on the contrary was neg
lected, The Judgment is reversed and
the cause remanded.
Mason VS.. Gonzales County, from
Gonzales county. The judgment Of the
| court, on question of evidence sub
mitted by the parties VI on an agree.
ment that there is to be no interposi-
ton of a jury, is as conclusive, before
this court as the finding of q jury itself
The assignments in this case call In
question the correctness of the finding
| of the court upon the facts. They can
not be rehearsed in thislreport, but, be-
| ing in themselves sufficient to support
| the Judgment of the court below, it is
affirmed Affirmed.
Beard vs. Decatur, from Wise coun-
| ty. The facts stated in the petition, If
true, would constitute the appellant
the treasurer of the city of Decatur.
His duties, as detined by article 1865 of
| the Revised Statutes, make him the sole
receiving and disbursing officer OF the
city, and the faithful performance of
his duties as thus defined is secured by
the bond there provided for. Should
he fail to receive moneys offered by
collecting officers or other parties,
fail to securely keep or properly
to disburse the funds of the city,
he violates the conditions of
his bond. The law provides that
city treasurer for his services shall re-
ceive such compensation as shall be
fixed by the city council, and the petit
ton alleges that the compensation in
this instance was fixed at y
per cent on moneys received and
disbursed. appearing from the PEE
tition that $4,000 was received and
disbursed by the city OLD, the ques.
ton is, could the city place this money
in the hands of the mayor for dis.
bursement and thereby defeat the
treasuier's right to his commissions?
The question must be answered: The
law having created the office
| IT ait krao onh
scribed his duties and compen-
sation aud their legal incumbent of
the office, his right to compensation
cannot be thus defeated. That art.
: 367 of the r. s. authorizes city coun-
ell to impose upon an officer of the
city duties other than imposed by gen
eral law is true, but 1t does not en-
power it to confer upon one officer the
powers, duties and rights expressly
! conferred upon another. In this case
the petition states a good cause OF nc
ton and the demurrer that was i'm
,, properly overruled. Reversed and re-
manded.
Fly VS.. Quinn, ct al, from Gonzales
county. This wasa suit to forfeit deed
, of conveyance to town which con-
! tanned the proviso that the grantee MOI
any person holding under him should
establish on said lot q house for the
sale of spirituous liquors, or intoxicat
ing LIQUORS. The doctrine applicable tt
this case is that amended in Al N. Y
,, 442, which is as follows: "Whenevel
the condition in q deed is unlawful
, impossible or repugnant to the nature
of the estate granted. 1t Il
not to be enforced This con
dition is evidently neither unlawfu
nor impossible. IL it repugnant to thu
3 estate granted, that its use should b'
: restricted by preventing thereon th'
9 sale of Intoxicating liquors as bever
, age? The books contain numerous
and uniform cases holding that the
J: use of the property in come directions
4 ma be restricted. A condition tina
a a school.h use should not be erected
4 on the premises, or a distillery, or 1
: blast. furnace, or livery stable, or
:. machine shop for iron manufacture, o.
D a powder magazine, or hospital, or
cemetery, have been held to be valit
conditions But in this case the de
e PENDANT below (appellant) pleaded ina
Il he was druggist, and IN the cohduc
OF his business found it necessary U
r sell liquor, and that therefore tho con
! dition was In restraint of his bushes
ana WAS ASoNf hNtNt
the condition referred only TO the sal
of Intoxicating liquors as a beverag
and not rs medicine, and therefore tn
: plea was properly overruled and th
! Judgment awarding the forfeiture
therefore affirmed.
I Houston & Texas Central Railwa,
y Company va. Clemmons, from Gray
y son county. Seea former report OF tbb
Y case published in 55 Texas, IS ct seq
o It is not disputed that the appelle
: was fully authorized by the appellan
: to visit the baggage car and to remain
/ there reasonable length OF time, AM
!. as there was proof also that this wa
y an excursion train, and that the bag
y gage car contained 40 baggage OF an,
q kind, and that the other cars wer
a full, the question under the specia
q circumstances OF this case AS to Tn
e character and degree of negligence
u displayed by appellee in belni
@ there was a legitimate subject Of In