Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-06

peal and called Il TO the attention OF
the court at the trial term, he would
he entitled 10 withdraw, but the trial
court, having adjourned after the per
lection OF appeal, had no further con-
troll over It's Judgment. That judg-
ment was then pending In the county
court He WAS not entitled to notice
that plaintiff had filed the transcript
but must be supposed to know the con-
dition Of his own appeal. Affirmed.
Masterion, admx va, Conrad, from
Shackelford county. Under the pres.
ent law IL Ia not essential to the appel
late Jurisdiction OF the county court
that a motion for new trial should he
made In the Justices court. wv. h w,
Con. r., secs. IS and 1907 aud notes
Executors, administrators and guar
dams, appointed by the proper courts
| OF this state, shall not be required to
give bond on any appeal or writ OF err
ror taken by them In their tiduciary
capacity" cart. laos X, S This
case came under the provisions OF this
statute, and the county court erred 10
Diminishing the appeal. Reversed and
| iemAnded.
Kirk ct AL, vs.. Wash Hamp' on,
from Williamson county. IL is "A
statutory requirement that the oita.
ton shall command the sheriff TO
'summon the defendant TO appear
and answer plaintiffs petition at the
next regular term OF the court, stating
the time and place of holding the
same" Objection that the citation in
| this case is defective In this particular
| Is well taken. II IL also required by
article 1915, r.. b., that the Citation
shall state the date of the filing Of
plaintiffs petition, the file number OF
| the suit etc. Objection that the
citation does not state the file number
| of the suit Is sustained by the record
and must prevail. Reversed and re-.
manded.
Wakefield Va. King, from Ellis
county. The only contingency In
which the JUDGMENT OF a domestic
court of general Jurisdiction, which has
assumed to act in n case over which IL
might by law take jurisdiction, of the
subject matter and the person, can be
attacked in collateral proceeding, il
when the record shows atfirmatively
that it's jurisdiction did not attach in
the particular case. 81 Tex, 337. I'm
der our constitution and laws Justices
courts are treated with reference to this
question rs courts of general iuris-
diction. The question OF Jurisdiction
must be tried by the record and the
record alone and the presumptions
arising therefrom; Ifthey fail to show
the want OF Jurisdiction, then in col
lateral for proceedings, upon grounds
of public policy the record purports
absolute verify and is conclusive, but
for the rule, II the record makes af-
tirmative showing Of want OF iuris-
| a In, Ia, HtyY q
tackled. See 81 Tex. 40, There la no
error In the case. Affirmed.
Wright W., Cullers n Henry, from
Grayson county. 1t has been pre-.
viously held by this court that county
courts have no power to ioreclose at
tachment lelns on land Newton Il
Heiderheimer, w. Il WIS con. II. sec.
ZIG The error going to the jurisdic-
ton OF the court, Is fundamental. In
no other respect does plaintiff in error
complain of the judgment, Where.
fore, the judgment so far rs il fore.
closes the attachment lein on the land
is reversed, but the Judgment other.
wise is ilirmed.
The Texas Il Pacific Railway Va.
Rains, from Palo Pinto county. Judg.
ment in justice court WAS rendered
september, 1884 Appeal bond to couu.
ty describes the Judgment as rendered
November, 1854. Held, that the mis-.
description was material, and appeal
was properly dismissed. While II was
not necessary for the bond to have
given the date of the Judgment, II at,
tempted, IL must give Il correctly. w.
w. Con. Rep, secs. 1888, i0l, l92, Sll.
Affirmed.
Raddck ct al. va. the State, from
1 L.. "A "A
final rendered against the appellants
in this case they perfected their appeal
to this court by entering their notice
of appeal after new trial was refused
and by filing appeal bond, which was
approved. The cause was entered at
its proper place on the dock ct OF this
court, but when the same was reached
and called for trial the appellants
made default, appearing neither by
counsel or brief. Dismissal of the ap.
peal for want of prosecution Is the one
course for the case To take. Appeal
dismissed for want OF prosecution.
Smart va. the State, from Grayson
county. Under an indictment charg
ing him with murder, the appellant
was awarded n term of ten years In tn,
penitentiary AZ punishment. The in,
dictment charged that, with deadly
weapon, the appellant Of his own ex
press malice aforethought, did kill and
murder one -----. Held, suf1ici mi
to charge the ofisnse. The evidence
WAS ample to support the verdict
and the charge WAS unexceptlonable
Affirmed.
Lena Steptow va. Laura Martin
from Mitchell county. IL Is provided
by statate that when husband ol
wife dies interstate, leaving no child ol
children and no separate property, th'
common property passes TO the sur
vivoI charged with the debts OF tn,
community, aud no administration
thereoa is required II :, 2l65). Tn
der this statute, however, such com
munlty property Is charged with the
debts OF the estate only so far rs II
may be subject 10 forced sale
II exempt from forced sale under the
constitution, ii cannot be subjected to
the payment of debts but vests abso
lutely In the survivor. To have entitled
appellee TO maintain this action, she
should have alleged that the com
} munity property IN this instance wa
, | an hi act IN tha daht uuod for Dha a..