The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-01-19
HIGHER STATE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

washington Souheys SPAhAOh w oeoy
ton. i. Where the record does not show
that notice of appeal was given in the.
oourt below it omits one OF the most
essential requisites to give this court
Jurisdiction, and the appeal will be dis
n,issed without notice to that effect be-
ing made. Appeal dismissed.
Shackey ct al. VS.. Bassett; from Wash
;ngton county. Opinion by Willie, C. j.
The paper in the record purporting, to
ha statement of facts not being signed
Nv the parties or their attorneys, and
not being signed or approved by the
;ndge who tried the case, and there be-
!no no error in the record which can
be considered in the absence of q state
ment of facts, the judgment is affirmed.
Washington County VS.. Schultz ct al. /;
from Washington county. Opinion by
West, J. If the petition for Injunction
contains averments sufficient, if estab-
ljshed by proof, to entitle the applicant
In the relief sought, or if it could be so
amended as TO state good cause of
action, it should not be dismissed, but
retained, when asked, and a hearing on
the merits given the appellant to estab-
fish his allegations on a final hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
Towery vs.. Timon, from San Patriotic
county. Opinion by West, j. Suit to set
aside deed made by McClosky to APP
nellee's husband before his death. APP
pellsnt claims the right to attack the
conveyance because he was creditor
Of the vendor, but the pleadings nor
nroof do not show that he was creditor
at the time the conveyance was exc
cuted. nor does he claim to be. There
was no error in the court in refusing to
sllow the, appellant TO relate in sub
stance the statements made by the al.
legged fraudulent debter years after the
execution of the conveyance. But il
there were, the bill of exceptions failing
to show upon what grounds the courl
excluded them, or what the declarations
were, the question will not be consid
cred as ground for reversal. Affirmed.
We stern Union Telegraph company
VS.. Rains; from Nueces county. Opin
ion by Stayton, j. Where the contract
for the tranmission of telegraph mes
sage contains provision that "Lhe com
many will not he liable for damages il
any case where the claim is not pre-
scented in writing within sixty days at
ter sending the message" and the claim
is not made within that time, the party
cannot maintain an action for damages
for the failure to deliver the telegram
Where the decl aratlons of the compa
ny's operator amounts but 30 his opin
lOu UudG tue COllpduy was uOJ lldDl
for the damages claimed, such is not
waiver of the written demand required
1t has been held that an operator doe
not sustain that relation to the compan,
which constitutes him Representative
of the company in passing upon
claim, its payment or allowance. 1t no
being shown that the failure of tn
company occasioned or necessitated tn
damages claimed, and the case bein
tried by the judge without the interven
ton Of the jury, the judgment is re
dered for the appellant. Reversed an
rendered.
McKinnon ct al. VS.. Reliance Lumbe
company; from Washington county
Opinion by Willie, C. j. Where, in
trial of the right to property, the issues
were rendered according to the statut
by the execution creditor that the trans
fer made TO the claimant was fraudu
lent and void, that the execution debto
was insolyent and owed various othe
parties than the transferree, it wa
competent for the court to allow the il
PRODUCTION in evidence OF statement
of the other Indebtedness and proc
thereon. 1t was competent to show
the acts and declarations of the excel
ton debtor made before the transfe
that the transfer was made for the pu
pose of defrauding creditors. An
while this would not affect the vendee
unless they were charged with eitht
actual or constructive notice of th
frand, it was not necessary that the
should be present when the frauduleI
design was formed or expressed by TIL
vendor in order to bring such motto
home to them. II brought to their N
tice either actually or constructively,
was sufficient to vitiate the sale, il |
brought to their notice before the pu
chase. Affirmed.
Mikeska VS.. Blum ct al; from Was
ington county. Opinion by Willie, G.
In order to render the Judgment OF
court of one county liable to impeac
ment in collateral action in anoth
county, for want of service or notice
the defendant of the suit in the fir
county, the want of service or noti
must appear upon the face of the pr
ceedings wherein the Judgment was re
dered. A Judgment obtained by fral
is not, for that reason void;i is but voit
able, and a direct proceeding in Il
court where rendered is necessary 10 s
IL aside. Parties to contract ms
make such other agreements in writil
as they choose, although such agre
ments may change the terms of the co
tract A party may appoint an attorn'
and provide that in case he does not al
that another person, even the creditor
the transaction, may select an attornt
in his place. The judgment being val
and subsisting, an execution issu
upon it is not void, and the levy of {
same in another county is not trespa
in tina latter county. Affirmed.
Texas Land and Cattle company '
Carroll & Her; from Nueces count
Opinion by Stayton,, j., Where t
MI In nd nlnoriu chou tl
appellant was foreign corporation d
ing business in Texas, and owni
lands, etc., here; that b was their age
and general manager and empower
TO draw such instruments as the o
sued on for the pu pose OF meeti
such debts and expenses as may be
Cured in the management OF the pre-
erty, and that this was the manner
which appellant intended he should !
ceive funds and pay debts, and the
strument was executed to appellees
payment OF debt for labor perform
upon property of appellal
it was not necessary to mako b a par
to this suit. 1t is competent to she
upon written contracts not negotial
that, although signed in the name of t
agent only, they were executed in
business of the principal, and it was
tended that he should DO bound, and
such cases he is so bound. Paper pi
able in current funds, although nego
able in form, are not negotiable instl
ments. 1t is not necessary for
plaintiff to allege ownership of the
strument sued on when it is made pi
able to him, but whore
Is transferred to third p
ties not simply for collection, but 81
third parties paying the drawee the
Tor, and when payment was refused,
drawee refunds the third parties
money paid thereon, the endorsem
might be stricken out, but it must
pear in proof that the plaintiff beca
the owner OF the same before the S
was instituted. Reversed and
manded.
Lieb ct al. vs. Washington coun
from Washington county. opinion
Willie, @. i. In providing for additio