Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-07
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis Of Decisions Rendered AZ the
Austin Sitting Of the su-
preme Court
Made Up From the Full and Official Re
port of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered.
The Damage Suit of Wood verrus Huff
man of Tarant County Reversed
aad Remanded.
Compiled for the Gazette.

from Parker county. The appellees,
being merchants and purchasers in
Parker county, in September, 1881, be-
came indebted to the appellants in the
sum of $1,000, payable in December,
1881. In October, 1881, the appellants
brought suit by attachment in Parker
county, alleging the residence of said
appellees to be In said Parker county.
When the suit was brought the ap.
pellees lived in V. county. In April,
1882, O'Neal pleaded in abatement his
privilege to be sued In v. county. In
November, 1882, Overmier filed gem
eral denial to the action. 1t was
admitted that the partnership of the
appellees was dissolved long before
the filing OF this last answer, other
parties having obtained valid attach.
ments subsequent In date to that of
appellants, interviewed in this suit,
claiming the attachment of appellants
to be void, and that their attachment
should be satisfied out OF these goods
and that Parker county had no juris.
diction In the case. The Jury
returned verdict in favor of O'Neal,
and that the court had no Jurisdiction,
whereupon the court adjudged against
appellants and released the property
from their attachment and sustained
the subsequent attachments 1t ia ar
parent that although the partnership
of the appellees had been dissolved
previous to Overmiei 8 answer, appear
ance and defense, yet the partnership
debts had not been paid. Held, that
the debt OF the appellants and those Of
the inteTvenors were still outstanding
against the firm. Under such circum-
stances the service of citation upon one
partner will authorize a Judgment
against the partnership property.
Railway company va. McGaughey, 4
Texas l.. r. 293; A Texas 1893. The
court below had jurisdiction by reason
of Overmier's answer. Reversed and
remanded.
Lovejoy Va. F. G. & J. Vallandig-
ham, from Wise county. The word
"dollarsn is omitted in the note sued
on, but the figures and dollar mark
are in the body of the note ut the prop
er place to make it read in subs lance
and to mean the same thing as two
llC lOlo no CODltO
into the petition recites the word
: immaterial g Tex, 2l0) The contin.
J gency upon which the COW taken in
= part payment Of the land was to be
valued at $50 did not arise, and 1t hav-
. ing been agreed that In that event she
g WAS to be valued at only $50, 1t was
: : not error for the court TO include the
. $40 difference, which was part of tn,
purchase money OF the land
In the sum for which the lier
'' was foreclosed. A bill o
o exceptions reserved to the reception Of
4 rejection of evidence TO be sufficient Il
- command the attention of this couI
B. must state the very ground of the OBJ
lection. That objection was interposet
will not suffice. That the Judge who
entered up the judgment heard evi
dence for more specifically describing
the land, than did the note on which
the suit was brought, was not error
Affirmed.
Clark & Bro. VS.. Mittenthal, from
Tarrant county. The application
which was overruled did not contain
the statements made necessary by stat
ute for second application for contin
uance, and the same was properl,
overruled. The testimony of the wit
ness S. related to declara
tions made by the BIS
as to their fraudulent intention
which were made long before the de
PENDANTS became purchasers of tn,
goods at United States marshal ant
sheriff sales, under process agains
the BIS. Ordinarily land in this case
such declarations would not be ad
missable against a purchase. That tn
property may have been sold in bulk
or that the proper notices Of sale ma.
not have been given, would have con
stituted no ground for holding, in
collSteral providing that purchasers
II they bought in good faith, did no
acquire title. Is Tex, 29S; 10 Id sos
'. 10 i'd. 304; % Id. 593, Free on Elk. 2S6
) 29G If there were Irregularities IL
! the sales which would have authorized
} the setting ofthem aside they could b.
b; reached only by proceedings institu
ID ted by proper persons for tina
" purpose TO which the parties t.
3, the suit under which the sales wer,
70 made as well as the purchasers wer,
" parties. (27 Tex 603; 40 Tex, 1853; Free
Iy on Elk, 305 6.) The burden of proc
q was on appellants 10 show that thu
I goods were not bought and paid for b,
n the appellees with their own money
u The evidence shows no conspiracy be
is tween the sppellees and the BIS to de
fraud appellants. Affirmed.
:, The Texas & Pacific Railway Com
r. pany va Baird, fIom Parker county
The caption Of the record states tina
e the term OF the court at which tn
q trial of this cause occurred, adjourned
" on tie - day OF March, 1884 The las
e. proceeding In the cause, which mus
m necessarily have occurred In tern
10 time, viz, the order overrulinI
the motion for new trial, bears dat
,,d9 the 9Th day OF March, 1854. The NJ
r, neal bond was filed and approves
March 81, 1854, more than twenty day
thereafter. It does not therefore al
tentatively appear from the recor'
= that this court has jurisdiction Of thi
appeal. 1t has been our uniform rn1l
moi 10 entertain Jurisdiction unde
such circumstances, though no motion
IaA nhA