Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-08
SUPREME COURT.
Synopsis Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the
Supreme Court,
Made up from the Pull and Official Re
port Of the Rulings and 0pin.
ions Rendered.

liens applies TO the foreclosure OF an
attachment lien, and the right to de.
cree for foreclosure and sale OF the
property attached for the interest and
cost accruing up TO the date OF judy
ment Is clear. The deed OF assign.
ment In this case was dated June %,
1882, on the night OF which day the
assignee accepted the trust, and WAS In
possession OF the goods when the at
tachment was levied. He quail ed rs
assignee, gave uonu ana acted for
about u month, when he returned the
property 10 the assignor under the d.
rection OF one OF the principal credit
ors, who represented all creditors ex-
cept the appellees and one other
attaching creditor. The deed OF as.
signment was fled for record few
minutes after the attachment issued,
but before II was levied. The evil
dence leading TO show that defend
ants purpose in transferring his prop
erty WAS to defraud his creditors re-
| ferred alone to his act OF assignment.
IL tended somewhat, however, TO show
| that hts immediate action was inilu-
enced by his expectation OF the attach.
ment. Held, that under such facts the
attachment law does not regard the i'm
tent Of the debtor who makes an as-
signment of his property. II is sufii-
Client that he does so, and IL he makes
an assignment for the benefit OF his
creditors which IS sufficient TO convey
the property, a creditor cannot attach
the property conveyed. Reversed and
| renanded.
Rowland vs.. Wright, from Llano
county. One OF the essentials TO
sufficient second or subsequent appli.
cation for continuance Is that IL states
that the desired testimony can be had
from no other source than the absent
witness r. s. 1878 The application
then should show equitable grounds
for allowance. In this respect the ap.
plication In this case Is insufficient. II
is the duty OF the party asking an at
tachment for Witness returnable
instanter, TO see that IL was issued and
placed In the hands of an officer for
service. Affirmed
Meguir, Helm ~ Co. VS. Bldwell,
from Parker county. On motion for
rehearing. On the original hearing
hereof, 1t WAS held that u promiesory
note does not operate as payment OF
the debt il represents unless IL II
shown that il was so intended by the
parties; that when merchant, in
contemplation OF future dealings with
another, advances him money, a suit
brought upon balance OF account due
after the note is barred, such acc Junt
including the note HI an item of debt
is not barred until four years after
dealings between the parties have
ceased. Reconsiderations OF the doc
trines announced constrain the court
10 adhere To- its Origina! opinion. Re-
hearing refused.
Beard Vs. Blum, from Fannin
county. On motion for reheariDg. on
original hearing IL was held, that the
conveyance of homestead upon
secret trust conditioning reconvey-
ance does not affect the homestead
right, and, AZ against subsequent at
taching creditors, may be maintained
by the homestead owner or those
claiming under him, provided the
property De occupied AZ a homestead
continually before aud after the CON
veyance, up to and beyond the date
OF the attachment sale Tit was the
intention Of the homestead owner to
pass title to the trustee sub.
ject TO recOAveyance. the trans.
FER OF the trustees notes by
such owner to "A third party for val.
liable consideration, and tine convey.
ance by the trustee 10 such third
party, the consideration being the
surrender Of the notes, title would
pass. Abandonment Of the homestead
right subjects the property TO seizure
and sale for debt. The principles thus
announced are reasserted, and rehear.
ing is refused
Schneider ct al. Va. Ballow et al
from Wichita county. on motion for
renearing, After a careful reconsider
alton OF the opinion delivered at he
recent original hearing OF this cnse,
the court again holds; l. AZ upon the
Issue Of good faith, it WIS not error 20
admit evidence OF having taken ad.
vice OF counsel, before purchasing, as
To the validity OF the title 10 the prop.
erty. =. When properly is exempt as
place Of business at the date OF az.
sgnmeni, and within eight days there.
sfttr II il sold, in compliance with a
previous contract the intention TO re-
sumo business but inability to do 80
being shown, the purchaser acquires
. uNe. ReheaTips refused
Terrell We Teal, ftom Vo.nria
county. IN ibis case, an action Of
tlC7i pass 10 " y tllCt DVkN LNb question
OF fact and law were submitted 20 the
Judge without the intervention Of q
Jury, His hudlugs upon the facts
then have the same cJnclu iiveue3s as
would have he verdict Of "a jury upon
The same, ana could be revised only IN
the event that tine judgment rendered
wAs devoid Of support 10 the evidence
His findufa of hW aud fact were
hled with the record ia this cNe, md
as applied 10 eaen oJner ale CORE {,
J Affirmed
Duncan wyatt s. ca. W. Taylor,
from Red River county. On motion
for rehearug. For syiiaJu a. opin-
ion on original hearing, SEQ THE Ga
IElrE % June % Inis motion fJr re-
nearing presents no a1iiuHzl prupo-
siiion that can leeiiima,ely arise upon
the errors assigned, but seeks 90 bring
10 review the action Of this court in
declaring the character Of the instru.
, ment upon which the action was
, founded. That opinion WAS based
upon deliberate aud careful considers
1 ton, and ia CDTFpetuegs IL made maui-