Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-01
SUPREME COURT.
Iop,is of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the
Supreme Court.
Ia M Fl n the Full aud Official Re-
por. OF the Rulings aad Opin-
ions Rendered,
compiled for the Gazette.

Moore, ext, vs. mhBco cN oii iiNH'
- county. The order from the pro.
A. c,urt recognized j. III. as the adj
Illustrator of H H.; it directed the
Al OF the land mentioned in the petit
m. the return OF the sale shows the
.nd granted to II. H., the true bound
~ Of which is involved in this suit,
IA the order of confirmation shows
hat the sale was confirmed and the adj
ni,,istrator directed TO make deed TO
~ purchaser, which he subsequently
ia Held, that these facts show that
"a title to the particular land passed
ohhe purchaser at the sale thus made,
M the appellee, deraigning title from
bat purchaser, must be the true
,urchaser of the land claimed
~ him unless it be in
!6hfiict with land held by appellant
1fder an older grant. All presump'
ions in this collateral action are 10
10 INDUCED in favor of the proceed
ngs in the probate court, and of it's
nj sdiction to order and confirm the
ale. In view OF the evidence, the
harge, taken as whole, was sutii-
!hnt. Plaintiffs having shown title
4the land described in the H. patent
nd identified the same, the court
Ninety CHI .rged that the burden of
,fcSlng that 1t was covered by the NJ.
Maut was upon the defendant. Az
firmed
Cox vs. Blankenship, from Milan
:0unty. The controversy in this case
vas as to the true location on the
yrDund of the northeast corner and
sorth boundary line of the NJ. grant
IL quarter of "A league of land on the
1orth bank of Little river. There
vas no conflict of title between the
ar les. Appellee is shown to own
ne M. grant and appellant 500 acres
y t OF the Peleven let 6ue grant. The
n estion involved was a question OF
Net, which was submitted to the jury
pg the court in an appropriate charge.
Ehere is no assignment that the evil
fnce did not support the charge as
Nven, The settlement of issues turn
BE- upon facts was the province OF the
nry, and their disp of the case
hiding ample support In the evidence
Viii not be disturbed. Affirmed.
Neigh vs. Wagenfuhr a nd wife, from
BeXar county. Appellees sued appel
hnt to recover $500 and interest from
Nlly 10, 1875, collected by appellants
husband during his lifetime and APP
propriated to his own use. The petit
Ncn alleged that the defendant was
he principal legatee and devisee and
Mad rec lived more than $1,000 worth of
me property of her husbands estate.
6dgm snt for plaintiff for $5l3 "a, and
the plaintiff in this court entered q
fmittitur for SO 80 The plaintiff in
4batement, which set up that another
Hit between the same parties inv9lv-
Big the same subject matter was then
BENDING in the probate court, was not
Verified by affidavit and was nullity
Merefore, the court prop 'rly held thai
~ WAS subject to general demurrer
R s. art. 1865 L., appellants hus-
band, collected the money January
p 1879. and died soon tn GREATER His
psrtner testified that l.. recog
nzed the claim of l.. as just
and valid. This, together with
evidence, showing that the re.
luion of attorney and client had long
existed between J., and appellee was
sutticient to authorize the judgment
reversed as per remittitur filed, and
Otherwise affirmed.
Lpckhart ct al. vs. Gibbs, from
BeXsr county. A surety on a note
hay present the issue of suretyship
and have il determined on the main
pause, and 10y that means make the
pdgmenj rendered against him, avail
able TO hum agai ust the principal in the
event he pays it. But his failure to
hvsil himself of such privilege in the
pain suit will not preclude him from
alleging and showing that he was. in
fact, but surety in SUIT brought by
Dim against the principal, for reim-
tursement for any sum paid by him
Upon the judgment in the main cause.
III. >. 1867; % Tex, 4SS) The relia-
hility OF the principal was deter
Mined in the main suit, and until
mat Judgment be vacated or set aside,
his liability is conclusive. A married
womsn's liability for debts
contracted by her is limited
20 such as were contracted for
necessaries furnished herself and chill.
qren, and for expenses incurred by
Per for the benefit of her separate
property. { r s., art. 2S54; % Tex ISL
Az was error. therefore, in this case, to
Fender any Judgment whatever sg 4inst
the wife OF Appellant l. Reversed
end rendered in favor of Mrs. l. and
affirmed as TO Lockhart. Ordered ac-
NJ luluBly.
b .temans vs. McCreight, from Nit.
caeli county. To authorize recovery
~ exemplary damages, it devolves
plon the plaintiff to show that the at
Eachment was maliciously sued out
and levied on the property. There is
20 evidence In this record tending to
snow such fact. 1t is admitted that
~. Bros. were indebted to appellants
% the amount claimed in their attach
ment suit, and the evidence showed
That they sold their nron.
tlty TO appellee and left the
touotry without paying appellants
claim; that appellee, when he bought
Che property, knew of G. Bros. indebt.
edness to appellants, and that his pur-
Chase included al of their property.
and 1t was upon these facts that appel.
lants sued out and levied the attach.
nlent. Such evidence not only fails To
show wrongful intent, but shows af
nrmatively the existence of probable
cause in suing out the attachment. II
W Bros in making the sale, intended
70 delay, hinder or defeat their credit
OF IN collecting their claims, then the
sae would be fraudulent; aud If appel.
ts'. uew OF this intention at the time