Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-06
COURT OF APPEALS.
Synopsis Of the Decisions Rendered at
the Austin Sitting Of the
Court Of Appeals.
Made up From tbs Full and Official Re-
port Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered

Watkins Va Morley d. Co., from
Parker county. IL is well-settlod
rule Of law that an agreement In gen
ersl restraint Of trade Is Illegal and
void, but an agreement which operates
merely In partial restraint OF trade IA
goOd, provided II be not unreasonable
and there be a consideration to support
It Chilly on Cont ed. 576; ~ Wall
(U. s g. The rules applicable 10
contracts In restraint OF trade are I:
/. To be valid the restraint must
be partial only; 2. IT must
he founded on valuable conslde ra-
ton, and, third, II must be reason.
able and not oppressive. The princi-
pal IL bound by the act Of his agent
done within the scope Of his apparent
authority In dealing with Innocent
third parties, although such act may
be In direct violation Of his private In
structions (20 Tex. D7). IF an agree.
ment provides that certain sum
shall be- paid In the event OF perform.
or non performance Of particular
specified act, In regard to which dam
ages, In their nature uncertain, arise
in case Of default, and there being no
words evincing an Intention that the
sum reserved In case OF breach shall
be Viewed only as u penalty, such sum
may be recovered as liquidated dam
ages. Reversed and remanded.
Gamble d Go. ct al. W.. Talbot, from
Taylor county. Although the statute
provides that the pleadlngs may be
amended under the directions Of the
court, upon such terms as the court
may prescribe, before the parties an
nOunce themselves ready for trial and
not thereafter Il. s., 1922, 1t Is well
settled that this Is but directory and
that II is within the discretion of the
court TO permit amendment after an
nOuncement for trial, which may be
found necessary for more speedily and
certainly attaining this ends Of Justice,
and In granting SUCH leave the court
may or may not, In it's discretion inn
pose terms. l6l Tex, l51 Objection
10 the discontinuance Of the suit as to
Joint defendant comes too late when
made for the first time In this
court. In this state cred
itor has the right to receive
property from an insolvent debtor Ia
payment OF his claim II the transac-
ton DO open, and more property ia
not taken than 10 reasonably sufficient
TO pay his demand, and this, although
the creditor may know ut the time
that he will thereby prevent other
creditors from enforcing their claims
and although the creditor may know
that the debtor prefers him through
motives OF friendship. 50 Tex. 1874;
| W. d W's Con. II. sec. i53 Upon
this subject the court charged that Ia
purchase of goods from debtor In
falling circumstances must not only
be for valuable consideration but also
must be- bona lide." Held, alb
stractly correct, but too broadly stated
for the facts Of this case, but inmate.
rial ~ IL imposed no injury. Az
iirmed.
Green vi. Sass ct al, from Bastrop
county. The motion TO dismiss the
appeal in this case because the appeal
book misdescribes the judgment, must
prevail. The Judgment does not fore
close the attachment lien Of Sass, IA
the bond recites, but only declares
that the property was held under and
was liable TO the attachment, and not
liable TO the distress warrant. Be-
cause OF such misdescription the bond
Is insufficient. Appeal dismissed
Scarborough vs.. Powell, from Sourry
county. Jurisdiction legally acquired
cannot be defeated by defendant
by pleading defense which can only
be enforced in another forum. The
answer In this case virtually asked the
court to enforce verbal contract for
the sale OF land which was In contra
vention OF the statute OF frauds, and
presented defense which WAS not
within the jurisdiction OF the court.
Affirmed.
Cook Va. Horstsman ct al. from Mi.
lam county. Sub. division OF art. 1893
II s provides that In the foundation
! for the suit Is some crime, or ofIense or
trespass, for which a civil action in
damages will lie, the suit NAV be
brought in the county where the
oiiense,l crime or trespass was COM
mitted Oh In the county Of the defend.
ants domicile. The statute referred
to includes not only u technical tres
pass vi ct arms, when the injury IL
the direct consequence.of the wrongful
, act, but 1t includes wrongful acts from
which indirect injuries occur. IL has
been held by 9th this and the supreme
court that IL Ia a wrongful and unlaw.
FOL act To construct n fence Of barbed
= wire except In the manner prescribed
by statute w. d w. Con. Il Sec. 1851.
3 The act being done In NJ county.
|
ants plea Of privilege to be sued i'm
their county Of domioile. IL was al
legged and the proof tended TO show
that the injury TO plaintiffs horses
arose from the gross negligence of the
defendants In constructing their fence.
: and there IL nothing tending to show
that plaintiffs pleaded exemplary dam
= ages In order to confer Jurisdiction
upon the court, wherefore the trial
court erred In holding that there was
no reasonable grounes upon which 10
base vindictive damages, and that the
: actual damages being lefs than $500,
The court was without Jurisdiction.
Reversed and remanded.
The Gulf, Colorado u Santa Fe Rail.
way Vs. Welt, from Bell county. APP.
pellee sued for actual and vindictive
damages for personal injuries and for
injuries to a wagon and horses which
: ne alleged to be his property. The
I items Of injury alleged were specified
, with sufficient certainty In the petit
ton and the court did not err in over.
ruling special exceptions thereto. But
the evidence being insufficient TO cor.
, rpapDnH wIIh tha ALIENATION ~ tho