The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-11-26
nIennn o0unIs-rYLEn THnH.
suPREMRcoU

nIeHHH COURts-TYLEH TERN
rUPREMR COURT.
Siusft, Jr., ", Western uniof
Telegraph COMPANY, ir0m Harrison
county. Rohsruon, ! Plsuun, vic
resided ~ Was1, hod instructed hi
rsla,iysa q, Narslal 90 t6legs pin hi 1
hs condition or AVS brother, ghu '.H'
very IN. This they dld, telling plain
tin 10 "Coma a. oncei john 10 veTJ
low" Plaluun did not rtroiva th'
message for eoyeral days az I
Il was abnt, on account OF the negii'
yppee of mo agent ~ Waco, a WHOM
ne reached MaTsholl hia brother hat
/ died ana was buried. lie rcr.y tied d
| Judgment against the feHErhph o Dan
| pany for - 500 danlagesi 90 GEMS 'i
h.oa WIS the amount PAID ~ him iui
| tho transmission OF mo Mtshasoi tha
| balance for mental suffering, uisap-
| pointmant, grief and anguish, because
Z a couls not goo his brother before
no had died, and could Lot DO prosen,
al hig burial. Thl. Judannnt was ar
rested aud SGT sside. Held: That Ideu-
tai suffering, In anguish, griei, ciSsp-
pOintment, Injury 10 feelings. -
ground fer actual damages n Huct
casas. Injury' To f6oings, uuaccooi-
panied by ana not tia result ni bodiIy
pain or Injury, may M HGGn Gases
ne ground for sctoni damages
This cgSs is not in cot uict WIN he
Levy cnsesi decided by this court
rho judgmuHL Ia arrest OF thA verdict
and iirst Judgment gra reversed, sad
Tho vSrdict aud judgment in favor al
plaintiff for $500 roiuS atou.
w. w. Whitehead, administ!otori
vs.. Clarity q Hgey. from Navarro
county. Slsytou, ] Tho first duc Of
Lwo notes given fJr the purchase
money ot u tract Of land On vblcs a
lion IL reserved iof tno paymsut OF
both notes, does not have priority Of
leo, IA is the case 10 some
of iho States. The assignee OF ono OF
two notos, both secured by amortg age,
10 entitled TO be paid out OF the pro
ceeds OF the mortgagot property in
preference 10 the mortge2ea, who re-
tains one OF tho notes secured
by tho ssmo mortgage. The as
signeo OF one oil Two potCs, gwen
for the purchase money Of land, M
which n lien is reserved for the pay
mont of both, under verbal agree
ment thst his noto shall first he salts
fed out of tho land, In default Of pay
msnt, has prior and superior
lien 10 secure his note, in
preference TO tho original payeei
who retains the other note.
in ~ suit brought by such assignee
against the payer Of the vote, and 10
which tho payee Of tho notes was not
and equitable title. Under Tie
Headings in this case, Plaintiff
Whitehead, may ha considered es one
who eeeks 10 redeem at.ar foreclosure
sale. II so Clarity " Huey are ep.
titled TO tho fall amount Of the mole
transferred 70 them by Whitehead's
interstate, and that, without deductlng
therefrou1 tho amount Did by Clarity
IL Huey for sha land, who were the
purohassra NJ their foreclosure sale. II
the Land ~ the s6le had been purchas-
sed by some Osher person otter than
Clarity 4 lucy, ia order to redeem
the purchaser would have b5en en-
titled TO ths full amoun5 of his pun
chase money, and Clarity d Huey
the balance due on Their note less the
proceeds OF the sale. 1heso two sums
will m Ike the fun amount OF the note
of Clarity & Huey, and the fact that
Gsrrity & Ruoy were the purchasers
at the sale can mako no difference. Az
firmed.
RE-, uinson ct al, Va. Ely, Walker
e. Co, from Red River county. Stay
ton, j. The declarations of vendor,
made after sale ond without the pres.
ence or acknowledgement vend9e, can-
not be- received IN evidence 70 defeaf
the youdee's right to the property sold.
Nor will the declaration Of Smith, in
thia case, made after the money had
been loaned by him to Harrison, and
invested in whole or in part in goods,
to the effect that the goods were really
his (Smith's), be received in evidence
so show that the loan was
not real aud in good faith. The
declarations made by Smith prior
20 the time that the money was loaned
by MIN to Hinaon may be received, il
being left TO the jury under proper IN
structions. to determine whether they
were made with the knowledge OF
Hinson, and thst he know OF the
fraudulent purpose at the time the
money was obtained. Reversed and
remanded.
William Croft w: p; A. Peck, from
Navarro county. While, Q. Crott
land; he sold the Same by deed OF war
ranty; paid the proceeds over TO Peck,
the Beneficiary, who executed to him
bond, in which he agreed that
he would pay to Croft tho
amount Of any judgment. which
Croft should have rendered against
him by version of his warranty.
Croit's warranty failed, his vendae
lost the land, and was threatening to
sue him. He compromised by paying
about half the amount. Held: That
he was entitled to recover of Peck the
amount thus paid by him, although no
Judgment had been rendered against
MIN. Equity will grant the relief. Re-
versed and remanded.
T. A. Lambert OF al. VS.. Il. -, NC
Lenton, from Delta county. Robert
son, /, It was error for the court to
instruct the jury to find for the appel.
lee the value of all the goods seized, II
they should believe that he purchased
them or any part OF them IN good
faith, Il averaad ard rAmRnded.