The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-06-23
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

Wichita County. Watts, j. Adopted.
The want of jurisdiction OF the sub
ject matter or person of defendant
being shown by the record Judgment
of court of general jurisdiction may
be attacked. But the want Of jurisdic-
ton in either Of these particulars
must be determined by the record, in
which there being nothing showing a
want of jurisdiction as to third parties
the presumption of regularity IS so
conclusive that evidence aliunde will
not be heard to show want of jurisdic-
ton. A judgment Of Justice of the
peace being shown by the record TO
have been rendered upon
g citation by publication ln-
serted in a newspaper but three
times when the law required four IN
sertions il void, and sale thereunder
gives no title even to an Innocent
third party purchasing for value, as
against the Judgment Doctor. he
versed and remanded'
Catherine Sydec OF al, vs.. Juan
Duran ct al, from Victoria County;
on motion TO dismiss. Walker, p. ].
The plaintiffs in this are Catherine
Sydec and John Sydec. The defend
ants named in the original petition are
Juan Duran and NJ, l.. Labosky.
During the progress of the trial, by
leave Of court, Dolores Welder, John j.
Welder, Lizzie Welder, Dora Dunlap
and her husband, L. l., Dunlap,
who, under said leave, appear
for themselves, and Mary, Adeline,
Frank, Julia, James and Aggie
Welder, who are minors. all of whom
are alleged to be heirs of John Welder,
deceased, except Il. i. Dunlap and Dol
ores Welder, the latter being the wild
ow of John Welder, all of whom an
swered and set up titleunder the Man
uel Blanco league. Under leave OF
court the following other defendants
were made parties defendant and an
swered, claiming title under grant OF
two and one-half leagues granted &c
Powell d Hewetson, viz: James Power
T. G. Lambert, Mary Power, Eliza
Wilson, Phillip Power and Agnes
Franklin, Joined by her husband John
Franklin, claiming title from their de-
ceased ancestor, James Power, The
Judgment rendered by the court was &
: final Judgment to the effect, "that The
plaintiffs take nothing by their sui
and that the defendants go hence with
out day." and it proceeded TO dispose
of the costs of the suit. This left
nothing further to be adiudicated, anc
whether the Judgment was erroneous
or not in any particular, 1T was never
theless final Judgment. IL was 4
complete disposition as to all the par
ties TO the suit, and as to all the mat
tiers In controversy under the plead
ings. Ninn VS.. Arambould, 55 Texas
Gl7.) That part of the judgment which
adjudicates the recovery OF costs by
certain OF the defendants against the
plaintiffs specifies and includes all o.
them except James Power. Whether
this were an intentional omission Of
his name, or whether IL was purposely
omitted, does not matter. Ii the
court adjudicated as TO who
should recover, and from whom thu
costs should be recovered, whethe
enormously or rot, the judgmen
| would nevertheless be final judg
ment rendered in favor of all Of the de
PENDANTS; and If any objection existed
would simply be a subject of com
plant bv the party injured complain
ing of the Judgment. The plaintiff
prosecuted this writ Of error from The
Judgment and they take no notice o.
James Powers in their citation TO
writ Of error, nor is the writ Of erro
bond made payable to him as one o
the defendants. That they have thu
failed to TO servo him and make hi
bond payable 10 him along whit co
defendants is made the ground OF TIL
motion TO dismiss this writ OF or
ror, which must prevail. (Greenwad
u vs.. Smith, Sc Texas 1876; Smith VS.
Parks, 55 Texas 50; Thompson VS.. Pine
So Texas 447; Harvey Va. Cummings
~ Texas 1871. Writ of error dismissed
q Daniel Fox VS.. john O'Brieni froI
r | Refugio County. Conclusions 9
: Walker, p. !. Adopted. This was ~
, action In form of trespass to try It'll
which virtually involved simply
question OF boundary. The court bt
low found in favor of appellee, whic
Judgment the court considers q prOpe
one. Affirmed.
I j. NJ. Archer ys. Nolan & Co.; frOI
. Nolan County, Walker, p. ]. Adopted
. There appears In the record what wa
intended for statement Of facts, but
. not being signed by counsel, uor th
Judge, nor in anywise adopted or re,
80 ognized as such by the approval {
signature OF the judge, IL Is not TO
noticed as such. The petition wa
sufficient. II showed y good cause
action. There being no iundamenti
error, the Judgment Ia affirmed.
A. j. West OF al. vs.. Patrick Shelle
from RefugiO County, Delany,
Adopted. This suit involves simply
| question OF boundary. The court b
j low tried the case without the int
yention OF u jury and its conclusion
OF fact are contained In the recOr,
q There Is also sufficient evidence 10 gu
y tain such findings of fact and q
i, Judgment is affirmed.
" Texas a Pacific Railroad VS., W,
l.. Robinson OF al, nom Tarrant Count
West, /. There are no questions rHisI
l. In this case as 10 the pleadings, or
reference 10 the admission or excl
l.. sion of evidence, IL is claimed, ho'
ever, that the court committed SCI
l. GUS error in portion Of its ohare
. The alleged error consists in tho IA
r, that the court stated that the fault
' negligence on the part Of the dec0as
81 which would prevent recovery
the appellees, II there was negligenC
Yd both on her part Rnd that OF appellal
=. is not the least degree OF negligenC
III but II must amount To such a degree
to amount TO the want of ordinary ca
on her part under the circumstanC
ha ~ Aut llint VI uoT INJURY y
5n der all the facts adduced ON I
70, trial this charge cannot be said to
nc erroneous or calculated in this case
DC mislead the jury, AS general n
To- In cases of this character tho plaintiff
~. right 10 recover IS not affected by hf
bv ing contributed somewhat 10 the
III Jury unless he was in fault In
N. doing. It Is possible for the plaint
not only 20 contribute 10 but oven
80 be the immediate cause OF his own
" Jury and yet to recover compensate
therefor, Gee VS.. NJ. II, r., Law Rer
. SO. b., l6l; Sher & Red, ON Neg, 3 Il
2 Sec, 2S),
In discussing cases similar 10 this
Is said: "a carrier must allow his p
sengers time In which TO get of or ,
J. and person who is feeble or iniirm
"A entitled 10 more than ordinary III
W Tor this purpose (Sher. s. Red.
Neg.,3 Ed, Sec 276j Renter vs.. Star
rs N, v, 90; Baldwin Va, Greenwo
a 10 Conn.,, 23S; Field on Dam, sec.
IN and cases there oited),
- In Houston e Texas Central n