The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-06-09


In re, estate of II. S. dorm, deceased
from Taylor coCuty. Delanv, j.
Adopted. Il. S. Horn died interstate in
Tayor county in February, 1888, leaving
| a wife and SIX minor children. He had
! at the time Of his death homestead in
| the town Of Abilene and small amount
Of personal property which was not as
much as would be exempt by law. His
debts amounted to about $500, Besides
the property mentioned he owned a
house and lot in Abilene known as the
"ConchO House," which had been rented
~ boarding house and was never used
as part Of the homestead or as a place
OF business by the head of family
At the fall term Of the County Court
appellant, w. III, Johnson, was an.
pointed administrator and also guardian
OF tho minor children and qualified In
oCth capacities January 8, 1854. The adj
ministrator filed his application TO sell
the "Concho Houseb and lot Tor
the purpose OF paying the debts of
the eAtate and for the additional reason
that the building was frame, surround.
Cd by wooden buildings, and the danger
OF ilre was 80 great that no insurance
could be had, and IL was for the interest
OF the estate that IL be sold. At the Feb
ruary term, 1884, the application, accom-
panied by an exhibit Of the condition of
tho estate, was heard and the order of
sale granted. At the Same term the
homestead was set aside 20 tho family.
On July 10, 1884, succeeding county
judge, after citing tho administrator 10
appear, made an order revoking the or
der OF sale made at the February term,
and setting aside the "Concho House'i
ana the lot AZ part Of the homestead,
he
homestead previously SGT apart
the value Of $500. On appeal 10 the
District Court the Judgment of tho
County Cou,t was affirmed. Held: The
question as 10 how far a county Judge
may, OF his own notion, alter or ,set
aside the orders and docrees Of his
predecessor, made upon the application
of an administrator, is not decided,
Tho county Judge, however, erred IN
making the order complained OF Az
a general rule the family take the
homestead as the deceased left A.. and
as the record indicates nothing peculiar
IN this estate, that rule should apply
here. Reversed aud remauded.
W. a. Reeves w. j. @. Lindsey; from
Jack county. Delany, j, Adopted.
Appellant owned a considerable body
OF land in the Bucking survey in Jack
county, which entire tract he
giving deed with general warranty.
The deed describes the land by Inches
and bounds, but does not give the NUM-
ber of acres sold. The agent who drew
the deed included within the boundaries
300 acres which did not belong to appel
liant, and which was recovered from an
pellee, Appellant being called upon to
defend the tito admitted that no had
mover owned the land, and alleged that
he had not intended TO convoy II. but
had done so through mistake. Held:
This defense cannot avail. What ap.
pellant calls mistake was nothing
more or less than his own culpable neg.
hgence and that OF his agent. He adj
mits that no had the deed in his house
Tor two weeks before he signed il, and
that he did not read it before signing.
. no blame eau be impOsted to appellee
VINO acted upon the representations Of
appellants agent. Affirmed.
II. c. King VS.. J. ID. Adams a Co.
from Frio county. Stayton, 1. When a
party, without an assignment of errors,
asks r reversal Of q Judgment on the
ground that the finding Is contrary 10
the evidence, no must present case In
which there is not merely conflict of
evidence, but a case in which, giving 10
the evidence all the weight that can be,
given TO IL, there is clearly no sufficient
proof TO sustain IL. Such Is not this
case. Affirmed.
M. i. Ussery Va. Margaret Snodgrass,
from Falls county. Stayton, |. Ii was
admitted by the parties that they no.
speotiyely owned the land described in
their deeds, and the north line of the
one ~ admitted 10 be the south line OF
the other. The court so instructed the
Jury and left 70 them no question except
me true locality OF that line.
Plaintiff claims the line should
run on the conrse called for In their re-
spective titles from corner about which
there seems 10 have been no contro.
yersy, while the defendant claims the
line had been at some former time
and insisted that the marked
line should be regarded as the true line.
rho charge Of the court very fairly sub.
mittod 20 the jury the only issue In the
case and the general verdict In favor OF
The plaintiff was sufficient 10 authorize
n Judgment In her favor. Affirmed.
q. Seoligson 4 Co. CT nj. VS.. G. II. Col
Inns, from Coryell county, Watts 4.
adopted. This suit was brought by ap.
peliee against appellants 70 enloln a
sale Of lands by virtue of an order for
i In frnt.. tl.. ..s...s..