The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-04-09

suIrrur tntnI.
q. W. Taylor w. william lloyd q
iifo.t from Harris county. ssytpn, \,
Tho Legislature has the power ~ Law
ully confer upon q city the nuthofliy
o Improve ~ streets, aud "a Impose u
ost of such work upon tho ahutiiug
property owner. Tho assessmnnt made
against pTupeTty'Ownbf WhOle
property adloins street Improved IN
'egsl without iurt her notice
tIsn n given such owner
by the proceedings had by
the city council IN passing sue heoes'
sary ordinances and resolutions made
necessary under the character In
cases OF improvements made under see
ton % of tho charter Of the city Of Hons-
ton, when the cost of the improvement
exceeds 81, 900, the provisions oil section
40 arc applicable, and must DO complied
with. The charter Of tho city OF Hous,
ton providing for tho Issuance OF
certificates to the contractor ana tho col.
lection thereof by him, Is not In conflict
with any provision OF the constitution,
and the contractor may maintain a suit
on such certificate as fully as might the
city had the work boon done under ~
control and management. The .act that
tho tax was levied upon all the property
of the owner together does not
render u illegal; tho charter not pro.
vldirg that the tax shall DO levied
against each piece OF property sep
arately, but 1t does not provide that II
shall bs lien, charge and incumbranoe
upon The property held and owned 10y
plies to annual taxes and not 10 local
assessments. The declaration contained
! in the charter uf tho city OF Houston Is
TO the weight 10 be glNon the certih'
Gates as evidence, makes them pcima
lacia evidence of these iacls which IL
DEGREES IL shall be. Tax deeds and
other instruments under statutes so de-
claring, are prima facla evidence OF The
facts therein declared - be proven by
such instruments, There ~ no error
In the Judgment ana ~ IN tfnfiheu'
Sampson Ileidenheimor vs.. Matte
Thomas. from Colorado county. stay
ton, /. That there was evidence tending
TO sustain Il contrary view of the case
that taken by the Jury will not Justify
this court in not holding the verdict OF
the Jury rs conc. usive. j wife who has
cen abandoned by her husband has the
power To sell, without being joined by
er husband, her separate estate as fuily
and in the manner that ieino sole may
No such power rests Ill the wiie OF an IN
sane person, at least III reference to
community property or the s'narate
property OF i,cr husband. The Revised
Shhtniss provide for such cases. When
the Judge refuses 10. sign DIS
exception taken by coun-
sol they must show tnat
The persons (citiZens )signinB samS were
present when the facts in dispute Of
CURED, and that the certificate was
given at the time of It's occurrence to
which it relates, when the language
used, to which bill of exceptions is
taken, is provoked by remarks OF oppo'
site counsel, equal, If not more obiec-
tiouable than that complained OF, the
point is OF no avail. Affirmed.
British and Foreign Marine Insur-
ance company vs.. Gulf, Colorado "
santa Fe railway; from Galveston
county. Willie, C, j. WEon bill of
lsding aud an urarce policy covering
any loss OF the goods named IN the for
mer are signed at The same time,bu the
policy describes tins property rs having
been already shipped by the carrier,
the insurance company Will be held 20
be effected with notice of any reserya'
ZION ia he bill Of lading and chargeab.e
with dUtice o! the circumstances Of The
contract Tor its transportation entered
into between tho shipper ana the car
rier. TO an action by the shipper for
the value OF the goods, the carrier
could not. plead that 10 WAS not
liable because OF the insurance, ana
that the shipper must look 10 the in|
surance company: Therefore, the IN
suiauce company is held to have con-
uacted with the full understanding
that in case Of loss Of the prOr erty
while in charge Of the carrier, aud that
loss was satisfied By said carrier, IL
would DO entitled 20 th9
insurance due upon tho property.
Ia taking insurance the carrier does not
limit its common law liability 90 the
shipper for any loss that may occur.
There ie no contract Of exemption
against liability for loss by negligence;
no agreement that tho carrier shall be
Unidentified, but the contract is simply
that IN the contingency of insurance
consequent benefit III case Of loss viii
result to the carrier, The carrier
mas the right to insure the goods in bis
charge by contract made directly WIN
the insurance company, and this he
may do to the extent of their iuil value.
As between the insurance company
and the carrier, the former is .igUlo 10
The latter Tor any loss of goods occur
ring, Affirmed.
Houston d Texas Central railroad
company vs. G.. i. Hin, from Galveston
county. Willie, c j. a cause Of action
consisting as well Of the right OF the
plaintiff as Of tho jury to that right,
where plaintiffs right accrued by rea-
son Of "A contract made with defendant
in Galveston county, and the injury
arose from a breach Of that contract,
which contract was to be part
ly performed in said county,
and was wholly broken, q cause Of ac
tion arose, and the suit was properly in
sCTibsd IN said county. NO private in
structionS given by the company to such
agent, and not brought 20 the knowledge
Of the party contracting with him, as 30
bis authority, would affect the
right OF such party TO have
the contract carried out anal
A contract made with
general passenger agent of railroad
entrusted with tie supervision of its
pass anger business, and a part of that
business being to mako arrangements
and special contracts for excursions, is |
binding on the company. A rail
road company may bind itself by con-
ract to transport passengers or prop
,rty beyond its own line. The measure
If damages in suit against railroad
or failure 10 carry out contract to
transport the passenger, is such as are
30 and caused by the breach,
Ind may reasonably he supposed to haye
uttered into the contemplation of the
PARTIES at the time of making the con-
ract.
The judgment in tie cas- is not sup
ported by the evidence. Reversed and
\ PREVENTIVE OE TYPHO-MALA