Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-02

be no children of the marriage, the
survivor inherits the community es-
tate. The word "childN or children
as used in article 1868 OF the Revised
Statutes, means only direct descend
ants, and does not include grandchll.
dren. Reversed aud remanded.
Collins VS.. Ballow, from Wichita
county. Objection to questions by
interrogatory, divert or cross, though
leading and for that reason subject
to objection, go TO the form OF taking,
and should be made in writing before
the trial commences. When objection
is not so made and the evidence IL
material the Judgment will be re-
newed IL the court excludes the evil.
dence. When party claims land
under a parcel contract, he must es-
tablish by clear proof the character
and terms of the contract, and his
compliance with the terms. Failing
in either particular his case is at an
end. Reversed aud remanded
Rouths VS., Carson, from tunnels
county. 1t was alleged in the petition
that the sheep sold to defendant were
diseased, which fact defendant knew,
bat which plaintiff did not know aud
had no means OF knowing; that de.
PENDANT represented them as sound
and healthy, which representation he
knew to be false and fraudulent, and
which he made TO defraud plaintiff
and To fraudulently induce him TO pur-
chase, that plaintiff was induced by
such false representations TO purchase
the sheep, etc. Held, that the petit
ton states good cause tor action.
Not seeking to rescind the contract,
the measure of damages Is the differ.
ence between the value OF the sheep In
their diseased condition and the price
paid for them, with interest on such
difference from the date of paymsn
If certain of the sheep were not dis
eased at the time of the purchase but
contracted the disease by contact with
those that were, the plaintiff may re-
cover such damage ~ he suffered
thereby, which includes the value OF
the sheep that died and expenses in
CURED in care and attention TO them.
This was not the rule applied in this
case. Reversed and remanded
Terrell vs. Martin, from Tarrant
county. A deed is not evidence of
title in the absence of proof of facts,
which conferred on an administrator
power TO sell the land. The effect of
deed as prima facie evidence is restrict.
ed by art. 2002 II. 3. TO the act OF MAX
Ing the sale, time, place, manner aud
notice being included, bat 1t Is not
prims facie evidence that every act
has been done, which IL, by law, re-
quired to be done TO make the sale
valid. When deed is executed by
deputy acting for the sheriff the depu
ty Is the proper person to acknowledge
it. Reversed and remanded.
Eamis VS.. Railway, from Harris
county, on rehearing. Culpable neg
ligence for which raj road may be
liable in damages, may arihe from de-
fects or obstruc ions permitted to re
main on its right Of way, where they
cause accidents under circumstances
that viii charge the company with
want OF care. IL is n question OF fact
whether tie omission or ueglect im-
puted as the cause OF the accident con.
stitutes negligence 1t is negligence
II the company permits weed TO grow
upon its right Of way TO such
height "a will materially obstruct
the view OF the crossing or other
point on the track, and II Injury re.
suits TO stock or persons at sucn point
that might have been avoided but
for such obstruction, the company Is
liable. IT, from the facts alleged such
negligence might properly or reason
ably be inferred, the petition should |
be held good on general demurrer
Employees OF railroad company are
under the protection OF the rule which |
holds the company liable for neglect in |
respect 70 the right of way. Rshearlng |
is refused.