Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-06-29
SUPREME COURT.
,r,is Of the Decisions Rendered at
9''f ,he Austin Sitting Of the
Supreme Court.
"a. M From the Full and Official Re
pOrt Of the Rulings and 0pin-
ions Rendered,
Complied for the Gazette.

an county. lne appeheo III Shis case
a. his motion to dismiss this APP
II before the amount involved in
4 "a controversy in the court below was
snt twenty-five dollars, wherefore, the
motion alleges, the supreme court is
sIthout jurisdiction. But held, that
.i,hout reference to the amount in
,oyed In the controversy, the supreme
nurt has appellate jurisdiction over all
,opesls from the district court wherein
Ne district court had original iuris-
Sction. The motion to dismiss the
,upesl Is overruled. 80 ordered.
n TBsyser d Lehman VS.. Mitchell ct
Il, from Dallas county. Leaving out
4 Al view the mortgage which was ex.
seuted some time after the delivery
If the property to the defendants, 1t
h viii resemble almost exactly the case
AZ Cobb VS.. Tafhs, heretofore pub
shed in these columns, and repub-
lished in the Texas Law Review, No.
~. The contracts In the two cases
are nearly alike, and are to be consid-
cred as conditional sales. In Cobb
vs.. Tafhs, the property was destroyed
d by fire after it was delivered to the
\ de!endants and suit was brought upon
3 The notes given for the same, and in
d that case IL was held that the plea of
\ failure OF consideration was properly
sustained. But the appellants insist In
4 this case, that by means of the mort
\ gage, the parties changed the character
\ Of the contract, that lie, that IL became
\ az executory contract and passed title
4 to the Appellees. Such doctrine har-
monizes with that announced in Crit
/ fth VS.. Morrison, IS Texas. 49. But
I in this ease the parties to the mortgage
J are not the same as the parties to the
sale. The note ie Endorsed in blank by
1 the payees, which is sufficient to ac-
/ count for it's possession by the appel
hlt,. But, again, the mortgage is ex.
Y ecuteA by only part of the makers
HI. the note, and, what is more i'm
Eportant, IL does not mention the note
B or purport to be given for its security.
fMoreover, the evidence for the appel
lsnts is meager and unsatisfactory
n Affirmed.
4 Gribble ct al. VIZ. Harvey Bros, from
Cooke county,. Petition alleged that
4 defendants undertook to build house
1 for third party and that at their re
I quest plaintiffs furnished part of the
/ material which defendants agreed tC
/ furnish. Held, that defendants are
4 liable for the material SO furnished
B and the petition set up good cause OF
action. The petition also alleged thai
all defendants, including McC., were
3 jointly engaged in building house fol-
B seeking now to recover of defend
B ants the value of the material they fur
4 nished them for that purpose, the con
h tract made between defendants and b
and the receipts given by McC., which
\ were signed "McC. & Co ~ were ad.
4 missible In evidence. Plaintiffs having
no connection with or int crest in thu
contract between defendant and b.
x can claim nothing under that contrac
IN The cole ground of their claim beinl
that they furnished defendants ma
& terial to carry cut their contract. The
evidence shows that the materials were
n In fact supplied to Nee but he has
\ notsppealed, and such being the fac
n 10 hold defendants liable as joint con
+ tractors with McC., and responsible
Tor his contract, 1t must appear tina
appellants were joint contractors with
Nee, in the sense of partners undel
the contract with b., and not mere
snreties, or, IL sureties, that they 90
acted or permitted Nee, to act AS t
make plaintiff believe them to b.
Partners, and that PLAINTIFF, acting
h under such bona fide belief, furnished
the materials. The evidence show
clearly that appellants were suretie
only and furnished the materials upoi
McC,'s credit. Reversed and re
handed.
Bawser g. Lehman vs.. Mitchell ct al.
rom Dallas county. This case is II
every essential q counterpart OF tn
case Of Bawser e. Lehman VS.. Mitchell
aal. supra, and presents for our ad
ladication exactly the same question
Of law and fact. The pleadings II
both cases are in every respect Ia
ssme. The facts proved upon the trial
are the same. AS in the former case tn
Judgment in this case was rendered II
isyor of the defendants. Upon the doc
Times announced in the former appea
The Judgment in this case is affirmed
Affirmed.
n Terrell VS.. Teal ct al, from Victori
county. 1t Is familiar rule OF lay
4 That Notwithstanding the recital !
The deed that the purchase money
, unpaid, it is nevertheless deed abs
ale on its face, II the deed does not
NIms reserve the vendors lien. l
such cases the tide passes to the gran
Grand the vendors remedy for III
Purchase money is upon his lien as
moneyed demand but he holds no till
ne has only his equitable remedy,
enforce his lien against the vende
NJ o. Tex 3S7. The deed in this cas-
was of mat character, and the effect
4 The recitsls contained in it are not di
unguishable from the instance sui
gested in IS Tex, 3s7. Aud thisvie
decisive OF this appeal, for the pr
bate court possessed no power to deere
70 the executor OF G, authority !
make a compromise with 8. on "a
subject involved in the peti ion OF M
Ihe executor, "and IL necessary to 7
covery TO the estate of l.. ;. a porto
q the land y See former report
3 his case, As Tex. 500 The Judge
v nodings of law and fact were correc
Affirmed.
Nh Blair VS.. McManus. from Nuec
VI county. The truth of facts stated
1 an officers 70 turn of service, support'
81 10 NJ l. saA =