Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-02
SUPREME COURT.
Yesterdays Proceedings of the Sitting at
Tyler.

& Williams, appeal from Marion. Prior
to the adoption of our present constitu-
ton, there was nothing in the consttu-
ton and laws of this state prohibiting
national banks from charging and receiv-
ing 2 per cent. per month interest for
money loaned or advanced. Nor was
such contract prohibited by the thirteenth
section of the national banking law. I'm
der the provisions of that act such banks
are allowed to charge as much interest as
il allowed by the state laws to any per-
son whatever. Where no interest is al
lowed by the local law the bank is author
lied to charge and receive per cent,
and no more. Tiffany VS.. National Bank,
Is Wallace, 1885, Kinds VS.. Macmolio
SO Cal, go. The rate sued on, being ex-
ccutcd in 1874, and fixing the interest at
> per cent. per month, was not tainted
with usury, and the court below erred in
not so charging. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion by Willie, c. j.
N. j. Speaker VS.. w. IL. Pitts, appeal
from Camp. Plaintiffs action was to re-
move clouds and defendant pleaded "that
the said Daniel Lloyd defendants ances-
tori on the 10th of December, 1859, was
lawfully seized and duly possessed in fee
simple of the lot sued for, and on the
day of --, 1886, was so seized and pos
sessed by said Daniel Lloyd and his wife,
and that they and their heirs, these de-
/ PENDANTS, have continuously owned and
possessed said lot since that time" The
plea Is not good as plea of the statute of
/ limitations for ten years, because it does
not state that plaintiffs right of action
had occurred or was barred-nor is it
good plea of adverse possession for ten
years, because it does not show that they
cultivated, used or enjoyed the land ad-
Versely for any number OF years.
Where the plaintiff alleged that the
payment OF judgment against the
obligor was the consideration for the
bond for title, and this fact was proved
by the uncontradicted testimony OF the
plaintiff an objection to the admissibility
of certified copy Of the Judgment will
not be considered. Affirmed. Opinion
by Robertson, j,
I East Line & II. II. Railway Co. VS.. j. D.
Hall, appeal from Camp. An ale
gaton in the petition that the suit IS for
the use of the insurance company does
not make it the suit of the company.
Such averment is proper TO protect the
interest," but does not make the company
plaintiff. If plaintiff had offered no oyi-
dence of n transfer by him to the in
surance company he could still recover.
II he had not alleged that he sued for its
use, the defendant might have defeated
/. his suit by showing that he had trans
ferred his cause of action.
Article ZS3 II. S., undoubtedly makes
the cal rier's liability attach after the bill
of lading is signed, but it has not pro-
yided that such liability shall not attach
until such signing; and the court below
did not err in charging that the "defend-
ant was not liable as common carrier
if the bill Of lading had not been signed
unless the plaintiff had done all required
of him to enttle him to bill and the
delay in signing was caused by the negli.
, gence of the railroad company's agent
Where the consignor and consignee are
, different persons and the goods are in
, possession of the carrier to be delivered
] to the consignee, prima facie, the con
signce Is the owner. But where there is
no written contract and no agreement be
tween the carrier and the consignor fur
Their than that the goods shall be shippet
to given point, and the consignor il
. shown to be the owner before shipment
4 there Is nothing TO show change O.
, ownership. The mere delivery of thu
: cotton to the defendant in this case wa,
not delivery to the consignee and die
a not diVest plaintiffs ownership. Hutch
on carriers, Sec. 1884. Affirmed Opinion
by Robertson, j.
Bailey & GoodiOhn VS.. ID. b. James
appeal from Camp. Upon trial of tn,
4 right of property the Justices court gave
l. Judgment against appellants for value o
!. the cotton levied on, $40, damage 81, in
I, terest and cost of suit. On appeal tr
a the district court Judgment was rendered
against them for SG5.25, value of cotton
together with interest ,aggregatng S73.G7
damages $3.50, in all 1891 .03. The dis
trict court adiudged the cost of thai
: court against appellant. Held, that tn,
II provisions of Art. 1892, r. S., must b,
u literally construed, and although tht
= Judgment rendered in the district court
I was greater in the aggregate than thai
I recovered i'm the Justices court, still The
> contest was over the value Of the cotton
: and as the value as found in the distric
Z court was less than that fixed bv th,
( Judgment appealed from, the appeal wa,
l. prosecuted with effect and the distric
: court erred in taxing the cost of tina
4 court against appellant. Reversed an,
{ reformed. Opinion hy Willie, c. j.
= Queen Insurance Company VS.. Jeffcr
son Ice Company, appeal from Marion
a condition IN policy OF insurance is
sued by foreign company to be executed
in this state, providing "that in event o
II loss the insured shall bear one-fouth O
the loss is controlled by the provis
o ions Of Art, 297l Il. s., and in case of ,
p total loss of real estate the insured ma,
/ recover the full amount for which In,
e same is insured. That additional jnsur
r ance may have been subsequent to tn,
a issuance of the policy with the consen
d OF the insurer will not affect this rule
le Where the policy contains n provision
v that the Insured shall recover, If at tn
" time of loss he is not the sole and un
e. conditional owner Of the pers NAL prop
ID erty Insured, the defendant may unde
's general denial question his ownership
ana the court erred in refusing to ADM
sr evidence offered by the defendant com
$ pany to prove that the personal propert
was not in fact owned by plaintiff, bu
he was held by him in storage. Reverse
)r and remandcd, Opinion by Stayton, j.