Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-01
THE HIGHER COURTS
Synopsis of Decisions Rendered a,
ans In sitttoy


Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Rallwa,
Company VS., G. E. Fessitt appeal from
Bosque. 1t is complained that the cour,
did not make the conclusions Of fact a.
full and specific as II should have done
1t does not specify the number aud value
OF each article OF property DESTROYED. n
appellant desired this done II should
have called the matter to ihg
attention of the court belnw
by motion exception, or In
some other proper manner, and having
lalIed 20 90 so, cannot complain here fDr
the first time. The findings of fact by
tue court are entitled TO as much consid.
GRAFTON as n verdict, and 1t Is well settled
that a similar objection to verdict
comes too late, when urged for the first
time Ia this court; G2 Tex. 252; GS Tex.
~ Affirmed. Opinion by Willie, C. j.
j. a. Mckee ct al. vs.. A. IL. Coffin, an.
peal from Grayson. Defendant Mckee
admitted the seizure OF the goods but Al
tempted to justify under the fact that he
made the same as United States marshal
under attachment from United States cir
CUT court. lie also alleged that the as
Segment under which plaintiff claimed
was void. lie sought removal of the
cause ON the sole ground that he was
United States marshal and acted rs sucn
IN executing the writ. The writ only au-
thorlzed The officer to seize the prop
erty Of 5. w. & w. G. Kniflu, and
the seizure OF the property Of some other
person under 1t, made the marshal, as
would II any other officer, simply q tres
passer; and the question in TIE case is
simply whether In suit against Il person
who was United States marshal TO recover
damages for an Illegal seizure OF prop.
erty, under an attachment which did not
authorize the seizure, he is entitled, SIM
ply because he was marshal, TO re-
move the cause. The court reviewing
the cases OF FieOelman vs. Packard, 100
u. 5. 42i; Mckee VS. Brooks, "a Tex. 255
and DAVIS vs.. South Carolica, lO7 L. S.
OBJ, hold that there Is no Law comforting
such right. La this case neither the
pleadlngs nor the petition for removal
alleged that Mckee had defense arising
under the L. 5. laws, or that the suit was
one arising under such laws. There was
no error IN refusing Il removal.
The objection that an assignment
cannot be made by an agent uudtr
our statute is not well taken;
and while there is much in the statute
which indicates that IL was expected TO
apply 10 persons residing in this state
mainly, yet there is much in it which III
dicates that IL was intended 10 benefit the
creditors OF those who have property end
transact business in this state, but reside
elsewhere. This is especially true OF the
law as amended,
Fish Bros. & Co. were the plaintiffs
in the attachment, and asked leave
TO intervene, which was refused. Under
their aveTments they were but Joint
wrong-doers with tile marshal, and plain
tiff in this suit was under no obligation
to sue all. They claimed the right be-
cause they had given Indemnity; this gave
them no legal right TO intervene in this
case, and a refusal TO allow IL viii not
lmIPssIEjili 81 fygBh, 9, 'Ne'rf '''''"'
MOTIONS.
Appeal Bond The judgment rendered
was that tue plaintiff take nothing by bis
suit and defendant 80 hence and recover
his costs. The appeal bond describes the
Judgment as being one In favor Of defend
ant for costs, naming the amount. The
cost as appears In the record Is NOT N the
amount named in the bond, and hence
there is a misdescription Of the judgment
Motion TO dismiss appeal sustained.
Same. The plaintiff in the court be-
low took nothing, and the defendant had
Judgment for costs. The bono lleu was
a supersedeas bond, complying IN every
respect with the statute. Held, though
only Judgment for cost was rendered.
there Is no reason why q bond, III FORM
supersedeas bond, should not be nelu
sufficient to perfect the appeal. MOTION
to dismiss appeal denied.
Writ of Eror,-The writ issued on tne
2lst day OF April, 1885. and was retufna-
bic to the term OF the supreme court on
the 9Th April, 1885 The assignment 10
which the case belongs was not called Tor
more than twenty days after the wflt. Oh
error was perfected. The motion 10 as
miss. on the ground that the writ was
made returnable to term OF the SUI
nreme court which had passed, is
denied, but it appearing to the
court that the case was properly relurhS-
hle TO the term Of 1886, aud that II was
not tiled la time for the assignment 10
which 1t belonged at that term, the VIII
is dismissed.
Same. a dismissal OF the writ OF error
IL sought on the ground that more thar
two years had elapsed from the renditloI
of the Judgment, II appear
that It was more than two years
from the date on when tn'
Judgment was entered, but less than tw'
YEARS from the date on which the motloi
Tor a new trial was oyerruled. the ilm'
il TO be computed from the latter ca'e
Motion denied. ,. =
statement OF Facts. The statement Q
facts as found in the transcript OF M
record appears to be signed oy ln'
counsel tar the app liant, Dut no
by the opposite party, nor M
II the Appearance Of tne uil
iudge Endorsed upon Il. Such slsle
Iment cannot be considered by TINS couf'
Notion TO strike out sustained.
Certificate certificate OF lhe Ger
shows the judgment and notice oil ~
neal Tie bond IS not 10 the record, en-
Nh Of The sureties are not nam'd, IN
clerk certifying that the papers are oe
strnysd and that ell OF the surelles ~
NOT remembered. The clork ia
thcr oertifes that the appeal va
nerfected by the ding oil =
sppeal bond within twenty days iI ,,l
tbat such certificate does not emu w
,bs ano.llees TO an aiir1nance ~
1 NA~ -ft --...t.ns thut the time OF Dllh