Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-01-25
ave nIGnrR CouRTS.
synopsis OF Decisions Rendered ut the Gal
weston sitilng nf TN snnrnnie Court

synopsis OF Decisions Rendered ut the Gall
weston si,iipg Of tho supreme Court,
IIeidenhemer Bros. VS.. Stewart and
wife, appeal from Fayette. Stewart be-
ing indebted 70 Alexander, he and his
wife made a conveyance OF their home
stead to Alexander-this conveyance was
made In compliance with the statute and
was on its face absolute. On the same
day Alexander conveyed the property to
Stewart, the consideration expressed be-
I ing the sum Of the original debt to Alex
ander and note executed by Stewart for
nearly the same sum--the vendors lien
was retained. Alexander transferred the
note to Heidenheimer for value Ileiden-
/ heimer had no notice of the transaction as
between Stewart and Alexander, except
that both conyeyances were recorded
/ This action was by lleidenheimer TO re-
cover the amount of the note and for
| foreclosure of the vendors lien. He had
| Judgment for the amount Of the note, but
foreclosure was refused. Held, that II
| the owners of the homestead
simulate transaction, in which
/ q negotiable note would be secured
! by valid lien on the exempt estate, and
their artihce succeeds In Imposing upon
an innocent party, they are estopped from
denying the3truth Of their solemn state
ments and cannot be permitted to prove
that lien is void because their acts We're
false. The lieu asserted was as for pur-
chase money il the transaction was gem
uine and Stewart aud wife are estopped
from proving that IL was otherwise, Re-
verSed and remandcd. Opinion by Rob-
ertson, j.
Pagan & Osgood VS.. Boyle Machine
/ al Hav
claim presented against fund in the
hands of a receiver, II contested before
the court, becomes in effect a suit against
the receiver which is ended by final
judgment allowing or rejecting it, and
any party to the contest dissatisfied with
the result may have the proceeding re-
viewed on appeal.
If the fund being administered is not
sufficient to pay all claims, each creditor
is interested in the justice OF every de-
mand OF equal, or greater, degree to his
own, and each creditor becomes q quasi
party and may resist the allowance OF any
such claim as may be equal TO his own in
degree.
A corporation may fix and secure for
itself the lien given by the statute for
material furnished for improvement OF n
building, and the fact that the material
and machinery furnished was sold and
delivered in another state will not pre-
vent the party furnishing the same from
securing upon the property to be i'm
proved our statutory lien. To do this 1t
is not necessary to give to the statute
extra territorial effect. Affirmed. Opinion
by Robertson, j.
p. II. McManigle VS.. Amos Mclaughlin,
appeal from Nueces. Mclaughlin sued
in trespass to try title; the judgment of
the court below was that he was not en-
titled to recover the land and that he pay
! the costs On former appeal this court
! reversed the Judgment and here rendered
: Judgment "that Judgment be rendered In
( favor of appellant; that the appellant
Amos Mclaughlin, recover OF the appel
} lee, =. II. Manigle, all costs in this be
half expended, and that this decision be
certified below for observance" Held
= that this Judgment was not a Judgment
r for costs only, but a judgment Tor the
S land, and the court did not err In award
a ing a writ of possession in Mclaughlin
Z favor. This court may look to its opin
s ion in the case III order to correctly In
terpret its judgment and mandate. Al
E frmed. Opinion by Willie, g. j.
1 Messner ct al. VS.. ID. c.. Giddlngs ct al.
/ of government no power exists in an,
: person or tribunal TO divest minor 0
: title to real estate, unless such power b.
:. conferred by the law-making department
: of the government. This will include tn
L act of the people in making constitution
/ as well as Il legislature, acting under
q constitution, as the department OF gov
s eminent intrusted with the power Z
70 make laws.
: The constitution of 1866 did not COME
u upon district courts Jurisdiction upo
= original application to dlyest the title I
$, real estate belonging to minors and dc
q cree of diyestiture in such case is nc
7: binding upon the minor.
- 1t must be presumed when the const
~ tuition in express terms confers lurisdlc
- ton over particular subject matter upo
~ one court, and not upon another, that
~ was intended the jurisdiction conferre
80 should be exclusive. Reversed and re
= manded opinion by Slayton, j
10 VIII. Lee VS., w. b. & j. B. Wilkins
N appeal from Washington. In lS6
~ the firm of w. &. & j.
10 wilkins became indebted TO Lee, and 500
~ after the firm dissolved. In 1872 tn
4 firm of w. g. & J. b. wilkins were dom
y. business as merchants in Texas, an
4. purchased goods in New York Lee ma
G placed his claim with an attorney ther
ID for collection, and he, through mistake
a. brought attachment proceeding agains
g. w. G. 81. d. wilkins, and attached III
<, goods. When the mistake was discovere
ne the proceedings were amended and aite
n. wards a compromise was Effected, th
NV goods released, and sum being paid ?
as the wilkins, and giving their note Tor
balance of $500. This suit was by Lee
of on the note, and defendant pleaded In r. r
rs convention, claiming damages for u
he wrongful suing out the attachment
nj New York. The court charged that - -
he the attachment sued out was against u
re- w. G. & j. b. wilkins, and the debt sue
"a. on was due by w. G.. Sd. A.. Wilkin
in then the attachment was wrongfully SUE
nd out. and defendant were entitlt
TO recover actual damages" hei
de that the charge was erroneous as u
ar interest of w. G. wilkins, who was
Nh member of both firms subject to the a
10 .acHment and the interest under u