Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-24
mn RIGnER COuRrs.
Synopsis OF Decisions Rendered at tho Aus
tin sitting of ths supreme Court.

Synopsis OF Decisions Rendered at tho Aus
tin Sitting of ths supreme Court.
White ct al We Jacobs, Bernheim &
Co., appeal from Ellis. The levy in this
case was made under art, 2283, 8 r. s.,
which provides way for levyiug upon
the interest of partner, and upon stock
running at large. Such levy does not
disturb the possession, and for this reason
1t Is insisted claim bond and affidavit
for trial Of the right Of property could
not be interposed. To be asserted in this
manner the claim must be one of title or
possession. Either Of these will suffice
against naked trespasser. The levy was
upon the partnership interest Of McCarty
IN the cattle. The claim and affidavit OF
White was that the cattle were the Joint
property of himself and two others who
Joined him. The interest Of McCarty, if
any, was one-half of what remained of
the partnership property after tie debts
were paid. White was interested In see
Ing that no more was adjudged subject to
the execution than this interest The
court erred in dismissing the claim. Re-
versed and remanded. Opinion by viii
lie, G. j.
Carpenter and wife VS.. II. w. GRADER ct
al appeal from Ellis The land was con-
veyed by plaintiff to a railroad company,
upon conditions as follows: "To have
aud to hold the above described premises,
together with all and singular the rights
and appurtenances thereto in any wise
belonging, into the said company and
their assigns forever, for the purpose Of
street only, and in case the same shall
| be used for any other purpose this deed
shall he null and void, and the title shall
revert to u.s." The company conveyed to
the town of Waxahachie "for the express
purpose OF street or highway" Three
years afterward the Texas Central rail
road, which had no interest in the land,
leased it to GRADER & Brown. The latter
erected building and obstructed the
street. After this suit was commenced
the nuisance was abated. This use
was certainly prohibited, but such use
was without the consent OF the assign
OF plaintiffs vendee, and II could no'
have been intended that any transltory
nuisance ON the granted street would
work forfeiture. We think the clause
was not meant to provide forfeiture
unless the holder of II unreasonabiy de
layed In stopping use not consented e
by 1t, and prohibited by plaintiffs deed
Tie delay In this case was not unreason
able. Affirmed. Opinion by Robertson
j,
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio
Railway Company VS. Steady ct al, appea
from BeXar The original deed was lost
but II had been recorded on December 10
1883, in the county OF Bexar, and cert
fled copy was used on the trial. At tn,
time of the trial the deed was over thrt,
years old. When the original ancient i'm
strument is lost a certified copy may b,
. introduced upon tho same proof tina
would make the original admissible IL Il
were produced, Holmes VS. C6ryell. 81
Tex, GS7. There was no error In admit
ting the certified copy on proof Of tn,
= loss OF the original the proof havin,
been made which would have rendered
the original admissible. The grantee o
the certificate aud the patentee OF In,
land was named Strumbler The vendo
OF Steady was Strumler, the differeno,
being SD" The court holds that the
conclusion reached below, that they wer,
one and the same man, was sustained b.
the evidence. Affirmed. Opinion bl
Robertson, ia.
Purlnton ct al. vs.. +. NJ. Davis, appea
from Wichita, There is no means OF IRE
venting levy aud sale OF land under ex
ecutlon except by Injunction. Trespas
TO try title is an adequate remedy aftel
sale In all cases In which the sale vii
pass only the lille CT the execution de
tendant II the deeds under which Mrs
Purington claims the land levied upon a,
the property OF her husband are made
to her and recite that the cou
Slderatlon was paid from hel
separate means, her title is not ieop
atdlzed by the threatened sale. VIVA
the facts ara IN this particular her petit
ton for Injunction does not disclose
She does not, therefore, show case call
ing for equitable iuterposition. Affirmed
Opiulon by Robertson, j.