Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-15

Indefinite as TO time and amount, and
the remark OF the agent was 70
the effect that he was then Will
Ing, or that he would, not does, consent'
when the given situation came about.
Reversed and rendered for appellant
Opinion by Robertson, J.
M, X. Powell ct al. Va. a. @. Thomp-
son, error from Milan. To entitle the
defendants in error 20 any portion Of tue
land patented 70 the heirs Of Barnhlll ~
reason Of the fact that their ancestor %.
tanned the land certificate, bad II located
and the land patented, II was necessary
! to show contract expressed or Implied
under which such heirs agreed to give
part Of the land for such services. ROSS
vs. Mitchell, 20 Tex, leu,
That the services were rendered
] In pursuance OF a power
| OF attorney and contract with walker
and Badger, without II being shown tnat
Walker and Badger were the right heirs
OF Barnhill, tho grantee does not estao-
I lish such contract. Reversed ana re-
manded. Opinion by Stayton, j
| Nj. w. Workman VS.. Judson King, APP
peal from McLeDnan. Originally this
suit was against Ham & King, to set
aside fraudulent sale OF the land made
by Marshall TO King, and subject II TO
debts. King had sold part to Ham, ana
the later was necessary party. II was
alleged that Ham purchased with no
tIce Of fraud. Hams answer was
La complete defense II sus-
tanned by proof, he alleging that he mao
/ no notice OF any bond. The plaintlf
amended admitting the truth OF Hams
answer as to notice, and asked that the
deed 10 him be confirmed, and th-t ne
have Judgment for purchase money que
from MIN. The appellant bought pend
ing the suit TO cancel the deed to Ham,
and was chargeable with notice to that
extent, but not as to the amended claim.
No lien not asserted In the original suit
could be set up by amendment so as TO
affect her right without making her a
party. Lis pendens is not notice OF
every equity which may possibly arise
out Of the matters In question In the suit.
Reversed and rendered, Opinion by
While, @. j.
A. Murray W.. G. d. Murray, appeal
from Wilson. This was suit for d.
vorce on the ground OF cruel treatment,
The case was tried by the Judge and a
divorce refused. The only evidence
offered to sustain the petition was the
wifes mother Her statements are mere
cancellations, and there was not error
in this respect. In his findings the judge
states that he knew the plaintiff had been
indicted for adultery, This would neces-
sarily disturb the credit which the wit
ness might otherwise have obtained, but
Is no reason for disturbing the Judgment,
Affirmed. Opinion by Robertson, j,
Hubbard vs.. Hannig, error from Bexar
The complaints Of the Illegal admission
Tea t.1 fstfl thNal
do not state the substance, but refers To
answers to interrogatorles by numbers,
The deposition Is not part OF the record,
and the evidence is in form Of q nara.
tive. In this state the court cannot re-
wise the rulings Ia this respect Affirmed
Opinion by Robertson, j
; Gulf, Colorado & Santa Ee Railway
: Company vs.. w. Judson, appeal from
Bosque. The shipping contract offered
in evidence by appellant was not proved
TO have any, ,copugrtiao '.'nlth-,t','. 90 g
The snipnsy.n.sS aud the Judgment Is
anirmed Opinion by RobertsoniJ.
A MOTIONS.
!, Substltuted Appeal Bono-ln passing
!, mon n motion the court held Una new
l. srneaI hond made out and hled u the
a cnrrt below. and the fact certinedo this
l. cnnrt will not take the place OF le de-
iectiye original bond before thIcourt
has PASSED upon the original, heidt de-
fectiye and granted leave to iiie = new
"a. one In answer to inquiry the COT said
" that the bond so executed wouidot be
!, satisfactory II represented and asfoved,
~, and advised that a new BOND nnade,
OF PRESENTED to the clerk of the strict
~, court, and when approved, that y Med
ny here.
ily - 80 - u-,,,o nulo
as Gypsum" :" n.,nI o.,