Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-12

!.
Jones Va. Jones, 10 Tex. lts, Sohnson
". liRrfisGn, A. Tex, PSI; Wilson Va
Helms, 80 Tex, $50. This power was
mol Withdrawn by the act " 1880, which
gave 70 the survivor other and more an.
lArged powers. Sanger We, MOODY. col
Tex, ~. Such survivor who Qualities
mas the power 10 sell community home
steadi Shannon vs.. Gray, 90 Tex. $50
The children have no Interest In tAe
homestead as such, as against the sur.
fiNing parent, by virtue OF the homestead
rlghte OF the deceased parent; 81 TEX
90 This being true, II debts Exist
there Is no reason why the power of the
survivor to sell community homestead
Tor the purpose OF. paving them shall
not exist az fully by reason OF
The facts OF surviyorship and dehts,
~ ~ reason of qualification
under the statute The nrst gives a
power more restricted than does the lat
ter but either gives the general power
70 sell community property II debts exist
While u has never been directly adlndl-
Gated, the cases cited lead inevitably TO
the conclusion that Herman Youngest had
tile power 10 convey the homestead hyi
his deed " September ~, 1881, And this
Is true with reference 20 the construction
TO be placed upon the provisions Of the
present constitution, which restricts
rather Than cnlarges the tights OF The
ehlldren reversed aud rcmandod. Opin.
/ ion by Stayt0n, J
! a. II. Davis ys. j. G. Mitchell az al
i appellant from Fort Bend nncklcy and
/ Wilson compromised their controversy
over the grant hy dividing II between
them The controversy Is over the
| dividing linc, II they not only divided
| the land bat also actually ran out and
marked the division lines about the year
/ 1917 and they aud their pfiyies here since
acquiesccd In and acted upon sucii dolino.
alton until The defendant In 1881 set M a
new line, the plaintiff claiming by thu old
/ line WIS entitled to recover. n they
did not extend the Hue upon the ground,
I but some ono claiming under one of them
! had the lines run out aud marked, and
this was accepted and acquiesced IN
! for number Of years by
I the successive owners of the two
( parts, the line would he Just as we'll es.
tahlished. Where the llnc between the
Two surveys has once been fixed the oh
/ lcct OF u resuryey Is always 10 find where
that line has been fixed, aud not whore II
I ought TO have been iSod In the frat in-
stance Reversed aud remanded. Onin-
ION by Robertson j
Geo. X. Brown, administrator, vs.. NJ
A. Seaman ct al, appeal from Trinity
4 The right OF the survivor IN community
TO the absolute management Of the com.
mon estate is secured by the statute, only
| IN the event that bond with sufficient
sureties and conditioned as the statute
directs is illed In the county court OF the
proper county When the bond filed Is
not satisfactory, or the court at tho
! request of interested parties sets IL aside,
and the survivor fails 10 He now one,
| he is in effect removed from the manage.
ment Of the estate and an order TO that
effect may be made by the county court,
and an administrator appointed Such an
administrator may bring suit on the bond
for waste and the suroties Will be liable
10 the amount OF the bond. Such suit
may be brought 10 the district court, the
amount being within It's jurisdiction, and
" Is not necessary 10 ilrst establish the
dcvastavit In the county court. Reversed
and remanded, Opinion by While, G. j.
3 w Eason VS.. 3. Il. T, Ry. Co, up.
peal from Hardin. The plaintiff was In
the employ OF the owners OF saw-mill
located near the line OF dtiendant's road,
For convenience In shipping lumber, the
company had run track out 10 the mill,
and cars were left there for loading by
the owners of the MILL when the engines
OF the company would come and carry
the cars 10 the mnln ack The PLAINTIFF
duty was 10 suporntend the loading.
While the train Of defendant was on this
track, two empty cars were near the end,
one being dcrailed Plaintiff requested
/ ttf, "a. hnf put A ~
on to these cars aud pun them up to
whore they could he loaded with moro
ease. The conductor having but one
brakeman, asked plaintiff 90 uct for hun
and couple the last or dCrolcd cur. In
doing SO he was injured, and negligence
OF thc engineer IN alleged
The demurrer 10 the petition WIS sus
tnlned on the ground that plaintln, W
performing the duty OF brakeman, as
sumed all the risk incident to the position
and hence could not recover for an Injury
caused by the negligence OF aiellow scry
ant, This Is the law when the party Is {
, mere volunteer But the case Ia dlhoren
when he acts at the time In furlherancc o
his own or his masters buslncssi
Thompson On Neg 1915. The principle
, upon which q recovery IS allowed Is this
The injured person Is not volunteer
, bat engaged AZ the request, or with th,
permission, OF the company's agent IN
transaction Of interest as well 10 himsel
! or his master as 10 the company, and thi
: entities hin % the same protection agQins
. the negligence Of the company's servant
az u he were at the time attending to hi
own private affairs. Though pcrformin
a service beneficial TO both, he Is dom
so In his own behalf and not as the sers
! ant Of the company. Their lroquost o
! ncquesccnce gives him the right TO pen
form the service, and the fact that he acI
+ In his own behalf gives him a right TO b
protected There was error In sustainln
The demurrer. Reversed and romandec
: Opinion by Willie, G. j.
= SCOTS Emulation of Pure Cod Liver on
with Bypophoaphitos, Ia scrofuious an
Consumptive Cases.
Or. G, G. Lockwood, New York, says
al have frequently prescribed Scott
a. a. a kf0 a ll