Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-12
NJ nleaER COURTS.
!. n.eI.lea. nandsrsd ~ ,As oal.

m,,inr 81 the supreme '""'..
y, 4 ~ Ellis Va. Valentine \ Son,
4 son Galveston -. I'LL.
a s.,ee given TO one or more
c,yen with intent TO hinder
# n .Asr creditors, would oo an
. W. ,sr way Of a creditor or cred
y n.s'yred. which would be so
y p,s'l As 10 roudcr the convey
y WA snch preference was given
W. w. orefefred creditor knew OF
! ~ 10 debtor. II the words
Fl :, I, y VA ndelay" were used IN the
esir brondest sense, then
X .,ence given by an insolvent
IVA have the effect TO hinder
eg ,se non.prcfcrred creditor IN
~ ~ property OF his debtor
m the payment of bis
e.sh holding, IN the
"A 'A law forhiddlng
auds nothing In the past
W, ,si. court or any other 70 sus-
rts blndrance aud delay con.
y \, no statute has in Il the Gle
s.ea ana II a hindrance or delay
, AN case TO be free from this
KIN Il is not OF that character
VA, tbr statute, vitiatcs convey
see Bump on fraudulent con
W qal
.,s,e "A but declaratory Of the
e isw and II would probably ac-
me purpose intended were the
alrder' or 'dolayn eliminated
,sr construction put upon the
s.i,atd.p A mere Intention TO
i.isy or deiraud alone cannot be
IN determining whether n
hgfnl or not. What II
III Ia do cannot become
W ,b, rason Of The fact that IL Is
.osrh a motive or with nm Intent
N, 10 all creditors, 4 hindrance
M uhlch does not operate as n
n other creditors, is not that
E,dby mwY Every debtor has the
I'm Is pay one Or more Of his just
Mi soy money or property he has,
~ ,hereby he withdraws from the
o,her creditors property which
I'M subject TO the payment OF
Esls equally Just, as has every
NE legal right so 10 receive pay
athe right OF neither debtor or
Affected by the fact that the
,lssolyent. Fraud or no Is or
.M question OF fact, but II the
~ KNITTED, whether they constl.
within the meaning OF the
Dccomes IN many cases matter
Reversed and rcmandcd. Opin-
iyion, j
IN CITY Street Railway Company
min, appeal from Harris. The
j VAS q boy about eleven years OF
vas d passenger on the street
N getting on he placed his basket
oat part by the driver; desiring
/ be rang the bell. The driver
!. ,ostop, be allghted while the car
Mwllon mhutt and ran along the
fe on the driver TO stop that he
l Nihls basket. His statement Is
UThe driver knew that had
In and ran after him TO get 10.
tdmound and saw me. II was
,ptge and | was ON the inside OF
ma. ! ran 20 about the mid
'l he looked around and
NN lie did not make
.io stop the ear at that time.
car came around the curve the
icane arUund and hit me and
1s1 ne down. do not know
opened that my leg got under
~ the mule WIS going pretty
sn lhe driver looked back ut me
he mule another lick, ~
thlapts az are shown ought To
Hcoyey on the ground of CON
m 81 negligence were the plaintiff an
son, bui being q minor, under
hi esimony we cannot say that
tnot shown which justify the
Baltic injury resulted from The
goi The servant Of the company
N ass 81 an adult, the driver
! iesume that he would tax,
himself and act upor
'pr9 position, unless the danger
d #ifly apparent and imminent. No
ease Of a minor whose discretion
Q MY 10 take care OF himself canno
Y Ngiclledupon. Affirmed. 0piu
spon,J.
y iarlpg w. heirs OF l.. n. Baker
on Fort Bead. by brief anC
tisand errors many questions
y ias tie admission and rejection
te but there being In the recof,
lioi exception nor statement o
aellOn OF the court below II
80 lrrs cannot be revised. Tn
Don u Int proper and sulllcien
vas introduced on the trial I,
ne Judgment. Affirmed 0pin
~ Mylop, j,
olorado and Santa fe Railroa,
Y J.J Scligast; appeal from
/ Acion for damages resultipI
ft building Of the road on plain
and making excavations an
sAlch rendered access TO th
fllieult Tho defendant pleade
nm me- and asked that the land b
NJ The evidence showed thu
vas constructed in an eXca
Wapart Of LOT 10, and tha
snel lots IA and 10. The coui
NE jury 'that the plants
NH, " nom the company the yalu
nuen Of lot IS as ma
Ed BY the hity-ioot rlgt
N also sum equal TO IN
lolury or depreciation,
'Alee suffered Ivy lots IA an
Wsqueace OF the constructio
Nv soross said lot 10, With
= il claimed In the petition.
M soafl and jury evidently treate
one 10 which damages were |
y Cases Of ordinary conden
~ this the appellant cannC
NnI'med Opinion by Stal
~ pNyer vs., City Of Brennan
washington. AZ the city
~ III shartered by a public law, II
y - ssHers are known TO the conl