Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-05

DerfsiBns fxSadered NJ the Galveston SIT
tirs of tho supreme Court.

been prevented from pcfloIihhhco VI rs
contract by the oroer or Oeiault " his
employer Is the natural and Probable
profits bis contract would have. Yielded
him II performed according tc, its terms,
and not the gross amount he would have
received under the terms o. the contract.
That the plaintiff could have protected
himself from losses consequent upon de-
fendanps default 10y obtaining other and
different employment is matter Of defense,
and the plaintiff. need not allege in hts
petition that he could not have thus
saved himself from loss. Reversed aud
remanded. opinion by Willie, G J..
$. & +. r. Ry. Co., VS.. b. j. Johnson,
appeal from Polk The measure Of dam
ages for neglgeutly delnging the land OF
another, there being no permanent APP
preparation, Is the value Of the products,
including fruit trees destroyed, aud not
difference In the value Of the land before
and after the delnge. A recovery may be
had for the value Of the grass submerged,
but not for expense of acquiring new
pastures and driving cattle thereto.
The right TO recover for growing grass
Is with the owner Of the land, and not
the owner Of cattle with right To Craze
on the land Reversed and remanded.
RlAHARi w lNNWtAh"Nitt ~
Missouri Pacific Railway Company VS..
J. Doiy, appeal FROM Houston. Where
the petition Is good upon general de-
uurrer an assignment Of error, that the
court below erred In overriding five
special exceptions ia general terms, will
not be considered by this court.
In an action TO recover the value OF
property destroyed by fire through the
negligence Of railroad company, IL is no
defense that the plaintiff had collected iu-
sufance on the property destroSed aud
The court did not err In sustaining an cx-
ceptlon TO so much Of the defendants au-
swer M set up such defense. Affirmed.
Opinion by Robertson, j
Holiday et al vs.. A. G.. Steele, np-
peal from Brazos. The sherlff's return
ON the citation was as follows: Game
90 hand on the 18th day Of February,
1884, at IL O'Clock Il M, and executed
the same lsth February, 1884, by
delivering TO Mrs, A. A, HOLIDAY
and w II, Holiday, the wlthiu-named
defendants, In person, true copy OF this
writ" Held, that the return was de-
tective, being liable To the construction
that one copy of the citation was served
on both defendants, (King Va. Goodson,
" Tex, 1889 and judgment by default Is
not supported. the service is not
assisted by the fact that the bill Of costs
shows that two citations were issued or
charged for Reversed and remanded.
Opinion by Robertson, j.
G. NJ. Noble vs.. Orange County, appeal
from Orange. In a suit against Il county
Tor the recovery Of money the petition Is
fatally defective when IL Is not alleged
That the claim had been presented to aud
rejected by the county commissioners
court The PLAINTIFFS petition being de-
lectiVe In this respect there was but one
judgment that could properly have been
rendered, that Is, that ne take nothing by
his SUIT. This Judgment having been
rendered the 1, fusai OF the court to strike
out the defendants answer Will not be
considered The TACT that there is proof
tending TO show the commissioners court
had not repGdiated the claim will not al
ter the rule, rs without proper aver
ment such proof WAS inadmissible. AZ.
ilrmed. Opinion by Robertson, j.
G. A Jones vs.. Banks ct al e., appeal from
San Jaclnto. A request for written find
lngs by the trial court under the statute
Ia not satisfied by statement of the evil
dence, however full 1t may be; the party
making the request is entitled to know
what the court believes are the true facts,
which are material, and which are con
sidered as the basis Of the judgment rem
dered. The court, when requested, must
tind not the evidence, but from the evil
dence what the facts of the case are.
Rev, rscd aud remanded. Opinion by
Robertson, j.
George Roller VS.. M. Robertson appeal
from Freestone. In an action TO recover
damages for the conversion Of the sep
arate property OF the wife, 1t Is not neces-
sary that the jury should tlud the
value OF each piece Of property taken
away. The plaintiff elects to recover its
value, and the right Of the defendant to
return IL or any part Of II, and thus re.
lieee himself from liability In whole or In
part ceases. Nor will the fact that there
was prayer for recovery of the specl-
tic property In case the other relief could
not be granted, deprive the plaintiff of
the right TO the relief which she elected
70 have Affirmed. Opinion by Stay ton,
j.
G Z, Smith vs., Giles ct al, appeal from
Jefferson. The statute now Ia force does
not cOnllne the right OF appeal from JUS
tice's courts TO cases ia whion The i1ag.
m me- there rendered exceeds $50,
but gives It when such may pe
the Judgment or when the amount Ia
controversy shall exceed that sum. IN
this case tne debt sued for was less than
800, but the plaintiff claimed the right to
establish aud purchase u lien ON property
alleged To be of value greater than that
sum, The matter therefore In controVer-
~ was not only the debt, but thu Hen,
and the value Of the latter being greater
than $50 the district court had inrisdic-
ton OF the appeal Marshall v. Taylor,
! Texas 2S5 Affirmed Opinion by
StnytOm, ]
David Jordan VS.. IL. w, Moore, appeal
from Houston This was ninndamus 70
compel the county Judge transfer the
cause from III cuuhly TO the ulstrici
court, the petition for the writ alleging
that the wife OF tne county Judge aud the
wife of appellee were sisters, and that The
suit involved the right 10 community
estate OF appellee and wife. Held, that
through the vile OF the appellee was not
made party, She was 80 In legal effect,
* the husband may sue for any claim due
the community without being Joined by
the wife, aud "A Judgment IN favor OF ar
against him will blind the wife as fully as
She could Toe wese she party tu the
action. The fact that the community
may be Indebted and the sum to be re-
,eivcd might be applied to theextinguish.
nent OF such debts cannot change the
,hsaeter ~ the fand nor affect The
Sife's interest. Ia the case here the |
,pnntv judge was disqualified, being re-
a,ed 70 one OF the llaiiies by aflit,
iader The provision OF the constitution |
ind statutes Reversed and remanded /
)pspin bs Stayton, j
Cty of Lareuo vs. Juseph Male, appeal /
rnm Webb Writ Of garnlshment sud (