Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-18
bIrtA O Ae, .AIla. on lAI. .nslesl ,nr alrnhNea

outh o. hcV fniu. On this subject the digniNed
"This charge assumes that the period Of rcs
tation u necessarily and invnrinbly nine
months History records some famous cNcep.
Ions 70 any such rnle, and obstetricians do not
account " extraordinary II their
services are required ~ any time
witlin matgin OF sxty days
before the expiration OF the appellants pro.
'..In the light Of history and science, the conr,
below Was authorized to consider that the an
nelisnts tpecial Instruction was too uneal
iantly rigid, iLaughterl Besides. by analogy
10 the law Of negligence as Ia d down by d Tor.
iner 0lttinEuishod chief justice OF this court In
the ease 81 murphy vs. Texas & PaelHc Railroad
comtnnN, ~ Texas, in The ab enec OF q statute
prescribing definite period, toe learned iudec
IN the district court was probably not any bet
lunliiicd TO name3ho precise time IN such
cases than the sworntwelve.T
g. g. s. isy. Co. VS. Galveston civ Il. II. co
appeal from Galveston. II was not necessary
70 hold IN The case OF g &. >. Ry. IS. Galveston
Cits X. X. Co, 81 Tex go. shat grant Of tho
privilege OF the streets TO street railway com.
pany IS necessarily revoca ion OF q like fran.
chlse previously granted 70 another company.
Inc opinion IN that cas- was never adopted bv
this court The couclusi h that the judgment
should be affirmed was alone adopted, and this
court did not become responsible for the rea
sonng by which conclusion was reached or for
any Of the 40 trines incidentally announced in
,ne course OF the opinion. The case IS I'm
Where the privilege Is granted over the
streets TO ono company, but not exclusive. the
city nay Vrant TO another coinpanv "A like
privilege of laying It's track upon the same
streets, and the company already operating a
road thcro would have no right To- object so
long as the free and unobstructed use OF It's
own track was not interfCrcd with. Tho fact
that the new grantee was n rival company aud
wOnld c0mpete for the trade upon the route
ana diminish the profit which the nrst
company would otherwise realize, would
furnish no reason why the grant should not be
MADE, objection III when both tracks are
down there Will be no room for the passage OF
horses, vehicles and footmen cannot be male
by either of the companies. This would Do a
matter TO be considered by the city Authorities
or the Legislature before granting the privilege
OF laying track upon street already occu.
pied Judgment re- formed and Injunction per.
petuated. Opinion 10y While, G. j.
A. L. Davis ct al vs.. a. r. Sittig. appeal from
Galveston. The note sued on was cxcouicd by
u. II Davis to Lewis, In consideration OF
property conveyed to him by Lewis, with in.
tent TO dcfraud his creditors. and this intent
was known TO all parties. The motto was lost
and before Its maturity Lewis transferred 70
Chas. \. LOWS, who Is not shown to have paid
value. After maturity ChAs. A. Lewis trans
fcrred to appellee. Held, that the note wa
subject TO every defense which could have
been urged aganstit In the hands OF the origt
nal pAyec.
There are cases which hold that the maker OF
anOic given for the purchase money Of prop
erty, which he knows the pRyee conveyed Il
! him for the purpose of defraudlng his creditors
| cannot ret up the fraudulent character OF the
! transaction as a DEER to the note (Carpen
! ter We, Mcclure, 80 Vol ! Davis VS.. Mitchell
| IA Cat 81; Dyer vs. Homer, 30 Mass, go
| Springer vs. Drasch, ~ Md 4SG) These de.
| cisions do not recognize any difference between
| contracts executed and execu ory and are based
on the language OF the statutes declaring the
| llegallty OF conyoyanccs made to dofraud cred
| itors, which In most states. as In Texas only
declare such contracts void as to creditors. They
/ do not strip such transaction of Its fraudulent
! character or give to II standing as valid con
/ tract which the ourts VIII enforce. No action
n ises in equity or at law from an illegal
! contract; no SUIT can be maintained for It's
| specific performance, or to rec vcI
| the property agreed to be sold Or delivered
| or the money agreed TO be paid, or damage for
| its violation As between the parties TO such q
contract who are in equal fault, no right eN-
| lists which court OF justice will enforce. Sc
| long as q contract is eNcCutory II cannot he
! enforced in any kind Of an action brought di'
| rCctly upon It, This rule IL based on public
policy and not In regard 20 the interest of tho
| par les 20 such contact P0mcToys Fig. $40
That the contract may have been executed hy
\ ono party furnishes no reason why the Other
should be compelled TO execute his part of 4
remaining eNecutory. McCauslaud Va. Rails
| too, ~ New, 1875; Briggs VS.. Merrill 5s Barbour
! $50; Willis vs.. CLARK, 20 Wend,, ~; Norris w
| Norris, Dana, 3iS; 25 No. 1856; 80 Col, 327; a
Mics, 576; McCrung VS.. Floyd. 10 Tex, l66
/ Judgment reversed and rendered that IN,
| plaintiff take nothing by his suit opinion b!
| StaytOn, j.