Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-06


An action on GUARDIANS bond is not
barred until the guardian IN the sense In
which the term is now used, Ia dis.
charged. The guardian ceases 10 have
that representative character up N Tho
death OF his ward, but II does not foI.
low from this that he Is within the mean.
Ing OF this law discharged by that event
A guardian cannot resign by his mere
volition aud declaration that he intends
to, or has done so, but he must make an
pllcation to the probate court for permis.
sion to resign, and notice OF this should
be given, aud he must file his account for
final settlement. Until SUCH an order IA
entered on the minutes OF the probate
court IL cannot be said that guardian
has resigned. Reversed and remanded.
Stayton, j.
John II. James vs.. A. O. Parker. Ap-
peal from Rusk county. A bill Of review
under our system need not conform 10
the rules, and is not limited by the re.
strictions Of the equity practice, as ap-
pllcable to That remedy We are Of the
opinion that when party interested
seeks by bill OF review the flnal or other
account OF guardian or administrator,
his petition should point out the
Items complained OF, and show
the errors therein, aud that he
should support these allegations by proof.
When the court below found that few
II any of the claims paid by appellant had
been established before payment, and
there are no vouchers appearing In the
statement OF facts, this court will pre-.
sumo that the finding was correct. Tho
court below correctly held that the guar
dian should not be allowed credit for ex.
penditures for the education and main
tenance OF the ward beyond the amount
OF the income OF his estate without proof
OF an order OF court dir, citing such ex-
pendltures. The guardian should be al
lowed to testify as TO transactions be
tween himself and ward dui-
ing the period OF guardianship, and
u was error to exclude such testim NY
A contract to do something In the future
may constitute contract capsule OF be-
ing enforced, but does not make an es-
toppel upon the person making IT, A fiue
paid by guardian for his ward should be
allowed on final settlement Upon bill
81 review where the items alleged to be
incorrect are numerous and evidence ia
ldduced to show the errors, the findings
when the trial Is In the district courD
ought TO point out distinctly which are
correct and which are Incorrect, and show
clearly the several corrections made by
he court. Reversed and remanded.
Gaines, j.
JonD I. Davis ct al. VS.. ". L. Agnew.
Appeal from Hunt county. This IL u suit
or the recovery OF tract OF land The
'ltle OF the appellants rests upon the deed
made by Marguerite Forshee and her hus-
]and. The closing part OF the certificate
u acknowledge mt taken by the officer
vas as follows "And the said Mar |
suerte Forehee, first being by me made |
with the contents Of said deed. |
on an examination, |
separate and apart from Rr hus.
'and, that she executed the same, |
'he being the absolute Nowner
II the real estate therein mentiNned, |
RELY and without compulsion or undue |
bfuence OF her husband. Given under |
ny hand" etc. The objection to this
certificate was that it "did not show that
IT the time Of acknowledging the deed
she stated to the officer taking her &C.
that she did not at that
line wish to retract her signature" Held,
hat the objection Is well taken. Our law
'equires tnat she declare that she did
willingly and freely sign the said writing
% be then shown and explained to her,
md wishes not to retract It, and shall &C
knowledge the said deed or writing SO
again shown her TO be her act, and not 10
nave been her act. This was no error In
he court below excluding the deed from
Mrs. Forshee and her husband. Affirmed.
1Iayton, j.
Franco'Texas Land company VS.. Marie
jhaptive' Appeal from Pa, ker county
Aliens are entitled to hold personal
property and to sue and be sued In our
outts LOT us recovery, and for any other
Iebts That may be due them, The books
u company or corporation are compe-
eht evidence as between the members
nu employees oil such company or cor
'orati9h, ana the company can not be
leard TO deny them after having recog.
lied them as containing correct transac.
Ions relative TO the business of said com
amy Am med. Willie, C. j,
Il. j. Saunders vs. B. Il. BRIDGES An.
zeal from Shelby county. This suit was
or the recovery OF the value of forty and
hali bushels Of corn at 81 20 per b1sheI
ne court below did MT err ia refusing 10
trlke out appellee's plea Of set of. n.
lam sued on Is unliqudated in its ma.
lre, ana as such was subjected to be set
II and discounted by an nnllquldated de-
land arising from the breach of differ
ut contract. The defendant in the court
Glow, on the ground that he admitted
he claim of plainuff, claimed the stain
DRY flght OF opening and concluding !
le case VIM request was granted by
ne Judge. Held, error. The defendant
lust admit so much OF plaintiffs claim
would make 1t unnecessary for plain.
III TO make any proof whatever. In TINS
use defendant only admitted that the corn
as worth vi per bushel, whereas plain.
~ claimed IL TO be reasonably worth
20 per bushel. Clearly, then, plaintiff
ad the right to open and conclude. Re
eTsed ana remanded. While, G j.
L. II Still vs.. Focks & Wilkins
ppeal from Rnsk county An assipnee i
Jay show, when property IN his posses y
on Is levied upon for the de5t of an
ssignor, that no such debt In fact ok. /
Ited, and when Judgment on deot 40
Iaimed, is obtained In a proceedine 10 p
hich the assignee was not party he
llgnt ON behalf OF creditors show thnt