Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-15
TuF pIguER COURTS.
synopsis OF Decisions Rendered :" ,' '"s az
a. s,t,,ng OF tho Supreme Court

| ....,..,. ne D.cisions Rendered NJ ths h"N-
~, s,,,,nr of tho supreme couft'
s,c,r,oa Gruner VS.. r. Westln, appear :
ron, Travis. A Judgment In iaNor Vi !
kaufman & Ruuge was rendered III Slas, ,
$40 and recorded in Travis county ~nS
ia ls7o An appeal was perfected jury
lto' ts7o The appeal bond was sueh as
49,, raonired hy Art. 1893, p o. rug
namaa remaIned in the supreme court w
All 1883, when the Judgment OF eno we
trlct court was affirmed, an anus ~,
4 ton issued under when the ianu w
1 sold, and through shat sale app, ,ha
s ,i,Ii, ,1,in n does not appear when the
~, axecutlon was issued. The court
: haIow held that the luuShSnV
: ,,e,,, Ian from the date of its RECORD ~
|, Ssrr.v,s county, but that the lien was iose
I, ha,a,,se execution did not Issue WITHIN
y y .',aivs months after the Judgment WAS
y. sandsred This was equivalent 10 NOW,
4 Il ,,n ,has an execution could Legally naNe
issued pending the appeal, ana v.m n
iailure 10 have this done was the ian ~ !,
ne Ia exercise the diligence requnu" ~ ~
~. To preserve the Hen. ine ouul y, ,sns 10
~ M no, Ridley VS. Henderson, 40 leNr
~. 80, Moore W. Moore, AZ Tex sio
Sn ionas vs. Lonuham, SO reXp W, wy
~ conrt anproyes the iludlng and anlrms tne
- tndsmsnt Opinion by Stayton, u
" ,asas 4 pacific Railway Company vs.
KS, Charles NORM by next friend, appea
" srnn, Warrant. Suit to recover LOT my,
ac, ia "a a minor by next friend. Inc emu
VA, NJ the time OF the injury was tu,.S
Inc mouths old, and Judgment was oo ,ss =, Z
for $40, 900. The charge on tsv ~ ,,rv -
hat crroneous IN that ~ permitted the luly .
~. ~id consider the diminished capacity OF the ~
~ nsllee 10 earn money during the time y
s,.,, ,ervenipg tho injury and MS arfiva,
~ r,a;oritv. The services OF the apPeN'
ny W. a"y,ng his minority belonged 70 q
wy ,,srent who as next friend represon
=, =, him IN this SUR, and dtminuhon OF y
,,stn nanaelty 10 earn money during ihinol,
cnm. gave cause Of action 70 me pArcn' q
Say not 10 the minor, unless y DO shoN i.a y.
rlhie the child had been elnauN.pas
", y NV the parent. Railway company
Nv viu,er XII Texas 255i 10 Kansas 0
y, Sncn 4 charre as that given In this q
I" sas given In Railroad Company
,..,nn niDonnei, IS Texas ", when
= t,lrmed. hut that was not asslgheN
eryor Reversed and reman0eu' VI
, was ion by Stayton, j,
VS. New Orleans Insurance company
=, tact Grimm 4 shook, appeal from MeLenu
= IAN. The policy required the consehs ol
49, he company TO additional Insurance. 70
s sup Endorsed on ny POM nlssainea and a
prime greater than Wy ~ the condt
NV, or's =, Verhal consent by the agent with ku'
'nS - eSae that ID Will be acted upon
I. ~. waiyer 81 the requirement, In cony'
IA for eion with the agent, plaintins ststeN
W. ~ thew intended to take out addilona
surance when able. Toesgont expre
a. ma desire TO wrltc the policies, y o.
cannot parties knew anu unHy'S ,'e, sa,rlv he
an as ton the plaln'lns WV" a,snes Committed
made 80 that - terms WIZ ss .'"r.,S ~ aim
ID Ross or waived ny MnA. wv VIVA VAS
least the proved lntetvlsws' .,a y, have
4 up be- TO the agent canpos ~ ns,u ,,, ~ !
Insured Ia obtain additional insuI
, Il the The purpose, II any was expressed