Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-17

.nf AiftN"
p J, ipnouberg ct al, appeal 1pss
~ .nS al appeal bond, as
~ n Contract, is conceded BY
l'' !, sv ~ as the research S Sns q
Y. sosrl has es tsn,i;.ltes s Of a
2. 7. IS 3. ali the requisites :
N suso ,' In Of the cause IN
us's sIrgu was aled in the
/ W ga ls, there was a dismissa
VII ,,00s s cat Of the e, appeal 'I,.1S
q Pl0Un,,ygred sgainst the prln,
slTsil's, svSameut for costs mas
~, ~ IspIpellees contend that nat
sra . " u The bond are IN ., tne
E'd %, 7 thew were bound either Ssr
IuSa a' Al, would prosecute ms rs
pi ~. Of pay the judgment .1t %, OF
en sSsrt, they further claim
ss iH' ,5 IsDs' Obligations; the
ne' va ! contract to do two
i one Of two--the bond
ne' p hat both shall be
ra d. Of Of two. To prose
o1s vitS effect" means sue
B gu W., ~ Rlren, 5 b. and G.,
Fsi'u Mari, s Blacki., !Ot;
" G,,nss. Z II. and j., 4S4;
NJ IA .hington, 2 La. An,
~ cannot be said to be
PEI !. 81 which is dismissed for
.ssscptIon, nor can 1t be
q l'0 sooeal is prosecuted with
4 I, ,os Az appealed from re-
ne after the "pP
!, alleged that between the
\. Judgment of dismissal by
y sourt the principal became
N Ms property passed beyond
EI,Selr execution. These allie
,supd BY the court to be true.
i.ets, the amount the plant
.'ssd 10 recover is the amount
snsnt against the principal at
~ bopd with interest from
"a me costs of the district
! 4, init against the principal.
NJ rendered. opinion by
|lV.lker VS.. Cargile & Co.,
Lnm Limestone. The as
kw permitted to state
81 transfer was not made
q deiraud, hinder or delay
II the case had been tried
n, evidence would be subject
A and us admission would be
s. reversal If there could be rea-
M as to the nature OF the
Such on answer involves a
K Of law and not the mere state
,ct. But the case beng be-
4. qp and the witness stating
bearing upon the transaction,
.'.u,Ion that the judges finding
,'lluon The admissible evidence
sairmeo. opinion by Stay,
|snnc VS.. James Hall, appeal
The general allegation OF
< h suffice TO let in proof and to
overy Of all such damages as
&nd necessarily result from the
complained of. The law
i damages, and proof is neces.
to show their extent ano
the better practice is to sepa
tnsl from the vindictive dam
the petition as well al
Al verdict; bnt il thi:
done the former IL
l,iIssis for q verdict, and the in
tthe verdict cannot be takeI
pilor the first time on appeal
opirIon by Willie, G. j.
AsGrance Corporation VS.. Let
lIrom Mitchell. The defend
liiOn being a nonresident,
is suit was served upon 1T
New York, under art, 1880
The defendant moved t,
sruce, made no objection II
ctiou, and filed a general de
pleadings TO be considere,
Nsnt that service was no
lhe service was quashed an,
Alnued. At the next terri
Judgment by default. 1t /
\ was error TO give judgmen
when there was a general dc
There being nothing in tn
bow that defendant called hi
The courts attention, or in
'heif consideration, nor an
~ aside, this court will pre-
teiendant waived his answer
disturb the Judgment. Al
plnion by Willie, c. j.
olloghan VS.. Estate of ii
LA from Bexar. Dwyer wa
ptlt executor, and was ad
lhe estate outside the pro
lie contracted with Collogha
IS attorney for the estate
" Colloghan performed up t
q Dryer. Presenting hi
unpaid balance it was u
classed as d fourth-clas
4 was erroneous, the amour
snh would be part OF the e.
amlnlstratlon, aud as sue
lued TO payment In prefer
aeols contracted by the d.
ae lime. This preferenc
cases of trust estates. III
anave ranked as a secon
'aken from the order
court, approving and allowin
Y ranking 1t as a fourth-clas
" zoe entire Judgment, an
slood in the distri
u'al de moro, bot
lustness of the clai
y TO which it was entitle,
vas indiyisible, and a pa
sua and part kept open
~. si Y and remsnded. OPT
20. VS.. Kellum & Rotar
acLennan. The object
y obtain a personal jud
aelendauts, on the groul
! eOaspired with one SteN