Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-30
rng nIHHFR COuRrs


~ SUPREME COURT,
Formwalt ct al. ys. lIylton, appeal
from Nolan This was suit by IIylton
for damages caused him by reason OF a
wrongful arrest and false Imprisonment,
The defendants were officers, and at the
time Rad warr0nts for the arrest OF the
plaintiffs two sons, TIE only pretense
OF excuse for the arrest 81 the plaintiff is
found ~ conversation OF Col. Baylor,
from which IL seems that he, Bay.
Tor, who was in charge Of the party
of officers, thought that the
plaintiff was either Riley or Dow
Hyhon. The court Informed the jury
that such mistake could be considered In
mitigation aud on the question Of malice,
bat thatlt would not justify, unless The
mistake was caused or contributed to by
plaintiff, This is correct statement OF
the law, Hays v. Creavy, 90 Tex, 40.
There IL trospase, no meter how limo.
Gently the parties acted In arrestlng the
wrong person. II crime has been com
mitted and there IL ground for suspecting
"a, these suspicious cannot justify the
Imprisonment OF "B +" Addison on Torts
$40; Waterman on TrespRss, Sec. 500
and 3b2. Affirmed Opinion by Rob
ertson, j.
G, Y. Mcwilllams ". Cornelius BrSs,
s Co., appeal from Mitchell. The instru-
ment under which appellants claim the
property purported TO be a deed OF assign
ment for the benefit OF creditors under
the statute. The statute authorizes M
assignment for the beneiitOf all creditors
or one for the benefit Of these creditors
who viii accept, The deed was ok.
pressed 10 be for the benefit OF MI
his creditors In proportion TO Their
respective claims, or such OF his creditors
only as Will accept dividends and dis
charge the debtor. There IL no ambigu-
l.y 10 The language. The trust is for ths
benefit Of all or for number less than
all The debtor may choose which kind
he viii make, aud II the debtor has epeci
fed the Kind he Intends, the statute will
supply deteleneisg, hist " cannot MAKE
choice for hun In this case, instead Of
making ~ for ono or two authorized pur
poses, be has made II for either Of two
| purposes The assignment was void
I Affirmed Opinion by Robertson, J
/ q Al Bucser vs. Daniel Daley 81 ~
! appeal from johnson. Where contract
I "a convey locstlye interest ia land hti
( been executed by the obllRee and th,
I ltthl hfNi- llAf fffNtNlt IA wv NbAtkyfY PAA
latter holds thai portion Of tho land hs
les contracted ~ convey ia trust for ID,
benefit Of tie nbllgee; ana 70 long AZ thl,
trust cont hues aud i, recognized BY u,
obllgor, and more especially II by any
acts tha Uhligee has bren induced ~ 70
FRAN from suit, lite statute Of Limitations
will not rule Ogamt the enforcement d
the cOutracI When 10 n rel Ia motion
the seiion viii mol be barred I'LL eitel
The lapse d ten ycsrh.
The record does not Disclose what wer,
( the allegations " ibe original petition
Tue amended petition DOES not aek u
make new parties TO the snit, II y there
! fore 70 b. presumed tbat " SEEKS relic
I against the saue defendants as did thl
4 original, aud npeA the same cause Of &C
I tlOn defendant set up limitation b.
\ demurrer must show that on the face 0
his adyersaEy's pleading tho sctioi
" barred. He has not done u
II II appears from the re
citals % the petition dcmurred 70, th'
suit wss begun before the bar was inter
posed,
The causes Of acglon Ia this case 90
crned ~ 1865 and 1860 respectively. RI
provision "a the Kefissa Statutes Us 4
actions for specific performances csnao
be applied for II ihey governed the ac
ton wts barred bsiore the Aeyise'