Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-15
THE HIGHER COURTS.
sJncpsss Of Decisions Rendered ut the
Present yyisr sit,lng.

NNN~N =" WIS tNee ~ supply t0Ulclont 10
show that the application made to The
surveyor by the sppellees to purchase the
northwest end southwest quarters OF the
section Of school land described in the
petition, WAS made before the appellant
Dubois applied Tor these quarter sections
and another. II ms that several an.
piieations for this land was received and
uled Dy the surveyor, who Ignoring other
applications sod TO Dubois. II the land
was on the market for appellant Dubois, we
can not see why Ii was not on the market
for appellee, The Judgement Of the
court below viii 20 corrected rs
clearly only to vacate the application
aud claim of Dubois as 10 the
land embraced In the northwestern
and southwestern quarters Of section
number twenty-f0ur la CLAY count
located as public free school land upder
certificates issued to the Houston &
Texas Central Railroad COMPANY
but as this inadvertent entry was
no. called to the attention OF the court
below, the costs Of this appeal VIII not be
gwen to appellant. Thus made certain
and applicable only to the land applied
Tor by the appellee, the Judgment win be
affirmed. Stayton. y
Bryant, Holmes ct 81. VS., b. Il. Buckuer
ct al. Appeal from Wise county. This
was an action OF trespass TO try title
brought by appellants against Buckuer
and several other defendants, TO recover
one-iourth OF league OF land lying ia
Wise county and originally granted 10
William Watson. The plea OF the defen.
dants was not guilty and Judgment was
rendered in the court below In their
favor and from the judgment this appeal
Is taken. The appellants clam the land
as heirs, or yendees Of the heirs OF one
h. I. Watson, and each OF the appellees
claim distinct portion OF the land as a
! purchase from w. Is. Roberts, who
| bought It at an execution sale made I'M
| der a judgment obtained by Roberts
against Watson and w. A. Davis In a
| Justices court In Fannin county,
The appellants say that the judgment was
| obtained by default in court OF special
| Jurisdiction, and does not show upon it's
face that service had been had upon the
defendants In the judgment, aud was
therefore void. 1t was obtained
before the presiding Justice OF the
! peace OF Fanuin county, who
1 by act Of May 90, 1873, had jurisdiction
co-eXtensiye with the limits OF his coun-
! ty when amount in controversy was not
less than 500 and not more than $1,000, in
Orr vs. Pnins, 10 Texas ISL, this act was
\ held to be constitutional, and Ia Williams
| VS., Ball, so Texas sos, 1t was held that
! justices court being created by the con-
stnution, exercised within their defined
limits general Jurisdiction, and that their
judgments could not be attacked as void
Tor not showing al the facts necess lry to
] give court Jurisdiction. We think
therefore the judgment could not BIZ col
Ilaterally attacked for not showing On its
face the service had been obtained upon
the defendants Ii Is objected that the
justice Issuing the execution had no hu-
thority TO do 30, the judgment being for
an amount beyond his jurisdiction. His
predecessor had authority to render the
Judgment, and this Justice was required
10 enforce such Judgment by execution
without eference to what would have BEEN
his own powers had the cause been be-
fcge him, instead Of his predecessor In
committing 10 him the unfinished busi-
ness of his predecessor, the law In effect
authorized him to execute che former
valid judgment in as full a manner as II
a special statue giving him that power
had been enacted. The purchsser's title
is not dependent on the sherift's making a
proper return of the execution. He has
no control IN the ofllceT, and therefore is
not preiudced by deficient or incorrect
return, nor by the entire absence OF any
return whatever. Afilmsd. Willie, G j.
II X Halton ct al. vs.. Il. II. Salmons.
Appeal from Panola county. The land in
controversy was patented TO Il w. Sal
mons, and his death Is shown. The ap-
psllee Is his widow, and facts are SHOWN
which make the land prcsumptlously COM
tv ~ ~ b.-ft no nj h.r
deceased husband II is urged that the
court erred, that In overriding motion
for new trial. Defendant claims Ii they
could have been present they could have
proved title by Limitation. II seems that
Hslton relied upon the presence Of his CO.
defendant, who relied upon his attorney
TO inform him when he should be present,
and that they each failed 10 attend. The
record SHOWS b th parties announced
ready for trial i. is the duty Of litigants
to use reasonable diligence, and II they
fail TO do go, court Is not authorized 10
grant new trial, and thus delay the dis
position of business to the prejudice of
the adverse party, Affirmed Siayton, j
\ Pltklns, Brooks CT al. VS.. i II. John
son ct al. Appeal from Bowie county.
The first assignment OF error is, "The
court erred In falling TO instruct the jury
correctly upon the questions OF collision
aud fraud between the plaintiff and de-
PENDANTS, Shut & Eyers, as raised and
presented by the pleAdings and evidence
Of the intervenors under the statute OF
frauds.n In what respect the court fall
ed TO charge correctly ON this subject
the assignment of errors does not snow,
and we cannot 20 through pleading and
4 evidence to hunt for errors. II IL prob
able, however, that It Is the second as.
signment of error complained Of as fol-
lows: "The court erred In fall
ing to Instruct the Jury that
II all or any Of the notes sued on by
plaintiff was without consideration and
fraudulent, such fraud would vitiate
plaintiffs attachment proceedings as
against the intervenors." The court
charged The jury to the effect that II the
notes were without consideration or
fraudulent the attachment proceeding
would be yitiated. This was good law as
I -. a. 1al