Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-15

TNIuANhlLA ANE 0t-@NlnA " NeAAAA~t~-
property Il husband survive.
me grandchildren here took
nothiuz by inheritance and Moore &C
quired no title by purchase from them.
reversed and reminded. Opinion By
Stayton, J
Ar. Norton vs.. Oliver & GTigrs, ap-
peal from Dallas our statute allows
surety, when Jointly sued with his princi-
pal, 10 have the question OF his surety
ship tried, ard II determined In his favor
MAKES Is the duty Of the court 10 direct
the levy OF the execution 20 be made upon
me property Of the principal situated IN
the county, before being levied upon
tie property Of the surety But i does
not require that such an issue be tried, or
such order made, unless the surety by 3
written statement set out In bis answer
asserts his suretyship and claims the ben
eft OF the statute. Arts. 3t62-5h6a, i. >.
The court Is not bound OF It's own mo-
ton 70 enter the or5er when the surety
has neither claimed IL Ia bis pieadings
NOR brought it 70 the attention Of the
court In any other manner. Affirmed VITA
damages. Opinion BY Willie, G. J..
AL. Mauock vs.. National Bank, ap-
neal from Cook. Suit WAS agsiDst
Ramsell Matlock and Goats, makers Of
a note, and against Chick, for fore
closure OF vendors line. The
court irving the case without
"a inry, found for plaintiff
agsinst the makers Of the note,
and in favor Of Chics as TO the vendors
lien. The judgment was rendered ac-
cordingly, with judgment for costs as
follows: "That plaintiff recover Of de-
PENDANTS, Matlock, Ramsell and Coats all
costs In this behalf expended, and that
defendant Chick recover OF plaintiff all
costs By him incuTed.h Held, that the
effect Of this judgment IS not TO entitle
plaintiff to recover OF Matlock, Ramsell
and Coats the amount which is adiudged
against the plaintiff In favor Of Chick. If
there was danger that the judgment would
De miscOnstrued by the clerk, appellant
should have corrected the judgment be-
low, or made objection TO II on motion
for new trial. Affirmed with damages.
Opinion By Willie, c. J.
Lyon & Gribble VS. Logan & Munday,
appeal from ClSy. The land was de-
scribed In the AFFIDAVIT which was regis
tered In order to tx the mechanics lien
as follows: "Lot I or Of block No. 66,
OF the town Of Henrietta, Texas, pun
chased BY said Logan from James Mar
tin" The petition alleged that Logan
received from Martin title to the whole
block, and claimed the lien on the whole
block The claim Of lien on one Of the
two lots as asserted ia the affidavit
was not made certain by the pc
uhun, and the court below
Old not err IN sustaining q demurrer 70
the petition so far as lt asserted g len,
and the debt not being within the
jurisdiction II the district court and
plaintiff declining 20 amend, judgment
Of dismissal was correct Affirmed.
Opinion By Robertson, y
Tidbal, 20 al vs. ". Eichof, appt9l
from Tarran-. Suit originally in the
county court and transferred 20 the dis
trict court. The items sued for was at
torney's fees $3.50; travelling expenses
$50; interest On a sum Of money IN the
registry Of the court SIPS; costs S82
The suit was on a bond, aud on q former
appeal this court held that only
the item % interest was recover
able. Judgment was accordingly
rendered By the court below for the in
terest, amounting 90 Si02. II is con-
tended thar this amount. being within the
exclusive Jurisdiction Of Justices court, the
district court could not renOer judgment,
AAAh 1AAAAAN AtAFE AAtAAaa-EAaAs AAafN hbl~N-
ton is not well taken. The jurisdiction
is fixed aud must be determined by the
petition, unless an issue is made by the
pleading OF fraudulent syeTments for the
purpose Of giving jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Opinion by Willie, c. j.
Blanton ct 81. VS. Ray e. al.,appeal from
Fsnnin. The statute requires that predi-
cate shall be laid by stlldayit
OF the loss OF an instrument only when it
Is proposed to Introduce as evidence
certified copy Of Il. Il. s., 2251. when
proved as at common law, sufficient
predicate is laid when the loss or de-
struction OF the Instrument Is shown by
the evidence produced at the trial. Al
tirmed. Opinion by Willie, C, j.
State of Texas VS. Stone Cattle Com
pauy, error from Archer. This suit was
brought under the act Of April IA, 1883,
''to create land board" section Of
which contains this clause; ee" 'pro-
yided, that suits for the recovery OF such
lands against non.resideuts or corpora
lions shall bt brought Ia the district court
Of Trayi. cOuntyn This is a suit against
a corporation, and is brought in Archer
county. The statute Is mandatory and
there was no error In sustaining the de
murrer to the petition and diSmlssing the
case. Affirmed Opinion by Robertson, J
49, alaHa 49,. 81. l.