Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-04-19
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis OF Decisions Rendered nj the AUS
tin sitting OF tho supreme Court.
efpurNtr Cpfrp1,

SyuOpslb OF DeciSions rendered NJ tnc AuN-
tin sitting OF the supreme Court,
SUPREME COURT.
Floyd Co. VS.. Efron & Co., appeal |
from Bexar. Where the evidence showed !
that Efron had agreements to furnish TO
merchants in Boston wool OF a certain
grade, and that an agreement was entered
into by Elron with Floyd TO buy the wool
and ship through Efron to Boston, to
share losses and profits, aud that losses
occurred which Efron had. paid, he was
emitted TO recover from Floyd interest
upon one. half the amount so paid from
the date Of payment.
The appellee RENTED part OF the
Judgment rendered. on the ground that
the court had ruled that he was not en-
titled to the interest given to him by the
verdict, which was authorized by the
charge, and he assigns this as error, ana
asks this court 10 set aside his remittitur.
This was his voluntary act, which this
court would not undo, even If 1t appeared
that remittitur was entered to avoid the
granting OF a new trial. Affirmed. opin-
ion by Stayton, j.
Wiley johnson vs. j. NJ. Ratliff, error
/ from suit on promissory note. The only
defense pleaded was partial pay
ment. There Is no assignment OF
errors nor is any error perceived. The
| transcript was 4 ed in this court by de-
/ PENDANT in error two days after it should
| have been, but 10y consent. Delay is sug-
gested and there appearing to have been
delay OF nearly ten months the judg-
ment is affirmed with damages. Opinion
/ by Robertson, j.
! w. a. Wynott VS.. w. Il. Hudson, APP
peal from Erath. The appellant formerly
| lived in Johnson county for many years,
but for four years past he had lived
in Erath, aud on the trial severa
witnesses who had lived in johnson
testified as to his reputation for truth ano
veracity while a resident OF johnson
county. This was objected TO by appel
liant upon the ground that the witnes!
could not state the reputation OF appel
liant at that time in the neighborhood IL
which he lived. There was no error IL
admitting this testimony. The appeIlan
was of mature age, and the law does no
presume that person OF mature ag
whose reputation has been notoriousl
bad TO within period Tx
this has reformed so as h
acquire different reputation. Th
evidence offered may not have bee
{ entitled to so much weight as II it had re
lated to his reputation in the communit
in which he lived at the time the test
+ mony was given, but 1t was such as wa
! entitled to be considered by the jury
! Affirmed. Opinion by Stayton, j.
Jno. McNarama VS.. A Munsch, snpea
, from Falls. The plaintiff offered In evi
q deuce two deeds, which purported to cor
yey TO him the land sued forand describe
in his petition. There was no proof B
4 defendant. There was some defect i
la call in the deed I
A plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. In
. two deeds in evidence, coupled with IN
p admission Of common source OF tile, ]
the absence Of some evidence tending
!. show superior right In the defendant
The particular tact claimed by him in b.
a HEADINGS, required finding IN favor {
/, the plaintiff. II the call for distance lrol
the southwest corner of the u. tract TO
, stoke in the north line of the Il. tract, Q
- called for in the deed be not correct, an
:, facts exist which would make the call X
A the f line the controlling call, IN
= f,ct should have been shown
"a the defendant. Reversed and remande'
\. Opinion by Stayton, j.
10. II. Smith VS.. Miller ct al, appe
M from Eannin. The law OF this case WI
settled by decision of the commission
IT. ers upon a former appeal except so lar
relates 10 an esioppel and notice. IL
~ .s.ipned as error that the court erred
"a instructlng the jury that notice 10 MT
smith or her husband, the land pen
claimt d by them in her separate rignt,
= the claim Il Miler would deprive ootn
the character of innocent purchasers.
sh IL be the law that notice to the husDah
r. a. shown to have been gwen
d This case, would not oPeIa
d, as notice TO the wllei tne clhll
~ complained Of could not have pre]uulc'
y. her interest, for the facts snow .nat , ~
IA IN fact. had knowledge OF all facts whl'
~ w.re hroupht 10 the knowledge Of q
~ bush hand. and in a previous part OF Z
80 charge the Jury were told that "Notice
~, h, r husband would not be sufficient a
!! less he communicated the same TO 4
N n.fore her purchase, or else he was D
M. agent to purchase This land ~.
The Judgment was In favor OF plant
no snr the land and in favor OIL .
ia fendant for an amount OF money
~ excess OF that rendered, ana III !
20 registry of the court there was no orc
90 lar execution. Under the Judgment !
>, defendant ia entitled TO the money
ha conrt aud for the balance adjudged 70 n
he nav have hisexecution. Affirmed op
Of ion by Stayton, j. - NJ, -,
,w from Mitchell. The second assignm'
of error is that the court erred IN oY
hal ruling defendants !, 2, Q, and . spec
aat demurrer. These demurrers emorf
Inc many questions and the assignment pr
sas fieaily amounts 10 no assiRnmentat
md In the conclusions Of fact the 90
VS.. refers to the sequestrssilso,n alton, o1 ,ba,