Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-17

aces AZ se000,u construed In the hgns
the pleadings, is a verdict In favor OF Tn
minor. ,..t,. ,A.ro
that ,ithere "A no rule Of law by which IN
damages for personal Injuries are 70 =
measnred'i is not correct, and II IL stoo'
alone would require y reversal, put "
corrected by other parts Of the charge
and IA Is not likely that any injury 70
| shifted. Affirmed. Opinion by Staytohi .
Dan sullivan VS.. O'Neal ct al, appea
from McMullen. The appellant claims oy
execution sale OF the land as the proper
~ ~ Zee The owners OF a large tracl
| NJ land had contracted with Lee 10 sen
MIN an undivided fourth. This contracl
was verbal. Afterwards purchase was
made and one-iourth set aside TOT Lee.
He paid half Of the purchase money, sha
also maid his vendors his share oil DnlIu-
ing a fence around the entire tract. Inc
nartitlon was verbal. Held that Lee nau
no interest in the land wnlcn
under the statute OF rauds
could be enforced, he never
having gone into possession
and he having no interest, appellant ac-
quired none by the levy of the execution
and sale. The plaintiffs sutton the lano
and specified performance was properly
decided against him. Affirmed. Opinion
by Robertson, j.
w, IL. Russue ct al, VS.. Coge, ct al,
appeal from Hays. The question pre-.
scented Is, whether tax OF one-tourth OF
one per cent. levied annually Tor ten
wears upon one million ana
seven hundred and fifty thousand
dollars of property VIII
liauidate $4,000 Of bonds bear
ing interest at per cent. (See Act OF
February II, 1881, Sec. 3 The county
is to ascertain the limit upon It's power
to issue the bonds by solving the problem
put In the third section. II 1t is figured
that nothing will be paid upon the princi-
pal until maturity, the limit Is exceeded.
On the other hand, II the proceeds OF the
taxnot required for current interest are
applied annually to the principal, the
county has not transcribed its authority.
The latter rule or calculation Is the cor
rect one. Affirmed. Opinion by Robert.
son, j,
Leatherwood ct al. VS.. Arnold and wife,
appeal from johnson. The defendants
offered TO prove, In order TO defeat PLAIN
tiff's title, that Mrs Robinson, after
qualifying as survivor, paid debts, which,
together with the allowances to which
she was entitled, exceeded In amount the
value Of the unexempt community prop
erty; and IL was insisted that she had
thus extinguished the community right in
the tract OF land before 1t was sold under
execution and bought by plaintiffs. The
evidence was rejected. In a very elabo-
rate opinion the court holds that this evil
dence was admissible, and If the facts
were established would defeat re-
coyery. "The surviving wife does not
owe the community debts, When she
lifts the community charge upon the
in her bonds, the property Is
hers, as unquali1edly MS II she had bought
II with her separate means at an eXecu-
lion sale Of II for the payment Of
4 community debt" at the COM
nunity property IL sufficient to satisfy
EXCAVATIONS and the widows allowances,
and also TO pay portion Of the general
debts, and she has paid upon these debts
as much as is left to them after satisfying
prior charges, she cannot be made liable
TO O creditor who has received nothing
She has satisfied the trust IN appropri-
lting the property to allowances,
aud the excess to the debts she
mas preferred sue uses hel onu
credit or means IN 'the payment
Of debts she eXtlnguished pro tanto the
interest in the property In her
hands, When called upon to account tne
aggregates alone will be dealt with.
Though she possesses every item origin
ally belonging to The trust estate, the
creditor can reach nothing, il wnat she
received did not exceed III Nalue the as
q ~ a. n.Us l.
bufsements or credits shown by her
OF equal OF superior dignity w Vno claliu
asserted against her." rms evidence was
under the plea OF mot guilty"
Reversed and remanded. opinion by
Robertson, j.
s. Moss VS.. Cameron Co., appeal
from Bosque. The bill of exception does
not show what the answers OF the wit
ness would have been TO the questions
propounded, and this coort cannot deter
mine In the absence of such information
whether or not the rejection OF the evil