Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-22

transaction. The $500 note was for A
valid demand Held, that II IA obvious
that there II ample valid consideration to
support the promise sued upon, yet II 70
the abundance OF valid consideration
there has been added ieavcn of what Is
illegal, the whole contract IS tainted.
Storey on Contracts, sec. 5sS; Bishop on
Contracts, sec. al. The good considea.
ton has no virtue 10 cure the bad, but the
bad corrupts the whole. Inn 2ig;
Ohio 400. In some courts the contract Is
held valid, II In declaring upon aud pfov-
ing II, the plaintiff can escape the ievel.
opment OF the poisonous element, This
would prevent the defense In every case
In which the illel al demand Is evidenced
by promissory note, and Is manlfestly
not the law. Sulegson va. Lewis, tTyler.
Tenn, 1882 There Is no mogls In a
note 70 purify vicious demand, II a
note is tainted by the consideration OF
the demand for which It Is given there
can be no good reason for drawing the
line at the first note.
II the first Is taken up aud new one
given In It's stead to obtain an extension
OF time 10 embrace II In additional de-
mands, or for other purposes, the illegal
consideration is as distinctly traced in
the second note as In the first. The new
considerations dilute but do not neutral.
ize or extinguish the poison. The the.
DRY, tending 10 support which the evil
dencc above set out was adduced, would,
II true, have been good defense 70 the
action and the court erred in refusing TO
so charge. Reversed and remanded
/ Opinion by Robertson, j.
Gulf Colorado 4 Santa lie Railway
Company VS.. Sam Holiday, appeal from
Brazos II is the duty Of the party ex-
cepting to see that his bills are died IN
| proper time. lie csunot be heard TO
complain that the trial Judge who affirmed
the bills In time did not cause them To be
| filed by the clerk
] This being an action for damages
caused by an overflow TO plaintiffs land
by the unskillful building OF entertainments
and culyorts OF the road, aud the defcnd.
ant having pleaded that was an extraor.
binary and unusual one, which they
were nc; Bound 90 provide against, Il
/ was proper TO allow proof that an over.
dow had occurred since, greater than the
one which caused the damage. Gray vs..
Harris, loy Mass, lQl.
OF Itself such evidence standing alone
would not be admissible; but after proof
that such floods had occurred at Intervals
of two, three aud four years for long
time, II certainly was good TO show that
the particular food Ia question was no
moro than might have been expected and
provided for.
| Railroad companies are required by our
statute, In constructing their roads, 20
take into consideration the lay of the
land and 10 construct the necessary cul-
Yerts or sluices for It's necessary drainage
II. S. Art, 4l7l. Tint they must usc care
Ia this respect so as not TO obstruct the
waters OF ordinary floods to the damage OF
adjacent lands, is settled by the dccsIons
| [50 Tex, sac; % Tex, 800. They must
take into account the probabilities OF
overflow, and, In estimating these, they
must consider what effect the size and
length OF the river near which they build
may have in producing them, as well as
the number and frequency OF lormci
floods.
As TO damages recoverable, the injured
party ought TO be put in the same condi.
ton, so far rs money can do IL, Ia which
he would have been II the tort had not
been committed, and interest Is necessary
TO the complete indemnity as the value
itself, Suth. Dam. IA Affirmed Opin
ion by Willie, g. -.