Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-16
rae HIeHEB COURTS.
sJno eres Of Decisions Rendered at the
Prss9nt rYIer sitllng.


syno eres Of decisions Rendered Mt th'
Prss9pt rvIer sitting.
ne Springfield fire and Marine Insur
a Ssc Company vs.. Violet Stewart. Appes
, Gem Dallas county, This was a suit L
recover insurance upon house, etc. The
lipetition alleged good cause for action
Y and the demurrer was properly oyerruled
When the charge covers all the issues
presented, aud there is no Fundamental
error therein which would prejudice the
rights OF appellant, the cause will 0t
affirmed Affirmed Wilson, j.
Sam Klein W Kane Shields. Apoefl
from Dallas county. judgment f.adnl
been rendered against Appellant Klelsl Il
the suit 10 justice court on September 6
1884, be sppealed TO the county court
and the appealed case was Iled and dock
eed in said last court on November 8
1854 On October 3, 1885, nearly I
year after II was flied in the county court
appellees, when the case was called fol
trial, made a motion 10 dismiss the ap
peal because the transcript had not been
sent up, although the original papers had
Motion sustained and appeal dismissed
Appellent subsequently made motion to
set aside the judgment Of dismissal and
TO reinstate, one OF the grounds OF the
motion being that the transcript had been
Il ed, This motion was su ported By the
/ justice Of the pace who tried the cause,
! Ia an aflidavit stating that he had sent up
a transcript as required by law. On this
showing II WAS error ~ refuse to set
asiie the judgment Reversed and re-
manded. Whit, j.
Missouri Pacific Railroad company VS..
+. M Wylder. Appeal from Cillin
County. THIS was a suit for damages for
the killing OF one jack and iLiurles in
hcted on another jack and a stallion,
while being transported over the rosd of
appellant The plaintiff, over protest OF
counsel for defeuse, was asked what
am unt he was damaged bv the stock
being sent to Greenville, and how much
the jack surviving and the stallion we're
damaged. The court allowed him to
answer these questions. Held, the EVIL
dence was admissible, the charge Of the
court as TO measure OF damages was
substantially correct, and the damages
found are fully warranted by the evil
dence Affirmed. White, +. j.
II. Levyson vs. Harbert, Blanks & Co.
Appeal from Caldwell county. Harbert,
Blanks & c.. recovered a Judgment
against Levyson in the county court on
the 2lst OF January, 1873, which iudg-
meut had become dormant by failure to
Issue execution. On the 18th of Deem
0er, 1885, Nix Story, surviving partners
OF Harbert, Blanks & Co., instituted this
SUIT, and had scire faciHs issued against
LrVyson to revive said dormant judgment.
Levyson pleade In bar of the action his
hlscnsrge In bankruptcy by decree Of
the United States district court
Tor the Western district OIL
leXas, after composition with |
MS said creditors, adjusted in said court |
Ihese bankrupt proceed gs were lnsti. |
tuted prior TO May, 1873, and Leyyson !
was finally discharged as bankrupt ia |
ne Unifrd States urt on the 9th dav Of |
Jolly, 1873. After Harnert, Blanks & Co. |
recovered their original judgment appeal
was taken, not by defendant Leyyson,
)ut by lntervenors, TO the court of an
Dcals, and here affirmed at the Austin
Term, 1881. Mandate issued, and at the
July term, 1881, of the county court of
Caldwell county, the mandate having
oeen filed, final order was made in said
COURT awarding execution and strik-
ng the cause from said docket
Though this suit was pending prior to and
turing the whole of the proceedings In
oankrup cy, 1t does no: appear that Levy
son ever interposed his plea in bankruptcy
u bar to the proceedings in the state
court, and his plea in bankrup cy In bar to
mis- present action to revive the Judgment
8 general one, and does not affirmative
y allege that this particular debt was in
'olVed In, or In any manner considered,
passed upon or adjudic 4ted In said bank
uplcy proceed gs. The plea was, In our
'plnlon, insufficient in rot stating by
proper affirmative averments that
he Judgment sought TO be revived
lad as debt been adjudlcated, or
ettled In the bankruptcy proceedin es.
ne Judgment, so lar as anything appears
the record or by his plea, may have
'eeh deht which WAS not discharged by
rs bankrupt proceeding, by being debt
Nltnlh the exception contained in the
90 section OF the bankrupt law. A dis
harge in bankruptcy is of no avail unless
loaded aud proven. A state cDurt will [,
axe no notice OF proceedings in bank.
uptcy in federal court unless it is
roperly presented in way that It can
. ludlciously acted upon. Affirmed.
White, L j
Home Insurance company VS.. Il.
akin. Appeal from Lamar county. This !
the fourth appeal of this case. None
the errors assigned are in our opinion !
enable. The evidence objected TO and
omitted was admissible. The evidence
fired by appellant was not admissible !
llirmed White, p. j, :
Hannah Richardson, ADMINISTRATIVE, VS.. 4
Ohm A Melt Appeal from Guadaloupe !
ounty This was a suit by appelles /
gainst appellant, as administrators of !
le estate of one Saunders, on rejected !
ieount. The account was for money /
Rid Saunders himself, and on debts 4
wing by him u Is apparent that $50 A
as barred and should have been stricken
nt Unless he paid said accoun IS I
sainst Saunders at he special Instance 4
nd request II Saunders, or unless c
lunders ratified such payments, aud Q
lere is no proof that Saunders either re. /,
Tested or ratified the same, we can not a
Ink he has any right Of action against
luDders' estate, A debtor is not a
'llged to accept another party ii
his creditor without his. consent Il
e owes some one; and he may have par. IL
al nafaEuaa f,r. Nfh