Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-18
THE sUpREME COuRT.

1 Cpatrf.
). i. Bledsoe, administrator, VS.. j. g
beller, appeal from johnson. claim
may De presented for allowance to ain ae.
mlnistrator, pending an application bv
the administrator for q iinal settlement of
the estate, but before an order for par,,.
ton and distribution has been made, I'M.
I'll sncn an order is made, he is still adj
minlstering the estate In trust for the paw.
ment OF all the debts, and not for certain
creditors whosa debts have already been
allowed But the administrator claims
that there being no means, there Il NO RI.
sponsiOillty for debts; that as there was
no property TO distribute, the estate was
IN the same condition as though distrj.
button had already been made. IL Is true
he reported nothing, but II Is made TO an.
/ pear that tract OF land had been inven.
torled, and not disposed OF. IL is stated
/ that 1t had been sold BY the surviving wife
and sole devisee, but whether this land
was subject TO plaintiffs debt was
question he had right to test. The
Judgment Is reversed on the question of
the measure Of damages recoverable on
the warranty. Reversed and remauded
Opinion by Willie, G. j.
VI. L. Weider vs. w. T. Maddox ct nj.
appeal from Tarrant. One Spiro. an in.
solvent person who resided in Missouri.
made voluntary assignment of All his
property for benefit Of his creditors .excnnt
such as by the laws OF that state
was exempt This assignment was made
IN accordance with the laws OF Missouri,
and was such as under our own state Law
| would n "a t4uff "a
covered stock Of goods situated ut Fort
worth, Tex at which place, as well as
at 81. Louis, Mo-, Spiro was doing a
mercantile business The goods at Fort
| Worth were seized by Maddox as sheriff,
on the next day after the assignment
was made, under attachment issued
In suits by creditors against Spiro. This
action is by the assignee for the value NJ
enc goods. The petition alleged the exc,
cution OF bond 10y the assignee, posses
sion oil the goods by agents, and notice
to the sheriff before seizure. The petit
ton was dismissed on demurrer. Held,
such assignments are voluntary, and the
right to make them, itmade bona fde, is
not derived from statutes, but exists et
common law. The statutes regu-
late voluntary general assign
EIFulLNIA
made by an insolyent debtor IN accord
ance with the laws of the place OF his
domieile, Will operate TO pass al bis per-
sonal property wherever situated, unless
the operation Of such an assignment Is
limited or restricted by some law Of the
state In which the property is situated.
The rule that such assignments are 70 be
given erect in the foreign state only as y
VIA t..fg. "a H..
erection Of courts TO give or deny
power too little restricted,
underlined and unlimited to be tolerated
in any country governed by laws. Nor
does the fact that the exempt property Of
the debtor IL TO be determined by the
laws of Missouri furnish reason why IL
should be held invalid in this state. The
fact that the assignee is required by tue
law Of Missouri 10 administer the
estate under the direction of court
OF that state does not have
any effect upon the validity Of the assign
ment. The petition alleged that the
debtor had no debts owing TO citizens
of Texas--even IL be had, 1t would not
change the result. The court erred In
sustaining the demurrer. Reversed and
tice Robertson not sitting. s,..-ts3~
COURT OF APPEALS.
Henry Dixon VS.. State, appeal from
Ellis. The question presented is, is IL
essential IN an indictment for the offense
of selling Intoxicating liquors in viola
ton OF the local-option law, to allege the
name of the person TO whom the liquor
was sold, or, in case the name OF such
/ tn ha
| to allege that fact? In the case OF
Sedberry VS.. State, IA CT. app.
233, and Mcmillan vs.. State, Is ct. app
875, Indictments which did not contain
such allegation were held sufficient, but
the indictments were not excepted TO on
that ground, and hence those decisions
are considered as settling the question.
The court reviews the cases OF Bunch VS.,
Republic, Tex. Cos; Bush vs. state, !
Tex. ASS Alexander VS.. State, 20 Tex,
495; Cochran vs., State, - lex, o,ei
Eppstein VS.. State, | ! ct. app. i76; White
Va State. Id. 4s0: and Mansfield
vs.. State, II Oh. App. 46S, and cay 1--WE
conclude the true rule TO be as stated in
Alexander vs.. State, suprad." The in-
allotment not alleging TO whom the liquor
was sold. it is defective In the substance
nuttIthlH ubu uhAs Atef~AN',--N 49,
missed. Opinion by Wilson, J.
Bob Coleman VS.. State, appeal from
san Jscinto. The Indictment charged
the defendant with selling and
disposipg OF mortgaged proper,
lty: the property was alleged
10 be s'one brown horse, about ten years
old, branded ON shoulder D, G." Inc
mortgage introduced in evidence so dei
scribed the animal There was no posi-
live evidence as to the brand on the
horse which defendant sold. one witness
said he thought 1t branded II. The state
having alleged the brand, II became ma
terial, because descriptive OF the
! identity of the animal, ana u
deyolved upon the state 0Pfote THIS sile-
cation strictly. Allen VS.. state, ct.
app. eco. The charge Of the court was ~
direct conflict with this rule and was
erroneous. Reversed and renamed.
Opinion by Wilson, J
Fatnl sunsiroks at san Antonio.
special 10 the Gazette
sAx AxroSIo, Tx, June lf.--Ihe
....t.a - fha season occurred