Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-04

Wit OF possession Issued, but was never
executed, because In January, 1856, Gar.
nlu & Huey purchased the property
from the city. ON March lG, 1856, Thomp.
son OhmsteGe having sued out other
executions. on their judgments against
Campbell, had them levied upon a lot OF
ground In Corsicana, and on the 9Th OF
April the sheriff sold the lot at public
outcry TO T. G. Hightower, hut az the
date OF the commencement Of this suit
had not made deed to the property. This
suit was brought TO restrain the de-
PENDANTS, Thompson & Ohmstede, from
proceeding further with the collection OF
this Judgment, and the sheriff and High.
tower from carrying out the shorlff's sale
by the payment Of the purchase money
and the execution Of deed. Judgment
was rendered In the court below In favor
OF defendants and the Injunction ais.
solved The court below did not err In
holding that the property Involved In the
claim case was not delivered by the GlAim-
ants TO the sheriff, as provided by our
statute. This court holds there was no
delivery Ia this case, and II there had
been a delivery the eppellees were en-
titled 10 their execution, unless the sp-
pellants showed that the value OF the Ok.
lures paid T. & o.'s Judgment in full.
The Judgment is affirmed. Willis,
GU.
East Line s Red River Railroad com.
pany VS.. W. j. Brinker. Appeal from
Hopkins county. The plaintiff is not
bound 70 set forth In his petition with
any grea. particularly the specific acts OF
negligence which brought about his In
jury. A plaintiff Is not ordinarily pre-.
sumed to know the condition OF the
track, cars, machinery and equlpage OF Q
railroad so as to specify what particular
defect has brought about the disaster by
which he was injured. The specifications
In this case Of one particular in which the
crossing was defective did not con1nC
the plaintiff to proof OF that defect alone
Affirmed. Willie, Q. j..
Sanger Bros. VS.. Craddock & Rabb. Ap
peal from Hunt county. When the trlal
judge should have given charge upon
some particular point, but omits doing so
II the party who is injured by the omis
sion Of the charge fails to ask such q
charge, the omission of such charge vii
not be ground for reversal. One Of The
assignments Of error was; "rhe cour
erred In refusing TO give the specia
charges asked by plaintiff" Held, to b.
TOO vague ana indefinite ana cannot b
considered. Other charges are even NOR
indefinite than the one above and will no
be considered. Affirmed. Stayton, j
Mrs. II. Nj Love VS.. II. W. Powell. APP
peal from Navarro county, When an in
junction is dissolved by reason Of sworl
denial OF the facts stated in the petition, tn
suit should be con inued for hearing Of
the merits If plaintiff demands or indi
Gates his wish that this should be done.
plaintiff may bring suit for iniunctio
upon the final hearing without any re
straining order preliminary thereto, an
in such case the petition for iniunctio
need not be sworn to, When the plain
tif's writ Of injunction has been dissolved
and he indicates his wish that his suit b
dismissed, it is the duty OF the court
do SO, but when he is silent, IL seems I
ia an arbitrary rule not in accord wit
our system Of jurisprudence that tn
suit be dismissed, We conclude that I
the case before us the court erred in NJ
holding the case over for trial upon u
merits. Reversed and remRndet
Gaines, j.