Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-03

Grayson. ConcedIng that the plaintiff
was guilty OF negligence IN NOT stopplnl
his team when warned by me company
servant, this would not contribute 70 th'
injury, II the engineer after discovering
the danger refused TO use the means
Ia his power TO prevent the injury -
run the engine Immediately ir front oil
team only from four TO ten feet away
when the horses are already frightened
by the approaching engine, is a theory
supported by the evidence, and u OeileYeo
by the Jury their verdict awarding dam
ages was warranted.
The company was not In the legitimate
use Of the crossing az the time OF the ac-
cident II that use involved the platinum 10
danger avoidable by the postponing It's use
OF such crossing for few moments, Inc
supreme and first use OF street Is iOf
the ordinary travel over IT, The right Of
a railroad to operate its trains across u
is subordinate TO the use OF the general
public. Affirmed. Opinion by Robert
son, j.
Herman Stisler VS.. Hooper ct al, APP
peal from Kendall The Instrument,
though In form power OF attorney, is IN
/ effect contract between Butler and ALI
ri { .by which the latter undertook TO locate
for the former his land certificate ana 10
receive one-third of the land so obtained.
I 10 was held by the court below lhat the
rightof Allgtlt under the contractor ne dld
/ perform his part, was no interest legal or
equitable In the land, but mere right TO
compel Butler to make O deed to MIN.
This was error, II he performed
his contract he became the
owner in equity Of one-third OF
the land located, and II his equity was
not repudiated or barred by lapse OF
time, and no loches or limit9uon, he
could not be evicted by the holder OF the
legal title. Rev rsed and remanded.
Opinion by Robertson, j.
MOTION.
Statement of Facts-It IS supposed that
the decision in Blum VS.. Nelson, 90
Tex. 37S, holds that an order for
leave to file the statement of
facts will be of no avail unless
made upon written request. Such Is
not the effect Of that decision. IL was
intended 20 indicate to the profession
how they should proceed, in case they
desired TO have refusal of such order
made the ground of review In this court
Whenever such an order is in the record
1t Is effected, whether made at the re-
quest, oral or written OF either party, or
without such request at all. Motion to
strike out statement of facts denied.
Willie, CD.
a. L. Peters ct al VS.. Jack Lawson ct al,
appeal from Hood. In proceeding by
the clerk to ascertain TO whom money in
his hands should be paid, judgment was
rendered which was in effect judgment
that the money belonged to appellees. |
Peters appealed and executed a
supers IDEAS bond. On appeal |
the Judgment was affirmed and |
a judgment here entered against Peters |
and his sureties for the amount adjudged |
below and all costs. The sum of money |
10 the hands Of the clerk was paid over, /
aud appellant claims that that satisfied |
he Judgment The execution for the
balance due on the judgment, after de-
luCting the amount due on the bonds of
he clerk was fully authorized by the
tbs commended that the receipt given
~ the attorneys for the money turned
over by the clerk was in full satisfaG
ion Of the Judgment and that it
was error in permitting evidence
10 show the contrary. The sum reoeipted
or was less than the amount of the |
and the attorneys under gen
,ral employment would not have been I
authorized to receive less sum than was |
due in full satisfaction, and there being |
no fact pleaded or proved which confirmed ,
such power, there was no error in admit
ting evidence to show what was intended
by the receipt. Affirmed. Opinion by
Staytou, j.
j. W, Gee VS., S. p. Saunders, appeal
from Bell, The note sled on was
negotiable instrument, payable one year
after date, ana was transferred before
by Rucker, the payee, to Saun-
ders & Co, and WAS afterward trans
terred by Saunders Co. to the plaintiff
These indorsees were presumably limo
cent purchasers without notice of
the defense set up: failure
Of title to the land on
which the lien was sought to
be forecloscd; aud the plea did not aver
any fact that would charge them with no.
lice of the alleged failure of the vendors
title. There was no error in sustaining
the exceptions TO the answer.
A variance between the Endorsement
alleged and that proved, one being S. =. !
Saunders 4 Co. and the other Saunders & |
Co., Is not such as TO mislead and is not |
Affirmed. Opinion by Willie, |
ID,
IL NJ, n, NJ ttyz.tL 1...... ~.