Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-13

ty. This was a suit in the county court
y appellees against the railroad company
for S77l SO loss and damages on account
of three shipments OF cattle, ETC., over
appellants road The case was tried by
the Judge and resulted in verdict for
plaintiffs for S577 SO. In It's answer to
the petition the DEFENDANTS company, in
its fifth subdivision of the answer, plead.
ed the special stipulations and limitations
10 the second contract for the shipment
Of twelve carloads of cattle from Abilene
TO Toyah, Tex. This was excepted to
and sustained by the court. Held, cor
rect, the contract TO be performed in this
state. We are of opinion that the com
pany was liable for the 1927 90 paid Tor
the return passenger fare of Tyler and
kinsey, the company having contracted to
return them free Of fare, and it is shown
that their contract OF free passage was
ignorantly delivered to an official
of the company who demanded IL.
There was a condition in each of the
three contracts which made it a'condi-
ton precedent to the right of the shipper
to claim and recover damages for loss or
injury to the stock in transit; that notice
IN writing verified by the affidavit of the
shipper OF his claim therefor should be
given to some general officer, or nearest
station agent OF the company before the
| stock was removed or mingled with other
stock within one day after delivery at
point OF destination. The learned Judge
who tried the case finds in his conclus-
ions that the notice was not given, and
also that 1t was not eCessary--though at
| the same time he finds IL was part of
the contract, ana in law reasonable re-
| qu!rement, Error. Until the notice
J was given in the mode and manner con-
tracted, the plaintiff could not rec over
for damages. Reversed and remsnded.
White, p. j.
George Lee vs.. the State. Appeal from
| Lamar county. In this case the indict-
ment was presented and filed on October
4, 1856, and alleged the offense to have
been committed ON October %, 1886. The
indictment is therefore fatally dc fectlye
and the judgment is reversed and the
prosecution dismissed. Wilson j.
Eb Ogle VS.. the State. Appeal from
Burnett coulty. II is urged that the mo.
ton for new trial was improperly over.
ruled. The absent testimony was not
probably true in view of the other evil
dence The charge Of the court is suffi.
Gent and correct and embraces the spe.
cial charges requested by defendent sub
stantially. Affirmed. White, p. j.
W. G.. Martin VS.. j. Il. Jones ct al. Ap-
peal from Taylor county. Jones and
wife sued Martin upon promisory note
executed by HIM to the wife. The petit.
ton alleged that the note was the separ.
ate property of the wife. The defendant.
Martin, pleaded specially that he signed
the note with the express understanding
that Jones was to sign the note before he
delivered 1t TO his wife, and that they
We're to be Jointly responsible. An ex-
ception to this plea was made by Jones
and wife and sustained, and Judgment
was rendered in the court below for the
use OF the vile, the amount called for by
the notes with interest and costs. The
Vile was proper party plaintiff to the
suit, the petition alleging the note to be
her private property. II was not error
TO strike out the special ulea setting mn
as defense that the note, before il should
become operative and binding upon de-
PENDANT, must have been signed also by
Jones. 1t is well settled that the delivery
10 the payee of a negotiable note is, In
law, absolute and complete. The delivery
OF the note to the husband WAS delivery
TO the wife, the payee, because ne was
ner agent in he transaction. Affirmed.
Wilson, j.