Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-18
- HIGHER COURTS.

lgon ., each Of which contained
& o. 49, ~. wm. 4. Lyon and wife,
n ting Ni.v dcclare that no part Of
son. % NSiori conveyed by this deco
A aestiio.sso. any snv part OF our homestead
"A torstl wv, Nj any claim 70 amy part
II wy ny. n, homestead, OF tne NOME
Z W. y v- we further ueciarc tilas
T. slt.ta consists only anu vnsi'Viy ~
49, which We now i ,r ~ e ~,
II va Bufleson eoun.5 ~ land more
II feala ..a,.t of 800 acres conveyed 70
81 iii@t ~ Meiyer and I.aia.cUe
n f0n Wsnt.d february -. loi2 ana
III ieei us's ~ naees aO3, SOf and 3o1 VI
N le noos aeeds II 5urlesou county,
"A .,ahere that the land was
n cea,sels.s ~ and after the execution
d .td ?. III .l,.s n 1 support the nnding
~ ide y IN the homestead but u Is
ls wv declaration In the deco IS we
y W. w, ,ra ION provided by me statute,
IN ponsct TO rcstIlct tho uuiiiS9s .tst
"a acres. lR ,. .9asJ' nyiu, ia.
81 ,oas Of that statute ohit apr.; act a.,
slplJ tarms part of a larger tract or
,sifa.a. t III, N q Sempt from forced sale.
i lana wv" NOT authorize the head Of n
+ r'e W. IN sAimply 10 define n home.
tohtfa, Np,a ~ received no aid from
no or.''.a INC statute does not intend
10 ieon,sas emitting down the homestead
man " 81 uses of the family have
u ~ Nnete ~ az n means OF marking the
g. 10 len the use hiss extended the
j. 70 W. the effect OF sucn q uocla'
- q. il. ia Aid OF the etatnte, IL deter
l.sinsNinka VS.. Downing, 09 Tex W.
"a hs..riI revise tho conclualon OF
" * the effect OF impro er IemMks
"a 6utin rider TO reverse " tne case
IN pla als.ented the trial Judge could very
civr this cOurt the beneiit, In an
W a'.n ~ bfll OF any fact or views not
W v ,se record In any Otner manner,
" ~ conclusions that tue remarks
"A L. aneneed the result OF the trlal'
f oplnIon by Robertson, D.
Il Tevas Continental Meat Com
II \, ram Victoria When a Vendcc
y ,eseiye personal property con
M seller mas either of three rem
4 ". ean hold the property ms the prop
FL y yrnaee and sue for the price; or he
IN. " hls vendors lien upon the prop
ssis saie OF it and sue the vcndce for
,tsr,,ee ne fails to realize; or he can
.,hnerty as his own and sue tor dam
Xxx eiects the latter remedy, the
|&a,hls damage Is the differences be
~ eoatracI price and It's market value
n M when II ought 10 have en- no
ihe yendee Parsons Contracts,
"a sN There being no proof oil the mar
IA lin ihls case, the evidence would not
Ia finding for damages. Affirmed.
~ IN Robertson, j.
n II al. VS.. stubbleneld ct nj. appeal
uion. ...t,,,,,. a.
q. ~ law and fact Is complained only in
= rnro.gt of errors, Il VIII not be coneid
~ I'M court. Such matter must appear
II. ment in favor Of dead plaintiff is not
Ia Il erroneous, but ca not be attached
u. m iisTex, ,3li nor would the fact that
"a remaining plaintin was n bankrupt In
f. rer affect the validity of the judg
1I,Thg asslgnec would have the right 10
I'm ibe shit in the name of the bank
IA hc could allow the bankrupt TO prose
AZ sult, ana then receive It's fruits. such
ent l. neither I'D nor voidable, AZ
Fl Opinion by Robertson, }.
E4 s,eed VS.. Pett, ct a., appeal from
4 Mrs. L. 4. Stced devised the land In
f 7 two daughters, who were plaintiffs
Y nd appellves here. After hor death the
AZ paiiltoucd among her four children,
Il and two daughters, upon the under
m .that, AS the father intend d to leave
|&pefN TO the tw brothers, they, the
n would share II equally with the sis-
4 leh brother took possession OF one.
.# iOf the land and made i'm
'"ents. 1t WIS known to all
IA What the provisions of tho mothers
IN. TheAgreem Mt to partition was not
NJ ~, and one daughter was q minor and
married woman at the time. The
4 does not chow that the sisters re
ia ds.rbuilye share OF the fathers estate
ST. he agreement. Hold, that mar led
~ AID infants are II 4 cstopped In pois
their conduct has been intcn
and fraudulent and as there
"a ifsud upon the part OF the sisters
Ire not estopped from claiming the
etllle TO which had never passed out
In any manner recognized By law.
6Iihe suitwas begun before this adoption
eylted statute, allowance for use and
tobc < ivernod by the law then In force,
III court should have instructed the jury
plaintiff could not recover for INC use
Iupali0n u the plaintiff la not, and the
" ani had paid The tax on the land. Re.
IN and reminded. Opinion by stay ton, d.,
breach of promise case OF Peter DaVic,
fti, W. Henrietta EsCude, appellee, de-
n aesdAy by the supreme court, some in
~ g matters are touched upon In the very
" ylOn rendered by the new junior mem
r lAe highest tribunal In the state. Tue
Nissppealed by Dayle fr, m the district
|nh Galveston county, the jury IN the
s. court awarding plaintiff, Henrietta LS-
+ ne sun OF $500 damages, and the supreme
" " dcclsiOn says Mr., Dayle must pay
Z, feArs from tue records that Dayle ap-
Il Ne case alleging "A number of errors,
= lhe supreme court touches upon. re.
YFg Tue third and fourth assignments OF
7 We learned iurist says; "Iheso assign
3 complain OF the charge OF the court on
asuIe Of damages The only particular
~ I that the jury were authorized Ia
~ y mat defendant (Davie) hao gotten the
M WIN child In making their estimate Oi
nAgts. This Is uniyersall held to be. {
u matter OF consldp ration 10y the jury II
ases tsuucrland on Damages, vol y, ?
And u was presented e
HH Without emphasis and with nj
anc {, The very business like nnture o
Erequired,
liih assignment Is that there wac no nj
IN ihe petition warranting charge OF
~ INC plaintiff ale ges that 4 fendan
IA 70 marry her, won her confidence ant
.sclion, eoeened her of her virtue, go
Y chlld, blighled her matrimonial pros
ny 'hen refused TO per form his contract
aAmag twenty five bundled dollars
sunohy makes his promise, her aftec
geaeence, virtue, and his parentage O
NAL look exceedingly doubtful; bu
= loaeh
"a passiug sixth and seventh assignments
FINN elrof, the court continues as follows
NV luiy and court below In see ng an
W Me WiinesHcs did not OCT py so niue
N Yssiuon Than We do to determine VIII
ia r-nuk lhe Truth, we would b
"A tnpled TO set aside the judgmeI
=. stganu mat the plaintiffs evidence
en- 70 support IT, We have looked /
Ivy statement OF facts for witness Q
IN ,1ssAhIe 10 corrobOraie her story of
ssSs.a marriage. She never told anyb0d
/. 49, was 2 prospect of q matriinonli
. ,, sssNeen her and defendant Mono {
& ~ s,,, ,sses ever hea d of the engagement
I" ". na'seu or went TO church or theat'
~ anl ne was seen with her only
IA ~as WIN others In the most uninvitin
n, aaks whist che was engaged as II
defendant about tho otfals of
i. IN ,.nourc The situation was not on
~ s,',iD sentiment, but TO the average ma
~ W. 70 lhe eNcitatlon Of sexual proper
e'ueI htr husband was dead or ~
"a e NV OF the alleged promise IL by l
1 lArss,a She swears he was, whilst
IN "u witness ewcars lao vi
s. we promise was made, Il
AZ ,1sai.ssc she sustained vs.
f. ~, s',ieu from her pregnancy. II
n. M. shough moi just in Issue by q
+, 4 e ~, W. Shown 10y the testimony to
n es,i W. deprive her OF all right 70
~ M ~ an hdvanteg .ous matrimOni
4 ,neso u no attempt at tears
N llsa,ss confidence. bl GIFTED aiio
n n ~ anopes, disgraccd and despairii
IN aggrayaton OF enmages i'm ii
Fl asd eh such claims IN view Of the 90
)znsd i,a..,.cter OF the plaintiff would ha
81 glost l 4, al and have made the ca
& II nv splle OF % basis OF pure math
~ ns 49, pialntin was no blushing ri
IN. ~Alden when she flrst tnr,,. t6e a