Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-29


--------------
by the defendant In suit does not shift
the burden Of proving that the instru.
ment sued upon was executed
without consideration. IL merely
laws the foundation for the intro
I duction Of proof Of that fact by the de-
endant. There Is no authority cited 10
show that claim may not be verbally as.
signed without consideration so as %
authorize the assignee 10 sue upon It.
with the consideration Of the assignment
the debtor has nothing 70 do. That Is q
question between the parties 60 the trans.
fer Affirmed. Opinion by Willie, G J.
John Linney vs.. j. II Wood, from Vic
toria. The call for the beginning corner
OF grant in Spanish language being OBJ
scure, the court interpreted II to the
Jury construed It's meaning. Held, that
II the case II one Of patent ambiguity II
must be treated by the court as
imperative and void; II n latent am
Diguity, which e1traneous evidence makes,
aud which extraneous evidence must
solve, II is clearly for the jury to deter
mine. In either event, the court was IN
error. Whilst natural objects control
courses and distances as general rule,
vet neither OF them should absolutely
/ control the other when that other most
| truly indicates to the minds OF the jury
the proper locality OF the tract. Reversed
and remanded. Willie, CD.
Claudio Sails VS. Virginia Sails, APP
peal from Starr The paper set
up In the petition as an
agreement 70 arbitrate, and as the award
hereunder is clearly wanting in many
respects, but the petition set up good
cause Of action, and that it treated the
paper as an award and asked its enforce.
ment.cannot defeat the right Of the plain
tiff 20 the ultimate relief sought; II I'M
der the proof made he was entitled to II
without reference to whether there was
valid award.
The paper was recognized by defendant
as the proper basis for settlement be-
tween himself and his children. lie
signed It and agreed to an inventory
of the property. In the inventory
he stated that the property named
belonged TO himself and the
estates of his two deceased wives, whose
heirs the plaintiffs are Under these facts
both the paper styled an awari and the
inventory were properly admitted in evil
dence of the rights OF the respective par
ties. Affirmed. Opinion by Stayton, j.
State OK rel. VS.. D. Brinkerhof, appeal
Of McLennan The respondent
was duly elected secretary of
the city OF Waco, April s, 1855.
He qualified on the 18th, since which time
he has continuously exercised the duties
OF that office. On the day that be quail
fed as city secretary he was
next day and has since
1ionhaVr,aA ka glutfau Of hat pfi Fuh4u
proceeding was instituted to test his
right to hold and exercise the powers Of
recorder. Held, that the acceptance of
the Office OF recorder of itself operated
an abandonment Of the former office. IL
Is true he had the right TO elect which
Office he would hold but in law, II he
could not hold both offices, his acceptance
OF the one was an election, and the for
mer became vacant. Affirmed. Opinion
by Stayton, j.
Il. s. Willis vs.. Il. II. Smith, appeal
from Brazoria. The equity of redemp-
ton Is not eXtlngushed by decree
of foreclosure until the decree is
executed by sale. One who pur.
chases between the decree and the
sale hereunder becomes the owner Of the
right to redeem. II such sale is unfair,
the purchaser is wronged, and he may
set aside the same and perfect his title
by discharging the incumbrance.
BY the will the independent executors
were authorized to 'sell the lands" or
pay the debts with them; this did not
authorize them to borrow money and
execute deed OF trust to secure the
same.
The object OF the statute in requir-
ing registration Of the abstracts of judg.
ment, is not TO incumber the registry
with full information, but to cite inquiry
and to indicate the source of full lnforma-
ton.
The statute makes the lien date from
the registration and indexlng of the alb
stract 1t does not require the index to
be dated. The presumption Is that the
officer did his duty aud made the index
contemporaneously with the registration
of the abstract. This presumption is the
proof OF the party relying on the lien.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Robertsou,J.