Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-28


Bidweu were sueIlg, pending the al
Iaipisration of her estste. Held: That
Il Is the general rule, as recognized by
our courts, that pending sn adDinistrs-
ton the heirs cannot cue save where it is
shown to be necessary for their protec-
ton. TheIe nre 20 allegations in the
pas.tion showing tie necessity for suit by
the heirs. For tnsa req on the judgment
IL reversed aad cause yenanued. Walker,
Justice.
Pe.Ison ct al. vs.. Hugh Cox, Fsnnin;
NJ. N U5sery End Ter husband, J. G..
UsEerv. brought suit against Cox 70 re-
cover $50 ,Hcrss OF l.nd alleged to be the
Homestead &C the plaintiffs, and for the
vaiua CT rertaiH personal property appro-
p!ia.ed by Cox Pandiug the suit
Ussery died, aro sis wife married David
Pearson. The suit WAS never in the
name of NJ. M Pearson and her FIVE
minor children. David Pearson, the
husband, refusing to j0in the wife as
plaintiff The plead.ngs alleged thst No
vember 90, 1885,, that U.sery sold the
land ana s large amount Of stock cattle,
provender to Cox, that Ussary was in
zane and Cox 6new l., ard taking advaD-
isge Of his con6itlor, Cox Induced HIN
to sell at lsfge" V Inadequate price, inst Mrs
Ussery was coerced into sigai-g the deed.
Cox answered among other things thst
plaintiffs had received the money for the
sale and with 1t bought anotner homo
stead. Held: That in avoiding the con
trsct with Cox he Wss entitled 70 have
gue money IS well for the homes esd 3
for the other properly; the decree should
have ordered sale of the land upon fail
IRE to pay Sl7O0 into court; the iudg-
meut is reversed and re dersd es below
save that if plaintiffs f1l within SIX
months to deposit said SUN with the clerk
fer benefit Of defendant, then order u
sale issue to satisfy said Judgment sud
costs Of safe. r versed and remandea.
Walker, Justice.
Moody vs.. the State Of TexIs; Travis.
Held: The law under which the contract
in the case Of Swissen vs. the Safe was
m.Ce berg the same law under which the
contract in this case IVES nsde and hell
with the contract made under it valid
Tne judgment rer dered by the court below
in this case will be affirmed. Affirmed.
S<sYtou, Chief Juerice.
H2'he Safe Of Texas VS.. Taylor, Stephens
Involves the came questions
WHICH hlV cEh
| fistermined in the case Of the state OF
PeXss against the Day Lsrd And Cattle
Company this day decided. Tee opinion
in that case Is decisive CT this and for the
reasons given in that opinion the judg-
ment in De lower court in this ca5e Will
be sffi:uied, Affirmed. Gaines, Justice.
Fitzgerald, Cornell 6 Co. vs.. the stste
ofs1@xss; Ira is. This was suit to re-
cover on lease contract made by the
| land board created under the act Ct April
BIZ, 1888. The contract was made August
q, 1885, at six cents per
acre, for unweJered lsnd.
The appellants bound themselves by q
written contract to pay Inst amount to
the treasurer in Travis county. Held, %
That the Dis@ics court of Travis county
had jurisdiction of the suit; (2) there sre
no Covenants in the lease contract that
bound the state to remove trespassers
from the land CT otherwise not be Ell
titled TO TIE rents; ~ there are no facts
shown that could amount to duress. TIE
questions OF the constitutlonality AMI
validity Ct the Land Boards action pre-
sented in this case are the same rs those
presented in the Smissen case. Affirmed
S.aytCl, Chief Justice.