Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-13


oIdo7d 10 uoHN!W punoI V
The Commissioners court has power to
correct any error in lists furnished BY
ASSESSORS, whether consisting & errors IN
valuation or IN property listed. It is NOT
10 BE- presumed thst tribunal wopld yIo-
lsLe its duty ana Keep on the lists prop
erty siiusted Ia another equity simply
because the Ast essor had 1t on .he list
furnished that body. 8. Az Injunction
will Lot be granted unless It appears from
the petition that injury will otherwise
result 10 the applicant. The Law pro
v!des that where 5 psrty has paid
taxes on land which has been asse ssed
In any county according TO the
abstract CT land titles furnished the as
SCISSOR by the Commissioner Of the Gen.
eral Land Office, he shall not siterHsrd
BE compelled TO psy iaxes for the same
period IN another county. Affirmed. Stay
ton, CO.
Equitable Mortgage Company W. B. j
Norton ct al; appeal from Kaufman
Suit By appellant company on 6 promise
sorry note agslnss sppellees and to fore
close S trust deed on . trac: of land
Claimed by sppellees rs their &c mestead.
The trust deed bore date CT September 1,
but the acknowledgment thereto bore
date CT October !, 1885. Appellees claimed
the le2d 50 their Homestead, and By sn
amended answer The wife pleaded that
the several papers held against her
were obtsined from her by fraud; that at
the time Ct signing tbs mortgage she was
5 ck, not competent to care or know what
she was doing, etc. Appellants IN sup
plemeltSl p5ii.on denied tais and alleged
thsf the money was loaned up9n the rep
Ieeentltions oi both defendants, whereby
they were esIoppsd, etc. I. is shown
that sppelleee lived on 8 trect OF land in
the country; that they leased same for q
year and moved to Terrell. The land vss
gift from the father to the wife. The
Sgent Of appeIlEnt company loaned money
10 Norton, who said that he did not claim
the land as his homestead, and ne and
his wife signed paper to that fleet.
at the time Of tais transaction sppeuees
had bought house and lot in
Terrell, ard In writing they claimed
this SO their homestead, out On the loan OF
the mCn y they conveyed the house and
Let back to he portY they hal purchased
from, selling for S25 less than they paid.
MIS-. n ortGn testified tEst s. Q hEd 1eVer
abandoned her country EGIsstGGd; aeYer
had sly intention to do SO; that IL Sep
TENDER, 1856, she was taken violently
eick-boYe child, which lived te1 days,
and who di. q TWO hours eiter che had
been signing the papers; that her mind
VAS given to her child; that she did not
know the purpose Of the papers; ths5 she
did not know she was giving wortgsge
upon her home; that sne remembered
nothing about buying q house j and lot in
Terrell and reconveYiDs same. She
recognized her signsure to the seVCrsl
papers, but denied talking with the agent
Of appellant company or nearing her nus
band to tSlk to MIN ABORT the
loan, etc, Instructions vera asked by
sppeliSpt upon the law OF estcppel upon
the facts in evidence, and refused by the
court. Held: Ia the light of the entire
evidence we 40 not think the court had
the legal power TO withdraw the issue Of
estcppel from the jdry, when It appeared
that tie lsld was not tue actual residence
Of appeIlees. II ca0ueJ be ignored, how
ever, that the testiEoby fsil5 10 show an
active participation In the acts relied on
as constituting the alleged estopptl by
MIS- Norton. For error in not giving
the requested charge relative to estoppel,
the case will be reversed. Reversed ana
remsnded. Walker, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway vs.. J. n.
james; appeal from Hopkins. Suit by
appellee to recover damages Cor personal
injuries sustained by the derxilment Of =
defective hand car On . detective rail. II
Is shown that the car hed been cut Of re-
pair, that i. hsd been cent OF 20 De reN
paired ard had been returned and re-
ported II gOOi order. TIE defect n the
rail that clUs tie sccid r. WIS not
known 10 appellant, but he know OF q de-
fecs not far distant from tie one that
caused the derailmen:. g'he section
boss had informed appellee several days
previous to the accident TIA. ne YVES going
10 repair the defect IN the rail
tina. csused the acciGsh., a1d do so 3.
once l, Il was notFrro. s3- the court 20
iretruct tbs jury thas, IL determining
whether sppeheesWss gu5f3 Of coEuibd-
SoIy negligence, they mig ~corsider the
Il CTS OF the car being recently returned
from ths Tep1ir shopa, as il good order,
end inst the section boss informed sppsl-
lee he would tx the defect in the rsii.
2, Tao cou-t did rot err in charging that
the temporary absence Of the seafioE boss
would not relieve the company from LA
billy for N irl1Ty occurring N his 3D.
ssEce, IL Carrying Oh. inagigc.loEs given
to employs. 8. Where c judgment Is
lsea;ered Eulc fero tune, snd there is no
eEstemens OF facts by bill OF exceptions or
| otherwise, On which t1s cours below set
ed In sh:eSiag the judgment, ia the ao-
ESsnce Of this, 1t mHsssGe presumed that
tEa&YideEca offeredsrcs SUCH IS suthor-
hszsd he action efafda cour.. No error.
Am ;Fkd' S:szh, CO
a 4arssStl,s Axe phssphsta -