Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-02

WEN OF SUPEl1I5H In ELL GENL[A
and lying on Jones creek, and bounded
IS fellows, VIZ: On the west BY l. Gar
ner's survey, on the north b7 Jeffar-
son Jones' presumption survey" This
was the entire description. l Held: a
deed to be valid, mus. describe thu LAND
oy its terms, or give data from
which the description may be
found sad made certain. There being
nothing referred to in the deed that coald
help the description, psrol eviderce wae
not admissible 30 prove what land was
void for want Of certainty in description.
- The lsnd in controversy is shown also
to have been the homestead Of appellants.
Reversed and re m anded. Cnl!ard, j.
international and Gres. n jrtheEn R,il-
way Company W. G. A. Gordon; appeal
from Robertson. Suit by appellee to
recover sctusl snd exsm 1isry damages CT
acc punt Of the alleged negligence Of sp-
pellant company's servants IN failing to
stop a passenger train at Eagle
rood station on appellants road,
for the purpose Of allowing
appellant to beard said train IS q passen.
ger; $4,000 actual and $1,000 exemplary
damages were claimed. l. The court IN,
structed the jury that they could not And
exemplary dsmsges, and appellant COM
ps95 insists, that having done TING, the
cau-t did not have jurisdiction to try the
cSase. The verdicf was for 1891 actual
damages. Held: 1t is not the name the
PIE ider gives the facts stated which
masss them actual or exemplary
Ga nsges, brt ID is the effec.
10 lieu of the facts plesded which msbes
Il. n the one, or the other. No error in
i'la7e to dismiss 2. The court did po'
err IN refusing new trial only becsuEs Sc
&C usl di mage YVES claimed, and verdict
YRS rendered for S37I 3 The sffidavits
# jurors should not be received for tie
phdposa Of impeaching their verdict. No
reversible error. Hobby, j.
SUPREME COURT.
OF the Gazette.
TYLER, TEX Oct. 3l-W. A. Grads
dock ct 81. vs.. W. N. Grand ct al; appeal
from Bell. Suit By eppellees agains.
Ctsddock sad his sureties on the bond Of
Cradd3ck as assignee Of ". J. Whea..
l. Under the assignment law CT this
nishe eirg the assignee, is entitled to
discovery OK the condition Of the estate,
and thereby establishes his right to sry
Claims, costs, and expenses, OF
rpcn the 1ssignee's bond b7 noL-
there aye. or should be Assets in the hands
- tIo o-uir- G,-fi 20 Iot
which are withheld. Where, By judi
cha! proceedings, the property has been
seized, spd the assignee thereby is pre-.
7eDted from reslizing anything, such facts
IRE g bar to an action upon tie bond by
8 non-co1aaI;irg creditor to compel pay
meat Of bis debt, a1d the suraties are not
es:opped ftom msking such defense by
5 judgment against the assignee in gsr-
Iishm ent.proceediDgs agsintt he assignee !
u1der the statute. Reversed and remand:
ed. Walker,J. I'll
D. o. Cbsytor vs. Brunswick, Bslkext
Collender Company; appeal from Bowie |
county. Suit by appellee against one |
Danswig and appellant on q promissory /
note, exscuted by Danswig and to iore>
close chat.el mortgage upon ca56Ain
saloon furniture alleged to be Ill hs{
possession o; appellant. l. Whera Ihe
nortgsgs was made q part of thssnsti
ton, and WAS slleged to hsve been 81e-
:uted by detendslt, there being n3Aee
If non est factum verified by osta, 70
proof O.: the execution Of the mg41Aget!
vas necessary. 2 II the criginalSnHrt-
,sge is deposited with the County Cfrk, /
/ Is not necessary tina. it should eitYSt3'
,e aczuowltdg or prov d. The OH CT
Il registration being merely to give no.
ice, 1t was doubtless considered that an
original mortgage having the mortgsgor's
WE genuine signature would be as efac
ual for this purpose as il acc ompsnied
With his acknowledgment or the affidavit
4 subscribing witness. 8 The mort.
.sge recised thet the mortgsg1r was OF
county CT Bowie and state Of
'exss, and re think this recital WAS at
eas: prima tscie that the morigsgor was
resident OF the state, and t1at the mort
age was registered In the county Of his
esidence IS thes s.atuts requires. Al
;med. Gssnes, j.
G. C. Hopkins vs.. J Ick Partridge; sp-
esl from Camp. This suit is contro-
ersy rs to the ownership Of q crop Of
otton purchased by appellee from one
Iced snd afterwards levied upon by ap-
ellsnt. Ths evidence shows that said
ised owed sppsllee on certain promis-
ary notes; tnat he went to see Reed
bout payment on same; that Reed told
i'm he would sell him his cotton crop
orsisting OF two thousand pounds Of
eed cotton in the pen, and several acres
t that time urgeshered. Reed WAS to
nish picking the cotton, haul 1t
Il to the gin, have 1t ginned and
hen haul to market. Appellee was
0 pay Reed the market price
or said cotton, whste7ar that might be.
.ppeIlxnt attacks the sale on the grounds
hat the transaction did not INCLUDE .
elivery OF possession, that there WAS
york to be done on the cotton preparing |
. for delivery, that Their. IVES no specific
rice fixed and sgresd upon, and because II