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

the cotton being found in Reeds posses
sion Vas subject to attachment. Held
The evidence shows that the cotton was
sold to appellee and turnad ever to him
The possession so far as they could slip
ulGse wss in appellee. Ae TO the price il
was TO De market price il PittsbuIg. TIE
sale could be made IS we'll BY parol as in
writing The transfer was nc. attac keG
IS fraudulent. The sale was legal and
binding. Affirmed. Gsines,J.
ST. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway
Company vs.. Dutton & Burrs; appeal
from Franklin. Suit by appelIees to re-
cover for services slieged to have been
rendered for appellant company clearin 9
its fig1t CT wsF, ard also fer changing q
grade On the road It is shown thst the
citiz ms Of Sulphur Springs had agreed 90
cut The right OF way and grade the part
OF the ioad en- which the appeHees claim
TO have rendered their services. It lie
shown that the engineers Of appellant GU
perinte nded the construction Of this part O,
the road. II is also shown that the COM
mittee, or part Of #, Of the citizens OF
Sulphur Springs, denied their obligation
to pay for services rendered by sppellees.
The record shows that the work was
Gone at the request Of three engineers in
the employ of appellant and engaged In
the construction of the road, but there is
evidence tending to show that they mad
10 express power TO make contracts for
such services. II IL further shown, how
ever, tina. tie ctisf engineer did have
power 70 make Such contracte, and that o
subordinate engineer when spoken to in
reierer ce TO the contract, refused TO dc
anything until he saw the chief engineer;
tnst VIXEN he saw said chief engineer he
Informed eppellees that ihsy could go to
work SID appellant would pay for il. It
was in evidence that the engineer VITO
directed sppellees 20 do the werk, nsde
contracts with them &c dc
other work, witch they dc, and which
appellant paid for. The record shows
that otficisls OF the company knew this
work was being dore, spo that sppellees
believed that a contrac. existed. HELD
The jury found tom the evidence de.
tailed above thsl there was contract to
pay for the services CT sppellees grading
and constructing the road. This was q
fact exclusively for the jury, and we are
not prepared to say that the evidence
does not sustain the verdict. Affirmed. |
Stsy.op, c. J.
eller's Insurance Company; appeal from
Bowie. Suit by appellant so mex. friend o. |
the. two minor children or T. Fl. Harrison,
deceased, to recover the amount of 81 |
accident ipsussrce policy alleged to have
been held BY seii Harrison ct the time OF |
his death. There WAS provision in tn. |
policy that If suit was no. brought on |
same IL one yesr from the time the cause |
of sction occurred the same would be |
Dsrred By limitstion. L. A provision in q
contract p hich ] Iits the tina within which |
suit may be brought for It's breach, is !
valid. The limitation, however, must be
reasonable. The fac. :hst the beneficsr
es we're minors, would not prevent the |
'unning q the statute. 2. II /. had been |
nteh ded that the limitation contracted |
IGE, should not ruu during the minority
,fFne banefcaries, I. would have been so
's2fsasad in the policy. Affirmed.
: III II go ~ .Ssss