Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-16

: N
. NN2SM2z} 4 w. e: ~: 4 !. s3s: 4
WIJsH<F-1 t=3< appeal bond duly
=. !; s.. = !.
1<>.Ssss.sASSA SA fled. Sonnet N
sIllSv"H "A Ia .aNI ment 10 which this
VI A,KT@.Sgza slE taken up, counsel
*ZSS&yTS5hlz1F IN for appellant de-
1AWDgE.Sssse handed g tran
script OF the case from the clerk OF the
co4.hsslow, wh3 informed him that he
|. u3E clerk) had duly searched for the ps-
spprs II the case end had failed 20 find
them; whsreupon appellant took the
necessary steps to substitute, but couldInot
peri C. same until the neXt term Of the
court. Under these circumstances sp
peliee due his motion 10 tfilrm on certif.
ruled. Sssyson, c.. j.
E. NJ. Lows vs. A. Beston; appeal from
Navarro. Ga motion to affirm on certi6-
cate. The facts in this case are Identical
with these OF Lee vs.. Henderson reported
above, and the opinion CT the court in that
csse Is deciBiye OF this. The motion 70
sffirm on certificate will be overEuled.
Sssytou, C. j.
from Dallas. In this case appellant
moves TO dism ies his own sppeal and the
same having been considered By this
court the same will be granted. Appeal
dismissed. Staytop, CD.
Mary V. Hill, ct al. vs., W. S. Eord;
from Navarro. Ga motion to affirm On
certificate. It being shown to the satis-
faction Of the court that appellants have
Get 81 70 tatv
from the court below, rs me law re-
will be sustained. Affirmed on certificate
StaYtoD, c. il
Estate ?. A, Wilson vs.. ". R. Bright;
from NAVARRO, On motion to affirm on
certificate. It having been shown to the
satisfaction Of the court that appellant
has failed to prosecute his appeal taken
from the court below, as the law pro-
vides, the motion TO Affirm will be
granted. AfHrmsd on certificate. Stay
tod, CD
G. W. Henslee ct ais vs.. j. T. Hen5lee;
from Hunt. On motion to affirm on GER
tihcRte. In this case thu certificate fails
to show that any notice CT appeal was
given, nor that appeal was perfected.
The motion to affirm will be overruled.
Stsytor, C. j.
Western Union elegraph Company va.
]. III. Brown: sppesl from Hopkins.
Suit by appellee for damages for non de-
livery Ct elegs&m by appellant COM
psny. The message. WAS as follows:
"aall7ille, Texas, Dec. llth, 1886. j. 81.
Brown, Sulphur Springs: Willie died yes
terday evening-Will be buried Ct Msr-
shall Saturday evening. [SIgued] Wilson
Livingston" !. The suggestions in
timats from the face Of the
nesssEe, we're sufficient notice Of the in
ADVANCE OF the Telegram to require cor
responding care and diligence Ia trans
I hitting ii 10 its destination. Whatever
damages might Ectuslly result ulcer such
conditions from failure TO receive the
| message viii be considered a5 being iD
the contemplate Ct the parties to the
contract, Thst Is, between the plaintiff
having Ehe light SC receive same. aud Rp-
pellent con- oaDys 2. But the message
gsYe nothing TO indicate that "Willis"
was the brother CT plsiDtif. The dam
ages alleges are from the fra.er1Sl feel
! i2gs, outraged by the fsilure to hear the
I brrthe1'5 death in time to et!e1d thu
lfGueTRl snd condole his sister. Held;
Giving the most liberal nearing
to the words Of tie message,
they can not be construed into notice
tina! "Willie" was plaintiffs brother, and
eppel!ee can not therefore recover for the
outrage inflicted on his feelings in not
getting to attend his brothers funeral,
condole his eister, etc. Reversed and
remanded. Walker, j.
Robert Heuson vs.. Nathan Reed; ap-
peal from Hunt county. Appellant pur-
chased land from Shelby county. The
deed to him reserved lien for the pur~
chase money. Appellant sold sppellee &
part otthe land, for which appellee was
to paEshim 500, and in addition to this
AppsHee was also TO pay two thirds Of
theEdm still due on the entire trsct by
ISFfSilsn:. Appellee paid the SEQ, but
9Mhen note executed by appellant TO
Shelby county for $3.50 became
due, appellee could not pay his
share OF 1t, and requested
appellant to pay same, promising that he
would repay appellant for the money 30
expended. By agreement Of both parties
Shelby county made each 8 deed for the
respective land claimed by them. Appel
lee executed TO Shelby county his notes for
the balance due on his part OF the land,
and appellant executed his notes for the
balance due on the part Of the land re-
naming after he sold to appellee. The
original deed toi Henson, as well as the
one from Henson TO Reed were cancelled,
but al this occurred after appellant had
paid the note at request Of appellee. This
action was brought by Henson TO recover
two thirds Of the sum he had paid at re-
quest OF Reed. and to ioreclose lien on
the land conveyed by him to Reed.
The court rendered judgment for appel
liant for the sum claimed, but refused to
toreclose his alleged lien on ssid land.
Held: Henson WAS entitled to be suoro-
gated to such rights az Shelby county
mig Il have enforced had the note not
been psid. The county held lien and
might have enforced 1t in default of psy-
ment. The court should have foreclosed
the lien OF appellant Reversed and re-
msnded. Ssayton, G. j.
Clay County Land and Cattle Company
vs.. j. P. Earle; appeal from Clay. l.
The opinion Ct this court in the appeal
VS.. Wood, decided October Is of the pres =
emit term, disposes Of the material ques-
tons here raised. 2. Earle, the
sppellee, having purchased the
land in controversy from the county
L =.