Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-02
SUPREME COURT.
SyBppses of Decisions Rendered ct the
PRESENT Austin Sitting OF the
Texas Supreme Court
Gases Reversed and Remanded, narmsd
Reversed and Rendered, and sehsar-
Ing Rsfus d-imporrans Findings.
Correspondence Of the Gazette.

Milan. Action Of trespass to try It'll
brought by Botte against Beck. Appel
ant cisims title through sale OF the Inn,
under execution against Beck. Mrs
Beck claims the land ss her separst
property, the purchase having been mad
with her sePs'Ata III IDS. Jury trial, yer
dict in favor Vi hrs. Beck. The testi
inony OF Beck sud his wife shows that tn
land was bought with Identical none
received by Mrs. Beck from the sale O
property she received from her father
estate. Held, That the fact that Their
was evidence tending to throw suspicion
on their testimony Is not sufficient Il
authorize this court to set aside the con
eiusion OF the Jury. Affirmed. Stayton
chief justice.
jenkins Us. Adams & Wicks; San Saba
Action OF :respass to try title by appel.
lees against appellant for two 160 ACRE
surveys, patented TO Jacob DeCOrdova
Assignee Ct Carl Linke. Held: q } Il
WAS not error to admit deed Ia evidence
that Dure date subsequent to the entry
alleged 10 the petition, 1t being GATED be
Tore the h!ipg of the petition; e } va
rlsDce Ia the description of land in tine
deeds offered from that described in the
petition will not be passed on when the
Irlai WAS before the court instead of Q
jay, ana the entire testimony can be
considered ia this court; e that Jen.
klps MAS not an innocent purchaser OF the
latd Affirmed. Walker, Justice.
Jones & Co. vs.. Collins; Bexsr. Judg-
ment in Justice court May 1, 1886; mo
tiou for new trial Msy 2, not acted on
within ten days, and May Is, at request
OF defendant, it was overruled and notice
Of appeal given, appeal bond filed May 2l
Appeal dismissed, and from that judg.
ment this appeal is prosecuted. Held
That the rule OF decision upon the subject
ought 70 De the same in Gil the courts,
ana the subject being peculiarly within
the province Of the Court of Appeals, we
regard the rules laid down In the case OF
Grant & Kurner vs.. Frazer Bros, TYol
8, psrE l, Wilson'S Appeal Cases as
authoritative and binding. Following
the rule cited, the appeal bond was filed
in time aud the dismissal OF the appeal
WAS error, for which the judgment is re-
versed and remsnded, Walker, Justice.
Brown vs. Abilene National Bank, Tay-
lor county. The bank sued DAugherty on
several notes and attached property be-
longing to Daugherty; appellant inter
vened in the suit, setting forth several
grounds on which he claimed that an at
tschment sued out by him against the
same property had priority; Judgment
on the 18th OF March was rendered
against Daugherty in favor of the bank,
and its attachment being foreclosed on
the property BY that judgment, no
disposition was made of the intervenor.
On the End Of April following the bank
announced ready for trial on the inter-
yention; the intervenor applied for con.
tinusrce on account Of the absence of
witnesses named in the appli.
cation; the continuance was
overruled snd judgment rendered il
favor Of the bank, the intervenor offered
no evidence. Held: That without de-
Gliding whether an intervenor in sny case
is in any case entitled to continuance
whereby the plaintiff will be delayed in
the collection Of Q judgment against the
defendant, no facts are shown in the sp-
plication for continuance In this case
that entitled party to such under the
general rule OF law governing the sub
ject. Affirmed. Stayton, Chief Justice.
Bumpsss ct al. vs.. Morrison; Dsllas
Held: II the owner of property 0 which
there Is lien so acts as to render it
necessary for the lien holder in order to
protect himself to sequestrste it we do
not see that he would be entitled to rents.
Such an owner may retain the possession
of the property by giving.the security re-
Quired by the statute, or he might recover
damages in case of q wrongful sequestra-
tiop, put to entitle such person 70 COM
pensstion for such q wrongful sequestra-
ton there must be some pleading
authorizing the introduction of evidence.
Affirmed. Stsytop, Chief Justice.
Low vs.. Tandy; from San Saba. The
use by Tandy Of the lot on which the gin
and mill building erected as . place for
the exercise of his business and calling
made the premises . homestead under
the law. His residence ON leased property
could not affsct the right to the exemp-
ton for his pl.ce of business given BY
the constitution and laws. The judg-
ment against Tkndy and his sureties on
the tote without foreclosure Of the
mortgage upon property incumbered with
the note only authorized execution
against property liable to forced sale
Judgment reversed and rendered for
94T9 %. Walker, Justice.
E )berts vs. McCammant; from Jones.
to ooSd Sas al tbiuhSWou oSoluos
an execution from q justice of the peace
In favor of McCammEn.. Ia the Justice
court Roberts had sued McCammant for
$l3; McCammsnt set up q counter claim
of S22, and got Judgment in his favor.
Roberts appealed to the County court,
and perfected it by giving bond. In the
County court the appeal wss dismissed,
and therefrom the justice issued his exc
cution on his own judgment, and for the
costs Of the County court. The petition
for Injunction was dismissed. Appellant
insists that an appeal having been per-
fected, the judgment Of the Justice wss
thereby vacated. Held: % A correct
position. ~ But the County court had
Jurisdiction to determine and did deter.
mine that the appeal was improperly
granted; this judgment is conclusive OF
the matter, until properly set aside, and
estops the appellant from saying the sp-
peal had been perfected. 1t follows that |
the Justice was authorized to issue exc
cution. ~ But he had NO authority to |
issue execution for the costs |
of the County court. For this |
error the Judgment Diminishing the psti-
ton ia reversed and Cause remanded, |