Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-02
suit q tresp,ss to try title and involv IS


boundaries and adverse Possession. Stsffel
! who was plsniih below claimed uudel
the Cordmss patent which WAS the older
and the appellant under the PeasIy which
10 the junior. The latter 1t seems actual!
iembraced the lsnd in controversy. Tn,
iappellsnt bought In June 1879, snd has &C
lcupied part OF his survey since, pleas o
sthr srd five years limitations wer,
interposed. Held: That the testimon,
shows no actual possession Of the dis.
lputed land ut all, and under the authorit,
of Peyton VS.. Boston G53 Tex. 29s] thu
possession shown is insufficient to sup.
port limitations. The mere herding OF
sheep upon land from to time is not sucl
possession rs will support limitation
Affirmed. Gaines. Justice.
Goldberg & Co. vs. McCracken and wife
Clay. Suit by the wife against Goldberg
& Co. and G. c. Wright, sheriff, for the
value of Q stock of merchandise seized
by Wright under Goldberg & Co.'S at
Itachment against M. Grandall, she claim
ing that she had bought the goods July
81, 1888, OF Grsndsll, snd that they were
her seperete property. Plaintiffs set up
that the goods had been sold to her ae
fraud of creditors. Held: /. That the
husband can testify as to the intent and
purpose with and for which he causes q
conveyance to be made to his wife. T6s
Tex. s6 3. The husband can waive his
community rights in properly and make q
gift OF the same to his wife, except when
his creditors have right to question his
generosity. There Is NO error in the judg.
ment except as to the rate Of
interest, and judgment is reversed and
here rendered for 1864 with per cent.
interest from August 8, 1888. Walker,
Justice.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company VS..
Ayers; McLsnnan. Suit for burning
grass BY negligence caused in operating
trains; the fire occurred On several occa-
sions during September, October and
November, 1883. 1t is insisted thst the
evidence was insufficient to show that
Goals escaping from locomotives Of appel
liant, and 1t is true that direct evidence of
that fact Is not shown except as to the
fires that together consumed about forty
acres Of grass. But on the facts found
by the judges the conclusion Of most
minds would be that the fires originated
IS charged, unless on showing a likeli-
hood that the fires originated otherwise.
the ground at the time the fres occurred,
the appellee, under the pleSdipgs and
proof, was entitled to recover such DAM
ages as resulted from injury to the grass
roots, where the ground wss rendered
less productive OF grass during his ten
sncy than 1t would have been had the fires
not occurred. As there is no other ground
on which the correctness OF the Judgment
e. e. 49,,
Chief Justice.
International and Great Northern Rail
wsy Company VS.. Eckford, Bexar county.
Suit by Eckford for damages for personal
injuries sustained near the station Of Co.
tuils. The defense was general denial,
contributory negligence and lease of de-
fendAnts' road to the Missouri, Kansas
and Texas Railway Company, judgment
for $1,000. Held: 1. Thst the decision
in 6S Tex. SO, that railroad
company in Texas cannot lease
the right to use It's road so as to absolve
Itself from its duties to the public with
out legislative authority disposes of all
the assignments Of error touching the
lease by the defendant. The testimony
was conflicting to an extent unusual even
in this class Of cases, the testimony given
by plaintiff is corroborsted in all materisl
details; on the other hand, every state.
ment save his fall and injury is contra
dicted by Witnesses called by defendant.
It was for the jury to determine between
Them. Affirmed. Walker, Justice.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
Company vs.. Pool; Bosque. Suit against
the railroad for injury to crops adjoining
its right of way, caused by alleged neg
ligence in constructing 8 bridge and en-
bankment north Of the bridge whereby
the waters OF Neil's creek when swollen
by rain were run over adjoin-
ing fields, washing away the soil
and destroying the growing crops there
on There is complaint thst counsel for
the railroad on the trial WAS interrupted
In his cross.examination of q witness,
this bill is explained by the Judge. Held:
That in the Cross eXamiDaLi Of wit
ness the subject lies chic fly in the dis
erection Of the judge trying the case, the
great object is to elicit the truth from
the witnesses. 1t does not sppesr that
any injury resulted or could have result
ed from the action of the court In the ex-
ercise Of his duty, and his action will not
be revised. (2) The conflict OF the tes-
timony as to whether the bridge and en-
bankmert were properly constructed, as
to whether there was an extraordinary
rainfall, the destruction and value Of the
crop were all subjects passed on by the
jury trying the case. Affirmed. Walker,
Justice.
Conklin vs.. Krakauer; Ell Paso. Suit
by appellant against appellee to recover |
IS real estate agent for the |
sale by him Of certain lots claimed by the |
appellee in the city of FL Paso; the ap-
pellee having found purchasers willing to
buy and to pay for the lots, but that 1t |
Was afterwards ascertained that appellee
had no title to the lots contracted to be
sold by appellant as his sgent-the suit
was for $3.50. Held: ~ The evidence
shows beyond question Jnat legal and
binding contract to sell the lots was made |
and that this was brought about through |
the agency Of ConkIin, and 1t forbids the |
conclusion that he did less than entities
him to compensation. ~ A broker is
entitled to compensation when ne pro-
cures purchaser with whom his princi-
pal is saiisflsd, and who actually con-
tracts for the property at price salts
factory to the owner. (3) There is moth
ing shown that Conklin pretended to pass |