Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-26
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopsis OF Decisions Rendered at the
Present Austin Sitting Of the
Texas Higher Courts.
Findipgs-Tarrant County Gases Anirm.
ed and Ksverred and demanded.
Supreme Court.

sheriff and his sureties, by NOEL, for
damages for the wrongful seizure Of q
stock of goods. Held: That the testi-
mony of o witness that the giving and
receiving of notes for the goods were in
good fat'h was such error as that 1t Is
likely that injury resulted, and for error
in permitting witness over objection to
state such as his testimony the Judgment
is reversed and cause remanded. Walker,
Justice.
Howard ct al. vs.. Kellam, ct al, from
Guadalupe. Action Of trespass to Try IL
tie, for land included within conflicting
boundaries. Held: The possession Of
that part of the grant not in conflict,
would not by construction extend beyond
the limits of the grant; the construction
al possession following the legal title
should not be broken until en- actual ad-
verse entry upon and occupation
of some part OF the land In
conflict is shown. The rule is,
adverse occupant under junior title IL
his possession does not extend to that
part of the land in dispute, which IS with
in the conflict" SO Texas, 3o3J Az
firmed. Walker, j.
Action on promissorv note, attachment
levied on 8 store house and lot in the
town Of Marlin the property of appellee,ft
was clximed as exempt. as being lis
place OF business and hence part OF his
homestead; appellee had in business
having partner. One room in the house
was used IS dry goods shop and the
other az q saloon; he and his partner as-
signed; the assignee took possession
and sold out the stock. Appellee then
put up sign as q produce commission
merchant, took out license from the
state, but neither county or city license;
his business was confined to eighty
bushels of oats. Held: 1t is not neces-
sary that the claimant of 8 business
homestead should actually succeed in
getting custom in order to exempt the
property. Il does not follow that because
q man may violate the law in not taking
out 8 license to do legitimate business
he thereby subjects the house when such
business il carried on to forced sale. Al
frmed. Gaines, justice.
COMMISSION CT APPEALS.
Sickles ct al. VS.. Epps; from Collin
county. The principal question involved
in this case is whether the location of the
SOICmhu w uILC SSlbIuSnLC 10 NdlloI
which appellee claims. Held: That the
difficulty in the way of the Epps
location was removed by Statute
April %, 1871. Epps at that time had the
equitable title against the state to the
constitutional notice OF the fact cannot
complain that the state after his location
(being prior to that of Epps)
+ook Of on
the Epps location. State demand is not
definitely passed on in the case. M.ltoie,
Judge, not sitting. Adopted April "a,
1888 Affirmed. Collard, commissioner.
McCutcheon vs.. Davis ct al, from Tar
rant county. Suit brought In Wichita
county, by consent changed to Tarrant,
for damages for the unlawful seizure by
Davis as Sheriff under process Of Nc
Cutcheon's undivided one-hslf interest In
q stock Of goods, to which process he
was not party. Appellant bought the
undivided one-half partnership OF Nor
ris & Co. at Sheriff's sale for the individ-
ual debt of Morris, and went into
partnership with Lipscomb, Morris part
ner. Immediately thereafter the entire
stock of merchandise was levied on and
taken possession under attachments by
ship of Morris & Co. Held: That in pur-
chasing partnership property at sheritf's
sale under execution sgsinst an in
dividusl member eff the partnership
It is the purchasers duty to see
that there are no unsatisfied partner
ship debts, for by his purchase he &C
quires only the interest in the property
which would remain to the defendant in
execution after the payment of partner
ship debts and his Indebtedness to the
other partners on account OF the partner
ship business. Affirmed. Acker, Com
missioner. Approved, April "a, 1888.
Tarrant County vs.. McLemore ct al. /;
from Tarrant county. Action to recover
from McLemore ct al. the liens of M. T.
johnson, deceased, and from J. P. Smith
ct al, administrator Of NJ. T. Johnson,
lots l and in block No. II, in Fort
Worth, to remove the cloud from
plaintiffs title :and have said title quoted,
to reform and have certain blanks filled
up in written instrument executed and
delivered by NJ. T. johnson to Tarrant
countyDecember l6, 1858 This instrument
is in form deed to the chief justice FOL
the use OF the county, but blanks for the
description of the lots and block. The
conveyance was for the purpose OF build
ing Jail, and it is alleged that the blanks
were left to be filed up by plaintiff, with
property to be selected, and that plaintiff
selected lots Nos. l and in block!No. IL
Held: II the deed executed in blank by
M. T. johnson to the Chief Justice for
the benefit of the county had been filed
up by the Chief Justice before the death
of johnson 1t would have been 8 convey
ance to the county of the lots IN fee. An
sgent could exercise such authority YER
bally given, but the agent failing to exc
cute the power the courts will not exc
cute for him. Besides. II such case
were presented that would justify
the court in adding to and cor
recting the deed the right in this
case would be void by lapse OF time. Be-
cause OF error in the court in sustaining
defendants exceptions TO plaintiffs claim
under the statute Of limitations of ten
years the case is reversed ard remarded.
Collsrd, Commissioner. Adopted April
"a, 1883.
Bitten vs. Calhoun; from Comsl. Ac-
ton by Mrs. Calhoun to cancel deed
from Charles Lower to Ludwig Kessler,
dated May 6, 1874, and deed from Kess-
Ter to appellant, dated April %, 1879, for
Je6 acres of lsnd; the petition alleged