Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-01
SUPREME COURT.
Syuspsss Of Decisions Rsndsred at the
Presast, Asstin Sitting Of the
Texas supreme Court,
Cases Reversed and Remanded, Alarmed,
Reversed and Rendered and ReheArin%
kcfusa.-sgnae Important Findings.
Correppondenoe of the Gazette.

Connelle; Easiland. On the trial Of this
case the court allowed M. J. Hall, the
acting executor, to testify: 81 alone
qusEhso; duly returned Al invens0@9
Of the estate" Attached to th2 viii
nesses deposition was part Of Ne ~
ventory. Plaintiff ob1ecNd to this test Il
mony because mot the best Of evidep8.
Held: That the objection should lfSe
been sustained; the statute in fore|2at
the time Of the probate Of the win re-
CURED that ali official oaths and all iIten.
tories should be copied ct length Into
the records Of the courts, and that
certified copies, etc., should have the
same { ffsct as evidence as II taken from
the originals. The fact that Q full in
ventory had been returned by the ex-
ecusor vas q material fact, and could not
be shown by pa1ol while the record ex-
istet; reversed and remanded. Callord,
Commissioner.
Howsrd VS.. Britton, Dallas. This
sui: grew out OF q lease contract Of the
Grapt. Winsdor Hotel in Dallas. During
the progress of the trial wit
ness testifed that the lease from
Hughesso Ghitia WAS In writing; there
from the jury slil parol evidence ct the
lease and irs assignment. Held: That
il the siipulations and terms OF the lease
had baen in controversy the objection
was good, cut as il was not in issue 1t
may be shown by psrol that writing
exists and has been assigned, without
producing the writing itself or account
ing for its non-productioH. Affirmed.
Mal.bie, Commissioner.
Mcintyre VS. belong; from Tom Green.
Suit 20 enforce the payment OF q note
ia favor Of Mcintyre, which re.
described in The petition, and in the note;
defendant plead failure of title to the
land sold, alleging that the only title Nc
mtyre had WAS a tax deed, void on Its
iace-McIntyre did not give general
warranty. DeLong paid cash payment
Of 5000. The court below held that Nc
Intyre could not recover on his note, nor
belong recover back his 5000. Held: In
the absence of fraud or mistake the note
and deed express the contract OF the par
ties; the note contained promise to pay
absolutely without any conditions; the
deed limits responsibility in the war
rsntY; the testimony is urdisputed that
DeLong took the title with knowledge
of the facts. From his contract as
made court cannot relieve him.
Judgment reversed and rendered for $500
With interest at IL per cent from June 4,
1888. Walker, Justice.
Newman VS. Schroeder; Bexar. Suit in
JUSTICES court appealed to District court
on following instrument: "No. 37s.
San Antonio, Tex, Sept. 81, 1886.
George Schroeder, pay, to William New.
man one hundred and seventy dollars
mot negotiable. Croll & Hanson"
This note was for hides sold Croll & Hsn-
son. The order was verbally accepted by
Schroeder. The finding Of the court be-
log, it is conceded, was based on the
proposition that verbal acceptance OF
the order WAS not binding, be-
cause within the statute OF
frauds. Held: There are many
cases holding that verbal acceptance IS
promise TO pay q check or bill OF ex-
change may be enforced when made in
o state having similar statute to ours.
We sre OF opinion that the appellant was
entitled to a judgment. Reversed end
rendered. StaYton, Chief Justice.
Wemer ct al. VS.. City OF Galveston /;
Galveston. On motion for rehesring. 1t
Is submitted on this motion that the laws
authorizing the tax complained OF ere
contrary to that clause of the 14th amend
ment to the constitution OF the |
United States, which provides thst 10 |
state "shsll deprive any person OF lie,
liberty or property without due process
of law" We have endeevored to show in |
the former opinion that the tax was levied |
In accordance with the constitution and |
lave of this stste. II we are correct it |
follows that the collection Of the tax wss
in due course CT law, unless 1t should De I
broadly held that taxation fer the purpose |
of maintaining free schools is moi within |
the powers OF state government. But we |
know of no authority which holds this |
Rehesring refused. Gsines, Justice.
Weight vs. Msckle; Bsstrop. Suit OF
trespsss TO try title brought by Mackle |
sgsinst Voight. Weight acquired the |
Isnd IN 1864 and registered his deed. In
1874 ne conveyed the land by deed to his |
nephew, Henry Msckle. reciting payment |
OF $500. Henry WAS living with his
uncle, and they continued to iiys on the
land together for about five years after |
the deed to Henry wss executed. About |
that time Henry went away and Weight
continued 70 occupy the land until this
suit was brought against him py the per-
son TO whom Henry had conveyed the
land. The court below on the testimony |
found, es c matter Of law, that Weight by
In the exclusive possession OF |
the land, paying taxes, using and cult.
vIting the same under his his deed regis
tered in 1864 that he had acquired title by
limitation Of five years and gave judg-
ment for him accordingly. Held: In
this holding there was error. (2) LIZ 10
insisted thst SO the findings OF the court
were not excepted to, that the case OF
Insurance Company vs.. MillikeD, decides
thxt no advantage can be hsd OF the errors
Of the trial Judge. In the case referred TO |
there was neither exception to the ind
lugs Of the court or the judgment OF the
court; in this case the judgment OF the
court wks excepted 10; the exception to
The judgment Of the court is sufficient.
and remsDded. Gaines, Justice.
Mcdonnell VS. R,gsdale; Tom Green.
The question in this case Is, whether she
wife and minor children OF man who
has left the state and desires that they
shall follow him, still retain the pretec-
Ia