Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-03
SUPREME COURT.
Synepses OF Decisions Rendered at the
Present Austin SLIT ng Of the
Supreme Court.
The Findings in a Large Number OF Gases
From Northern Texas of Interest
to Gsastte Readers.

/ BUN huu LSOSlfe0 q W. We Hts. .. d
Hsrter; from Clay. This is 8 contest be-
tween The creditors Of John Harter, WHIT
owned residence and place Of bushes:
where he carried on the saloon business
in October his creditors ran attachment!
on the saloon ADD fixtures, and Hartel
ceased business. In January following
Harter died, and his widow, the appellee
applied to the Probate court to have SCI
apart for her as her homestead the bust
ness house and lot. This application was
contested by the creditors, both IN the
Probate court and in the District court
to which it went by appeal, and in this
court.
Three points are made against the
validity of the judgment. l. Closing
| the business by attachment before
| Harter's death was an abandonment oil
the use of the property, and it became
subject to sale for the payment Of debts
2. II that is not true, the fraudulent
conduct Of Harter and appellee in per-
hitting the business to be carried on in
Weaver's name estopped appellee from
setting up homestead claim. 8. Error in
sustaining objection to question asked
Held: l. When The homestead character
once attaches to business property, it
continues .pnsl voluntarily abandoned.
~. Satisf letOfy reasons are given for the
On of the business in Weaver 8
nsmes 5. 1t WAS wholly immaterial, after
the death of the husband, whether the
wife objected to the use that was made Of
the property, go far as her and her
children's rights we're corcsrned. Al
firmed. Acker, Commissioner. Adopted
Msy l, 1883.
Golf VS.. Jones; from Travis. This case
originated In title bond executed by
Jones and wife, to part OF their home
stead in the city Of Austin, to Golf. At
the maturity OF tbs bond Golf rendered
the money due, and demanded convey
ance Of the property in terms of the bond.
The wife refused, the property having
greatly increased in value on this refusal
Golf brought suit against Jones and wife
for specific performance. Golf got de-
cree IN the District court. On appeal to
the Supreme court the judgment was re-
versed on the ground tnat the bond to
compel the wife to convey the homestead
at future time was void. At the next
trial Golf amended his petition and al.
legged that there had been an abandon
ment Of the property as homestead be-
fore the maturity of the bond. The
question on this appeal is, can the hus-
band be compelled to execute the bond,
the old homestead being abandoned and 8
new one acquired? Held: The title
bond eaed on can be enforced against
Charles G. Jones, If the facts alleged IS
te3 the Abandonment Of the old
md the acquisition of the new
Homestead are true; that il it was aban-
doned and new homestead acquired at
any time before the bond should become
barred, the suit for specific performance
could be msintained. Reversed and re-
,aasrGed. Collsrd, Commissioner. Adopted
msy1, 1888.
BasGrop county vs.. Hearne; from Bas-
trop county. Hesrne was county treasu-
rer ef Bas,rop county, Texas. In 1888
the county issued $50, 000worth> of bones,
and sold them at par, tof the purpose Of
building q courthgnse. The mcn.y
:Mss received nnd Edisbursed by
thecoqpty judgeYfgnorlng the treasurer,
who wssalsfxss willing and ready to re-
ceiye and disburse the same. Hearne
sued the county for % per cent for re-
ceiving and q per cent. for disbursing
said sum, and recovered judgment. Two
points are made for reversal OF the judg
ment: % The money being special
fund, WAS lawfully disbursed without
passing through Hearne's hands. (2) TIE
Commissioners court not having Hxed
any compensation for the services of the
county treasurer for receiving and paying
out county funds, he is not entitled to re-
cover for services he should have rem
dered in this instance. Held: % That
thst the action of the Commissioners
court in causing the county judge
to receive and pay out
the money was without authority
Of law (2) The Commissioners court
of Bsstrop county had allowed % par
cent. for receiving and % per cent. for
paying out county funds to its Treasurer
since 1870; this state of facts would raise
an agreement by Implication, to continue
the ssme until appellee was notified OF q
reduction. Affirmed. Maltbie, commits
sioner. Adopted Msy l, 1888.
Kempman VS.. Willisms & Russell; from
.Bexar. Suit by appellees on an accepted
draft for $500, viz: San Antonio
June 81, 1884. Mr.. L. Lambert:
Please pay Gus A. Kampman & Co. $500
and charge same to account of w. /.
lfince. Accepted, June 20, 1884, in
dorsed Gus A. Kampman & Co."
The petition alleged that appellees were
the owners and bolders Of the daft, and
that il became due and was payable on
Qecember5a 1884, because on that day
dSn1nnd for payment WAS made. Petition
was excepted to Q)-because 1t had not
been protested; (2)-because suit wss
not brought to the first term of court
sfser right of action had accrued; or to
the second term showing good csuse
why 1t WAS not bought
to first term. Held %: That
the debt became due on December 8, by
reason of demand having been made on
thst day, would not have the effect to
prevent the draft becoming payable be-
fore that time. The Instrument WAS not
and there was no necessity for
protest to fix liability of indorsers. The
case will be reversed that appellees may
have the opportunity to record their petit
ton If they desire, so as to meet the OBJ
lections Of appellants. No opinion is ex-
pressed as to whether they can maintain
such action or not. Reversed and re-
msnded. Msltbie, Commissioner.
Adopt d, May l, 1888.