The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-05-31

Bastrop county; reversed and reminded.
| S. G. COutes ct al. vs.. S. w. Caldwell,
Dallas county; reversed and remande6.
| VIM Newman VS.. George Schroeder,
Bexar county; reversed and rendered for
appellant.
VIM. Warner ct al. vs.. City OF Galveston,
Galveston county; motion for rehearing
overrulee
PA. Peters VS.. L. n. Moller, Martin
county: certificate dismissed.
C.R. Smith VS.. Olivia F. Green ct al,
Clay county; affirmed on certificate.
The following decisions of commission
of appeals were approved:
Jno. c. Roberts VS.. c. U. Connellee
ct al, Eastland county; reversed and re-
manded.
Scottish Union and National Insurance
company, of Edinburg, vs. q. II. Clancy,
Dallas county; reversed and remanded.
W. c. Howard VS.. j. H. Britton d Co,
Dallas county; affirmed.
In the Mcdaniel vs.. Ragsdale case the
| question Involved is whether the wife and
minor children of man who has left the
state and desires that they follow him and
still retain the protection of the home
stead exemption while they remain upon
ths HOMESTEAD left by the husband and
father.
The case, as it appears from the testi-
mony, is that the husband LETT Texas to
seek a location. After wandering for
months he stopped at a railroad village III
Arizona, bought property with his wages
and wrote to his wife to join HIM. She
had remained with her children and did
not have the means to join her husband.
At the time of the levy she and her chill
dren were living on thu premises levied
upon.
The husband WIS insolvent having
failed i'll business as saloon keeper in
Texas. In Arizona he had taken up his
former trade as barber. On hearing of
her husbands wishes, as to change Of resi-
dence, the wife put the place into hands
of land agents for SALE intending to leave
as soon as she could sell.
The lot was levied uIoa June 4, 1888,
and sold October thereafter The sale
and conveyances down TO plaintiff were
regular. The defendant, Ragsdale, claimed
under a deed from Weber and wife, &C.
kuowledged by the wife September 4, 1888
She ana his family sided on the lot IN
til September II, 1888. Ragsda'e was her
son-ia-law, and kuew all the facts, the
premises being the residence of the fam
lily at the time of the levy, and Weber and
wife having conveyed to defendant 10y
the forms of law there was no injustice
done by the verdict and judgment.
The holdings of the court are: The
homestead once acquired is not aban
doned while the wife and children are in
fact residing thereon, and it was not error
in the court below to refuse the instruc-
tions a ked, as to the effects of the hus-
bands acts and purposes for the future,
after he had left the state, upon the home
stead character of the premises occupied
by his family in Texas.
The acts and declarations of both the
husband aud wife on the subject of the
removal to Arizona were properly in evil
dence. There would be no fraud in the
purpose if shown that the wife and
children should remain until they could
effect a sale of the homestead. Sac had
a legal right to do so.
Finding no error the judgment below
is affirmed. Opinion by Associate Justics
Walker.
Ia the case of Newman VS.. Schroeder,
from Bexar county, the defendant had
sold hides to Croll A. Housen, who drew on
appellee for payment. Schroeder verbally
promised to pay the draft, which was for
$40, but next day refused to do so, saying
"Croll d Housen are busted; I will not
pay that order, but if you will find Hansen
and bring him to me l will pay you 5000.
Held, That verbal acceptance or promise
to pay check or bill of exchange may
be enforced when made in state having
statute similar to that in force in this
state and that in the absence of any
statute that such acceptance should not be
sustained, the courts are not authorized to
depart from what seems to be the settled
construction of the statute of frauds Judg-
ment is reversed and rendered for appel
liant. Opinion by Chief Justice Stayto