Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-06
;6PREME COURT.
,n.cIsion. Rendered at the
EE 'a Austin Slit ng Of the
Supreme Court
m, Missouri Pacific Railway
pc r. Il. Cornwall from
Sps r,,ut oouuty Affirmed
q q, the Gazette

Les & Simpson, Ilon CooAs
Vs. tnnellees claim the property IN
aP tbrough an execution sale,
Eo7si .;,,e depends on whether the
SsH VS. . homestead at the time OF
j, srN .he eyecuti n. The property
s7y VI ~ vest halves OF two lots in the
pee, wv On the block north
slock in which these two lots are
.5 IN Slgie owned half interest IN
sNa ,0 % on which was house, which
As' w ,,me before the levy OF the
some ,s had used SIS 8 residence, and
1uOn ~ N business as q dentist and
H This lot was about
oen ..om the property in controver-
%.. shown that at all times the prop
W. beep used for homestead pur-
Held: That the right OF appeliees
,.nsnd on the fsct existing at the
" The levy under which the claim
ads. and the property being the
,ssidepce OF the parties at the time
Nv Il WAS not subject TO forced
p:versed and rendered for sppel-
suyton, Chief Justice.
f,den1lng ct al. vs.. W. Bell; from
suit py appellee for part OF
.hs town Of Gainesville. Holland
y me lot and conveyed it to ap-
=. october 20, 1855, but the deed
~, filed for record until March 10,
inst this conveyance WAS bona
IA mrs valuable consideration is
'-s,tioned. On February %, 1886, q
,nsn, IN Justice court was rendered
..t Holland, and execution issued on
- 1886, and levied on the lot in
.,ovsrsy, sold under that and bought
,nn4Iee on April following; notice
,51eIlsnt's right WAS given at the sale.
rs time Of the levy and OF the sale
n,operty was occupied by tenant
.ppeilsnt. Held: That the notice
the sale would not protect sp-
mrs right; but the possession
nDallsut's tenant, operated as notice
X9oIlsud's creditor and the appellee OF
MslMts rights. Appellee was not there
~ innocent purchaser. Reversed
rendered for appellant. Stsyton.
8aiastice.
III. Dalson VS.. Mrs De Gsnahl, ad-
Esrstrix; from Bexar. This was 8
royersy about q note executed by ap-
n, to appellee's teststor, S B
Nd. It's urged that the court erred
Xanitting appellee to testify that she
,dmiuistr.trix. Held: That the
.iiag did not put her capacity to sue
.:ue and such objection was i'm
znsl; it is also urged that
rOper evidence was admitted over
stiOn, in rebuttAl of hearsay testi-
allowed to 90 in without objection.
h. Thst the fact thst improper evil
he has been admitted for want OF OBJ
Oh does not authorize the court to
BIZ improper evidence over objection
Xnbuthl. reversed aud remanded.
yDn, Chief Justice.
dsberg, Klelne & Co. VS.. Elliott &
hit, from Comanche county; this
50 acton brought by zp-
Hs to recover damages for
Vtwiul seizure and conversion of 9
h Of goods claimed by appellees. The
bis so seized having been in part sold
ppsllees Oy Fernandez & Alderman,
we're DEBTORS, to appellants, appel.
Unclaimed the sale was made in fraud
1stitors. 1t is urged that the verdict
contrary to the evidence. Held:
nthiS court is not authorized to set
the verdict even If upon an exsmin-
aOi all the testimony we should in
ihst different finding would have
better support. Affirmed. Stayton,
id Justice.
P'i, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
7nny vs., LIlliphant, from Dallas
Pslse sued the company and obtained
gneui for damages suffered by him
ea working on hand-car as an EN-
Pc Of appellants. II is complained
he verdict Is so large as TO be ex.
sVs, Held: The expert medical tes-
POW 4 contradictory as to the proba-
y Of nnsl and complete rec Jverv by
Fntf from the Effects of the irj1ry;
DIS injuries we're serious, his loss OF
great and his physical psin intense
p'ouscted Is not denied, the amount
f@so great as to show prejudice or
oadl:t on the part Of the jury. Al
&C. Walker, Justice.
avs. Miller ct 81, Wichita county.
sued Miller and brought the other
Aees In as sureties on Wright's bond
1enR Of Clay county to secure DANA
wrongful! suing out and levy of
-usnt on stock Of horses on the
~ fais attachment WAS sued out st
Instance Of Miller, whom it is alleged
ass the debt was not owing at
ls ne sued out the attachment, and
M was known to Mr.. Wright
Ma Wright both filed separate
s 70 Inc petition, which we're
80 Rice refusing to answer, the
vas dismissed. Held: That there
!. error in sustaining demurrer OF
nv Tor the attachment wr:ts being
.r.. was his duty to make the levy,
hise his knowledge of the
slc' OF the cause of action,
,,,. MALICIOUS intent of Miller
s out the writ, was.
Inc answer Of defendant Miller
court was in error. II the
suas Of the petition were true the
sai was both wrongfully and ma
s1ea out. Reversed and re-
~ Gaines, Justice.
IN T vs. Brown ct ais, Caldwell
n, .ais is question OF boundary
,ns"n adjoining surveys of lands. |
sf'Asnt claims under the |
which is the older
Fa,, appellees claim under
a n. 'ns Junior survey. That por-
bon u. Floyd which adjoiued the
st NJ e southwest had been sub
ts,sSIour 100 acre tracts; and to
4aSsso severally set up title;
b ~ tracts had been surveyed and |
hn M ce ground and extended some
PED by ~ curtis accordingly as is
iound AZ plaintiff. The court in
Ash N. mat the evidence failed to
sus southwest boundar, of the