Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-29
me court.

Correspondence of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX, April 27.-J. E. Hendsr
son vs.. Anglo American Lsnd and Claim
Association; from Dallas. Action by
appellee, who claimed to be the holder OF
written instrument, promising TO pay
$500, and such facts are alleged, IS would
entitle 1t 10 the judgment rendered in its
favor in court having jurisdiction. Many
questions are presented. But the action
Is to recover exactly $500, and was
brough' in the District court, which had
no Jurisdiction of the case. Reversed
snd dismissed. Stayton, Chief Justice.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company vs..
wv. Johnson; from Collin. Action by
Johnson to reco er from the railroad
company the value of certain wheat de-
livered to the railroad company for ship
Dent and alleged to hsve been lost in
transit; the claim was, that each consigu-
ment as delivered to the consignee tell
short Of the amount actually received by
the company for shipment. For the error
Of the court in admitting the plaintiff to
testify from the books of the transscl ions
with which he had no personal knowledge,
and in admitting the book in evidence as
to such transactions, the case is reversed
and remanded. Gaines, Justice.
Feed ct 81 vs.. Appieby ct al, from Falls
cotH.y. The appellants sued for part
Of the league and lab,r patented In the
name OF John Rector, claimed as lOca-
tive Interest through contract with Rec
tor for one-half. From the testimony 1t
Is evident that the general verdict for the
defendants was upon the question of the
existence Of the deed from Rector to
Reed. The only testimony contradictipg
plaintiffs case IS to the existence Of the
deed WAS that given by the w.t.
nesses Joseph and George Rector
to their fathers statements asserting
title Inconsistent with his sale to Reed.
George Rec,or's testimony was to the
eject that ne had heard his father say
that he had lost his land certificate ard
oid not know where 1t wss located and
asd not received II, and that he had heard
MS father claim it since 1851. These
declarations were introduced by the
pflFes IN estate Of Rector, and are hear
say The testimony was TO vital part Of
Inc case and h uld have been excluded,
ana its admission was error. reversed
sno remapded. Walker, Justice.
FORE Henderson vs.. Hitson & Ried /,
lfom T6rrant county. Tais case grows
ou' OF the following facts: Morphy,
president of the Texas Investment Com
papy, made the contract and bond sued
Oh Ior the delivery Of 1900 head of cattle
W hitsoa Reid, and to the bond made
aOrpny signed as security the firm name
fore, Morphy & Henderson. Morphy
made no declarations to Reid, who acted
IL Inc business for Hitson & Reid, es to
having authority to sign tue name Of such
partnership. II appeared that the part
,ssisnip had neen formed only to ill con-
VAC ior delivery OF cattle to Stone Cat
Se and Pasture Company, and its
,vi, an was only In set
aips 10 the debts of that
Wtcern; suit wss brought on this ooli-
sAnon against the Texas Investment
SSSmpanV, and against j. P. Smitn and
TTUEei MorphY & Henderson IS suretieE
lug defendants, Fore & Henderson,
s.s separately, and pleaded hon
ns.Isc'um; that there was no such pafrs
tn Tsasalp as Fore, Morphy & HenderEQp
,a' pesdines were verif1ed-judgmeht
;sAhst all the defendants. Held: There
,,. w testimony in the record st all as to
t ~ bY Fore, Henderson & MorphY
h. their psmes IS sureties to the
Teui or to use as basis Of credit for the
Po,a SIaent Company, the firm name of
of S.sI aorphy & Henderson. The charge
ts.Ie e court was not applicable to the
iss ,aohy; the testimony did not support
s.,,eiuic!; new trial should have been
WEI Reversed and remsnded.
"slker, Justice. "a