Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-16
Commission of Appeals

Male vs.. Paggi; Travis. Mile and
Psggi owned lots adjoining sGch othsr or
East Pecsn street, in Austin. Psggi bHill
wsll on The division line Of the two lots
II was agreed between Nalls ana PSggi
that when Male used his lot By iHprovi1g
it, that he would pay Paggi for ore
aslf the wsll. Male sold the lot before
he improved it to S. ChenWirth, who hsd
notice of the agreement between Nalle
aud Psggi, and he used the wall in Ina
proving the lot af.sr his purchase fron
Nslle. Held: That the agreement
between Male and Paggi was q simple
contract; it created no lien on the wall
or the lor, or say interest in then Of any
kind; 1t YVES not a covenant running with
the land. Reversed and remanded. Col
lard, Commissioner.
Newman & Co. VS.. L. q. Blum;
Travis. This was suit by Blum on 8
written contract, in which it was provided
that appellant was to psy CO cents On 81
of his Indebtedness to Blum. The cor
trac. provided that II snY mistake should
amount of BlNm's claim, stated to be
S1S ,437, the same should be rect.hsd
whether In favor Of or agsisst BIums
there was mistake in the amount OF the
clais, as ths contract left that opea TO
correction; the written contract having
stated in what particular it might be cor
rected, thereby implied tina. it could not
De corrected in other respects; il WAS not
admissible for appellants to prove thai sy
an agreement the day before the writing
that attorneys fees were to be excluded
NrO- SNYN lat rs1kh hot
denied that attorneys fees were part Of
the claim. Affirmed. Collard, Coamis
sioper.
B.llew ct al. vs.. Casey & Swasey, John
son. This was sn action CT traspass to
try title, and the only question being
whether the lard was the community
property Of the husband and wife or the
separate property OF the wife. Mrs
Bellew testified as to how she obtained
the money she paid for the lots by depo-
sition, "that the money was her own, her
individual money, and that she bought
the lots herself with her own individual
money" This answer was stricken out
by the court on objection, and that &C
ton is presented for revision. 1t was
shown in proof that the lots were con-
veyed by Bellew, the husband, to Blair to
secure debt, that after Blair's destb,
and the payment Of lac debt by Bellew,
Mrs. Blair, at Bellows request, and for 8
nominal consideration, reconveyed the
lots to Mrs. Bellew. Held: l. That
there WAS no error in excluding Mrs.
Bellows answer as to how she obtained
the lots, her answers were conclusions Of
law and not Of facts. 2. That the facts
show the lots to have been community
Affirmed. Collard, Commits
siouer.
Wassemick VS.. John Ireland, Travis.
Appellant sued Ireland on this obliga-
ton: "For value received hereby Oh
lgste myself to assume sll debts against
Wassemick Co , at Seguin, that is to
hold said Wassemick & Co. harmless
sgainst them. The suit against said firm
oy Blum & Co. ia to go on, and whatever
Judgment may be recovered for damages
,gainst Blum & Co. is to belong TO Irelspd
Z Burgess and said Wassemick jointly"
rhe suit against Blum was tried Novem-
Ter Z, 1888, the Instrument above bore
late OF August l, 1881; a judgment was
endered for Wsssemick for $3.50 daG-