Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-11-23

promised In 1884 by the railroad paying
him 1850 and agreeing TO employ him IS
engineer (. is prot. ssion) SO Icing as he
desired to be 81 Employed; that they
paid the $4,000, but when appellee up
piled for work on July /, 1886, they re :
fused to employ him. Appellant denies
The agreement. and say il any such
sgreemert WAS made with Cam pbell ats
torney for appellant, end Taylor, ASST
tsnt secretary fer sppells2t, they had ia
authority TO make il; that the Egreemenf
WAS void because not IN writing, and 10.
TO be performed within year; shat Ae.
agreement Vas contrary 20 public policy
and WAS not Incorporated II the indg-
ment which con AIMED the settlement in
1854 and was 70. mutually binding
on bo:h parties, and inde finite,
/. While En attorney by virtue OF his en-
p!oynen. has not authority 10 make q
compromise II IN ,c;lon ne is employed
20 prosecute, CT defend, II Is not to be
presumed wlen ere SO situsttd ASSUMES
the right 20 exercise such power, and
does Exercise il, thst this wss Gone with
out lawful authority, and but slight evil
dence in such cases nay be sufficient TO
authorize the belief thSt he was clothed
with al the power he assumed to extr-
else. The petition does not aver that
Gppellsn. ever contracted to employ
appellee foT any definite length
OF time, but distinctly slleges
this. BIT Fdid promise 10 give
him employment for whatsoever length Of
time which the petitioner might desire to
retAia such employment. The petition
now here alleges tlaE appellee sgreed to
serve appellant for any fixed period OF
time, nor does the proof establish this
iSct. The evidence tends to show ttat
the promise made, on compromise, WAS
to give to Eppellee employment. during
his life, bat IL does NO: show tha. when
appellee sought en- loYment he proposed
to render services fer Any named period
Of time, or so long as he
might live, and be Abls to
perform the services contemplated.
Held: When such state OF agreement
exists, il is no breach Of Contre CT TO re-
fuse to receive further services. and 6
refusal to accept &ly at al II would seem
st most would en:itle the engaged seryht.
only to nominsl damages. 8. When ths
term CT service is left 10 the diacretion.pf
either party, or the term left iGdefnite
or indeteTminable OF either party, either
party may put an end to 1t ct Will, aud sds
without cause. The agreement for the
compromise YES oral and the judgmeH%
rendered does rot undertake to emba7
Il, nor les It even recite that it;Rks
rendered in accordance with an bgtee-
ment. The evidence does not sustain the
judgment. Reversed AID remanded
S.Ayton c j.
Peter B!sso VS.. J. II. Soutn1ortn; sp-
peal from Navarro. Suit By srpellee
against appellant to erjoin him from gsfI
hitting bswdy house to os keps+Abona
certain properly owned By him, aud tps
recover damages caused by the uuisarsd
The alleged baUdy house was on lSffn
close proximity to where sppellee lived
with his wife and children. Verdict for
appellee for S25 actual damages and S75
damage for injury to his feelings, and in.
junction IS prayed fer. l. The court d
nos err in instruciag the jury that she
plaintiff could recover for lIjary 10 Msd
feeIings Us actual damages 2. In s$hs
sbsSace Of IS statement Of fsc!s, we aust
corS.der as proved every fact neesssarYl