Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-05-28
SUPREME COURT.
synapses Of Decisions Rendered At tbs
Present Anssin Slssiug Of the
Texas Supreme Ceurt.
Important CAses 4 fismed md Reversed
and Remapded-The FlDd1Dgs In
Long Pending Gases.

Imperfect OAses a fismed md Reversed
and Kemepded-The Findings In
Long Pending Gases.
Special to the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX. May % -Lynch VS.
O:tleib & Co.; Dallas. This suit grow:
out lease Of building by appellant &c
sppellees. The lease was wriiten, snd
contsined no other covenants than .ha,
the lessee would keep the building in re.
pair. On the trial it was proven that the
agent Of the lessor, at the time Of the ex-
ecution Of the lease, represented to the
lessee that the building was safe and Sc
cure. This was objected to. Held: That
the admission Of this evidence was error,
and was calculated to tx upon appellees
liability not assumed in the written
contract. There Is no implied warranty
upon the part OF the landlord that the
premises are d. for the purposes for
which they are leased. The written con-
tract contains no warranty as to the CON
dition or character Of the building. Re-
versed and remanded. Acker, Commits
sioner.
Brooks vs.. Pegg; Bear county. II
this case there is no statement of facts,
nor bills of exception In the record; the
grounds relied on for reversal cannot be
sustained. The judgment showing that
no appearance in the District court was
made for defendant, she could not there
fore be pre- JUDGED by suppression Of dep
ositions. The plea Of coverture by the
Ia mt Inu ff3osa ~, he no
name Of her husband WAS not stated, but
rs 1t WISE not excepted to it must be
treated Is good plea, but the fact OF
coverture is not expressly admitted in
the plaintiffs pleading, and hence is pu,
In issue without general denial.
Affirmed. Gaines, Justice.
Stephens vs.. Gsiser, Bexsr. Ia this
case there is an exception to the admis.
sion of evidence of copy Of the patent
to the land in controversy; the certificate
Of the Commissioner Of the General Land
Office is in these words as said
patent was Originally recorded, 1t WAS
urged that this certificate WAS insrf1i Gent.
He'd: That the record Of the patent IN
the Land Office, is record from which
copies are subsequently given; these
copies are evidence OF the original, copy
st any time given Of patent as it was
Originally recorded, would be equivalen.
to copy Of the patent as when 1t was
issued; any alteration OF the record with.
out judicial sanction would not affect his
rights (; there was no error in admitting
the evidence. Affirmed. Walker, Justice.
Miles rs. Kinney ct al; Tom Green.
This was suit by Jackson & Carter to
recover certain lots. Miles WAS made q
party es wsrrantor, the petition stating
that he sold the lots and warranted the
title. There was q prayer for recovery of
the purchase money in the event The land
was recovered from them. There was q
recovery Of the land, and Miles made de-
fault, and Judgment was rendered against
Miles on his warranty The citation served
on Miles, sisted the nature Of the de-.
msrd against him as follows: "Eor the
title aud possession Of lots in the sum of
$500 (naming them) Tor dsmsges and fer
costs Of suit ana for general relief ~
Held: That the citation WAS not sufi-
Gent to notify Miles that plaintiff sought
to recover Of him or his warranty and
does MOI warrant the judgment. Re-.
vsrsed and remanded. Gaines, justice.
Monkes vs. McGrade, Fannin. This
action depends upon whether or
not the warranty in deed was
limited. There was q plea
OF former adjudication, testified by the
deiendent, which the court refused to
submit to the jury. Whether the deed
was 3 general warranty or not was an
issue In the former suit to which the plea
applied, as 1t was in this one. The came
testimony for and against was introduced !;
the cause Of action the liability Of Monks
for the defective title. The former trial
wss on its merits. Held: That these
facts meet al the ordinary tests Of judg-
ment estopped and 1t vas error to refuse
to submit the issues presented by the
plea OF former adjudication. Reversed
and remanded. Walker, Justice.
Parker vs.. Fort Worth and Denver City
Railway Companv; Wichita. Suit of
trespass to try title by appellant to re-
cover possession Of tract Of land and for
damages for cutting timber and building
railroad on it. On the trial the
company pleaded not guilty to q strip
100 yards wide and disclsimed IS to the
remainder. Plaintiff deraigned under .
deed to himself dated May, 1888, and
offered to prove by his own testimony
that In June 1883, he took possession OF
the land and made improvements
that he had rema ned in posses
sion until the company took
possession In May, 1885, plaintiff rested
with the statement that he would offer no
further evidence until the company
showed a superior title. The court ex-
cluded the deed and directed q verdict
for defendant, the company. Held: That
the evidence offered and excluded showed
. prims facie case, and 1t was error to
exclude 1t. Reversed and remanded.
Gaines, Justice.
WASHINGTON LETTER.