Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-06-08
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synepses OF Decisions Rendered NJ the
Present Ans'Ea Sitting Of the
Higher Courts of Texas.
COURT of Appeals and .oommisston of Ap.
peals observation-disclosures County Case
Reversed End kensnded.
Conn mission of Appeals,

Ot cl q ppeh4sB
Correspondence of the Gazette
AUSTIN, TEX, June 6.-Guh, Colo
RADIO and Santa Fe Railway vs.. McQuor-
quedoll; Milan. The issue in this case
was the contract, its breach and the ex-
tent Of the damages, and it is held
That the court did not err in refusing to
sllow sppellent to prove that sppellee
had not complied with his contract with
a third party as to the grade Of cattle to
De delivered. Under the contract the
road was to receive appellee's cattle for
shipment on the 10Th OF Msv. Appellee
aad the cattle ready at that time, but the
company failed and refused to receive
mem till the 23i Ct May. Held: That
the road we9 liable for any damages re-
sultiDg from the breach OF contract. II is
urged that the deIsy Wss OcCssioned by
the act of God In 81 unususl food break
ing the ROAD, cut the cattle were TO be
shipped on the 70 h and the food did not
occur until the 2Ist OF Msy. Affirmed.
Acker, Commissioner.
Goode ct sl. VS.. Jasper ct al; Hill.
Trespass to try title to $40 acres CT land,
ny the appellants SIS the heirs OF Z. 4.
Goode. Goode was married in l84S, AMI
divorced IN 1855; during his marriage he
and his wife acquired right to the GAO
acres of land as colonists; after the di-
vOrCe the certificate issued to Goode, the
hus0Snd. Held: That the certificate
having Issued sitter the divorce One-hslf
Of ii belonged 20 the separate estate Of
the husband and the other half the prop
erty of tue divorced wife; Goode could
only bind his own Interest BY any new
contract. That the patent issued to Goode
after The divorce ne mad the legal ritle,
which descended to his heirs, aud upon
suCA title thy could recover Of those
tresphssers VINO are in no way connected
with the equitable title of Mrs. G0ode.
Reversed and remSnded. Collavd, Com
missioner.
Edwards ct a., vs.. Smith ct 81; Travis
Boundary suit as to the lines of out lots
and 5, division E, city Of Austin. The
pleadlngs only described lot 5, which has
no field notes, and the jury found gen.
eral verdict for plaintiffs. The court
rendered q alignment for lot by metes
aud bounds, so as to include strip Of
POP feet in width as the land In contro-
versy. Held: That the verdict did not
authoriz; the judgment; it only author
lied a Judgment for lot ), which left the
parties as they were before; in boundary
suits the land in dispute should be set
out by metes and bounds In the petition,
otherwise the verdict must describe the
land found by the jury. Reversed and
remanded. Maltbie, Commissioner.
Campbell ct 81 vs.. McEsdfen ct al; VIII
Hanson, This is suit to enforce locs-
tive contract made In 1888 between HoI-
bert Garvey and HcFadden, in which
McFadden had bound himself to survey
one half the land to which he WAS entitled
under the certificate. There Wss de-
murrer to the petition sustsined by the
court, and plaintiffs got Judgment on their
cross action granting them title to the
land. Held: That the delay from the
time the contract Was made to the issu-
arce OF the patent, does rot preclude the
prosecution OF this suit. After ten years
there is no fixed rule prohibiting relief II
the circumstances account for and excuse
the delay. Il is shown that Su the parties
to the contract had knowledge OF tae con-
f!c:ing survey and believed it to be G
forgery and void, that McFadden expressly
agreed to the location and ecquiesced in
it; 1t does not appear that it was in The
power Of appellant to have patent issue
st an earlier day, or that. McFsdden SUI
feTed injary by the delay. Reversed and
remsnded. Msltoie, Commissioner