Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-02-15
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SynOpSes of Decisions Rendered at the Present
Galveston Sitting of the SUI
pFeme Court.
SUPREME COURT.

J. ". stayton, Chief Justice, presiding; R. R.
Gaines and J. L. Henry. Associate Justices.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEX, Feb. 13.-The
Houston, East and West Texas railroad
company VS.. C. f.. Blagge ct al. /; appeal
from Jasper county. Trespass to try
title. ParoI evidence sufficient to estab-
fish the execution and contents Of a lost
deed was introduced. The witnesses by
whom this proof was made stated their
belief to be that the lost deed was dated
1915, the petition alleging 1912 This
evidence was objected TO as variance be-
tween the proof and allegation. The OBJ
lection was over ruled and the evidence
admitted. Held: In this case the date
of the lost instrument was not material
and not being so the evidence was pro-
perly admitted. Affirmed Opinion by
Henry, A. j.
Middlebrook Bros. VS.. b. L. Lapp ct
al =. appeal from Fayette county. The
record discloses that l. and r. o. Mid
dlebrook and Mrs. Julia Meyer, wife of
W. c. Meyer, entered into written
agreement Of partnership to buy and sell
merchandise, under the firm name of
Middlebrook Bros. Mrs Meyers con-
invested, and was To have One-half the
profits. The business was conducted by
c. w. Meyer, as an employed clerk or
manager, on salary. In August, 1887,
the sheriff levied an execution and sold
against G.. w. Meyer on a portion of said
stock of merchandise, for which this suit
was brought. Held: Notwithstanding
the fact that the capital paid into the
firm by Mrs. Meyer was her separate pro-
peTty, the stock of goods at the time of
the levy belonged to the Middle
brooks and the community estate of her
self ar husband was subject to
be sold 5r her husband 5 debts How
ever, 1r statutes point ont the mode to
be Observed in levying upon the interest
of a partner for an individual debt, which
not having been pursued in this case and
an unWarTanted tTespasS having been
committed the defendants in this suit
make themselves liable to the owners of
the goods for whatever damages they
sustained by reason of the unlawful
seizure. Art. 2295, R. 5. Mrs. Meyer
owning no separate estate in the goods
seized had no cause of action for damage
done her separate property. If not ex-
cepted to her mIsjoinder would not neces-
sarily have been fatal to plaintiff s suit if
been alleged to belong to community es
tate. Darlington VS. .Newland ,57Tex .634. I
To permit plaintiffs TO recover, upon a
petition so clearly charging, as does the
one in this case, that the suit is by the
wife for an injury done her separate es-
tate, damages shown with equal clear
ness by the evidence to belong to the
community would be a striking illustra-
ton of q Judgment rendered upon the
evidence and not upon, but rather
against, the pleadIngs. Affirmed.
Opinion by Henry, associate justice.
J. Il Hill ct al VS.. II. H Kimball, !
error; from Freestone county The |
court below sustained a plea to the iuris- !
diction in this case, holding that it was
appellee 5 privilege to be sued in the |
county of his residence. The submission |
is not complete and it is set aside and |
thirty days given TO file additional briefs |
and 10 answer these questions: Il ) There |
being alleged no intentional wrong on |
part of plaintiff toward Mrs Hill, and |
the injury not having been inflicted |
through any physical force, does an ac- |
ton arise from the injury? e. Can
there be n recovery for an injury though |
physical, produced by the wrongful or
negligent act of another, through the |
medium OF great excitement or strong /
emotion created in the mind of the in |
jured party and in the absence of any |
violence whatever directed towards an |
operating upon the person of such party? |
BY Gaines, A. J.
Commission of Appeals-Collard, presiding /
judge; Acker and Hobby, judges.
Sabine and East Texas Railway Com /
pany VS.. Joshua Smith; appeal from /
Jefferson county. Appellee (witness) |
fixed the value of the cabbage crop in /
the soil by what he thought the market
value to be after the crop was gathered
and placed upon the market four miles
distant from the place where the crop
was DESTROYED. Appellant moved to |