The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-04-18
JUDICIAL BEHEsrs.
Abstract of Cases Decided by the
kupreme Court.

Abstract OF cases Decldeo py the
supreme Court.
The supreme court decided the follow
ing cases yesterday:
j. M. Gross VS.. Ed Hays, from Dallas
county; affirmed. Stayton, q. ].
W. j. F. May field, guardian of I. l..
Mexan, VS.. H. q. Williams, from McLen-
nan county affirmed. Henry, A.. j.
j. H. and A. p. Luckett va. P.V. Scruggs,
from Fsnnin county; affirmed. Henry,
A. j.
j. j. Brick We. Abram Buel, from Dali
las county; reversed and remanded. Stay
ton, @. j.
International and Great Northern Rail
road company VS.. VIM. Pope, from Comal
county; reversed and remanded. Gaines,
A. j.
Morgan L. Lewis VS.. Galveston, Harris
burg and San Antonio Railway company,
from Bexar county; reversed and re-
manded. Gaines, A. j.
G. w. Gulledge We. Lauriston White,
from Bexar county; reversed and rendered
for appellant. Gaines, A. j.
The opinions of the commissioners of
appeals in the following cases were
adopted:
Sd. Bridges vs. Samuel Samuelson,
ct al, from Mason county: affirm ed.
Opinion by Acker, presiding judge.
p. ]. Willis & Bro. We. j. Il. Talbot,
from Wilbarger county; affirmed Opin-
ion by Hobby. .
r.. Crenshaw ct al. vs.. G. O. Clay
brook, from Grayson county; affirmed.
Opinion by Oollard.
Richard Peterson va. John l.. Fowler ct
al, from Lamar county; affirmed. Opinion
by Acker.
James Masterson ct al. VS.. Wiley Will
liams ct al. from San Saba; appeal dis
missed. Opinion by Aoker.
Paul Longeway vs.. M. E. Hale ct al.
from Wise county; affirmed. Opinion by
Collard.
ID. McKennon vs.. W. @. McGown,
from Montague county; reversed and
remanded. Opinion by Hobby.
The Gulledge-White case was suit OF
unlawful detainer-brought by appellee
against appellant in justice of peace
court to recover possession of certain lots
in San Antonio. Defendant got judg-
ment and plaintiff appealed to the district
court, where Gulledge moved to dismiss
the cause on the ground that "the COM
plant fails to show the relation of land
lord and tenant between plaintiff and de
PENDANT. The court overruled the motion
and this court holds that this was an error.
The complaint in this case alleges that de-
PENDANT was tenant at will of the lots
in controversy as conclusion of law,
but does not even allege that he was q
tenant under plaintiff as his landlord
Under Article 2445 of the Revised Stat.
utes the facts which entitle the com
plainant to the possession and authorize
the action must be stated.
The assignment that the judgment was
contrary to the law and evidence in moi
showing that defendant ever became the
enant at will, or otherwise, of the plain
tiff, his vendors or agents is held to be
we'll taken. Judgment is reversed and
rendered for appellant.
In the Lewis case, the complainant was
inj ured in San Antonio by switched cal
running over and neoessitating the am
putation of his left leg above the knee
crippling him for life and otherwise per
manently injuring him. Held: That, ad-
mitting the facts alleged are such as to
require that the plaintiff should show that
he is not guilty of contributory negll-
gence, the allegation that he was "without
fault or negligence" is all that can be re-
quired upon general demurrer. For the
error of the court in sustaining the gen
eral demurrer, the Judgment is reversed
and the oeuse remanded.
The Pope case Was before the court on
former appeal, reported in 81 Texas Re
ports, when the action was for damages
for tort or injury to property by OBJ
struct1ng plaintiffs access to some of his
land, this court then holding that plaintiff
was compensated in the condemnation
proceedings. In the amended petition
Chere is claim for breach of contract
prior to the condemnation, under agree.
ment that the railroad company would
construct crossing to the lands, plaintiff
would not claim damages. To
SO much of the petition Of
alleged the contract, its breach
and the damages resulting therefrom, the
defendant excepted on the ground that
the cause of action was barred by limita'
ton. This assignment is held to be well
taken. The exception to so much of the
amended petition as claims and damages
for the injury to plaintiffs crops by req
son of the alleged inundatioH of land on
the other side of the railroad was properly
overruled, as damages for the overflow OF
this land was claimed in the original petit
ton, and the alleged injury to plaintiffs
crops only enlarged the scope of recov'
cry prayed for without setting up a new
cause of action. The exception to the
amended petition on the ground that il
did not allege the time at which the crops
were injured should have been sustained
Our system of pleading requires that the
plaintiff shall state his cause of action
with sufficient particularly to apprise the
defendant of the special case he is called
upon to defend. The decision is further
interesting as to the question of measure
of damages to crops and mode of deter
mining their value.
Two land cases, Cunningham vs.. tht
state and Caswell VS.. the State, were pre-
scented on briefs by the attorney general