Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-02-01
-ersed and rendered

occupation Reversed and rendered
Opinion by Stayton, G J..
a B. CavieI VS.. r.. "a. Coleman: app
peal from Victoria county. Mandamus
suit to require appellee as
county judge to approve certain
certain vouchers issued to appellant rs
a public school teacher for his salary. He
had q written contract with the trustees
of the community for $50 per month.
This was signed by the county Judge, but
after the first month he told plaintiff he
would allow him only $50 per month
audit he approval of the contract
by him was an oversight. Held:
That under the provisions of the school
law regulating the community system
the county Judge has nothing to do with
signing the contract; that is 10 be made
with the trustee as directed by the act,
and it was the duty of the judge, under
the facts of this case to have approved
the vouchers or checks for the salary
He had no power to reform or change
the contract once made. Reversed and
remanded. Opinion by Henry, A.
Commission of Appeals-W. AckeT, presiding
Judge; W Z. Coilard and E. Hobby, judges.
Correspondence Of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEX, Jan. pr. s.
Willis, appellant, vs.. E. e Smith, ap-
pellee: appeal from BraZoria county
While some of the special charges asked
may not have been technically correct III
every particular. yet they were SUFFICIENT
TO call the attention of the court TO the
rules of law which we think decisive of
the controlling question in the case. II
Epperson paid one-sixth of the purchase
money 10 the heirs of Blackwell, which re-
leased the land TO that extent from the
j. I,np isfo Of
partnership of Epperson s. Wright then
the presumption would obtain that he
made the payment with part
nership funds, appellee having
purchased under an execution
against the estate of EppeTs0n
is in privity with Epperson, and had only
such rights as his, his estate at the time
Of the levy of the execution. He is thus
bound by the recitals in the decree. If
the possession of a particular estate is
affirmed in a deed. the gIantor and all IN
privity with him are estOpped
from afterwards denying that he
was so seized at the time
he made the conveyance. The estoppel
works upon the estate and binds an after
acquired title as between parties and
priyies. After the deeds OF trust had
been offered by appellee for limited
purpose they should have been admitted
in behalf Of appellant to show how he
came into possession Of the personal prop
erty. Reversed and remanded. Opinion
by Acker, presiding Judge.
The city of Galveston vs.. Peter Hem
mis-; from Galveston county. Appellee
was injured by stepping from high side
walk to the street at night at place
where he supposed there were steps to go
4, l,or i
tend across the fun width of the sidewalk
and hence he fell. He was supernum-
ary policeman There was a conflict of
evidence as to whether he knew or could
by the exercise of proper care, have
known of the defect. The court charged
q If you believe that the plaintiff was in
the employ of the defendant and had
equal means of knowing the condition of
the sidewalk and the defect was open and
visible then you viii find for defendant.
Held: = police officer has no such rela-
ton, by virtue of his employment to the
city, whose officer he is, as viii prevent
him from maintaining an action to re-
cover for injuries received by
reason of defective streets. Po-
hcemen DO not assume such
risks as employees. 1t is not analogous to
the case of employees of railroads. The
fact that the judge upon refusing new
trial said that as the question whether a
policeman was an employe that assumed
such risks had never been passed on by
the supreme court, and as the city could
appeal without bond, and the appellee
was poor, he would over
rule the motion; held: harmless
error, if error at all The whole case
was one of conflict of evidence, and the
erroneous view of the law taken by the
court in its charge was favorable to the
city, and it has no right to complain.
Affirmed. Opinion by Collard, Judge.