The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-05-09
JUDICIAL BEHESTS.
Abstract of Decisions by the
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
The supreme court decided the follow
ing cases yesterday:
international and Missouri Pacific Rail
way companies vs. Tisdale from William
son county. Affirmed, if plaintiff RENTS
800 of the judgment. Suit for damages
for injury to a stallion and failure to de-
liver jack. Opinion by Judge Hobby,
of the commission of appeals, adopted.
Tisdale consents to the remittur.
W. A. Grounds vs. Samuel Sloan, from
Erath county. Affirmed. Opinion by
Justice Henry.
j. W. Strauss ct al. vs.. City of Dallas
from Dallas county. Opinion by Justice
Gaines.
F.B. York vs.. the State, from Travis
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Chisf jus
tice Stay ton.
W. s. Cunningham ct al. vs.. the State
from Travis county. Affirmed. Opinion
by Chief Justice Stayton.
T. L. Oglesby vs.. the State, from
Travis county. Reversed and remanded
Opinion by Justice Gaines.
In the Oglesby case Oglesby was sued
on his official bonds for two terms as tax
| collector of Maverick county, raising the
question as to the equities existing be-
tween the sureties on the one obligation
and those on the other. Oglesby was
elected in November, 1884, reelected No
vember, 1886, and resigned in January,
1887. The sureties on the second bond
prosecute this appeal on the ground that
the petition did not distinctly show the
liabilities of the sureties on the second
bond. Their exceptions were overrVled,
and this ruling is assigned as error. The
state sued the sureties on both bonds, to
the end that the equities between the two
sets of sure,ies might be adjusted.
Held: The fact that the state had been
unable to determine during which term OF
Office the money had been misapplied,
raises no equities between the sureties.
There Is no privity between the two sets
of sureties. The fact that one set were
liable for what the other set we're not does
not in suit to recover upon either or
both relieve the state from the necessity of
alleging unequivocally the facts which
show the unconst itutional liability of the
parties sought to be charged. To allege
IN petition against A and that A is IL
able if B is not, and that is liable il A is
not, does not allege the unconditional liza
bility of either. The petition was
defective and the demurrer should have
been sustained.
The case of the Screwmen's Benevolent
association VS.. Smith, 10th Texas reporte,
is cited rs in point.
As to the complaint that the bond
signed by the sureties had not been ap-
proved by the comptroller, the supreme
court holds that it is not essential to the
validity of bond which requires the ap-
prevail of an officer that he should write
the word approved" upon il. 1t must, in
fact, be approved, but its approval may
be inferred from it's being filed and
acted upon. The court further holds that
here the jurisdiction of the comptroller
over the matter ceased, and that 1t was
not the function of the comptroller to de.
termine the question of Oglesby's eligi.
bility to his office, although the evidence
may have been before him which
showed thai he had not obtained his dis
charge for the moneys collected by him.
1t was simply the comptroller's duty to
pass upon the bond and deposit it in his
Office, which he did, and subsequently en-
dorsed it approved" This endorsement
was after he had adjusted his accounts
with the comptroller, but also after be
had resigned his Office. This latter ap
proyal was too late TO affect the liability
of the sureties on the bond; but since tLt
board was, in fact, approved in the first