The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-06-13
JUDICIAL BEHESTS.
Abstract of Decisions Made By the
Supreme Court Yesterday.


The following cases were decided yes
terday in the supreme court:
Reversed and manded-Gulf, Colorado
and Santa Fe railway Va. R. l.. Dunman,
appeal from Coleman; Lon E. Chihett, ad-
ministratrix, vs.. p. j. Willis & Bro. ct al.
appeal from Nolan.
Atfirmed-Galvestop, Harrisburg and
San Antonio Railway company vs.. Themes
Johnson, appeal from Bexar; Murzester-
mer & Klein vs. Otto Heinze & Co., APP
peal from Lamar; George Eggenberger
vs. G. Brandenberger, appeal from Mason.
Reversed and rendered-G. W. M.
Duck, tax collector, VS.. L. M. Pee!e, ap-
peal from AtascOsa.
The Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Rail
way Company vs. R. l.. Dunman.
In this case Dunman made a deed to
the railroad company to certain lot of
ground to be used to pump water into a
tank for the engines. The conside ton
was that the company would, every seven
days, have tank owned by DHnman filled
with water. There was a condition also
that if the company should fail to fill
Dunman's tank, or cease to use the land
for the purpose mentioned, then the
property should revert to Dunman. The
railroad failed to put water in Dunman's
tank, and he brought suit to recover the
land, damages for failing to supply the
plaintiffs tank and for the value of the
use of the land and privileges.
Held: That upon the failure of defend
ant to comply with the condition subse-
quent the plaintiff could re-enter upon
the land and recover damages for
the failure to fill the tank as agreed
up to the date of such, or the
institution of this suit, and while the de-
PENDANT at that time could not seek in his
pleadings a condemnation of the property
in the exercise of the right of eminent
domain, since the trial of the case in the
district court, the legislature has passed
an act authorizing it to be done. Judg-
ment reversed and cause remanded. Opin-
ion by Henry,J.
George Eggenberger vs.. Grandenber-
ger, appealed from Mason county. The
defendant in error brought this suit
against the plaintiff in error to recover
tract of land and sued out writ of Sc
queetration. The assignment of error is
in effect that the court below had no ju-
risdiction of the cause for the reason that
the petition upon which the case was
tried appears to have been filed
in the county court and not
in the district. Some of the papers in the
case are signed "Wiison Hey, clerk of the
county court of Mason county," and other
papers are signed "Wilson Hey, clerk of
the district court of Mason"
Held: That where 1t ia evident that
such an error is clerical one it is too late
to take advantage of it in this court
Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Gaines, j
G. W. M. Duck, tax collector, VS.. T. M
Peeler; appeal from Atascosa county.
The appellee claims that he rendered
| for assess ment his real estate under oath
at valuation agreed upon between him
self and the assessor, and that afterwards
without authority, the latter placed it OF
the tax rolls at higher valuation.
Held: That although the minutes O.
the commissioners court do not show tina
the valuation upon the specific propert!
was raised, the order approving the tai
rolls is inclusive, that the valuations OF
the rolls are those fixed by the board o.
court. Judgment reversed and rendered
Opinion by Stayton, O. j.