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

SSuA
The supreme court decided the follow
ing cases yesterday:
C.L. Neville vs.. the State, from Travis
county; affirmed. Opinion by Justice
Gaines.
Neville refused to sign lease for some
school land, because the papers showed the
state reserved the right to sell any part Of
the land. Held: All that was required to
com plete the contract was that the land
board should accept appellants bid, and
tender him lease executed according to
the terms of his application.
Thos. Parker vs.. p. G. Ross, from Nc
Lehman county; affirmed. Opinion by
Chief Justice Stayton.
Contest as to the payment of insurance
money. Held: The policies having been
taken out in the name of the purchaser of
the property and payable to Thos. Baker
as his interest, may appear the insurance
companies were justified in making set
element with appellant and the person to
whom the policy was issued in the absence
of knowledge of the right of appellee.
Reversed and remanded-R. M. Hark
ness, plaintiff in error, vs. Thos. j. Devine,
from Fri1 county; Gulf, Colorado and
ct al, from Bell county, and Niagra In
surance comp any vs.. d. w. and Margaret
Lee, from Mitchell county. Opinions by
Justice Henry.
M. Randa Brown, administrator va. W.
X. Wheelook, from Dallas county; reversed
and remanded: opinion by Justice
Games.
Saul d. Evans vs.. Thomas Talbot ct al,
from Williamson county; dismissed for
want of prosecution.
M. McCsrty and wife vs.. j. 7. Bracken-
ridge, from Travis county; same order.
Sam E. MoCleland vs. G. W. Crippen,
and same vs.. j. R. Tinsley ct al, both
cases from McLennan county, original
Jag under the peculiar McClelland will
controversy; dismissed at the request of
appellant.
In the Blohm case, suit was brought
against the railroad company by appel
lees, WHO are father and son, to recover
damages for both, caused by an injury to
the son, whose leg was run over and had
to be amputated below his knee. There
was a verdict and judgment for $4,000
for the son and $605 for the father.
There was conflicting testimony as
to the question of contributory
negligence, and whether Blohm in
going under the engine to clean out
the ash pan did 80 voluntarily,
or by direction of the engineer. The son
was receiving $55 per month for his ser
vices as fireman, which he was in the
habit of paying to his father. No damage
was shown to the father except the loss of
his sons wages.
The court affirm5 the general proportion,
that an employe cannot recover damages
for an injury caused by the negligence of
a fellow servant, and that the engineer
and fireman in this case bear that rela-
ton; and further that there is no differ
ence between an act of fellow servant
that causes an injury, or command that
produces the same result. Under the evil
denoe the jury should have been in
struoted to find for the defendant, and
the judgment is reversed and the cause is
remanded accordingly.
10 the Rsnda Brown case the suit was
against her as administering to- enforce
specific performance of contract which
was resisted on the grounds:
First-That one Smith, party to the
contract, was at the time it was made a
minor and that his disabilities had not
been legally removed, and
Second-That at the time his intellect
had been 80 impaired by the use of in
toxicating liquor, that he was not capable
of dealing with appellee upon equal
terms, and that by reason of his incapac-
ity he was overreached in the transaction.
The jury was charged "that the judg-
ment of the district court of Dallas
ounty removing the disabilities of Brisco
Smith is conclusive and cannot be at
tackled or inquired into in this suit"
This charge is assigned as error.
Held: The instruction puts the order in
question upon the same footing as the
judgment of court of general jurisdic
ton and cannot be maintained. The &C.
ton of the judge in removing the disa-
bilities of minority in any particular case,
when done in conformity to the provisions
of the law should be deemed valid and
conclusive of the question of the power of
tue minor thereafter to contract as per-
son of full age. No Prescriptions are to
be INDUCED in favor of the regularity of
the order in question. As to following
the statute it was incumbent upon appel
Zee to show that it was followed and not
upon defendant to show the contrary. |
Judgment reversed and case remanded. |