Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-01-25


Gaines and J. L. Henry. Associate Justices.
SUPREME COURT.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, TEX, Jan % e. Halves
ct al. vs.. Emma J. Nichols; appeal from
Calhoun county. In the year of 1873 H /.
w. Halves executed win devising spe-
cific portions of his estate to one of his
sons and his granddaughter Emma J.
Nichols. This paper was styled deed,
and shortly after its execution was ac-
knowledged by the maker and recorded
with the county clerk. In 1879 the said
II. w. Halves executed another win in
which he expressly revoked all prior wills
and which WAS inconsistent with the will
of 1873. In 1888 the testator destroyed
the viii of 1879 by tearing and burning
it The heirs of decedent contest the will
of 1873 as being annulled by subsequent
revocation, and the fact of the
win Of 1879 being DESTROYED does
not revive the prior will Held: A
written declaration properly executed as
Cffectually revokes a viii from the date
of its execution as does its destruction
If the viii of 1879 was properly executed
as will and contained clause expressly
revoking the will of 1873 the subsequent
destruction of the will of 1879 did not
have the effect of reviving the will of
1873. 1t was error not to permit con-
testants to prove the execution of the
later will as required by law, and also
that it expressly revoked and was neon
sistent with the win of 1873 Reversed.
Opinion by Henry, associate justice.
Rio Grande and Eagle Pass Railroad
Company vs.. the Milmo National Bank;
appeal from Webb county. The appellee
in the court below offered IN evidence
chain of title back to the sovereignty of
the soil, and also a certified copy from
the county records of patent from
the state to the city of Laredo for land
embracing the. block in controversy, and
dated July IS, 1884 Held: Appellant
objected to the introduction of this copy
to authorize the admission of the certified
copy of the patent, over the objection of
appellant, it should have been shown by
appellee that the patent had been lost or
that it could not procure it, even if the
agreement could be construed to apply to
any evidence offered, for the purpose of
connecting appellee with the sovereignty
of the soil. r.. s. 2257] Held. That
the certified copy of patent should not
have been admitted for the purpose for
which admitted and used. Reversed and
remanded. Opinion by Stayton, chief
justice.
NJ. Lewis VS.. Angelina Simon ct al +;
appeal from Washington county. This
suit was brought by appellee Angelina
Simon joined by her husband to recover
of appellant certain parcel of land,
which had been conveyed to her by her
husband and in consideration of $40 and
in further consideration of the love and
l, AZ,
Defendant claimed title by virtue of
sheriff S sale and deed to him made under
an execution issued upon a Judgment rem
dered in favor of Ullman, Lewis & Co.
against Solomon Simon. The debt upon
which the judgment was rendered
was an open account contracted
five months after the con-
from Simon to his wife.
urged that the conveyance was
made with the intention of defrauding
creditors, although the debt upon which
Judgment was obtained was not created
until after the deed was made. Though |
q gift, conveyance, assignment, transfer.
ETC.. made by one person to another be |
decreed void as to a prior creditor, be-
cause voluntary, it shall not for that |
cause be 6ecreed to be void as to subse-
quent creditors or purchasers. Art. |
1856 R. S. AS a general rule, subse- |
quent creditor who acquired his clam |
with knowledge or notice of the convey /
ance sought to be annulled cannot attach !
it as fraudulent. In De Garca VS. Galvan
80 Tex. So the court held the same |
rule. Held: The transfer being made
without fraudulent intent, is without |
fraud and binding. Affirmed. Opinion
by Gaines, associate Justice
AZ HNlStnin II
al; appeal from Fayette county. This
action was brought by appellees to re-
cover 125 acres of land, part of larger
grant. They show that Daniel J . Ad-
ans acquired title to this land 1858,
through a regular chain of transfer from
the soil further that j. D. Adams,
whose heirs they are, lived in Texas
about the time the deed to the person of
that name was made. No evidence was
to show the person to whom
the deed was made was not the same per-
son through whom appellees claim. The
question of identity was not raised in the
court below. Appellant was unable to
leraign title from the sovereignty
IF the soil nor from common
source, but pleaded the statute of linn
tations, however, he could not prove
entire and continuous ten years adverse
possession. Appellant pleaded and Of
,ered in evidence that he had made GER
ain Improvements in good faith, which
evidence, however, was objected to and
objection sustained. 1t was held error
lot to except to the plea for improve
nents, and yet when it is proposed TO
prove the value and character of such
improvements made by one in good faith
o object to the evidence to sustain the
'iea of good faith. Held: That appel
ees have superior title, and that though
he court erred in its ruling as regards
he admission of evidence to prove good
aith, it is not sufficient reason to reserve
he judgment. Affirmed. Opinion by
,taytOn, C.. j.
of Appeals-Walter Acker. Presiding:
w. D. Colard and William Hobby, Judges:
1. Van Rarcliff ct al. vs.. Dennis Cauet;
ppeal from Orange county Where a
rrit of injunction is issued 10 prevent the