Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-18
THE HIGHER COURTS.
syropses Of Decisions Rendered at the Pres.
ent Tyler sitting.
Correspondence OF the Gazette.

Correspondents Of the Gazette.
SUPREME COURT.
TYLER. TEX, Dec. 16.-R. a. Barron
ct al. VS.. F. NJ. Henry; from Cass. Sui
for recovery of land. L. This court i.
not authorized to reverse judgments and
thus grant new trials on presum ptions
not necessarily arising from the evidence
and in the face of finding of the jury
on an issue which cannot be said to be
contrary to the evidence. We will not
reverse on O conflict in the evidence
when same sustains the judgment of the
court below. Affirmed. Stayton, c. j.
J. f.. Garrett VS.. Interstate Bank
from Bowie Suit on vendors lien note.
/. The words 'pay the sum of -
! purchase money etc. IN the note is
| sufficient to show that money was meant.
The sign and figures :S1O0' in the mar
gin of the note are sufficient to show the
amount for which the note was given. 2.
| An allegation in the petition that the
note was given for the purchase money
of land was sufficient, and the petition
need not allege that the note constituted
q lien. No error. Affirmed. Gaines, J.
Carter Bros. s. Co. vs.. w. A. High
tower; from Camp. /. An injunction
| can not be had restraining debtor from
collecting notes, accounts, etc., due
him and eIjoning his creditors from
! paying him. The extraordinary powers
of a court of equity will not be exercised
| to enable a creditor to subject his debt
or 8 chooses in action to the payment Of
the demand of the former, merely be-
cause he has no property subject to exc
cution. 2. The act of April 2, 1887,
! Dl,ts =
as applying only to the funds and prop
| erty upon which the creditor has lien
| for the satisfaction of his debt. Affirmed.
Gaines, j.
"A. Bounds vs.. Thomas Little ct al.
| from Navarro Suit for recovery of
land. This is second appeal. For
| first appeal see IS Tex. Sl7. /. Will e
1t is true that appellees 10 their opening
entirely omitted evidence OF one link in
| their chain Of title, il is equally true
| that they proved what, standing alone,
| seemed q complete chain and upon which
| they would have been entitled to re-
| covery if il had not been broken by the
evidence of appellant. Under this state
| of facts, the introduction by appellees of
| the deed hch constituted the missing
link, was in rebuttal and admissible. 2
The evidence sustains the verdict and
judgment and we will not disturb same.
Affirmed. Henry, j.
Miles Morris VS.. f. H. Num-; from
Hopkins. l. In a suit by partner for IL
partition OF real estate, aud II settlement
of accounts, the suit wus properly
brought in the county where the land
was situated, notwithstanding the defen-
dant lived in another county, and the
suit was also brought for IL settlement
of accounts between the partners. 2. 1t
was proper to litigute in the same suit
ull of the partnership transactions, and
TO make the balance due a lien upon the
land. 8. The statute of limitations of
two years does not apply to dealings be-
tween partners. Affirmed. Henry. J.
George Green vs.. Eddy s. Cross; from
Hopkins. SUIT by appellee for damages
for personal injuries. l. The law does
not impute negligence to q servant for
using the machinery of his master which
he knows to be defective, but he Gs-
sumes the risk incident to such defect,
and cannot recover damages for an in
jury which results from II. 2. Where
the court below renders correct juhg-
ment, although giving al incorrect rea-
son therefor, this-court will permit the
Judgment TO stand. Affi "med. Gaines, ).
r. A. Morris vs.. Z. s. Kosling ct al;
from Marion. Suit by apDellees to re-
cover from appellant q reward alleged to
have been offered by him for the capture
of the party guilty of burglarizlng his
store. This is second appeal. See Il
Tex. 5S4, for first appeal /. Appellees
alleged in their petition that appellant
offered thousand dollars reward for the
capture of the party who committed the
burLlary, and it was error in the court
to refuse charge asked by appellant
to the effect that if the jury believed
from the evidence that defendant Zap
pellanD offered a reward OF $1,000 for the
capture and conviction OF the party who
burglarized his premises, then the plain
tiffs (appellees( can not recover. One
SUING upon contract must recover upon
the contract alleged, or not at all. Be-
cause the answer alleged that the reward
was offered for the arrest and conviction
of certain citizens of Linden, would not
change the rule above laid down. 9.
To make ii the official duty of peace
officer to arrest under Article 229, G. G.
p. II is necessary that the guilty party
should be made known, as well as the
fact that a felony was committed. 3.
a person after arriving at majority may
maintain an action on contract made
with him during his minority, and this
rule apples alike TO implied and express
contracts. Reversed and remanded.
Stayton, c. j.
Nathan Connally vs.. W. II. Lyon s.
Co.; from Hopkins. Motion to set aside
submission and file briefs. l. Appel
lees show that they understood that ap-
pelant would forward their transcript
so briefs would be filed, which was not
done. Held: Motion of appellee will be
granted. Per curtain.
Bryant Hays ct al. vs.. Foster s. RAT !
ferty: from Llano.- Motion to set aside I
submission and file briefs. /. This case
was submitted at Austin, and on motion
of one of the appellants, the submission I!
was set aside for filing briefs. The case
was then transferred to Tyler, and now
another of appellants makes this motion. /
Held: Under the circumstances Of this !
case, the motion cannot be granted. Re- !
fused. Per curtain. !
Peyton NowliB ct al. vs.. W. II. Get
ct al; from Ellis. Motion to |
affirm on certificate l. The cause as /
TO Nowlin will be affirmed, but as to the !
Billiards the motion will be refused, as }
their appeal bond was insufficient. At