The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-06-05

ldlly prOVlueu.) his means tudI III
incumbent can hold either of the Of
fees named and at the same time anv
other Office. Said article is copied
mainly from the constitutions of 1915,
81 and &c, where it says that nobody
shall, ETC., Gas above) except that of
justice of the peace. 1t is clear that
under this clause justice OF the peace
might hold any other office ZIG Tex
59.) The office OF the justice of the
peace was made an exception to the
general inhibition, and the inference
is strong that the present constitution
added some exceptions, If the lam
guage had been Except those of just
ice of the peace" etc., instead Of Eek
cept that of justice of the peace" etc.,
there would have been a doubt as to
the construction, but as it is, the
words except that" ETC., indicate that
a person may lawfully hold any Office,
and in addition thereto, either of those
enumerated.
Affirmed.
S. w. TALE VS.. w. H. WYATT, from
Llano county. Opinion by Stayton,
Gu.
Appellant sued for 425 acres Of land,
part of the Hill grant of 1916, and al
legged that appellee located 1880 acre
certificate in two surveys, one for him.
self on land adjoining the land here
sued for, and the other for the State
over the 425 acres. Appellant dis
claimed and answered by demurrer,
etc. Judgment on disclaimer for APP
pellant, but the costs were awarded to
appellee. Held: Correct, on the face
OF the petition plaintiff had no cause
of action against defendant. The
cause of action was against the State,
if any there was. Plaintiff never had
asserted any claim toit, and the costs
were properly awarded.
Affirmed.
SAMUEL G. FERNANDEZ VS.. CASEY &
SwAsEY, from Comanche county.
Opinion by Henry, j.
Fernandez & Alderman, firm in
Comanche county, disseminating bust
ness, being indebted to appellees.
Alderman took up his residence in
Colorado and Fernandez travelled for
about six months and then settled in
Ell Paso, Tex. Appellees obtained
judgment against the firm in justice
court and levied on real estate in Ell
Paso belonging to appellant individu-
ally. This suit was brought to enjoin
the sale of the property, and it is con-
tended that the judgment having
been rendered upon citation by publ
cation is void. Held, the facts show
that Fernandez, although temporarily
absent from the State, never acquired
domicile elsewhere, and under our
statutes the service of process by pub
LEGATION was sufficient to give the JUS
tice court the jurisdiction necessaryto
render judgment against him. Again,
it is claimed that the judgment was
against the firm and could not be en-
forced against the individual. But
the entries in the justices record
show issuance of service against the
individual partners an d with the in
diligence shown tc justice court pro-
ceedings it is held that upon the
Judgment rendered in this case, upon
the preliminary proceedings, execu-
ton could properly issue against APP
pellant. Under the decision in 81
Tex. 132, 40 money judgment can be
rendered on dissolution of the in
junction, the parties being left to
prosecute their former remedy. Judg-
ment is here rendered for 10 per cent
damages and costs and dissolution OF
Injunction.
M. j. FROST EFT AL VS.. WIN. WOLF EFT
AL, from Williamson county. Opin-
ion by Stayton, G. ].
Action in trespass to try title for
one third of two thirds of league
and labor, by appellants claiming title
by virtue of the transfer of one third
interest in the certificate by virtue of
which the land was granted, made to
S. NJ. Frost in 1889. This action was
instituted in 1885. Frost had died in
1866 and no claim had ever been as
serted before institution of suit. In
1S47 Aiken, to whom patent had
issued, conveyed the land to Wilourn
& Ellis. Appellees claim through this
conveyance. 1t was made in the firm
name before notary public III
Louisiana according to the laws OF
of that State. The copy OF the origi-
nal instrument duly proved up was
recorded in Williamson county, and
admitted to evidence over objection.
The ruling was erroneous, as our law
does not provide for the record OF any
such copies, but the error is inmate
rial as an examined copy of said in
strument subsequently introduced
was properly admitted. The first OBJ
joctiOn 70 the introduction of the lat
ter instrument, because the execution
OF the original was not sufficiently
established is not wei taken, as the
evidence showed that the witnesses
testifying to that fact were familiar
with the signature OF the notary and
witnesses to the original deed, and
that the signatures 70 the original
deed were genuine, and the evidence
goes even further than this, The
second objection was that the deed
was not sealed, as was then required