The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-05-22
PROCEEDINGS IN :HE EHPL Es OF
JUSTICE HERE IN
AUssIN
Important Decisions in the High Courts
and Minor Legal Matters in the Dis
trict and other Courts.
SUPREME COURT.

Opinion by Stayton, j.
The petition alleges that the
Brentwood Drug Company private
corporation, duly incorporated, made
an assignment OF all of its property,
real and personal, and so much of the
instrument of assignment (made an
exhibit in petition) as is in question
reads as follows: For the benefit OF such
of the creditors of the Brownwood
Drug company only, who will consent
to accept their proportional shares OF
the estate of said company and to dis
charge said company from their res
pective claims, and the remainder, if
any, to be paid to such creditors as do
not accept under this assignment and
the said ID. B. Shropshire, on his part,
accepts said trust and truly cove
nants and agrees to faithfully per
form his duties as said assignee in ac-
cordance with the statutes concerning
assignments for the benefit of creditors
Witness our hands this, 18th day OF
April, A. d. 1889.
The Brentwood Drug Company by
J. G. Bernay, President.
Attest: VIC. Morgan, Secretary.
d. B. Shropshire, Assignee
After appellant as assignee took
possession of the estate lot of drugs
were seized under attachment sued
out by appellees and this is an action
for damages on account Of the seizure.
Special exceptions were sustained to
petition because it did not appear that
entinstrumentwas made under
corporate seal. Held, corporations are
excepted from the operation of the
law which render the use of seal un-
necessary in contracts between indi-
viduals. X. S. 44S7. The manner of
conveyances of real estate by corpora
ton is set out in r. S. 600 1t is clear
that the instrument in question, be-
cause not executed under corporate
seal, is insufficient to convey to the
assignee any real estate owned by the
corporation, which to give validity to
the assignment was necessary. II in
fact the corporation owned no real es-
tate the fact should have been dis
tinctly alleged. Such fact cannot be
implied either from averments of peti
ton or language OF instrument. AT
firmed.
4. II. BAKER EFT AL. VS.: w. Y. MoFAR-
LAND, ADMIR-, EFT AL, from McLen-
nan county. Opinion by Stayton.
Suit by administrator of estate of
John Isbel, deceased, against heirs of
William Dease to enforce specific per
Torrance of contract made between
Dease and Isbel in 1888 by which
Isbel was to receive 800 acres of land
TO be granted under certificate for
one.t third league issued to Dease. The
land in controversy was located and
caused to be patented by Isbel under
that agreement. John II. and John
w. Baker were on the land without
title, and they we're made defendants.
Judgment for plaintiff and also in
favor of widow and children of Dease.
From that judgment the Bakers
alone appeal on ground that evidence
was not sufficient to show that the
VIM. Dease, to whom the land was
granted was the husband and father
of other defendants. The evidence
tends to show existence of three per-
sons, whose names were VIM. Dease,
all members of same family. One of
these it clearly appears never came to
Texas, but there is evidence tending
to show that the others did. OF one of
these persons there was no trace,while
the other was clearly identified
no tba b,,ehonJ o,J fafhar of tba ,a.
sons in whose favor judgment was
rendered for all the land not adjudged
to the estate of Isbel. The evidence
tends to show that this last named |
VIM. Dease came to Texas prior TO the
date of certificate under which the |
land was granted, also that he eited |
claim to lands in Texas while evil
dence on the question of identity is
not conclusive it cannot be said to be
wholly wanting in probative force.
Affirmed.
r. @. HOUSTON EFT AL. VS.. Z. d. MAYER,
from Milan county. Opinion by |
Henry.
Houston, administrator OF Mary A.
Mayer, filed in county court in 1884,
an exhibit asking for an allowance of
1926 "for extra services" County
court refused to allow claim, and an
appeal TO district court was taken,
cause numbered therein AS. In 1880
appellee applied under Chapter Ia,
Revised Statutes, for withdrawal of
estate from administration, and county
court so ordered. On appealsto district
court same order entered and on APP
peal to this court the judgment was
affirmed. In 1885 Houston filed an
other exhibit. In 1886 Mayer, appel
lee, filed in district court against
Houston a separate suit, No. 526
setting up proceeding to withdraw
estate from administration that the
decree closing administration had
been affirmed by supreme court; that
Houston had failed TO deliver the en-
tire estate to him as ordered, and set
ting up other demands and claims
against Houston, growing out OF the
and not included in
his exhibits. The court consolidated