Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-13

plaintiff in error ever made any attempt
TO appeal from the judgment of the court
below. Certificate dismissed. Stsyton,
c. j.
COMMISSION OF APPEALS.
Adele NJ. McMurry VS.. +. J. Nc
Murry: from Live Oak. Suit to vacate
q decree in divorce suit, dividing the
property between appellant and appellee.
l. party can not complain of al erro-
neous charge which is in his favor. >.
The court properly charged the jury that
they would only consider whether de-
PENDANT himself gave false testimony on
the first trial as 10 the value of the prop
erty. 3 The burden WAS on appellant TO
show fraud and false testimony on the
first trial. Affirmed, Collard j.
L. d. Harold ct al. vs.. ID. w. Sum
ner; from Wilbarger. l. H. Chowning
took possession of the lots in Vernon un-
der an oral contract with his brother.
At this time the lots were worth from So
TO SIS each. Fl. Chowning built 4 resi-
dence on the lots and moved into same.
Shortly after the contract he paid his
brother $50 for the two lots. Sometme
after this Chowning's brother sold TO APP
pellee all his interest in several lots con-
tiguous to each other, among which are
the lots IN controversy. Appellee
brought this suit for the Its and OBJ
tanned this verdict. Held: Appellant
has good title to lots in controversy.
RI Texas, $50. Reversed and rendered
for appellant. Acksr 2. J.
A. L. Chic VS.. Shut & Evers eft al:
from Bowie. l. Appellant rented u store
house to Shut & Evers for one year,
from March /, 1884, for $1,000, to lie
paid when the term of renting expired.
In April, 1881, +. A. johnson levied
upon and sold under attachment thes
stock of goods belonging to Shut
Evers. The sheriff paid the proce eds Of
the sale 20 Lewis Alexander, clerk of tie
court. A few days after the attach
meut appellant LEVIED his distress war
rant for $1,000 on the stock of goods be-
fore they were removed from the premi-
ses. Al the February term. 1885. john
son had his judgment and foreclO sure.
Appellant, on April 20, 1855, brought
this suit against Shut & Evers, F. a.
j ohnson, and Alexander, the clerk,
setting out facts above alleged, and also
that Shut s. Eyers were Insolveni, and
pleading other necessary Inattera.
Judgment against Shut 4 Evers IN
favor OF appellant aud judgment against
him in favor OF johnson and Alexander.
Held: TIE Judgment against Shut u
Evers is affirmed; the judgment against
Chic in favor of Alexander Is also
affirmed, and the judgment in favor OF
Johnson is reversed and here rendered
against him in favor OF appellant tor the
of his rent. So ordered. Acker,
p. j.
G.. NJ. Swink ct al. VS.. II. Il. Motley; |
from Dallas. Trespass TO try title. /. |
Under plea of not guilty there can be |
no correction or reformation of the deed, |
even if defendants were in priyity with |
plaintiffs grantor. .. The former owner |
aud common source OF title III az have al /
equity, but this cannot avail appellant So
who fail to connect their holding WITH
his. Affirmed. Collard, j.
Herbs & Spiess vs.. f. w. Provine HS,
from Tarraut. Suit by appellant. for
5000. 40 with attachment. ADDellee5
reconveued ami recovered S250G actual
and 1920 exemplary damages, while 4
appellant had his judgment. l. ThgN
court erred III refusing charge to theY
effect that if Branuon was partners
with Proyine, then Provine alone could +
not recover damages sustained by them
jointly as partners. =. Loss of business
5 not an element of actual damage. 3.
We think appellant had reasonable
!
md that the verdict for eXem piary dam
ages is not supported By the evidence.
Reversed and remanGed. Hobby, j.
Perry Phillips VS.. W. S. Herndon ct
Il. from Smith. Suit for specific per-
ormance of contract to convey land. l.
The court erred in refusing &c permit ap-
,ellaut to prove the value of the land ut
he time appelees took possession from
appellant plaintiff eilegating value of
he land and praying judgment for its
alue in case appeilees could not make
lin title. =. The declarations of a
guardian cannot affect the title of his
Yards TO rea! estats. and such declara-
ious are not admissible in evidence. 3.
he vendee and his wife being dead and
heiI children minors, there was no one
Ffio COULD take notice OF rescission OF
ontradt end consequently no rescission.
reversed and reminded. Acker, z. j .
a. -