Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-27

| CIV GU. Is C!oliuc1 tubt Ills CiuuSo
excerpts from the operation OF the deed
200 acres OF the land which the deed pur-
ported to convey. Held: The claim was
evidently inserted for the purpose OF
further Identifying the laud BIZ show in.
that it included the homestead of the de-
ceased, or all claim the makers OF the
deed could have to the homestead right
in the lands described. Affirmed. Stay
ton, G. j.
Eddy and Cross, receivers, ETC., vs.
Josie Harris: from Hopkins. Appellants
tnads an arrangemrnt with one Clark TO
furaish the latter an excursion train
from Sulphur Springs aud Gresnville aul
! return, the occasion being June 10,
! 1889. Clark was to pay 1895, to be paid
before the train left the two places. Ap-
peliee, however, was ignorent OF ths ar
| engagements OF Clark for the excursion
train. Sparks had tickets printed and
signed. 81. Clark, Manager. and
these tickets were placed on sale aud
sold In the usual way by appellants
agents. Appellee purchased ticket
from the agent of appellants at Sulphur
I Springs to Dallas AMI return for which
she paid 81 40, she not knowing that
Spa. ks had any connection with the ex-
/ cursion train. When the train arrived
I III tIhEh tdlitu ~ pay tOT lut
train aud il was stopped by appellants.
Appellee, however, by paying 81. 80 was
! enabled to 20 TO Dallas on another train.
! BY the latter arrangement. however,
! appellee arrived in Dallas too late for a
( free dinner, aud probably missed.
| some OF the ceremonies of the anniver-
! snry OF the emancipation proclama-
| ton. She was compelled to leave Dali
| las ut p. m, whereas the excursion
! train would have stayed until midnight.
| Judgement for appellee for So. Held:
| / Appellants were bound TO carry ap-
! peilre TO Dallas aud return. Apps ie had
! no knowl. ig. of the arrangement with
! Sparks, and if she had, it may well be
| doubted if appellants were not still lia-
BILE. = We think the Judgment for $50
| is excessive. Appellee is entitled to re-
cover the sum paid by her at Greenville
with interest As damages, and for any
loss of time the facts may show. Re-
rersrd and reminded. Starton, G. j.
Eddy s. Cross vs.. John Seurcv; from
Hopk ms. This is companion case to
the Harris case above reported. The
fuctS and all the attendant circumstances
/ are the same, and for the same cause
the Judgment will lie reversed and the
cause reminded. Stavtou, &. j.
Eddy & Cross IS. Jap Farrar: from
Hopkins. This is n companion case 10
Eddy s. Cross vs.. Harris above, and for
the reason therein stated, this cause Is
reversed ami remanded. Stayton, e. j.
Eddy s. Cross vs.. Fred Jones; from
Hopkins. This is also II companion case
to l. Idly & Cross vs.. Harris above, and
for the same reason is reversed aud re-
manded. Staytou, e. J.
Hopkins. For same reason Us given i'll
Eddy & Cross vs.. Harris this cause will
reversed and remaudeI. Stayton, Z. J.
Eddy y Gross vs.. George Lewis; from
Hopkins. This case involves the same
points involved in f. Idly & Cross vs.. Har-
ris above, ana for reason therein stated
the cause is reversed aud remanded.
Stayton, G. j.
Eddy s. Cross vs.. Lucy Henley; from
Hopkins. Companion case TO Eddy &
Cross vs.. Harris above. For same reasaus
reversed and remauded. Stayton, G.
j.
Eddy & Cross vs.. Ann Foster; from
Hopkins. Companion case to Eddy u
Cross VS.. Harris above reported. For
same reason reversed and remanded.
Staytoi, G. j.
Eddy s. Cross VS.. ]. R. Robinson;
from Hopkins. The points in this case
same Us Eddy s. Cross vs. HarrIs. For
same cause reversed and rsmauded.
StaytOn, c. }.
Eddy & Cross vs.. Emma Johnson;
from Hopkins. Companion case to Eddy
& Cross vs.. Harrls above, and for same
Cnuss reversed aud reinauded. Staytou,
c. J.
Eddy s. Cross va. Fred Jones; from
Hopkins. This is the second case OF
same parties aud companion case to
E Idly & Cross vs.. Hnrris above. The
case will be reversed on same grounds.
Stnyton, c. J.
Eddy i Cross IS. Charlie Nelson from
Hopkins. This is a seconl of same par
ties aud involves same points as the
Harris case. Reversed and remanded.
Stayton, G. j.
Il 10y & Cross VS.. Fannie Watson;
from Hopkins. Same iestions Ill this Us
in the Harris case. Reversed and req
manded. Stayton. e. J. 4
Eddy & Cross vs.. LucIus Turner; from
Hopkins. For reusous given in the Hur-
ris case, the point. involved being the
same, this cause is reversed saud re-
munded. Stayton, Z. j.
Eddy s. Cross vs.. J. W. Rider; from
Hopkins. This cause Is reversed and re-
munded for same REASONS assigned in
the Harris case above. Stayton, &. j.
Eddy s. Gross vs.. Wallace Carter; from
Hopkins. For same reason given III the
Harris case above, this cause is reversed
aud remnndrd. Stayton, CT
David Kidd ct al. vs.. Joel Hayes; from
Delta. Certificate for affirmance. |.
Because it appears that this cause is APP
p..-se
court has no jurisdiction of the same,
tie certifioite Will be dismissed. Dis
missed. Stuyton, c. J.
s. RheumAtism was so bad that James