Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-06-26
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SynOpses of Decisions Rendered at the Present
Austin Sitting.


Austin Sitting.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX, June H.-Charles Dill ngham'
receiver, VS.. r, L. Putnam, from rayson
county; opinion by Stayton, C. J. The legis-
lature in 1889 General Laws 1889, 81, passed
law requiring receivers in all appeal cases taken
up by them to furnish ''supersedeas'' bond i.
In this case appellant seeks 20 prosecute an ap-
peal on a simple ''cost" bond. Appellee moves
to dismiss the appeal for want of the proper
bond, viz: "Supersedeas' bond. The statute
in question is not in violation of the constitu-
tion in that it embraces more than one subject.
The matter of receivers or receivershfps is the
subject OF the act, the powers, duties, etc., are
fixed by it, and it is single act in the sense OF
the constitution. Nor is the act within the
meaning of the constitution special law reRu-s
lating the practice and Jurisdiction of the cour,
for it affects the proceedings in every receiver
ship, and it comes not within the evil intended
to be remedied by that clause of the const iJu-
tion which prohibits the passage of enumerated
special laws. But the law if given effect will
in many cases deprive this court of power to ex
ercise the jurisdiction conferred on it by the
constitution. This court has by the consti
tuition power to hear and determine all civil
cases tried in the district courts Of the state.
And the constitution provides remedies for all
law means q further hearing in this
been decided IN the district court.
The legislature cannot make party's right to
an appeal to this court depend on his ability to
give bond which will in Itself secure full salts
faction of a judgment, and in so far as the leg
islature attempts to do this in the act in ques
ton it is in violation of the constitution. The
reason why such \ law should not be sustained
is stronger where party seeking revision
stands, like 9 receiver, in y fduciary capacity
instead Of coming as an individual. The motion
to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
Campbell Printing Press and Manufacturing
Company vs. L. F. Powell ct al. from Dallas
county; opinion by Stayton. G. j., Appellant
agreed with Powell for the sale of a printing
press for s425S. Powell agreed to deposit as
security for the payment of the purchase money
note for $1,000 as collateral security, the note to
be signed by Powell and the other defendants.
Title to the press should by the agreement re-
on the two notes with assertion of lien. The de-
PENDANTS excepting, Powell denied the execu-
ton of the note, and further pleaded that when
they did so there was writing attached to the
note to the effect that it should not take effect
until after ten men OF unquestioned solyency
had signed it. They allege that this part was
torn off after it got into the hands of appellants
agent without their consent. and that no ten
solvent men were on said note. I'm
part of the note, was removed
from the note with knowledge of appellants
agent, and there is evidence to support this find
ing. The makers OF the accommodation note had
not authorized the delivery of the note. The
appellant through his agent knew of this and
they are not bound by the instrument. It ap-
peared that Powell sold the press to the Dallas
Times company. We are of opinion that mas
much as the circumstances show that appellant
never parted with the title to the
now sold and apply the proceeds in
part satisfaction of appellee's debt. The agree
ment for sale was made in 1884 ano is conse-
quentiy not affected by the law passed in 1885
regarding the reservation Of title. Reversed
and remanded.
Gainesville. Henrietta & Western Rail-
county; opinion by Gaines, j. Action by appel
lee for damages to certain rel estate, caused by
construction OF appellants road and
ages were claimed by reason of the Vi
bration, noise. smoke, noxious vapors and Gin
trains. None of plaintiffs land had been taken
by defendant in constructing the road. Ths5l
court charged the jury to find for plaii3
tiff If his property had been damaged BY
the construction and operation of the road
provided such damage resulted from the smoSe,
suffer such damage in common with the connmu-
nifty generally. The correctness of this charge
depends on the proper construction of this
clause in our constitution which provides that |
no PERSONS property shall be taken, damaged |
or destroyed, or applied to public use without
ton is one of the first impression, but the Gulf,
Colorado and Santa Fe Company VS.. Fuller, S. |
Tex. 467 and GO Tex. 656, lays dowpithe true rule
the use OF the distinctive or" clearly indicates
that it was not necessary that there should be |
taking to entitle the the owner of properly to |
might resul from the construction of pubic |
work. The legislature certainly did not autho- |
lie a cooperation to do an act which if done by |
private individual would be actionable. The |
question recurs then would an action lie be- |
tween individuals under the above allegation? |
No errors are in this cause and the judgment is |