Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-23

of February S: and the lower court correctly dis
missed mis- appeal. Affirmed.
- Il. Bryan ct al VS.. E; G. Bower, from Dali
erty in controversy, lot 25xlO0 feet, part of
a larger tract formerly belonging to Bower,
against whom Fisher in 1872 brought suit for
specific performance Of conveyance of the whole
tract. In April, 1881, a consent decree was rem
dered by which Fisher only recovered the lot IN
attorney who in turn conveyed to the attorney
who had represented Bower the purchasemoney
$500 went one half to F"s attorney, and the
other half to w. G. Randall. Pending the liti-
CATION Bower g. Randall had conveyed the lot in
dispute to j. Il. Bryan. The court found that
the Judgment in favor OF Fisher and against
Bower was conclusive against Bryan, q purchas-
er pending litigation and the other appellants
who claim under him. The court further found
that W. G. Randall was not the real party in
interest in the first suit, although such claim
was urged in both suits. 1t also appears that
the attorney who presented Fisher was en-
ployed by Randall, but it does not appear
whether Randall acted as the agent OF Fisher
or in his own interests, 1t is claimed on the
strength of these facts that the Judgment in
favor of Fisher was conclusive. Held; Such
an inference does not necessarily or fairly arise
So far as we know Fishers rights against tire
land may have been just, or he may have had
rights to the lot in controversy which he did GOT
to be inferefd from the fact simply that Fisher
recovered that lot which Bower had sold to
Bryan. There is no statement of fasts and it is
presumed there were no other facts showing
collision than those before us in the record.
Randall may have employed an attorney to
represent Fisher and may in good
of purchase money as Fishers is agent. In view
OF the findings OF the court we cannot assume
the existence of fraud or collision. If Bryan
had had reason to believe that Bower was not
defending the former suit in good faith he might
have been permitted to intervene, but in this
action one against the, purchase from Fisher
alone it may be doubted If he can be heard I'd
question the conclusiveness of the former tudg%
ment. If he can so be heard, he must show
fraud or collusion in clear manner. The proof
however did not show collision to the trial
Judge, and therefore, even if the ruling as to the
corclusiveness of the former judgment as to
Bryan had been erroneous. the case cannot be
reversed, and it is now affirmed.
James K. Schmick ct al. vs.. j. P. Bateman;
from Eastland county; opinion by Stayton, G..
J. Bsteman was surety on bond for 5000 given.
Cattle for the faithful perfo rmance of a certain
contract. The condition of the bond was broken
and Bateman was liable on the bond. In order
to indemnify him Ramey, acting for his wife,
conveyed to him certain stock of goods belong
ing to her IN name. The purpose of the transfer
the instrument of transfer was recorded. The
Martin Brown company, TO whom Ramey ,Jgas
indebted, sued him and his wife, and lesfsd,
through appellant. an attachment on the goods
Judgment for the amount paid by him as surety
on the bond, less amount Of money collected by
him on goods sold. All the property of the
Rameys was community property, Mrs.
Ramey not having had any separate
PROPERTY. Although executed in the name OF his
wife, affecting as they did only community
property, the real contracting party must be
held to have been B. r. Ramey, although he
assumed 10 act as agent for his wife. The own
ership of the goods in appellee is attacked. But
the conveyance, possession and right to posses
sion were sufficient for Batemsn to hold them
against Ramey, his wife and all other person s..
II appellants desired to attach the goods they
should have pursued the course prescribed by
statute R. s., 167; 2292; 81 Texas 81. The
proposition that the contracts were those of
hfra1~ tao
her husband, does not, under the facts, require
discussion. Mrs. Ramey hsd no power to con-
tract, and the contracts made by her husband in
her name must be treated as his contracts.
Bateman settled with the cattle company, and
the liability of Ramey' sureties is fully estab-
Hshed otherwise than by Judgment recovered
against Ramey and the sureties. The amount of
the judgment recovered by BatemRn is correct
and the judgment is affirmed.
J. n. Randall ct al. VS.. W A. Gill ct al,
from Comanche county; opinion by Henry ].
acres of land. The controversy is as to whether
the land is included in the Bonham survey; if it
is appellants have title, il it is not appaliees
own It. There is considerable conflict in regard
to the srue corners, etc., OF the different suG@
veys here involved. After enlarging on the
merits OF the respective corners, etc., and tie
bearing they should have in ascertaininHe
matters to be settled by this co;tr69
versy, the court holds further:S u
was error in the trial before a Jury &
allow the surveyors to testify to their opirfT
that when the original survey was made ne
but the western line was actually run. n was
not a fact to be proved by expert evidences. The
surveyors had to describe the facts as they found
them on the Eronnds and It was the province Of