Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-10-26
SUPREME COURT.
synopses of Decisions Rendered at the Pres
ent Tyler sitting.

ent Tyler sitting.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
TYLER, Tex, October 2l.-F. Krause, Sr. ct
al. VS.. J. H. Pope; from TRAVIS. Suit to fore
close vendors lien notes. l. When the plead
ings of the party seeking recovery upon a
contract show that it is usurious. the defenses
alleging that fact, need not be sworn to, but
may be properly raised by exception. q.
Krause agreed to pay 81 per cent. interest on
the primer pal from September s. 1873, to June 2S.
1851 This was less than two years and more
than IL per cent per annum and consequently
usurous Z. This rate OF interest being carried
into all subsequent agreements renders them
all usurious. 1. The original promises TO pay
interest at the rate of 10 per- per annum were
not impaired by the subsequent unlawful prom
ises- (6I Texas, 2f6). 8. The stipulation as to
attorneys fees in the notes valid and bind
ing, but Judgment therefor would not consti-
tute lien upon the land. 6. The Judgment is re-
yersed and here rendered in effect that appellee
have Judgment for the principal unpaid in both
notes sued upon, together with 10 per cent. in
terest for same but for attorneys fees stipu-
lated in the notes ana for a foreclosure of the
vendors lien, and the Judgment here rendered
will bear 10 per cent. interest per annum until
paid. (64 Texas, A. Reversed and rend ered
Henry, j.
R. D. Hall VS.. Alexander NJ. Msckey; from
Wichita. Suit by appellee to recover upon a
judgment obtained in Kentucky. /. 1t was
sufficient to describe the judgment in the pe-
tition, and it was unnecessary 10 attach thereto
record of said Judgment. z. In answer TO a
cross ques'io to give description of R. D.
Hall, the sheriff in Kentucky who served said
Hall with citation described him, and it is no
legal objection to the deposition that he failed
to give description OF the defendant which
was also cross interrogatory. 8. The court
did not err in admitting in evidence a record of
the Kentucky judgment, it being shown by
proof that the court had jurisdiction of the suit
Affirmed. Henry, j.
w. R. Curtis VS.. Henrietta National Bank;
from Clay. Garnishment. /. 1t was error in
the trial court 10 quash the writ of garnishment
on the ground that 1t did not show the amount
due from defendant to the plaintiff. 2. An
aifiant can properly ask for a writ OF garnsh-
ment against two different parties in the same
affidavit. Reversed and remanded. Gaines, ].
W. z. Curtis VS.. G. w. Ford ct al; from
CLAY. suit in garnishment. /. In suit in
garnishment, there being intervenor, the
writ OF garnishment would not be admissible in
evidence, because 1t would not affirmative or
negative any issue in the case. 2. Money in the
hands OF the clerk Of the court is not subject to
garnishment even after a final decision of the
case in which the money has been deposited. 5.
The court erred in giving the intervenor judg-
ment for the money in the hands OF the court
attempted to be garnisheed by appellant In
this respect the Judgment is reversed and in
other respects affirmed. Reformed and affirmed
Gaines, J.
Son; from Upshur. /. Suit brought for S1Il7
Attachment bond in sum of 5000. Held: The
court erred in not quashing the bond the
ground that it was not in double the amount
sued for. The subsequent fling of new and
sufficient bond could not cure the error. The
Judgment is reversed and here rendered,
appeilees for $3.50. So against appellant. Re-
versed and rendered. Stayton, C. J.
g. w. Lash VS.. Warren & Som from Upshur.
Lowe was not served with citation at all and
Lash accepted service and waived issuance OF
citation next to the last day of court. On the
last day of court judgment by default against
both Held: The judgment is void as to Lowe
and erroneous as to Lash. Reversed and re-
manded. Staytou, c. ].
International and Great Northern railway ct
al. vs.. W.. N. Brazil; from Smith. In &C.
cordance with an opinion of this court of a |
former day, the appellee having RENTED the |
$1,000 as exemplary damages, the case will be |
affirmed. Affirmed. Stayton. CD.
Western Union Telegraph company vs.. John |
J. Lydon; from Tarrant. Both parties agreeing |
thereto. the submission heretofore had in this |
case will be set aside. Stayton CD
w. d. Slaton VS.. j. w. Welborn ct al. from |
Clsy. !. This court has repeatedly held that |
where there Is any evidence q. all in favor of |
party 10 suit. the court should not instruct the
Jury to find against said party. It was, there
fore. error in the court to instruct the Jury to |
find against appellant. 2. G. W. Israel & Co. are |
proper parties, and should be in the suit IL pos
sibl- TO get service on them. II no service on |
them can be had the case should proceed. 3.
Neither Schiller, Davis nor Early show any |
right to defeat the claim Of appellant if he es- /
taolishes the same. Reversed and remanded. |
StGyton. c. j..