Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-20
HIGHER COURTS
Synopses Of Decisions Rendered at the Pres
ent Tyler sitting.
Correspondence OF the Gazette.

ent Tyler sitting
Correspondence OF the Gazette.
SUPREME COURT.
TYLER, TEX. Nov. lS.-Texas and
Pacific Railway VS.. B. F. Brown; from
Gregg. Suit by appellee for damages for
personal injuries received by reason OF
appellee walking off dimly lighted
platform on his way to appellants train.
/. The evidence shows appellee was per-
manently injured internally, and we can
not say verdict for $1,000 is excessive.
2. The court did not err in permitting ap-
pe!lee TO impeach witness for appel
liant, the matter of impeachment being
that witness had stated that he would be
"williug to swear that white was black
and black was white' in order to defeat
appellee's claim in this suit. s. Where
a charge given in correct, 80 far as il
goes, but defective in not being full
enough in the absence of requested
charge covering this defect, this court
will not reverse. Affirmed. Gaines. j
H. Blum VS.. T. s. Rodgers; from
Hopkins. This is a third appeal, the
first not being reported aud the second
being found in II Tex, 66S. The suit
involves the title to certain lots in Sui
phur Springs. l. To protect lots in a
town or city not actually occupied by the
family residence or its appurtenaaces
they must be substantially used by the
family for house purposes. When they
are detached by enclosures from the
homestead lot proper and are improved
for the purpose OF being leased to tenants
and OF thereby producing an Increase, it
is evident they are no longer used as ad-
juncts OF the family residence and should
no longer be exempt from forced sale.
2. When town or city homestead is
practically divided and part or parts
are improved with buildings or other hp-
purienances, which are neither neces-
sury to, nor intended for the convenience
of the family, and they are evidently
held for the purpose of being leased, are
unipporthnt, subsidiary use for house,
hold purposes will net protect the lots so
improved from forced sale as in case
like the present. where the lots not so
appropriated possess every convenience
of CONT ortable home. The court
should have granted new trial. Re-
versed and renanded. Gaines, j.
Lauraua Parker VS.. S. A. Chancellor
ct al; from Tarrant. /. The DISPOSE
ton of plaintiff tuken by defendants,
W AS az misbiUles tlic clcTh du uOt
show how same came into his hands, a
witness swearing he saw plaintiff sub
scribe thereto. .. 1t Is the practice to
admit parnl evidence Of purely intro
6uctory matters for the seke of conven-
fence, although written evidence may be
in existence. 8. An objection to de-
position that an answer is not responsive
to the question asked. should be made in
writing and notice given before the ron-
mencemen: of the trial. 4. A failure OF
the judge to sign the charge is not re-
versible error. 5. The verdict being for
all the defendants, and only part of them
pleading limitation, and the other issue
being whether plaintiff had disposed of
her interest in the land. it is evident the
jury found for defendants on the latter
defense, and therefore IN erroneous
charge as to Limitation did not effect the
verdict and is not reversible error. At
frmed. Gaines, J.
w. d. Hooper vs. F. W. Caruthers ct
al. from Navarro. Suit by appellant Tor
recovery of land. l.. A judgement
was rendered in justice court in 1852
against thet father of appellant for
S57 81. Execution was levied upon the
homestead of appellants father, which
the latter enjoined. Pending this in
junction suit the father OF appellant
died, and after the expiration of three
terms of court from the time of his death
the suit was dismissed at his cost. The
land was sold for SGS.2 Appellants
mother moved to Tennessee where she
remarked in 1859. In 1889 appellants
mother conveyed TO him all her title to
the land in controversy. Under this
state of facts the land was the uudoubted
homestead of the father and mother of
appellant. The sale of the land was
void and possessed no title thereto.
2. A sale made under execution
against deceased person after his
death. he being alive at the time judge
ment wes rendered, is void in the sense
that 1t is wholly imperative to pass title
to or as against any one, and therefore
may be attacked directly or collaterally.
Reversed and rendered for appellant.
Stayton, c. j.
Texas and Pacific Railway We.
W. j. Barron; from Kaufman.
Suit by appellee for damages
for personal injuries. l. Dec |
larations OF appellee about ten or fifteen |