Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-09

my debts, ard the sale of so much OF my
estate % shall ne sufficient 10 the opinion
OF my executor TO support and educate
NV children as above provided, be di-
Vided as follows to-wIt: One equal por-
ton il value to each OF my children then
living st the tims of the division; or, if
my son Robert Green UalIum shall die
before he arrives at the age of twenty
one years, then the division of my estate,
II any remains. shall he at the time OF
his DEATH Held: The evident pur-
pose OF the testatri. was TO make urovis-
ion for the education of the Younger
children before any division of the estate
should be made in which her elder son
should participate. The sons arrival at
the age of twenty-oue wears neither had
the effect of defeating the gift or modi-
flying the power of the executor TO make
the sale OF the land in controversy. At
firm ed, Henry, J.
j. Is. Ross vs.. J NJ. Williams, from
Shelby: trial OF the right of property.
l. The property in controversy was 1910
pounds Of cotton seed aud 100 bushels of
corn. Judgment for defendant (the ap-
pellee he1e) for the property. The costs
in the case in justice court was 50. 10.
Appellant appealed to the district court
and gave bond in the sum OF $500. The
property was valued at Sl95. In the dis
trlct court the appeal was dismissed on
the ground that the appeal bond was not
i'll double the amount of the judgment
appealed from. Held: a bond in double
the amount of costs would have been
sufficient. The fact that the judgment
vas TO the effect that ;ne defendant
Shn
alter the rule. Reversed and remanded.
Henry, }.
Dallas National Bank vs.. J. II. Davis
4 Bros; from clay. Trial right OF
property. l. Two written contracts
made on the same day aud with refer
ence to the same matter, should be con-
sidered together for the purpose OF ar
irving at the real contract between the
parties. >. Thsre being an absolute bill
OF sale 20 all the cattle given to eppel-
lees, which was recorded, and also on
the same day another Instrument, not
recorded, conditionalIy selling Il part of
the cattle, to be delivered at various
times il the future, with the provisO that
If the cnttle more than paid appellees
then (appellees) were to return the bal
ance to Hull, and appelIees knowing
Huh 5 insolvency, aud taking HIuil's
own testimony that there was 10 deiiv-
cry OF the cattle, and the reason for .he
execution of the second instrument WIS
because II was thought there was more
than enough cattle 20 pay appeliees, and
that purpose OF the Two Instruments i'll
question was to prevent other creditors
from attaching the cattle. We THINK
there was no valid sale of the cattle TO
spplees. ). Ore holding under such au
executOry contract, as the second agree
betT cen apDelees and Hull,
looking to the payment of n debt By the
delivery of property in kind, and not en-
titled to the possession of the entire
from which that to be delivered
is 10 De taken, has no such right as will
him to maintain the statutory
action OF trial of the right of property.
Reversed and remanded. Staytou, c. j.
Frank Kuhn vs. W. ID. Young ct al =;
from Bowie. This is the second appeal.
[See II Tex, Gi5.l Suit by appellan.
to recover damages because of the pub
LEGATION by appellees in their newspaper
that appellee was Strengthening and SELL
ing to his customers diseased and I'M
wholesome meats. /. We understand
the rule TO be, if the charge made the
basis OF the action be specific, that the
answer need only allege that the charge
is true. =. The court did not err in
permitting appellees to prove that about
two months before the publication of the
article on which this action is based
appellant slaughtered aad sold dis |
eased steer TO his customers, the pub |
LEGATION alleging that the writer was in |
formed that appellant was in the habit |
Of selling diseased meats. Affirmed. |
Stayton. G. j.
st. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Rail- !
road VS.. W. V. Evans; error from |
Titus. /. 1t was alleged that the stock |
was killed in 1886, ana the court did not |
err in permitting proof that it occurred |
in 1889, as this was evidently clerical !
error known to appellant, as Limitation |
was not pleaded. =. The mule was last |
seen about August, 1889, with broken |
leg, standing near the railroad track. |
At the trial November 10, 1889, it was |
not known whether the mule recovered |
Or where he then was. He'd: No evil
1enoe to authorize q finding that the
mule was killed as alleged in petition.
Reversed and remanded. Stayton, C. j.
j. NJ. Pearson ct al. VS. Household
sewing Machine Company; from Hop
flns- Motion to file record. The tran
script should have been filed on Monday,
but was not filed until "Wednesday.
for the motion claims that OPP
posing counsel led him to believe that no
iction in the case would be taken before
w ednesday and that il was not neces-
ary to file before that day. Held: