Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-13
HIGHER COURTS.
synopses of Decisions Rendered st the Pres
ent Tyler sitting.

4
| ent Tyler sitting.
SUPREME COURT.
| Correspondence of the Gazette.
| TYLER, TEX, Nov. 1l.-Stete of
Texas ex rel vs.. F. c. Cook; from
| Jones. Proceeding by the state TO test
| the rights of respondents TO the offices Of
county and district clerk, sheriff and
! tag collector, county surveyor, county
treasurer, county assessor and other of
ficers of Stonewall county. which the re-
spondeuts were respectively alleged to be
unlawfully holding, or pretending to
hold. Prior to December 20, 1888,
county attached to Jones county for
judicial purposes. On November II,
1888, duly signed petition was pre-
scented the comm issioners court of Jones
county, praying for the organization Of
Stonewall county, and the court, after
making necessary orders. directed the
holding of an election in said Stonewail
coGnty for county and precinct officers,
III which said election respondents, save
some since appointed, were elected.
Proper notice of the election was given.
on Deem Der "a, 1888, the commissioners
court declared the result of the election.
|. The main and really only important
question raised is, was the election held
IN Stonewaii county, at which respon-
dents were elected a valid one under the
lava OF our state: Appellants contend
that no valid election was held December
20, 1888, because our laws only provide
for elections for county and precinct
officers to be held on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday In November.
but we must dissent from this view.
StOnewall county was created by the act
of August 81, 1876, aud it was attached
to Jones county for judicial purposes by
the act of Murch 81, 1887 and it Is there
fore evident that an election for the
organization of that count ymust be
governed by the provisions of Art. 672
X. ). The statute directs the COM
missiOners court, after the proper pc
tition has been presented, ''to proceed
without delay to the organization of such
new county IN the same manner as here
in before provided for the organization
OF new countless This direction to
proceed without delay indicates an in
tenton to speedily give full county
organization after this is shown by the
proper petition to be necessary. and if
the legislature had intended that no cleo
ton for such a purpose should be held ct
time other than q general election, it
is singular that it commanded prompt
action or the part of the commissioners
court, when in many cases this could
accom- lish no good purpose if the time
for holding general election was distant.
The county of Stouewail being legally
ORGANIZED the court did not err III hold
ing that respondents should have been
sued 10 said county. y firm ed, Stay
ton, {. J.
l.. L. Wren et al. vs.. Jim Harris;
from Hunt. suit for recovery of land.
/. A guardian has q legal right and
power under the approval of the probate |
court TO make a contract for the location |
of Il land certificate in which 1t Is stipu-
lated that the locator should have g |
part Of the land in consideration of his |
services and expenses, although the !
contract was made without an order |
same. Affirmed. Gaines, j. |
j. c. Boydston VS.. Hiram Sumpter; |
from TarIaut. Trespass to try title. l. |
The petition describing the land bv metes |
ard bounds AS IL part of the S. Mitchell |
survey, a statement in the latter portion
of the same stating that the controversy
was In the Milton Gregg survey, or the
Mitchell survey, WAS mere surplusago
and may be so treated. 9. A surveyor
can testify with reference to certain cor
ners found that were called for in field
notes, and the paper con tai ming the cali
ings need not 1irs t be put III evidence.
No error. Affirmed. Henry, j,
J. NJ. Pearson va. Household Sewing
Machine Company; from Hopkins.
Motion to dismiss appeal. l, The ap-
peal in this case was perfected December
10. 1889, and no briefs were filed for ap-
pellant in the court below. Briefs were
tiled here November G, 1890. Held:
This is not q compliance with rules 81
and SO of this court. No reason is showna
why briefs were not filed in compliance
with the rules. The motion is sustained.
Appeal dismissed. Stayton, c. J.
NJ. T.. Eskridge ct al. vs. K. s. Pat
terson; from Hunt. l. r. W. Smith
lied in 1851 and left q will in which BENZ
nett Smith and 4. f. Wynne were APT
pointed executors, authorizing the t6ss-
without the control of the
probate court. The will was probated
and both executors qualified. In 1858
Tynne married the widow of deceased,
lis testator, and thereupon Bennett
NtlltE over tue VI tue
estate TO Wynne and ceased to act rs
executor. Wynne es remaining executor
sold the land to appellee to satisfy q debt
against the estate. Held: The sale was
7alid aud passed title TO the land. Upon
smith 8 refusal to act, this left Wynne
with the powers of both. Affirmed.
iaines, j.
Tom Coleman ct al. vs.. Davenport &
Son; from Franklin. Motion to affirm
IN certificate. l. The motion being in
,ne ompliance with law will be granted.
itnrmed on certificate. Stayton, J.
ST. Louis and San Francisco Railway
IS. c. w. McLain; from Lamar. Mo-
ion TO file supplemental briefs. l. A
notion to file supplemental briefs raising
| question this court cannot consider, will
lot be granted. Motion refused. Per
ruriam.
r. ID. Harrell ct al. vs.. Gilbert Book
Company; from Bowie. Motion to affirm
IN certificate. /. The certificate is de-
ective in that 1t fails to chow that