Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-04
m. Motion refused. Per GU

Ram.
w. Hendricks eft nj. VS.. II. P. Stone
ct al; from Tarrant. Motion for re-
hearings /. There Is no reason shown
whycur opinion of former dar should
|. lbs set aside. Motion refused. Per Gu
jfiam.
s. Boggs s. Bro. vs. Texas and Pa
citic Railway; from Kaufman. Motion
TO rein>tate. /. On a former day this
cause was dismissed because no service of
the writ of error was had on one of the
defendants IN error. 1t is now shown
that the party was dead, and no service
could be had. Motion granted. Per Gu
RAN.
l.. 4. Wren ct al. VS.. Jim Harris;
from Hunt. Motion for rehearing. l.
Our opinion OF former day will not be
disturbed. No merit in the motion.
Overruled. Per curiam.
f. krause, Sr. vs.. J H. Pope; from
Travis. Motion TO reform judgment. l.
1t is shown that appellants are entitled to
q credit OF $1,000 not allowed then in our
opinion of a former day. The motion is
granted and the judgment reformed .
Per curtain.
COMMISSION OF APPEALS.
p. j. Staudlee ct. al. vs.. George W.
Burkitt; from Travis. Trespass to try
title. /. He who at this late day when
lands have become valuable and those
who originally surveyed them have
passed away, makes a location between
grants which surveyors who originally
surveyed them more than thirty years
ago under their official oaths declared TO
be contiguous, should come prepared
with evidence which will clearly show
that such declarations were made in
mistake, and such testimony must con-
sist of something more than that one or
both of the grants will be- slightly in ex-
cess of the area called for, to make such
declarations good. 81 Tex. 626. Cues
ton purely one of fact. No error. At
hrmed. Acker, P. J.
Missouri Pacific Railway vs.. Russell &
Morgan; from Clay. Suit by appellees
for loss caused by reason of delay in
transportation of livestock. l. The 20S
head Of cattle weighed then. shipped
20S 200 pounds. They reached Chicago
one day later than they should have
done, which. 1t is claimed. resulted in a
loss Of twenty-five cents on the 100
pounds; that this loss was caused 10y q
decline in the market. The account
sales show that they brought 81. 80 per
100 pounds for those sold. If they hal
lS7 200 mounds, which is the basis of ap-
pellees' evidence, they would have
brought SIS, 706 80. The amount realized
was S.. OPP So, leaving a balance against
appellant of S7G9 %; whereas, they have
judgment for $3.50. The evidence does
not support the ju Ign 5nt. Reversed and
remanded. Hobby. J.
E. NJ. Tillmau ct al. vs.. J. P.
Fletcher; from Hunt. l. A motion for
a continuance for want of a witness who
was shown to have been convicted of q
( felony wes properly overrulrd. 2. Where
fact is defectively stated in petition
and there ia no exception thereto, evil
| dence competent to establish il should
not be excluded. 8. Where n plea Is de-
fective, but not wholly Insufficient, it is
not the proper mode Of taking advantage
I Of such defect by objecting to evidence
III support of II. /, should be done by
exception, pointing out specifically the
/ defect. f. Tex, 50; 90 Tex, 439 T.. ]
Affirmed. Hobby, j.
Fort Worth Publishing company vs..
Hitsou Reid; from Turrant. Trial Of
the right of property. l. We can see
no good reason why a corporation may
not be bound 10y acts of acquiesceuce IN
transaction which may be irregular on
its face. if not prohibited, or which may
be in excess of the officers from acting
for the corporation. 2. 1t is reasun-
able and salutary rule in its application
to agencies that when the principal with
the knowledge OF the facts, acquiesces in
the acts done under an assumed agency,
he should not be heard subsequently, TO
impeach them upon the ground that they
were done without authority. 69 Pa.
430. This rule applies to corporations
as well as individuals. 5. The charter
of the Texas Investment company, linn
tied, and the transfer of property of the
. Texas Investment company to the
3 Texas Investment company, limited,
together with the testimony of J.
, p. Smith, was admissible in evidence.
4. The Judgment in this case should not
| have been a joint one in behalf of the
| plaintiffs. II should have estab-
lished the rights aud priorities OF the
severa, plaintiffs in accordance with Art.
1913, r. s.. now in force, which is but
decIutory of what the law aud proper
practice was. SO Tex. 22+. 1t should
also have fixed the value of the use of
the property in controversy. Reversed
and remaaded. Hobby, J.