Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-06-08


ton. G. J. The city of Cleburne is Incorporated
under the general laws or tins state, and this is
proceeding to compel the mayor and aldermen
an elec S . near ana determine the contest OF
the ONCE OF city marshal Ali the necessary
steps had been taken for the contest, but the
ton to sS deteains t haa Contest n0 sf The
question OF jurisdiction Of the city council is
the question before us now. Art 367, Rev. St.,
declares that the council shall be the judge of
the election and qualifications of its own MEM
6ers. This is the only law which in terms con-
ieTs on city council power TO pass on the va
Iiolty OF an election, except as such a power is
to some extent involved in the canvassing of
the votes and declaration OF the result Of an
election. the statute quoted does not give the
Jurisdiction commended for in this case, and the
difference is that this statute confers all the
power of this character, which it was intended
claimed that Arts. $40 and AIS, Rev. St.,
confer the necessary power, but the fact that
city councils are made the judges only of the
election and qualification of their own members
precludes the holding that they were made the
judges of the election of other officers, that it
was intended to give them through the power to
pass ordinances for the general welfare, the
power to acquire jurisdiction over contested
elections of officers other than members of the
council. Reversed and dismissed.
International and Great Northern Railroad
Company VS.. It. II. Prince from Hays county;
opinion by Stayton. C. J. The main question
this court once before t64 Tex. IA whether the
evidence supports the allegation in the petition
not accustomed to transport passengers on
its hand cars, but that on the occa-
sion when appelles was injured he was invited
by the company with others to take passage on
the hand car, for the purpose holding an inquest
al some place on the road, which the company
for its own yindication desired to be held. 'fUn-
der the evidence in the case we cannot hold that
the evidence did not justify finding that Herum
had authority to use the hand-cars as they were
used for the evidence tends to show that he was
the representative of the company on that part
of its road in respect to all matters connected
with the use of the road, cars of all kinds, etc.
His acts may be deemed the company's acts:
The question of extent OF power was submitted
to the jury. and their verdict is
sSasga tS Of oo ths D,S ggSIo9 9Dm TsS
the question of fellow servant and unavoidable
accident to the jury, and only held defendant to
ordinary care. The charges OF the defendant
complained of were properly refused One in
terrcgation propounded to witness as follows:
Please state any other fact or facts within your
knowledge regarding the matter, the same as If
directly questioned about it, was objected to at
the trial on the ground that it was general and
did not tend to elicit any particular fact. The
form, and should have been made before the
trial. Appellant fled copies of kilograms on
which the jury of inquest was taken out, and the
operator was permitted to state the message
erly admitted. Affirmed.
Matilda G.. Bradford ct al. VS.. Thomas J.
Knowles ct al, from Guadalupe county; opin- |
ion by Henry, J. Suit by appellant for 1900 |
acres OF land, Defendants were over objection
cided in 1878, in which the plaintiffs here were
plaintiffs. From that record the court found as |
matter of law that the plaintiffs had elected in
each suit to repudiate the deed under which they |
now claim that they are bound thereby and by |
the Judgment rendered. We think the judgment |
rendered in 1873 must be given exactly the oppo- |
site effect to that held by the court in its con- |
clusion of law. BY the pieadings issue was |
made as towhether or not the oonveyance of the |
land to plaintiff ever did take effect. If 1t did |
the note there sued upon was discharged. If not
plaintiffs were entitled to Judgment for the
that suit settled that the land had |
been conveyed to plaintiffs. The rights of
parties to other suits in which final
judgments have been rendered must be con-
trolled by the judgments and not the recitals in
the pleadings. The pleadIngs are only looked
to for the purpose of deciding what was the
what the relation of defendants in this suit is to
the defendants in the suit of 1873. If it is not
such as to make the record admissible to prove
an estoppel in favor OF plaintiffs. it is not ad-
missible at all. Reversed and remanded.
Susan D. Taliaferro VS.. W. G.. Butler ct al.
from Karnes county; opinion by Henry, J.
of land patented to the heirs of Isaac Ticknor.
Defendant Butler offered in evidence final de-
cree of partition of the land, which was ex-
cluded, probably on the ground that the court
would not acquire jurisdiction to partition
the land through service Of process by
publication. But the laws in force at the time
of iustitutiDg partition proceedings having been
followed properly, the decree, in so far as it
made partition of the land was binding and
should have been admitted. The decisions to
the effect that jurisdiction cannot be acquired |
over non-residents by publication merely have |
no application to suits to partition land. The |
right to render a judgme mt for costs and through
execution issued on such judgment to sell the
lands allotted to the defendants presents a diff
ferent question. and do not think it
was within the power of the court
to make the costs lien on the
shares of land and to order their sale if the costs
were not paid. In lI9 U. s., 1855, in a similar
case it is said that the Judgment as far as the
costs are concerned must be treated a judg- |
ment in person and without binding force on de-
PENDANT and the execution did not authorize the
sale of it. The sherif's deed was, however, ad-
missible under the five years. statute of limita-
ton. Under the facts Butler was entitled to be
treated as holding adversely so much of sub-di-
was in the large pasture. Reversed
and Femanded.
&
N. f. Grammer, south side of square,