Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-23
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopses OF Decisions Rendered at the Re-
cent Tyler Sitting.

cent Tyler Sitting.
SUPREME COURT.
| Correspondence of the Gazette.
TYLER, Ten, Dec. 20.-Morris Jacobs
VS.. Jefferson Lumber Company; from
Cass. Trial of the right of property.
l. Where q party purchases property
from an insolvent debtor, although the
former may know of the insolvent con-
dition of the latter, yet If the amount of
the purchase ia no more than will reas-
onably pay the debt, the party purches-
ing acquires good title. 9. The
charges given presented the law of the
case and the evidence supports the
judgment. Affirmed. Stayton, C. j.
Curtis & Co. Manufacturing Company
VS.. Douglas & Glass: from Franklin. l.
A party is under no obligation to take a
check in payment of a debt but If he does
so he must be diligent in the collection of
the same. Daniel on Neg. instruments
l278-Story on bills 100. 3. While the
jury may have found for appellants I'M
der tbs evidence which was conflicting +,
yetttp evidence supports the Judgment
for aepeliees and we will not disturb
sAops. Affirmed. Stayton. c. ].
ID. 1tdpau VS.. y. COpelbuu,
from Cherokee. l. A suggestion in q
brief not based on an assignment of error
filed in the court below, with reference
to the failure of the court below to tile q
statement of facts, cannot he considered.
9 After q case is called for trial it is too
late to make new parties, If objection is
raised. 3. The failure of the court TO
approve q statement of facts cannot be
OsiH he
ported by an assignment of error filed in
the court below. Affirmed. Henry, J.
Samuel Thurman VS.. Blankenship-
Blake company; from Marion. On re-
hearing. ]. We have fully and ma
turely considered the motion, and we do
not find in the statement of facts any
evidence of the judgment of this court in
the case in which the appeal bond was
given, on which this suit was brought.
Motion refusal. Henry, J.
kssS sVilliam5sftson VS.. State National
bank. ,.s19Hn for rehearins. In mo-
zion fsff h4Aring appellee calls atten-
gft0 Ii kct that william Hittson, the
7dsg "a kfHwas examined at his own in
staIfea3 Fl witness on the trial of the
cause and voluntarily testified with re-
gard to the mortgage held By him on the
property CT Jesse Hittson and in effect
that the said Jesse was insolvent. Our
attention was not called to Hittson g
testimony when the former opinion WAS
rendered. In view of the fact that the
matter stated by the witness Lynn was
included without objection in the testi-
mOny of other witnesses, we think il
altogether unlikely that the appellant
was prejudiced by the admission of the
mortgage over his objection. =. We do
not feel warranted in reversing the judy
ment at the instance of HittsoI for the
erroneous admission of the testimony Of
Lynn, while his own voluntary testimony
on the same subject remains in the sec
ond. IS Tex. $50, So Tex. 1874, so Tex.
224, % Tex. PAS, &c Tex. 562. Motion
for rehear.ng granted and judgment af-
iirmed. Henry, j.
Wilson Lumpkin VS.. j. NJ. Silliman
ct al. from Anderson. l. While 1t is q
better rule to give description of the
land in controversy in the pleadipgs by,
describing its situation and bOundariesy
rather than by a reference alone to
other sources CT information, II has been
held by this court that description by
reference to deeds which are themselves
identified with certainty, is sufficient, at
least when no objection is taken TO the
d
Judgment by default might have been
taken against appellant. yet it was not
essential TO be done, and a final judg-
ment was properly rendered against him
on the trial in which his co-defendants
tARefended the suit. Affirmed. Henry. j.
I# Kansas and Gulf Short Line Railway
Esfs. W. C. Scott; from Smith. l. In
Rzhis case, by agreement of both parties.
|sthe cause will stand continued until the
enext Tyler term of this court. So or
dered. Per DURHAM.
~ 7. J. Gee VS.. Matte Flennellen ct al.
from Rains Motion to affirm on certh-
cate. l. The motion does not show that
the appeal bond was fled within the
time required by law, and is therefore
defective. Motion dismissed. Per Gu
ram.
A. b. Lee, administrator, ct al. vs..
f. NJ. Martin ct al; from Navarro.
Motion to affirm on certificate. l. The
motion as to Lee is regular, and will be
granted, but as to Bonner, same will be
dismissed Affirmed as to Lee and di
missed as TO Bonner. Per curiam.
r. b. Walker vs.. J. .. Wilson ct al;
from Hopkins. Rehearing. l. The
grounds of the motion are not well taken,
same being fully considered in our former
opinion. Overruled. Per curtain.
Lucky VS.. Short; from Shelby. /.
This cause purports to be a quo warranto
proceeding, ana has been filed here for
determination this term, but an inspec-
ton of the record shows that same is not
good warrauto proceeding, and not of
character TO entitle it to precedence.
The case will await the next term of this
court. Per curtain.
c. NJ. and Nancy Houston VS.. W. T.
Blythe. /. In this cause there Is an
agreement of counsel representing both
parties on file asking that this court Or
der map filed rs part of the record
herein Withdrawn as filed paper and
returned to the clerk of the court below.
The request ia granted as per agreement
Oh file. Per curiam.
F. l.. Schuster ct al. vs.. Bauman Jew
elry Company from Bowie. /. Where the
wife having money of her own purchased
two lots, and for convenience (the sale
being partly cash and partly on credit)
the cash payment was applied wholly to
one lot, the other being bought wholly
on credit, and the deferred note is paid
with the wifo's means, and although the
note of the husband was given for the
same, yet the lot purchased on credit
would be the separate property of the