The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-12-25
THE HIGH COURTS,
Business at the Close of the Tyler Term of
the Supreme Court

Chases property from an insolvent debtor,
although the former may know of the in
solvent condition of the latter, yet if the
amount of the purchase is no more than
will reasonably pay the debt, the party
purchasing acquires good title. 2. The
charges given presented the law of the
case, and the evidence supports the judg-
ment. Affirmed. Staytou, G. J.
Curtis IL Co. Manufacturing company VS..
Douglas & Gloss, from Franklin. l. A
party is under no obligation to take check
in payment of debt, but if he does so he
must be diligent in the collection
of the same. Daniel on Neg. Instru-
ments, 1913; Story on Bills, 1907 2.
While the jury may have found for appel
liant under the evidence, which was CON-
fiicting, yet the evidence supports the
judgment for appellees, and we will not
disturb same. Affirmed. Stayton, Gu.
R. B. Reagan VS.. B. G. Copeland, from
Cherokee. l. A suggestion in a brief not
based on an assignment of error filed in
the court below, with reference to the court
below to file statement of facts, cannot
be considered. g After a case is called for
49, 'AS" Pe'A ~
| objection is raised. 3. The failure of the
court to approve statement of facts can
not be considered here, same not being
| supported by an assignment of error filed
in the court below. Affirmed. Henry; j..
| Samuel Thurman VS.. Blankenship-Bleke
| 20, from Marion; Cd rehearlng. l; we
nave 1ully ana maturely conslderei the
motion, and we do not find in the state
ment of facts any evidence of the judgment
| of this court in the case in which the APP
peal pohd was given, on winch this suit
was pTouShI: Motlon reused. henry, j.
william Hlttson VS.. State National bank;
mouoh 1or renearlng. l.; In motlon
lof rehearlhg appelee calls our
aG ,!ei 10 the TACT That
| Wnnam Hlttson, the appellant was ez-
alllieu aC MS own instance as Wlthess on
Inc trlal Oh the cause; ana voluntarily tesh.
heu WIN regard 10 the mortgage held by
| MIN Oh Ine property OF Jesse hlCtson ana
IN erect that the SAID Jesse was lnSolVeht.
our atCentloh was not called 10 Hlttsoh
testimony When the former OPINION was
rendered. In view OF the TACT that the mat
Ter stated py the Witness Lynn was IN
ciuueu Wltnou9 opIectlon IN the testlmohy
Oh oiner witnesses, we MINK IL altoge!!heI
unlikely That the appellant was preJudlce.d
by the ADMISSION OF the mortgage over MS
| objection. we 90 not feel warranted IN
reversing the judgment at the instance OF
| hlttson, Ior tne erroneou, ADMISSION OF
the testimony OF Lynn, whlle MS own VOL
luhtary tesumony on the same suplecG re-
mains IN Inc RECORD. S40 lex, 5oo; % lex,
iaa; o. lex, Ez4; IS lex, 40; 20 lex
| ooZ.) Motlon Ior renearlng granted ana
| Judgment alilrneu. henry, -
wilson LumpKlh vs.. .: M ollilnan, from
Anderson. |. While 1t is better rule to
yer description OF the iand IN contfo-
VeIsy III C1e pleaolngs ny describing us slC
tio ao nna ~ athar 1onrcas CsGn ny
rd'erenGe alohe 10 other sources OF iniorlha-
llon, IL mas peen nelo oy TINS court that
uesollpSioil ny leielence ~ ueeu? Wnicii az
themselves luehtlleu WIN cerCslnIy IS SUI
nclellV, az least when III, no ooJectioit Is tahel
10 tne pleaulngs. l2o Tex, 900 } q. nue.
d JuuslnenC ny ueiaulC nlisiit naVe oeen
Caken against apPella1l' yeS IL was IloI es
SEXUAL eauL, W uH uone, anu ma .ho
was Plopetly lenueleu asaInsv mn ~ ~ ~
trlal IN Whlca MS co-9elenoants oelenueu
IhE sun. All All H.: ct leniy ..
wv Kansas a S any ouiI HnolU HiIe away Vs.
W. ". SOU, run run oinlln. l.. ~ Inls o a2G,
ny asreeieU VI Jul paLIles, Gne Iause WI,
stanu contllueu uLigll Clie IeAI IyieL 'elin
VI EhiS c'1rC, oo or1eteu' nel cuiiai H. 81
L. zee ys. MaIIIe rt a dta es e.
llonn haIns M,ton ~ aiillLl ~ Ue! ~.
case. l, me Iotloh s 9oeS H1e sLGm ina Ina
Ine appeal ponu was lileu Win ofo, G.sne
tequlleu ny Jaw, aiiI p 10 Cmeio,oie
hoIl9n uislliisseu: lel cullan. AZ
"a D. zee autiilnls'iaeoi, eV "'i .: AZ ~
AeIIli oU d., a ~ -,io,i ~ ", ~.
dillrin on Gei.iioa'e. l. ne niotion ae ~
lee 10 lesu anu anu, wv LIE pe sianleu EuU a3
10 ponlier SAM VIII oe 9lslss 1 aiii peu
as W Lee anu uisiiiisSeu DIS W Doiiliei' Lei
cupiaI,' ,u.,- n u,:,,a
N. D. w alher 70. .: w. NIIleoi eu al,
rom NJ hopklHs. henealIts. IL !n nfs loulus
ol lne noVlol are noI Wel laheii, SAM
oeihg Iully consl9ere4 IN our iormer
OPINION. OVeIIuleu' rer cutlall' mil
LUCKY vs.. snort from ohelpy. l. LUIS
cause purp0rts 10 De quo warrahto pro-
ceeulig ana mas peeI n'eu mere lor uelerf
In M inls TERN, ouC an l!spectlon ,' Vi
tlle recoru SHOWS tlaC same Is noC quo
Warranio proceeding anu hot VI VI cnaIact .1i
W enlltie IL 10 pIeceuence: me case WI M
await the next term OF lhls court. Fer
cuIlam'
IN; ana Nancy houston WI. blythe::
l. In tnls cause tnere Is an agreement OF
connsel representing poth parties on ME
asking that this court oroer map hled as
part OF the record herell, WltnaraWh as
hled paper ana returned 10 the clerR OF lhe
court oeloW' Inc request IS grahteu az per
agreement on hle. Fer curlam.
+. L. Schuster ct al vs. Baqman JeWeiry
Eo', from Bowie. L. Where the Wlle having
money OF her own purchaser TWO lots, ana
tor convenience (tne sale pelng party cash
ana partly on credlt), the cash payment was
app lied wholly to one lot, the other oelng
bought wholly on credit, ana the deferred