Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-04
HIGHER COURT
Eyaopses OF Decisions Rendered at the Pres
eut Tyler sitting.


SUPREME COURT.
Correspondence Of the Gazette.
TYLER, Ten, Dec. 2.-TeXas and
Pacific Railway VS.. Jennie L. Geiger:
from Harrison. This action was origi.
nally brought by appellee against Brown
and Sheldon, who had been appointed
receivers of the appellant railway +,
b. the United States court to recover
damages for an injury that resulted in
The death of her husband while in the
employment OF the receivers as an eugi-
gstr. The receivers were discharged
ami the railroad and all other property
which had been in their hands was re-
turned 10 the company prior to October
8, ISIS. After the discharge of :he last
rerer"T, Brown, the action was dis
Missed as to him appellant having been
ma BE party defendant, against whom
jgiGmnut was rendered. Appellant
.amsd lhHt II was not liable because =,
appellee had not interviewed in the
United states courts. l. The court
id not err in refusing charge
10 The fleet that If sppellee's husband
WIS injured while the railroad was in
tue bands OF the receivers, then the YER
oct should be in favor OF appellant. 2.
The tacts IN this case are substantially
The same as chose in the railway com
PANS IS. Johnson, rs Tex. 42l, and for
lie rr'sans therein given the refusal of
Ne Charge above referred to was not er-
Tor, auG the fact that appellee did not
Intervene in the United States court can
NJ avail appellant in this suit 3. 4
RAILWAY company or receivership OPP
Grading q railway should be held rrspon-
5.t- 80 employees and Others us fully for
ST. injury resulting from d defect exist
liz When the road was taken possession
q. .T The company or receivers, as for O
eIfai occurring under the management
d either 4. II is too clear for argyll
U.Et lunt receivers III charge of and op-
e'R'H- railway are not, within the
!.H"uE % the statute, either its SER
wants or agents. They stand for the
'nH 10 relation 10 the property the same
d ."-- Che corporation TO which IL be-
.aS-. when il possession of and op-
vh"-e .t, for all purposes necessary to
u CONS Lgrpd in this case. 4 railway
company is liable for an injury 10 its
'sF,asts occurring through and by reR-
EN- .. defective track there being neg
'-' 's on the part of the company, and
'as ,--e rule applies when q road Is OPP
trs' " receiver. The negligence in
H-'a B use is the negligence of one who,
l- iNe PURPOSES under consideration,
SANS rs does the proprietor, owner,
N---.HreT or hirer, and not as the SER
vi. " agent of such person or corpora
t0"- .. The deceased was G strong,
Arl..a BIS man twenty-Diue years of age,
4ai --nlng 1928 per month. We can
no. "oid that verdict for $40. 900 is ex-
's,s."a. Affirmed. Stayton, c. J.
!vey administrator, VS.. E. f.
willie MS 81 al; from Smith. /. Ap-
.'.@ut proved claim of title TO the
In. 40 controversy and it was error TO
','as9 10 instruct the jury upon the legal
t--f OF the documentary evidence.
l.' Tex. o9-6l Tex. 1861. ,. Bills of ex-
|b 90 Incorporated III the statement of
'A''s and tiled after the adjournment of
Nlfi, cannot be- considered. Reversed
g. Trnaudea. Gaines, J.
- T.. Prince VS. Maggie Ladd; from
H's- /. Appellant being appointed
t-aTi'an of certain wards in January,
-,'', and having never filed any iuveu-
WY ~ their estate, or list OF claims
tNa'Ii>t the same or made any showing
: 10 the condition of the estate, he was
property removed for failure to perform
.S duties in accordance with law. 2.
nu appointment OF appellant by the pro-
s4'e court as trustee under q will of GER
"u Property of his wards was inopera-
I'VE 1ad void, as there was nothing in
:, VIII through which The money came
- r1t authorized trusteeship. Affirmed
say'on, Z. J. w.
William Jacobs ct al. VS.. J. S. Daugh-