Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-30

Money on special deposit is not the prop
erty of the bank, but belongs to
the depositors, and is subject to
be assessed to them for taxation. 2. On
the other hand, an ordinary deposltor in
bank creates the re.8 ton OF debtor and
creditor and the effect of The transaction
is to transfer the property IN the funds
deposited to the bunk, and to reutier it
liable to taxation as the money of the
banker. 8. The object of Art. 1854 r.
S. is not to define the property of banks
and bankers subject to taxation, but
! merely to secure faithful rendition Of
| their assets, to the end that they may
not escape the equal and uniform taxa
ton required by tbs constitution. The
statement therein provided for is in fact
not the sole statement required of
bankers, brokers and other stock job
bers, for it is evidently contemplated
that they shall, in the first instance list
ali their assets for taxation under article
1861 in the same maDuer that all other
persons are required to render their prop
city. This Is shown, We think
by the enumeration of the
class of property to be rendered.
4. The amended article 1854 expressly
provides that from the aggregate
amount of money, etc. and of credits
"shall be deGu';e the amount of money
on deposit. We think TINT means no
more nor less than that all the money
duo deposItorS shall be deducted. In a
banking business proper, the sum due
depositors represents the banks indebt-
edness and III order TO make the tax
upon the credits OF banker equal TO
aud uniform with the tax upon the cred
its OF other persons, IL is necessary that
all these debts should be deducted. 8.
The testimony of appsllees as to the
amount of non-taXable treasury notes
on January l, 1887, was as follows: OF
the treasury notes S6S .l4l in cash in
vaults, $50 1922 IL and $40 .492 in other
banks. One of the firm stated that they
had on hand in other banks on January
l, 1887, S6S, 14l in treasury notes which
had been acquired by said firm in the
usual and regular course of business
during a period of four years. How 4
firm doing business on a capital of
$50, 900 could afford, during period of
four years, to accumulate S6S, l4l as a
special deposit IN any particular kind of
currency, We confess we do not UNDER
stand or for what purpose it could be
accumulated, except 1t be TO evade tax
alton, We ars unable to perceive. G.
Treasury notes deposited in another
bunk subject to draft, and merely cred
its for the amount deposited, are subject
to taxation as other credits. The evil
dence did not show whether the treasury
notes deposited in other banks was u
special deposit or not, and the burden
was on appellees to show this. The
court should have granted new trial
because the evidence was insufficient to
show amount of treasury notes on hand
January l, 1878. Reversed and re-
manded. Gaines, J.
g. L. Betterton ct al. IS. E. Epstein
s. Co.; from Rockwall. The property IN
controversy was seized under attachment
against r. H. Stevenson, and while in
custody OF the sheriff was ordered sold as
perisha6le property by the judge from
whose court the writ was issued. At the
sale appellant Betterton purchased the
goods, member of appelles's firm Civ
ing notice of their rental lien. The pro-
ceeds of the sale were turned into the
hands Of the court. After the sale ap-
pellees levied II distress warrant on the
goods for rent due by Stephenson and
unpaid. Betterton made claim to the
property under the statute, but it was ad-
judged that appellee's lien for rent
should prevail over the claim Of appel
liant. Held: The property sold being
perishable goods and sold as such under
an order Of court appellant Betterton
acquired good title TO the same. The
proceeds of the sale paid into court rep
resents the property, md to this fund
appellees must look for the satisfaction
Of their claim. Reversed and rendered
for appellants. Stayton. c..
d. b. James IS. Jesse ROberts; from
Cas-. This suit was instituted in justice
court and appealed TO the district court.
where motion to dismiss the appeal
was sustained. /. Suit was instituted
by appellee against ID. B. james. Levi
Turner, T. Coven s. Co.. NJ. jacobs and
E. G. Eddleston, the two latter sureties
on replevin bond. The appeal bond
described the judgment as rendered
against d. B. Jnmes and Levi Turner
alone. Held: The appeal bond mis-
described the judgment. Affirmed.
Henry, J.
l.. II. Michael vs.. l.. Jarvis ct al. (;
from Smith. l. An Endorsement: on
note made BY an Indorser limiting his
liability is a written contract which does
not require the aid of extrinsic evi fence
to explain its terms, where the meaning
is clear. There Is no latent ambiguity
disclosed, nor was the evidence OF other
circumstances besides the writing them
selves calculated TO throw light on 1t.
Such being the case the Endorsement
must speak for itself, and in o ur opinion
parol evidence was not admissible to
sshow the Intention Of the parties. At
firmed. Gaines, j.
r. B. Walker vs.. ]. D. Wilson ct al;
from Hopkins. l. Appellee Garrison
became the owner Of the note in coutro-
versy soon after its execution By transfer
from the payee. He delivered it to one
jacobson with the understanding that il
jacobson could use it IN q certain trans
action he should do 20 and account to
Garrison for its value. jacobson died