Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-10-30
THE HIGHER COURTS.
synopsis Of Decisions Rrnier'd at the Pres
nnt Iriur NitinU

TYLER, TEX, Oct. 2S.-Interpational
and Great Northern Railway VS.. w. +.
keenan,, from Smith. l. A brakeman
is not a fellow servant with car in
spector. 2. railway company Is
bound TO furnish safe machinery and sp-
pliances for use by its employees in oper-
ating Its road. and if ordinary and rea-
souable care Is not exercised by the COM
pany the company is responsible. g..
The fact that the defective car belonged
TO another roud was immaterial. No
error. Affirmed. COllard, j.
Wilson g. Martin va. ID. c. Lucas,
from Shelby. !. An assign nent which
merely states that the judgment is con-
trary 10 the law and the evidence Is too
general to be considered. 2. This court
will not disturb finding of the court
below on the ground of conflict in the
testimony. Affirmed. Aeker, P. J.
J. E. Harber VS.. T. ]. Dyches ct al. !;
from Travis. Trespass to try title. !.
As I ct ween individuals a deed which does
not infinitely describe the lands by metes
and bounds would be valid If the terms
OF the description could be applied,
which could be shown by extraneous
facts. but a tax deed to be such within
the meaning of the statute of five years
limitations, must contain the description
OF the land sought to be conveyed on the
face of the deed. Affirmed. Collard, j.
Missouri Pacific Railway va. J. L.
Edwards ct al. from Turrant. l. Rail-
road companies are responsible for dam
ages occurring to cattle in transite, even
IL the cattle die from their injuries after
delivery. 2. The evidence fan ly raising
lsbe issue, the court erred in refusing ap-
pellant's offered special instruction to
the effect that if plaintiff loaded the cat
tie without reference to their age, sex,
condition or SIZE, and by reason thereof
;hey were damaged, then such contribu-
DRY negligence would bar II recovery Tor
such damage. Reversed aud renanded.
Hobby, J.
A P. Woodbridge ct al. VS.. j. B.
Rawlings; from Travis. !. Appellee
brought suit in justice court against the
Austin and Northwestern railway and
ecured judgment. Appellants were
the sureties of appellant on appeal to
district court. In said court, by consent
of appellant, the appeal was dismissed.
tue sureties refused to pay the judy
ment, aud appellee brings this suit
against appellants. Held: Appellee was
peal, nor is the claim barred by the stat
~" Of limitations OF two years. Affirmed.
Hard, J.
81. LOUIS, Arkansas and Texas Rail-
way VS.. J. z. Hanks; from Henderson.
Appellee brought this SUIT 10 recover for
The value of Il shepherd dog killed by ap-
pellant. The evidence shows that the
dog was walking with appellee along the
track. AS q freight train came along,
appellant stepped aside, while the dog
kept down the track running for his life.
II was a hard race and holly contested,
but the mOgul at ;he epd of 500 yards
came under the wire length ahead and
over the mangled remains of poor Fido.
Held: The court below gave instructions
appreciate to the evidence, and the jury
having found for appellee, we find no
ground for disturbing their finding. The
Judgment for 500 is affirmed. Hobby,
j.
ST. Louis. Arkansas and Texas railway
vs.. 4. A. Mckenzie, from Hopkins.
Appellee bought two horses in Southern
Texas aud put them in his pasture.
Within few days the fence around his
f5sSrfre was burned through the uegli-
gence of appellant, and the horses es-
capped. After diliGent search through
Hopkins and surrounding counties ap-
pellee failed to find his horses. He
brought this suit to recover their value
and got his judgment. Held: The judy
ment is supported by the evidence. No
error. Affirmed. Acker, P. J.
r. e. Watts ct al VS.. J. G. Over
street, from Shackleford. This is Sec
oud appeal. [See 81 Tex, go for first
appeal /. A dismissal Us to Root aud
pAriiy in which u judgment could have
Leen rendered against them. 2. An aft =,
davit for representation need not state the
names of all the defendants or which OF
the defendants holds the property in pos
session which Is TO be seques,rated. 8.
1t is unnecessary for u writ of sequestra-
ton to state the amount sued for, and
therefore the stating Of a wrong amount
In the writ was OF no consequence. The
case rs TO Price and Root will be reversed
and dismissed, and the case as 10 Man.
ming is affirmed. Collard, j..
X. Z. Watts eft al. VS.. J. G. Over
street; from Shack elford. This is a COM
paniou case TO Watts VS.. Overstreet
above, and involves the same questions.
The case l. reversed and dismissed as to
Root and Price, and affirmed as to Man.
ming. Collard, j.
Western Union Telegraph Co. vs.. W.
NJ. Andrews; from Hunt. At ii clock
on January %, 1888, appellee received
message from Jacksonville, Tex, that
his mother was dead. The first train by
which appellee could leuve GreenviIle
was at 4 'clock. January %, the next
day, and be could not reach Jackson
vile until 10 'clock that evening. He
TO his relatives at jack SON
Vile that he would arrive there that
night. This message reached Jack som
at 10 o clock a. m and was delivered to
his brother at o. CLOCK p. m and about
the time preparations were being made
10 bury appellee's mother. The burial,
however, was not delayed, and appellee
arrived five hours after his mothers
burial. Appellee arrived on time at 10 !
o CLOCK p. M. Held: Under such facts
4 cannot seriously be insisted that ap-
pSannss1s liable. Reversed and re-
Hobby, ].
Daniel Titlerington vs. Crawford |
Trees; from Dallas. l. Und or the facts
the court erred in refusing to instruct |
the jury TO the effect that where there is |
q conflict in the calls of survey for |
natural aud artificial objects on the |
one hand, and distance and quality on |
the other, the latter must give way to |