Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-11-28

that there was statement of accounts
snd that the appellent Pearson owed the
| amount OF the verdict and judgment.
aud acknowledged that he owed the
| same. 2. The bond was not invalid be-
cause 1t was not signed by the principal
Obligator. 3. No material error in
| charge. 4. To warrant the granting of
| new trial OIL that ground, II must lie
! shown that due diligence was used with
| reference to the alleged newly disror-
| cred testimony. Affirmed. Per Gu
! RAM.
! COMMISSION OF APPEALS.
Frank Jackel VS.. L. Reiinan; from
! Bexnr. l. In this cuse, the appellee
having, in accordance with an opinion OF
former day, RENTED the verdict Tor
exemplary damages herein the verdict
| for actual damages will be afii med.
! Affirmed. Arker. p. j.
J. F. Jolly VS.. n. o. Stallugs; from
| Fannin Trespass TO try title. /. Both
parties claim the land through the estate
of james Ward. One Allen, as admin
| istrHtor of the estate. sold the land TO
one Dougherty, taking his note Stheretor
(without resrrving u lien on the lHud)
! with Appellant Jolly aud r. S. Jones Us
securities. Douehertv conveyed the
land to mis- wife III 1861, and Dougherty
died insolvent in 1862. In 1868 Dough-
erty's widow conveyed the land. with
other tracts, TO Sam Long, assignee OF
A. b. Long, under a decree rendered in
suit brought by Long against the
Dougherty estate. This deed WIS fled
August, 1869. In 1872 Long conveyed
to {. ID. Grace, which deed was filed in
Mny. 1875. Grace, in 1883, conveyed TO
trustees TO secure an Indebtedness
due appellee by him. In 1888,
the trustees conveyed to appellee
and the proceeds of the land was cred
tied on The Indebtedness of Grace APP
peilant's claim is as follows: In 1856 The
administrator of Ward 5 estate fo-eclospd
his vendors lieu on the land, the suit
being against Dougherty and his sureties,
jolly and Jones. At this time Dough-
erty's aud Jones estute were insolven..
The land was sold for $50 70 Amanda
Jolly, wife of appellant, the latter fur
nlshing The money. Neither party have
been in possession of the land aud both
parties have paid taxes thereon. judy
men; for appellee. Held: The judg-
ment ia reversed and rendered in favor
OF appellee for the land upon payment of
$50, with interest thereon, to appellant.
Reversed and rendered. Hobby, }.
F. S. Lynch vs.. Paris Lumber and
Grain Company, from Lamar. SUIT by
appellee to recover for an alleged breach
of contract. l. The contract binding
appelees to put :Pullis Bros. No. At
columns in the building, the putting
III of other columns by appellees, be-
cause they cost less, was not substan-
tial compliance with the contract. :As
man binds himself, SO must he be
bDund.' The court erred in iustruct.ne
b.,
building were substantially like those
contracted for they would find for appel
lees. Evidence 10 this effect was also
inadmssable. Reversed aud remauded.
Acker, Z. J.
+. II. Groesbeck ct al. VS.. Mollie W.
Groesbpck; from Bexar. /. c. f.
Groesbeck and Mollie W. Styles (nppel-
leo inttrmarrie,l in 1854 Before mar
riage an nnte-nuptial agreement was
entered into between them respecting the
property of appellee. Shortly after
their marriage Gropsbeck died and be-
fore his death there was an agreement
entered into between the husband and
wife TO the effect that the property of
the husband, III ease of his death, should
descend TO his heirs, US If there had been
no marriage. Alter the death of her !
husband, appellee brought this suit to
annull and set aside the agreements. |
Verdict for appellee. Held: Husband |
and wife cannot alter the legal order of |!
descent i'll respect TO themselves or their |
children by contract made in contempla- !
ton OF marriage: and for much /
stronger reason they cannot do so by |
contract during marriage (R. s., Art.
2o4Il. Affirmed. CollaEd, j.
--