Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-03-04
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopses of Decisions Rendered at the Present
Galveston Sitting Of the
Supreme Court.

Supreme COURT. w. Stayton, chief justice; B.
R. Gaines, j. L. Henry. associate justices.
Correspondence of the Gazette.
GALVESTON, Tex. March 1.-The Mayor,
Aldermen and Inhabitants of the City of Hous-
ton VS.. Jacob Feizer; Harris county. Reversed
and remanded. Stayton, c. J. Appellee
covered from appellant certain taxes that had
been paid. The only question in the court below
and before is whether the payment of such
taxes was voluntary, That tax voluntarily
paid cannot be recovered, is well settled. Every
man is supposed to know the law, and if he vol
unfairly make a payment which the law would
compel him to make, he cannot afterwards
plead ignorance of the law as reason for recov-
ering it. The evidence does not show invol-
u ntary payment, and a new trial should have
been granted.
The Mayor, etc., of the City of Houston VS..
Anne Jankowskie. Reversed and remanded.
Stayton, c. J. Suit brought to recover sums
claimed to be due on bonds issued by appellant.
To remove the bar of limitation plaintiff intro
duced in evidence the statement OF the secre-
tary of the city of Houston, made in 1885, con-
tanning this item, under the head of liabilities:
IN. Richmond (past-due bonds) $780, 1t was
admitted that bonds sued portion of
the NJ. Richmond past-due bonds. The secre-
tary had authority to binu the city by any
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT or promise. An acknowledge
ment from which a promise is to be implied
some person authorized to make it. statement
by an agent to his principal cannot operate as an
Acknowledgement. Such an acknowledgement
ought to be made to the other party to the con-
tract or to some person representing him. The
fact that the city levied taxes to meet interest
due and create a sinking fund cannot operate
an acknowledgement of or promise to pay any
particular bond or issue of bonds.
The Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway
Co. VS.. Jordon Jones; Harris county. Affirmed.
Gaines, A. j. We cannot say the verdict of the
jury upon the vital question as presented by the
charge of the court, as 20 whether not plain
tin, appellee, possessed the discretion and capaC-
ity necessary to performing the duties of
brakeman, was against such preponderance OF
evidence as to warrant this court in setting it
aside. If minor, without the mental capacity
and experience to appreciate the danger of
business in which he Is engaged, not by the con-
tract of the parent, receives an injury as the
suit OF such inexperience, the master ought to
Mary V. O'Donnell ct al. vs. c. R. Johns &
Co ct al; Harris county. Affirmed. Henry.
A. j. There was no error in admitting the deed
torney not being produced. The deed came from
the proper source, was over thirty years old,
and title under it had long been asserted. The
existence of the authority recited in the deed
was correctly presumed. corporation making
an unlawful attempt to change its will
still be a lawful corporation under its former
name.
Henry Utzfeld ct al. VS.. Heirs of A.
5FF5 0fny apbeant d dersyd
to introduce in evidence an instrument
conveying the land certificates under
This they offered, not as mupiment of title but
as showing the intention of the parties TO it.
The court properly excluded it, [Groesbeck VS..
Bodrnan, ~ Tex. 2S9. The evidence showed
title in plaintiffs without there being anything
to show that it ever been Invested out of them or
their ancestor. The court did not err in direct
ing the jury to find for plaintiff
William Cook ct al. VS.. Houston Direct
Navigation, company; Harris county. Re
versed and remanded. Gaines, A. J. The
allegation in defendant company's answer
that carrying passengers in the tug was
expressly forbidden a sufficient answer to
plaintiffs allegation that the relation of COM
mon carrier and passenger existed between de-
PENDANT and their daughter at the time OF the ac-
cident. 1t takes a contract express or implied
to establish such contract and evidence was
properly admitted to show that the company for
babe the carrying of passengers. The court
erred in charging that unless plaintiff daughter
was passenger on the tug they could not re-
cover. 1t would be negligence to permit chill
dren on board tugboat, where there is danger
of their being drowned, without taking adequate
precautions to avoid accident. The company,
having left the management of the boat to its
servants, cannot escape liability for their wrong
full acts, If such they be.