Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-10-23
THE HIGHER COURIS
synopses OF Decisions rendered at thu resent
Tyler lifting.
SUPREME COURT.

VS.. Henrietta National Bank from CLAY.
The receiver of the Henrietta national
bank having no authority either from
any court or the comptroller of the eur
rency, who appointed him, to Do so =,
could not, from a lack Of such suthority
make contract with appellant whereby
the latter was TO have ons-half int rest
| in tract of land for his services in Tore
closing lien on same in favor OF said
/ bank. 2. While the receiver had rig hit
/ 10 employ counsel he has no right TO
make such contract as above stated
/ Affirmed. stayton, CD.
A. M. Britton ct al. vs.. City of Fort
/ Worth; from Tarrant. Appellants we're
/ sureties on the bond of one Nichols who
+ was treasurer of the city of Fort Worth.
/ This suit is brought TO recover an alleged
deficit in the account of said Nichols
with said city. The fact that the civ
council of Fort Worth approved Nichols
account with the city would not estop the
city from bringing suit on the alleged
defalcation of Nichols subsequently dis
covered. 1t was incumbent on the surs-
ties 10 keep watch on their princinaI
for the protection OF the city, rather than
the duty OF the city to keep such watch
on lis treasurer for the benefit of his
sureties. 2. While the court incorrectly
instructed the jury as to the mathemati-
cal process of arriving at the time given
foE.ghieh Nichols was liable, yet under
s9sas INSTRUCTION the jury found for less
sum than plaintiff was entitled to under
correct rule. Affirmed. Henry, j.
W. Hendricks ct al. vs.. W. P. Stone
ct al, from Tarrant; trespass to try
title. l. Whers B plaintiff suing for the
recovery OF land desires to relieve him
SELF from proving q chain of title con-
meeting himself with the sovereignty of
the soil by establishing it from q common
source, he must not only show q title in
himself originating in the common source
but he must also ave that the evidence
connects the defendants claim of title
with the same source. 2. Unless he is
relieved from connecting his title with
the sovereignty of the soil by evidence
that connects both claims OF title with g.
common source, the plaintiff must trace
his title to the government. Affirmed.
Henry, J.
james G. James. administrator, VS..
Ben F. Turner; from Clay. |. An ad-
ninistrator has authority to employ an
ton involving the property OF the estate.
and has also the authority to give him
either stated or a contingent fee (same
helnS reasonably as compensation for
his services. No error. Affirmed.
Stayton, c. J.
International and Great Northern Rail-
way VS.. w. n. Brozil; from Smith.
SUIT for damages for personal injuries.
/. II is not necessary nor is 1t practicable
IN every charge to present each phase of
the case IN one paragraph. Nor does 1t
conduce to clearness TO atrempt to do so.
Z. Inc question OF appellee's mental ca
pacity at the time he signed the release
was one of fact for the jury to deter
mine, aud they have found against nm.
pellants on that issue. 8. While the
verdict for twenty thousand dollars
(S2O, OOO) as actual damages is large.
the nndIng Is not again t the preponder-
ahee OF the evidence. Appellee, as shown
10y the weight of evidence, has been rem
deTea a mental and physical wreck. He
's-'subJect TO epilectic fits and wholly
united for any kind of labor. 4.
While the road was in very dilap-
dated condition, yet at the time the ne
rldent occurred thPre was an almost un-
spell of rainy, bad weather.
In view of these facts we do not think |
The verdict for exemplary damages
10 the amount OF $4,000 should be allowed
10 stand. If appellee will remit the ex-
'mnlAry damages, the verdict and jude-
nent as to actual damages Will be af-
irmed, otherwise the case will be
'eversed and remanded. Gaines, j.
e. S. Savers VS.. Texas Land and
Mortgage Company; from Clay. Tres
Dass TO try title. l. Under aplea of not
yuilty defendant can introduce EVIL
lence Of any chain of title under which
le claims. 2. A transaction to be set
iside as fraudulent, and as made with
Intention to hinder and delay creditors
must be shown to be made with specific
intent to defraud. Affirmed. Gaines, ].
Gainesville, Henrietta ani North
western railway VS. j. P. FALL; from
'oOke. On rehearine we adhere to our
opinion rendened al our last Justin sit
ing in this case. The motloa will be
yerruled. Stayton, c. j.
COMMISSION OF APPEAB.
TYLER, TEX, Oct. 2l.-Kentucky
attic raising company VS.. Get,ge Bruce
I al. , from BAYLOR county. Irespass 10 I
~ title. /. The commission of the :
and office had the right TO Withdraw !
rom the market certain schools lands on z
ccount of errors In the desrptiou of 7
aid lands embraced in the tal.lated re- \
orts under the act of 1881. ?. Those y
no have done nothing mo- than TO
lake an application for the prchase of r.
and, prior to the act of tidrawal. II
cquire no vested right to Ease. g. q,
/ was never intended by 1t of the y
sglslature providing for tadsposiiion Y
ttthe public domain that tfsftplication
the purchaser should arg ne right
the state TO grant 1t I'd actual 7
,ttler. Affirmed, Hobby J&Iyton c. Es
not sitting. IA
G. c. & s. F. railway IL. NIX
ecker; from BosQue. Suit Damages u
lused by overflow. l. II urt did &c
OF err in permitting witnt appel
e to state why the Bosque ( did not bl
Ow In 1887 as il had forneri 18th ref ~,
'ence to appellee's farm having p,
ated that he had known tE urrouud- -,
gs in that vicinity for ~ h Years. NJ,
nd otherwise stating the III In the 90
Lse. 2. The fact that farms Q
iove plaintiffs were not ed WAS 10
1material and insdmissiblrU 3. An G.
,ception, because of the ref OF the Iuf
urt TO admit evidence 10 bs.tsldered
this court, must show W the re- T
p n