Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-10-22
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopses of Decisions Rem
dered at the Tyler Sitting.
THE COMMISSION OF APPEALS.
supreme Court-Kon. John W. stayton. C.
j., Il. L. Gaines and John L. Henry As
sOclate Judges-S. ID. Reeves,
Clerk-The Findings.
Commission of Appeals.

hltNtt, Lee " 20. VS.. Nj ~. IOLlDS
IRON Lamar. l. Where cause after dis
ia's-al has by agreement of opposite parties
tecu reinstated on the docket of this court,
e third party, not a party to the agreement,
after sanding by without protest and also
agreeing to a continuance, cannot object 10
said reIustas ement of the cause. II comes
t3 late. - This court Will not interfere
because of 4 conflict in the evidence, same
being sufficient to sustain the verdict and
Judgment. No reversible error. Affirmed
t.la.d. J.
q. 4 Foote vs.. Fannie E. Sewell ct al.
IRON Collin. Trespass to try title l. In a
2. u,.1n suit, the land being situated in
.las state, where the parties being non-res-
iatn.s are cited by publication, the judg-
Trent imports absolute verify so far Us it
e.ecis partition of the land, but an exc
rJI-uu 10y costs on such judgment was
10, authorized by the statute of 1916. The
iHt-nent could only bind the unknown
hers IN relation to the property in liti-
gallon. The proceeding could not beget 4
PERSONAL demand against the defendants
forecasts 10 be satisfied out of their prop
er. generally. [95 L. s., ia; 1l9 United
States ITO. Affirmed. Tarlton, ].
Regime Corona vs.. Galveston, Harrisburg
anu san Antonio Railway; from Maverick
]. lie unCuutrOyerted evidence shows that
Tie death Of the son of appellant was
'3 10y the negligence of the conductor
'i 'l. "orktrail on which deceased was
employed The conductor was fellow
ssry4a: of deceased. "a S. W, Ref. 10;
'o Texas. 6ls; 81 Texas, 1876. The court did
:. erin ordering a verdict for appellee.
Affirmed. Garrett, p. J.
.oGu Dgcst ct al. rs. J. S. Daugherty;
H,4. Haskell. 1'respass to try title. This
Is a" agreed case under article l4.i, Revised
statutes. l II substitution of the word
tAr TOR ne in n certificate of acllnowl-
sa-Nect - 4 deed does not render same de-
!re-ve. L i apparent from the certificate
is whole that the officer intended to write
,at proper word, and that its omission was
clerical error 2. The acknowledgment
u VIE 70 : deed which recites that she
II. freely and Voluntarily with fear, or
'.-pl sion on the part of her husband"
&c held: The use of the word with,
',T-ead OF without fear, does not render
Tie certificate Geiectiye. II is apparent
--- Without fear, mas intended TO be
written ). 1t appears that appellee pur-
erased the land without notice of appellants
lille. ana only paid one-half Of the purchase
-,-5y before he knew of appellants claim,
"ao that The other half of the purchase
% Gey has not been paid. Held: This ne
'eSsLl"il' = revision OF the case.
ILe pro tauto protection accorded an in
no,eu, purchaser is so well recognized by
-inrrtcau counts that il is useless to cite
authorities in support of the proposition.
IA snpiyiEg this rule, on another trial. it is
Necessary to ascertain the equities of the
Parties, as This is the primary object to be
accomplished. In adjusting equities it is
!eHE4.sslole to inquire into the price paid,
'---ac.c improvements, etc, the conduct of
l.e parties with reference TO their diligence,
.aches or negligence, if any, so that the
eelrt can determine vino is entitled to
equitable relief, Reversed and remauded.
FISHER, J.-Tar.ton, J., does not sit.
e. c. Fitzgerald VS.. Juan S. Hart; from
Z Z. FaSo. = The court below ordered ve,-
elct Tor appellee, and this is the only o1es-
uon IL the case. Held: The test as TO
"42t The court should charge is, would the
eluence support verdict in favor of de-
-.enGQDt, and should the court have granted
rev trial IL the jury had found in defend
an favori If, after the evidence is all in,
anu the court should consider that 1t is not
sslnicieut to support verdict for the de-
.eadaat, and he should consider it his duty
70 grant new trial. if the Jury would so
LII, then il that case the court should d.