Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-05-21
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS RENDERED AT THE
PRESENT AUSTIN SITTING.
The Findinss-Hon.J John W. Stayton. Chief
Justice; r. X. Gaines and John l.. Henry,
Associate Judges-C. 5. Morse. Clerk.

Callers & Henry vs.. r. L. May ct al ::
from Grayson. Suit by appellants TO en-
JOIN an execution issued upon Judgment
rendered by this court in favor OF Elizabeth
James and against appellants. See t6 Tex,
4S4. \. 2. James husband of Elizabeth
James. was made a party to the former
suit. and also to this one. In the former
suit Judgment was rendered against the
husband in favor of appellants. The petit
ton IN this suit also asks that the judg-
ment in favor of Mrs. James against them
be credited on the Judgment held by them
against her husband. Mrs. James, being
temporarily absent from the state, exec
cuted power of attorney TO Hare / Head,
giving them fourth interest in all suits they
might prosecute or defend in her right as
the widow or wife of \. p. James. They
represented her interest i'll the former suit
and intervene here, claiming one-fourth
interest IN the judgment sought 10 be re
strained. Mrs. James died in another state
pending this suit, and an administrator of
her estate was appointed. |. Judgment
was rendered restraining the administrator
from enjoining the Judgment i'll favor of
Mrs. James and in favor of Hare & Head
for one-f0urth of the Judgment, and that
the remaining threcfourthS of said iudg
ment be credited on the Judgment of Gull
lers u Henry against the husband, A. p.
James. From this judgment APPELLANTS
Cullers & Henry and the said administrator
appeal. /. The contract OF Mrs.
james with Hare & Head gave them
fourth interest in the judgment and at
the time of the assignment OF this interest
Cullers X Henry had no right TO offset it
with their claim or i'll any manner subject 1t
to their debt. >. The abandonment of Mrs.
James by her husband was sufficiently
shown by the evidence and by the judgment
l,ol, Il
tie her to assign and control the judgment.
3 Our statutes do not contemplate that an
administrator of the wife shall have the
power and right to administer the commu-
nifty estate while the husband survives.
rs Tex, l2ll The abandonment which in
vests the wife with the authority of man
aging and diSrOsing of the community prop
erty as Il feline sole, while she lives. does
not necessarily carry with it the right to
administer it after her death. The evidence
does not satisfy us that the husband was
Invested Of his statutory rights, nor that the
rights and remedies of other persons may
not be pursued against him. Affirmed.
Henry. j.
w. L. Cabell ct al. vs.. Hamilton Brown
Shoe Co. from McLennan. Suit by appel
lees against Cabell and the sureties on his
official bond and the sureties on his indem-
uity bond. to recover for the levying Il writ
of attachment in favor of Davis & Co. VS..
John La Prelle same being levied on the
property of apDelleeS. The principals on
the indemnity bond were not made parties
because they were uon-residentS of the
state l. The court did not err in refusing
Il continuance to make the principals on the
indemnity bond. who were non-residents.
parties to the suit. Neither service by pub
LEGATION nor notice actually served without
the state could have conferred jurisdiction
over Them such Is would have empowered
the court TO render personal Judgment
against them. This was not a case in which
their property could have been seized by at
tachment or other writ. >. The jury fee
not being paid until after the jury docket
had been disposed of, the court did not err
in proceeding TO trial without Il jury. 3.
There was no miSjoinder OF parties in this
case I. Appelees claim the goods attached
M virtue of sale by La Prelle to them
Same being to satisfy claims held by them
against him, La Prelle being the guardian
of Reagan Dickson, minor, could not,
without the knowledge or consent of said
minor and without an order Of
court authorizing him to do
so convey to said minor so much of the
goods as would settle the debt owing by
/ al Prelle to his ward The Judgment is
reversed and here rendered in all re
spects rs in the court below. except that ii
will be adiudged that John La Prelle, as
guardian of Reagan Dickson, take nothing
by this action. So ordered. Stayton, c. J.
J. II. Stephens VS.. Frank Motl: from
Bell. Trespass TO try title. |. A certif- |
cate of acknowledgement of deed for
record is not rendered defective by its |
emitting TO state both the consideration
and the purpose for which it is made. |
f59 Tex. PIG; II Tex. 3t2 !. But an I'M |
explained certificate that James Butler |
the execution of deed
signed by and purporting 10 be the act OF |
Jonas Butler cannot be held to au- |
thorize its record. James Butler |
the certificate and Jonas |
Butler signed the deed and we can not |
indulge in speculation as to how mistake |
NAV have been made, This being so the |
court erred i'll admitting the deed in evil |
dence. 3. The certificate of acknowledge
ment is not defective because it fails to |
show in what part of the world |
the Acknowledgements was taken. 3.
N1otl held an equitable interest III |
the land of which he could not |
be Invested by the result of Il suit begun |
subsequent to his purchase of it and TO |
which he was not made party. /. The |
Judgment should follow the petition and |
should not contain materially different de- |
scription of the premises. >. In peadings |
In boundary cases a fuller description of |
the land should be contained than that |
found in the title papers. - Tex. 1911. |
Reversed and remanded. Henry. j.
T. c. Becker ct al vs. Gulf City Street !
Railway ct al. from Galveston. On r9- |
hearing /. We have found no reason for |
disturbing our former Judgment herein. |
and hold same correct. Overruled. Per |
curianl-
Bright & McIIan VS.. Sweetwater Grocery |
Company: from Nolan. |. BY consent of |
parties briefs may be filed by appellant. So |
ordered. Per curtain. |
SURPRISING a PAPER.