Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-12
HIGHER COURTS.
DECISIONS RENDERED AT THE
TYLER SITTING.
Findings of the Commission of Appeals in
Number of Important Cases Long
Pending In the Courts.

| J. J. Stephens VS.. J. B. Adair; from Bell
| |. A fraudulent conveyance is valid and
| binding between the parties themselves,
| and can only be set aside by creditors, pur-
| cnaSers or other persons intended to be de-
| frauded. Although pronounced void by the
statute, it Is only voidable because it is
| vold except rs to the persons named. K.
| S, Art. 2465; II Tex, 800. 2. Where
| party bought with full notice of whatever
| invaiidity there was il the title he cannot
/ set up the defense of failure of considera-
| ton, when in fact the title had never failed.
! There was error in the charge of the court.
| 3. 1t is where the contract remains execu-
| tory in the case of illegal consideration that
! the courts will refuse to lend their aid to
! the execution thereof. But once executed
| the legal title Of either party to property
| obtained thereby will be protected. 1t was
not necessary that the sheep should be de-
| livered to complete the sale [69 Tex, 1872;
| II Tex, Cos, and other authorities citedl.
Reversed and remanded. Garrett, p. j.,
| section B.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway vs.
j. +. Jones; from Collin. !. The allegation
In the deed from appellee to appellant to
the effect that in consideration of the pur-
chase of land from me for the location of
town site and the location of a depot at
point between stations 1910 and 1913 on the
located line of the Gulf, Colorado ana Santa
F'e railway running northeast TO Red
T.
appellant promised to place depot between
the sections named, does indicate that there
was some understood agreement between
the parties to do so. The deed, While 1t
does not go into details. recognizes, in our
opinion, the contract for The placing of the
depot on appellee's land. Parol evidence
was admissible to show the contract. ,
Wylie had special authority to contract
with appellee, and such authority was rec
ognized by appellant. 3. Verdict for three
thousand dollars for failure to locate depot
is shown not to be excessive. Affirmed.
Collard, J.
Mathew ". Dubois VS.. Frank and John
Rooney; from Brewster. l. The sale of
land by appellees to appellant being part
of the same transaction on which appellees
based this suit, the court erred in sustain
ing exceptions TO the answer of appellant
alleging fraud and deceit by appellees in
the sale of the land 10 him tappellant.) Re-
yersed and remanded. Fisher, J.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa F'e Railway VS..
J. c. Rowland; from Lampasas. Salt by
appellee TO recover for personal injuries.
l. The court erred in permitting appellee to
introduce i'll evidence, over the objections
of appellant, the evidence of a witness to
the effect that short time before and about
the time appellee was injured in alighting
from the cars. a lady fell on the platform at
the same station and that he did not see her
fall, but saw her getting off the train and
heard her brother say there" and looked
and saw her getting up from-the platform
and the train moving off. That he did not
know how long the train stopped, but it was
not long. Supposed she would not have
fallen if the train had stopped long enough
for her to get off. Reversed and remanded.
Mari, J.
Sarah A Stafford ct al. vs.. John W.
Harris, ct al. from Travis. Trespass to /!
try title /. Though h. sale of the land in |
controversy was invalid and void appellants |
by acquieScing in the sale and accepting |
benefits hereunder, knowing its terms and |
conditions, are now eStopped from setting |
up the illegality of the the sale. Having |
made no offer 10 restore the proceeds !
appellants cannot recover, 80 Tex. 49l. |
Affirmed Garrett. p. j., section B.
Missouri Pacific Railway ct Al. vs. Isaac
Heideuheimer; from Bexar. l. Where a
consignor of goods in St. Louis shipped |
same TO san Antonio and forwarded to the |
consignees the bill of lading marked '.du-
plicate," retaining in their possession the
bill of lading marked original ~ and pend
ing the arrival of the goods the consignees.
for valuable consideration. transferred
the bill of lading sent them 10 third party,
and the consignorS then ordered the goods
stopped in tranSitu, on order of conSignees.
Held: In an action by the third party to
whom the duplicate" bill of lading was
against the railway company
the former would be entitled to recover
The word duplicate" does not mean
mere copy. The duplicate possessed all
the validity OF the original bill of lading. 2. |
A demand is not prerequisite to an action
for conversion of goods. The evidence does
not show that TIE demand was made in the
name Of the appellee, or that Weiss, the
party demanding the goods, notified appel
lee that he was representing appellee but
the error is harmless, a demand being un-
necessary. 3. The appellants contended
that appellee was a partner in the firm of