Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-20

The jury gave avcrdict in favor of appealed
for $500. Held: If the renting of the stall
was not in strict compliance with the city
ordinance, still appellee was nos I tres
passer. There was no error in rendering
Judgment for $500 for appellee, and also for
the property. Evidence of loss of profits
amounted to more than this. Affirmed.
Hobby, p. ].
Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
J. r. Stevens: from Cooke. l. Appellee
had cattle near Mendoza, Indian Territory,
in charge of an agent. He had instructed
the agent to ship to Chicago by given
date. Before said date the price of cattle
became very deprecated, and appellee sent
his agent telegram eountermanding his
former orders and telling him not TO ship
on account of low prices. This telegram
was never delivered, and the agent sent the
cattle to Chicago, where on account of the
low market appellee sustained loss of
81. so per head. 1t was shown that prices
were no better during the year Held ::
Appellant is responsible for the damage in;
CURED by appellee. The loss was caused
through negligence of appellant. There is
no error. Affirmed. Hobby, P. J.
w. A Stewart ct al. VS.. Owen Morrison
ct al. from La Sale. Suit by appellees on
administrators bond. l. When the probate
court has passed all the orders that can be
made in that court, upon the subject of the
administrators final liability to the heirs,
and orders the amount found to be due to
be paid to them, no other judgment cask1t
required of that court. The duty of the
administrator is plain; he must pay the
heirs as directed by the judgment, and if he
refuses to do so on demand, he violates his
trust and becomes liable on his bond. The
suit was properly brought on the bond in
the district court. r. S., 2049. 2. The
of
the residence of the sureties on the bond.
Affirmed. Collard, j.
S. H. Abernethy VS.. Mary A. Stone; from
Falls. l. When a certificate is conveyed
before it is located and the land is pat
ented in the name Of the grantee of the
certificate, it would seem that the assignee
obtains only the equitable title in the land
by virtue Of the transfer, and the legal
title, though inferior to the equitable title
of the assignee, rests in the grantee by rea-
son of the location and patent from the
state to him. SO Tex 1893 so Tex, IN; II
Tex, 81 Appellants demand was stale.
Affirmed. Mari, J.
Missouri Pacific Railway VS.. J. NJ. Cul-
lars; from Grayson. Suit by appellee TO
recover for various articles alleged to have
been burned by appellant on his place in the
Indian Territory. l. The Indian, Block,
having transferred his interest in the prop
erty burned to appellee, the latter was en-
titled to sue and recover therefor. 2. 1t
must now be regarded as the settled law of
this state in harmony with the rule of the
common law that an action or remedy for
injuries done to land situated beyond the
territorial limits of this state, and when no
part of the act resulting in the injury was
committed or performed within the state,
is purely local and can not be maintained in
any court Of this state, but the enforce
ment of the remedy IN such cases must be
had within the jurisdiction where the land
is situated. IS Tex, IL The court be-
low should have submitted to the jury for
their determination the question as to
whether the buildings destroyed were
part of the real estate 3. As to whether
the buildings destroyed were a part of the
realty was a mixed question of law and
fact and should have been presented TO
the jury for determination. T. The Indian,
Block, had the right to transfer to appellee
whatever right he may Have had in the
destroyed. 20 Ind, go: Wash.
Ger 325. 5. Evidence for appellee as to
the origin of the fire showed that one wit
ness, three hours after the fire began,
traced the fire to its starting point, same
being on the right of way of appellant about
fifteen feet from the track. On the other
hand, appellant proved that the engines
passing at the time of the fire had the most
approved appliances to prevent the escape
of fire, that same We're in good working
order, and that at the point where it wa6g
claimed the fire originated was a down
grade and that the engines ran of their
own momentum and that they could not
emit sparks under such circumstances
Held: The evidence is not sufficient to
support the verdict. Reversed and re-
MARI. J.
A S. Galley and wife VS. NJ d. Herring
ct al from McLennan. Trespass to try
title. l. The only question in this case is
as to whether, the conveyance held by ap-
pellant to the land in controversy is an alb
solute deed or only mortgage The evil
ience shows that appellees repeatedly re-
fused to take mortgage on the ground
that it would not be worth the paper it
was written on, because the land was
homestead property. The deed is absolute
On its face. 1t was conveyed to appellees
N full settlement of fee owing them by
Galley for defending him in criminal
suit. By the execution and delivery of
The decd, the relation of debtor and cred
tor was finally terminated between the
parties. While the evidence is conflicting
i sustains the finding that the deed to ap-
Dellees as made by appellants to appellees
was deed absolute. Affirmed. Marr,-J.
]. H. Fleming ct al. vs.. Elizabeth Glib
,ney; from Haskell. Trespass to try title
,y appellee. l. \ certificate was issued in
he name of John Gibney. The name of
he grantee who actually received the GER
iticate was John Giboney. Held: 'iGibney,,
md ''Giboney'' are sidem sonans. Q. The
recitation of the certificate that Giboley
vas a single man and resided in Texas on
March 2 1899, is conclusive of both facts.
}. While there is some conflict in the eyi-
lence as to the identity of Giboney, the evil
lence is reasonably conclusive that John
iibney, to whom the certificate was
granted, and John Gibouey, deceased hus-
1and of appellee. is one and the same per-
ION. Affirmed. MARI, ].
George r. Allen, guardian, VS.. Louisa
von Rosenberg ct al. from Bastrop. l. The
ather of Louisa Won Rosenberg, appellee
herein, died, leaving a will in which was
devised to the latter the land in contro-
7ersy. The father (Rhode) left his COM
nunity estate to his wife, she being con-
'tituted independent executor with power
o settle all claims, ETC., against the estate
without the Intervention of court. The
wife of Rhode was appointed guardian of
appellee, Louisa An inventory of property
vas returned, embracing the land in con-
roversy. While the guardianship was still
,ending certain creditors of Rhode came
INTO the district court and ask divestiture
rom said Louisa of the title to said land to
satisfy certain debts against Rhodes estate
louisa, the wife of Rhode, and her hus-
)and tShe having remarried) We're made