Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-10-15
THE HIGHER COURTS.
DECISIONS AT THE PRESENT
TYLER SITTING
Rendered In the Supreme Court and Court
of Appeais-Some Important North
Texas Cases Decided.
Supreme Court.

State of Texas VS.. City Of Waxahachie
from Ellis. Suit by appellant to annul an
ordinance of the city of Waxahachieoannex-
ing adjoining territory. l. Under article
500. Revised Statutes, voters are allowed TO
express their preference as to annexing adj
joining territory, by any method of voting
which is satisfactory to themselves and to
the city council. and when it is shown by
the proper affidavit that a majority have
favored annexation, the city council is au-
thorized TO receive the annexed territory of
their residences into the the city limits.
10 Tex, e.. The fact that majority
signed q paper setting forth the object of
the vote was sufficient. .. The fact that a
minority knew nothing of the proceedings
TO annex the territory, cannot. affect the re-
suit of the election. 3. With regard to the
extent and description OF territory that
may be embraced. the rule enforced with
reference to original acts of incorporation
viii not be applied in proceeding to add ad
ditional territory to existing corporations.
Affirmed. Henry, j.
w. z. Craddock ct al. vs.. Summerfield
Edwards ct al. from Kaufman. Suit by
appellees to recover as devisees of their
mother a half interest in the land in con-
troversy and for repartition, there having
been a former decree of partition by the
county court, and the widow subsequently
having removed from the premises. l. The
OEutT Oi the COufJ approving INC utCTcS VI
the partition concluded as follows: And
that the said Kate Knight Edwards do have
the sole and exclusive possession thereof
for the purposes of a homestead, for and
during her natural life.'' Held: The de-
cree should be construed as if it read. that
she have the exclusive possession thereof
for her natural life, provided she continues
to use or occupy it as 4 homestead. 2. No
sufficient reason appears for n repartltlon,
but no assignment of error raises that ques-
ton. Affirmed. Gaines, j.
G. w. Grain ct a. VS.. c. p. Huntington;
from Shelby. Suit by plaintiffs in error to
recover certain lands. l. The execution
and contents of lost deed may be proved
bTcircumstantial evidence - Tex, 3l6.
ID was therefore permissible for a witness
so testify that lie saw in the records of
Shelby county. before they We're burned,
the record of such 4 deed as the one claimed
ta.be lost, and this although he did not re-
the contents of the certificate of
acknowledgement. .. A deed more than
thirty years old, and coming from the
proper source, is admissible in evidence
without notice Affirmed. Gaines, j.
j. Z Evans ct al vs.. Santana Livestock
ComFiny; from Coleman. Suit by APP
zfJeliee to enjoin appellants, as road CON-
IaSsionerS, from opening road through
ENDS OF appellee. l. The act of February
Fl, 1885 intended only to make it the duty of
commissioners courts to act within ninety
days prescribed-to act promptly, and it
WIS not the intention TO make the power of
the court to act Oil its own motion depend
enLen its acting within ninety days after
tAsact was passed. =. Notice of condenlna-
sthon proceedings may have been legally
Served on the agent of the owner, but il
Should be in the name of the latter, and un-
less so done condemnation proceedings with
such notice as here given Ito and in the
ayff ha ,,f hnn IA