Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-05-09
COM MISSION OF APPEALS.
DECISIONS RENDERED AT THE
AUSTIN SITTING.
The Findings-Hon. Edwin Hobby, p. j..
W. e. CoIlard and d. P. Mari, Judges.
Charles s. Morse, Clerk.

L. Richardson Us. the City Of Dallas
from Dallas. Tresspass to try title. l.
Prick was properly permitted to contradict
the consideration recited in the deed from
him to Keller. 2. The evidence shows tina:
land in controversy has been used as q pub
lie street for more than ten years. 3. 1t is
not requisite TO dedication to public use
that the use should continue for any par
ticular time. II the owner by deed or other
unequivocal act, or declaration, manifest
the intention TO set apart the property for
such public use, and this has been acted on
by others it is sufficient under the authori-
ties. When use alone is relied on, it has
been held that six or eight years of such
uninterrupted use was adequate. But no
specific time is held to be necessary to raise
the presumption. re- Tex, 1901 Affirmed.
Hobby. p. J.
David Dodge VS.. J. Knight ct al; from
Wichita. Suit by appellant to recover
damages for the alleged wrongful and ma
lcious levying of attachments on his prop
erty l. Household and kitchen furniture
used IN q restaurant beyond that which
is used for the family, is not exempt from
forced sale and attachment l56 Tex, 3l4
2. When party consents to an attachment
proceeding against his property, he can not
subsequently be heard TO complain. At
tirned. Hobby, p. J.
Z. S. Seay ct al. vs. Diller Bros from
Shackleford Suit by defendant in error
for breach of contract by plaintiffs in error
TO deliver certain cattle as per contract.
l. The petition alleged $1,000 damages by
reason OF 473 head of cattle being
delivered later than the contract
called for, and claimed damages amount
ing 10 S3Tl for the nou-deiivery OF
127 head. Held: The petition stated {
cause of action within the Jurisdiction of
the district court. .. Where there is no
statement Of facts in the record the rule is
well settled that error in the charge will
not afford ground for reversal, if it is poY
sible TO sustain the verdict under the aver
ments, and any proof which would have
been made in their support, 81 Tex, 454.l
Affirmed Hobby, P. j.
T. ]. Martin vs.. Burns, Walker & Co. Ell
al: from Mitchell l. Judgments of q
county court, on collateral attack, are en-
titled TO all of the absolute prescriptions
that obtain in favor of the judgments OF
other domestic courts of general jurisdic-
tion. Where the case is within The iuris-
diction of the court and no fact appears
ailirm2tivcly in the record sufficient to
defeat jurisdiction, evidence aliunde even
where the Judgment is silent rs TO the pro
cess or its service. will not be heard to
contradict the presumption OF regularity,
or to establish fact outside of the record
for the purpose of showing that jurisdiction
over the person did not in fact attach and
thus impeach the Judgments. If the judg-
ment itself finds and recites valid notice.
or citation and service, that controls the
balance Of the record; otherwise if it recites
an invalid citation or names the precise
character thereof, il the Judgment is
silent then the whole process in the record
may be examined. 81 Tex, SIS; 81 Tex,
2O9; II Tex, 6l5.l 9 The trial Judge find
ing that the citation by publication issued
~on an affidavit that the residence of defend
ants was unknown to affiant," and was
duly executed. We must presume that il
vas II due form of law and cited each OF
the two defendants comprising the firm.
Affirmed. Mari, J.
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway VS..
B. S. King; from Collin. Suit for iniunc-
ton to restrain the levy of an execution.
!. The petition Of appellant for injunction
recited following facts: That appellee in