Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-11
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Synopsis of Decisions Rendered
Al the Austin Sitting.
The COMMISSION OF APPEALS.
The findings of &c supreme Court-Hon.
John ". >.aSton, c. j.; X. X. Gaines
and John l.. Henry, Associate
Judges; c. =. Morse. Clerk.


l. Il. N.Lhugh ct al. vs.. Franco-Texau
Laid o. from faylor. suit by appellee,
asypol-,Iuu duly organized under our law,
u ,sI.e- uuuveyaGceS of thirty-three sec
lions OF land, made by one Duke. its former
president 10 W. c. Martin and j. H. Mill
heG. who. together wiLh +, Z. Ailliken, $
N.-4Aeu and l.. H E'itzhugh, were made
iSFio- defendant The three last were
,1eG as subsequent pury haSerS After the
instruction 81 the suit j. T. Simpson became
TIE y"Ter Of portion of whatever interest
1+o u. lie land, and was permitted to inter-
'-4r Judgment for appellee. Simpson
-+o .z.usL appeal. The grounds upon
"hea Tie cancellation Of the conveyances
we're ought we're fraud and the want Of
authority ia Duke 10 SCI the property upon
ne b.r'r1'dr terms upon which il was al
-WpfSd 10 be conveyed. Held: l. The
President OF corporation organized TO ac-
'-.'e AID sell lands may be constituted an
~-tI. ~ make sales, but like any other
-st- .yr hat purpose, ne is restricted 10
We bowers conferred upon him by the gov
rhHE body. , q determiniugthe extent
" l.He authority is agent, we are of
N'.a.vH HAT these principles must De recog-
-.'ea A-N applied; /. The agent cannot
"~'' authority 10 do taat which the
.'!+J,J.iou bus rot power 10 do.
hr must, IN case OF Il corporation under
~ General law, derive his authority from
Ar ldalU OF directors. 3. The directors
LA confer The authority by bylaws or
res Al.ou OF probably by n vote not en-
's'ed %, record, and i. When the power is
o''err-d in neither OF these methods il
'--' Or implied from i recognition ana
'.OH' 10 Of the ageu, 5 transactions )r other
4.'~ % ugr' Of the directors which would
reasonably induce third parties dealing with
I'm 4" believe and to act upon the belief
H.. iH has authority 10 90 the act in oues-
III 3. The predecessors OF Duke in Office
"40 sold lands Of the company on a credit
Ilse'ving vendors len thereon, which
-s.> We're ratified by the company. But III
lie absence of express authority TO do So
'."' could nc bind the company by 4 sale
u 'lua. lie terms of which were that the
l'loGr'S len was expressly waived and
E~Ft u The purchase price g the land was
~ yr paid in horses ut 4 stipulated price
: De inyariable custom of the country 10
Ie'..H the vendors lien for securing the un-
P-u purchase money in the sale of lands
should ne looked at, though we are not pre-
'~sei % say that such custom as the Gus
ON OF the presidents Of the company |
s"V~-d control an express contract to sell !
UPON other terms If such authority had |
Teen shown TO exist. D. All persons deal |
:Ls with a corporation must take notice of |
ne powers conferred upon Il by its charter |
ana lis agents can not exercise any author !
- IN excess. of those powers. lS3 N |
T. $50; l3l Mass, 25S, and other |
authorities. g. When the cause has |
g7en tried without jury |
aal when findings OF fact have been put in |
Writing and filed, party should not be |
Permitted 10 complain of q failure to find /,
upon any particular issue without special |
request therefor. In the absence of such |
request the presumption should be that the
party complaining Of the Judgment has not
Sern pretUdiced by the courts omission.
here was no exception pointing out the fail
ere or g request for finding on the issue
GAINED. Z. The court erred in allowing
appellee two years and six months in which
20 repay appellants the money paid out b. |
iLem en- the land. The Judgment will be