The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-05-14
THE HIGH COURTS IN SESSION AND
WHAT THEY DID YESTERDAY.
Grist Frsn the Miner Mills Of Aus
tin as Caught by the Statesnan's
Court Force Yesterday.
SUPREME COURT.

SalneS ana JnO. IL. Henry, associate
judges; Charles 8. Morse, clerk.
J.C. O'Connor vs.. B. e. Andrews, from
Dallas. The wife of appellee was injured in
May, 1885, by the falling Of cornice and
fire wall from appellants building. 1. The
fact that appellant had leased his building
to various tenants and that they were in
poss ession ct the time of the accident, and
that it was their duty to repair the building
while in possession, would not release ap
pellant from liability if the cornice and fire.
he leased the building, and he knew of its
defects, or by the use of reasonable pru-
dence and care could have known of their
existence. The charge of the court in this
respect was correct. 2 In the absence of
any contract on the subject OF repairs, the
tenant and not the landlord is RESPONSE.
BILE for them and for damages
resulting from the want of repair. When
however building consisting Of number
of different apartments, divided among
several tenants, each one of whom takes q
distinct portion, and none Of them rent the
house, the rule must then be applied 80 as
10 make each tenant responsible only for
so much as his lease includes, leaving the
landlord liable for every part of the build
ing not inclu cd in the actual no ding OF
any one tenant. 8. The root covered aud
was alike necessary to all the tenants, but
it proved TO be theduty of any one
of them to repair it, and as there does not
appear to be any JOINT contract, duty that
did not devolve upon any one of the ten
ants separately, did not attach to all of
them collectively. The charge of the court
left il for the jury to say as question of
fact whether those par of the building
from which the injury resulted, were
included in the lease to any Of the tenants,
and assumed the liability of appellant TO
exist In the event only OF their not being
included in the leases of any of the tenants,
and this was correct (l0l Mass, 251; 81
Me-, 3l8). 4. II appellant was Irresponsible
for the condition of the wall, and knew that
it had been rendered dangerous by attach
ing the wire to H., and knowingly, or with
out the use of proper diligence, permitted
the dangerous condition to remain, he was
correctly held to be responsible for the
The mere fact that another
person concurs or CO operates IN producing
the injury. or contributes thereto in any
degree, whether large or small, is of no
If the negligence CT appellant
and the electric wire company were stimuli
and concurrent both were liable.
;. The deposition of witness who Is pres
ent may be read (64 Tex, 4U6) There Is no
reversible error. Affirmed. Henry, J.
City of Bonham VS.. II. e e. Taylor ct
al, from Fannin. i. The city Of Bonham,
for the purpose of raising money with
which to construct waterworks, issued and
sold bonds to the amount of 5000, which
went into the hands of the G ~ treasurer
who deposited same in First National bank
If Bonham. Subsequently the city council
made an arrangement whereby they were
TO loan $50, ,0I0 Of the money Cf same was
not needed to construct waterworks in that
time) for the period OF six mouths to the
Fannln County bank. Under this ar
rangement the treasurer was about to turn
over to the last named bank said money,
when the sureties on the treasurer's official
bond, deeming such use of the money
misappropriation, instituted this suit to re-
strain the treasurer from paying over the
money under said arrangement. The city
intervened, alleging the contract with the
instituted for the benefit of the First
National bank and alleging that the latter
bad the use of the money since the injunc-
tion was sue out, and had made IL per
cent intel est on same and asking for judg.
ment for said IL per cent. The city also
asked for judgment for interest and dam.
ages for delay against plaintiffs, attorneys
fees, etc. The First National bank fled
general denial. The court sustained de-
murrers to the pleadings of the city setting
up the contract with Fannin county bank,
and as to that part asking for damages,
etc against plaintiffs. Held: The court
did not err in sustaining the demurrer.
The sureties had the right to protect
themselves. Municipal corporations under
onr laws have power to raise fuRds for
special purposes enumerated in the statutes
and to use such funds for the purposes for
which they were raised, but we know OF no
power conferred on them to become money
lenders except of O sinking fund raised 10
pay debt. Affirmed Stayton, @. j.
w Smyth vs. Smith & Walker, from
Johnson Suit by appellees to recover on
rental contract and to foreclose landlords
lien by virtue of q distress warrant. The
rule that denies to tenant when he is once
proven to be such, the right to dispute his
landlords title, cannot be 30 intended as to
take away from him the right to prove
exactly what his relationship TO the party
claiming TO be his landlord originally was.