Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-05-17

April 1885, under the trust deed and Wolf
became the purchaser, and ousting Wagon
, houser went into possession. The petition
l also alleged that the property was the
homestead of Wagonhouser and wife at the
time Butler furnished the material. and
that his wife did not join in any contract
fixing a lien on said property, and that
Judgment was rendered for much larger
sum than was due Butler; that Wagon
houser informed appellant that there was
no lien on the premises. and
that he would defend the suit. 1t was fur
Their alleged that appellant employed coun-
sci to defend the suit against Wagonhouser
by Butler but that said counsel, although
he tried for long period of time, could not
procure the papers in said case in order to
file an answer and that the clerk held the
receipt of counsel for Butler for the papers
in said suit. but that the latter denied all
knowledge of said papers. That there was
Wagonhouser whereby there was an agreed
Judgment against the latter and the prop
erty sold for a grossly inadequate price.
The petition also set out fully and in de-
tail many allegations of fraud and collu-
sion as between Butler and Wagonhouser
as to said judgment and sale, which were
all in violation of the rights Of appellant.
Also that said judgment was rendered
without the knowledge of appellant and
that said papers we're kept fraudulently
concealed by Butler until after the agreed
Judgment, when they were returned into
court. Held: The court did not err in
setting aside the sale at which Griggs
bought, but there was error in sustaining
the demurrer to so much of the petition as
sought relief against the Judgment in favor
of Butler and against WagOnhouser The
petition stated proper grounds for an ad-
Publication of the validity of the lien
claimed by Butler and as to the same
really due to him. The judgment setting
aside the sale will not be disturbed. Re-
versed and remanded. Stayton, C. J.
Pacific Express Company vs. W. NJ.
Dunn; from Mitchell. Suit by appellee to
recover the alleged negligent burning of
his house. ]. The court did not err in per-
hitting appellee to prove his ownership by
his own testimony, stating the facts con-
shutting possession and ownership. twas
not necessary for him to show title by
written imminent Appellee was not re-
quired to deraign title through writing
from the sovereignty of the SOIL or in some
other manner in which title is acquired.
An exclusive and peaceable possession of
land furnishes prima facie evidence of own
ership. 10 Tex, 1862, 137; is Tex, sos, and
many other authorities.l Affirmed. Stay
ton, c. J.
W. H Chadwick, executor, VS.. M. c.
Haley ct al; from Collin. Motion to dis
miss appeal. 1. Appellant had the will
which appointed him executor duly pro-
bated, and after he had acted as executor
for two years, this action brought to Sc
cure revision of the order probating the
will. On hearing, the court set aside the
probate OF the will and appellant prose-
cutes this appeal as an executor without
giving bond. Held: Motion not well
taken. It was not necessary for appellant
to give bond to entitle him to appeal. The
fact that subsequent, to perfecting his APP
peal he may have been removed as executor
would be no ground for requiring an ap-
peal bond. Overruled. Per curiam-
Wallace & Wagner vs.. W. NJ. Bagley;
from Collin. Motion to dismiss. l. a
firm named signed as one Of the sureties on
an appeal bond, there beng but one other
surety renders the bond invalid. Appeal |
dismissed Per curiam.
W. b Chadwick, executor Vs. NJ c.
Haley ct al; from Collin. Motion to give
precedence. l. This being suit to set
aside the probate of will appointing ap-
pellant executor, it is entitled to procedure
Granted. Per curiam.
Druggists ans 5atev fighting Und.r.akers.
It is reported that rtaiity amons women is
Of late much redn0 nee druggists sell and /
grea, cure for fo4G Ii femiA Y diseases. ~
Why do do the finest Custom taileringa |