Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-11

other property for 81. 800 or more that ap-
| pellant might have all in excess of that
sum for which the property sold, as COM
pensatior, for finding purchaser. 1t was
not necessary for appellee TO specially
plead this to prove 1t. He could do ii I'M
| der his general denial The evidence ad-
| mitted was not an affirmative defense, yet
| an important factor in supporting one. At
| firmed. Hobby, p. J.
I. n Montgomery VS.. G.. c. Cunther:
fr ON San Saba. Suit by appellee to re
! cover 800 acres of land. /. Appellant
! taking possession Of survey No 50 by mis-
take, intending to take possession of sur
! vey No n, the statute of ten years limita-
! ton was not well taken as against the
owner ofNo. ~. The owner of No. "A was
| not put upon notice of any invasion of his
| right or that his title to any portion of that
| tract was imperiled by the possession of
| No. rs. Appellee could have no knowledge
| whatever of an adverse, distinct claim to
one section of land by the actual posses
sion of another. Angel on Lien, section
! 1927. Affirmed. Hobby, P. j.
Aaron Workman VS.. George S. Thompson;
| from Lamar. Suit by appellee to recover
| a tract of land from appellant. l. Where
the purchaser has the same knowledge of
the facts as the real owner and the latter.
does not induce him to believe in state of
facts other than those known. it is difficult
to see how there can be any fraud, actual
or constructive. 2. To constitute an estop-
pei, actual or constructive, in pals,
the purchaser must be influenced
by the conduct or representations
of the owner, which, if untrue, would be Z
fraud upon him. Where the purchaser is
not deceived by any act or representation
of the owner, but knows the facts and con-
ditions of the rights Of the owner as well as
does the latter, there can be no estoppel.
Reversed and remanded. Collard, j.
j. 7. Page VS.. Robert Carson; from
Blanco.rSui by appellee on 4 promissory
note. l. The prayer for general relief
would be sufficient to warrant recovery
of the amount due on the note, nothwith-
standing the special prayer was for only
$500, provided the allegations and proof
were sufficient. [25 Tex, sup. 21l; As Tex,
325l. 2. The allegation in the petition that
800 and interest on the note was long
since due" will not relieve appellant
liability for whatever sum may be due on
the note sued on, when there are other
aVerments from which the true amount is
clearly shown. Affirmed. Collard. J.
Isaac Myers ct al VS.. Katie Evans ct al:
from Bell Trespass to try title. l. Ap-
peilants showed no legal or equitable title
in the land of any kind. The claims of home
stead and plea of limitation of ten years set
up by appellees are both sustained by the
evidence. Affirmed. Collari, j.
. Oscar Holman VS. Harry Herscher ct al.
from Wilbarger. Suit by appellees to re-
cover damages for the destruction, tearing
down and removal of house by appellant
l. Appellees showed continuous, notorious
and open possession of the house, and it
was therefore unnecessary to prove their
title by documentary evidence. Pacific
Express Co. vs.. Dunn, decided the present
terml. .. Refused requested charges
should be copied in the brief of the COM
planning party. 1t is not the imperative
duty of the court to search the records for |
such matters. 8. The motion for new trial |
was properly overruled. The alleged newly |
discovered evidence would not likely have |
changed the result Evidence of common !
repute is not admissible to prove the dis |
puted fact that certain individual is a
member OF a certain copartnership The |
evidence was also privileged communica- |
ton between attorney and client, and con- |
sequently inadmissible. Affirmed. Mari, j. |