Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-10-22

De lnOulptu III III favor Oh u =
against :; general demurrer. Appellants
demurrer was properly overruled. ?. Spe-
cial charges asked by appellant were prop
erly refused by the court below. There is
no error. Affirmed. Collard, j.
l.. p. Dodson ct al vs.. ]. H. Runton;
from Edwards. /. That the legislature did
not intend to create a new county, by the
act of 1887 is made evident from the title of
that act. 1t is entitled IAN Act to establish
the western boundary of Edwards county"
No new county" was made by this law,
and most certainly not in whole or in
part out of Kinney county This suit was
filed against appellee in Kinney county, he
living in Crockett county, the latter county
being attached to Kinney for judicial pur-
poses. BY the act of 1857 the territory in
which appellee lived was segregated from
Crockett and attached to Edwards county.
The suit being instituted IN 1885, before the
act of 1887, the court erred in changing the
venue from Kinney to Edwards county.
Reversed and remanded. Mari, j.
Gulf. Colorado and Santa Fe Railway VS..
q d. Box; from McLennan. Suit TO re-
cover personal injuries. !. The special
charges asked by appellant were properly
refused. .. Appellee is entitled to recover
for the mental anguish of his wife. s. It
was in proof that the whistle was blown
V. lOGuCT anu O1iCuCf lHuE
usual. There were no cattle on or near the
track. We think the proof authorized the
finding that the accident was caused by
horses becoming frightened and consequent
overturning of the wagon, which in turn
was caused by the negligent blowing of the
whistle by appellant company. 4. The evil
dence shows that the engineer and fireman
saw appellee and his team at the time the
horses began to get frightened, and that
the whistle continued to be negligently
blown, loud and often, after they observed
the fright OF appellce's team. Affirmed.
Mari, j.
Jacob Cook ct al VS.. w. H. Coswell ct
Al. from Cooke. Trespass to try title. l.
\ plaintiff in an action of treSpass to try
title to the land at the time of the demise
laid in the petition. This plaintiff did not
40, as to so much Of the land as is repre-
scented by the life estate OF his father, j.
NJ Coswell. The judgment is affirmed eX-
cept Us TO the life estate of j. NJ. Coswe,l,
which should be reversed. Judgment is so
entered without prejudice to ". II. Cos
well TO sue for the one-twelfth of the land.
So ordered. Reformed and rendered.
Tarlton, j.
W. C. Ballard ct al VS.. G. W. E. Car
michael ct al; from Haskell. Trespass to
try title. l. Where plaintiff Institutes a
suit of trespass to try title with color Of
quent to the filing of the suit are admissible
in evidence. 2. A deed from Il married
woman without her priyy acknowledgment
does not convey her title in the land, nor
can such an instrument bind married
woman as an ancient document. 3. A party
who pleads in reconvention to have his title
Quieted must prove title in himself, and no
presumption will be INDUCED to support
his title. The Judgment as to Labreiere is
not supported by the evidence. Reversed
and remanded. Garrett, p. J.
Charles Romer VS.. Frederick Meyer:
from Kendall. Trespass to try title. 1.
Quired by limitation alone 3 Limitation
Will run against the homestead right. as
gainst other titles. g. The wife as well as
her husband may lose her right to the
homestead by adverse possession, ETC., I'M
less it be her separate property. 40 Tex,
Al Reversed and rendered for appellant.
Mari, j.
S. NJ. Little vs.. S. E. Mings. ct al: from
Upshur /. Being no briefs flied by either
party by the last call of the assignment to
which it is returnable. a cause will be dis
missed for want of prosecution. Dismissed.
Per curtain.
Supreme Court.
r. E Lee Hall ct al. vs.. ]. W. Fields;
from Grayson. On rehearing l. There is
no merit in the motion. Grounds set up
have been fully considered heretofore.
Motion overruled. Per curiam.
Aaron WORKMAN vs.. Geo. T. Thompson:
from Lamar. On rehearing. l. Grounds |
set up in motion fully considered in former |
opinion disposing of the case There was
no error In former opinion. Overruled. |
Per curtain.
w. 7. Waggoner VS.. Jules Alvord; from
On rehearirg. l. The motion