Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-27

erred in submitting 70 the jury any issue as
TO a defective track on which a recovery
for appeliccs might be based. Reversed
and remanded Fisher.J.
Theresa Frost vs. Erlth Cattle Co. from
Hood, Trespass to try title l. Powers OF
attorney, unlike deeds and wills. are to be
strictly construed. and the authority dele
gated is limited TO meaning of the terms In
which it is expressed The power to sell
land or other property does NOT include the
power to exchange or portion, and the
power to sell and convey does not include
the power to convey in discharge OF q debt
or claim. Richard Kimball had no authority
under his power OF attorney to convey and
exchange the land, and the deed was i'm
properly admitted . Each member OF a
firm within the apparent scope OF his au-
thority is authorized to bind the firm by the
firm signature. 3. A certificate OF &C
acknowledgement which fails to show that the
grantors were either known to the officer
or that they were proved to him on the oath
of some credible person to be the person
who executed the instrument, and which
fails to use any equivalent expression, rem
ders deed fatally defective and inadmissi-
BILE in evidence. Reversed and remanded.
Tarlton, ].
Roena Measles ct al from Wichita Suit
BY appellees to recover for injuries sus-
tanned by their minor son incurred while
playing on turn-table. /. 1t was compe-
tent to prove by boy that he was injured
at the same place year before, and that
the turn-table was unfastened, suit having
been brought to recover in behalf OF the
boy. 9. 1t was proven that the boy was
healthy and obedient, and in view of these
facts it was proper for appellees to show
the value of the services Of an average boy.
1t is extremely difficult to get expert testl-
mony as to the services Of minor. 3. APP
pellees offer to remit any amount found ex-
cessive We find the jury gave 300 for
s.loss of labor of parent during sickness of
this. There was also allowed 300 for sex
ira food" during sickness. Only $50 was
asked, and the verdict in that respect is eX
cessive to the amount Of $50. We think
the excess in the verdict not due to passion
or prejudice of the jury, but due to mis-
takes in the charge of the court. The YER
dict will be reduced from 5000 to $780, and
for that amount is affirmed. Tarlton, j.
International and Great Northern Rail-
way VS.. w. r. Lincock; from Hays. Suit
by appellant to recover for personal inju-
ries. l. The evidence showing loss of time
was vague and indefinite, there being no
evidence whatever Of the value OF the time
lost. Held: The court erred in telling the
jury appellee might recover for loss of time
up to the filing of the suit Reversed and
remanded. Tarltou, ].
Milburn:. Stephens ct al VS.. ]. r. Keat-
ing from johnson. Trespass to try title
by appellee. l. Miller and wife conveyed
certain land to George w. Stephens, with
the understanding that Stephens was to
borrow money on same and turn over to
them. The money was borrowed and
turned over to Miller and wife. Executed
contemporaneously with the deed was an
agreement of Stephens to reconvey to
Miller and wife on repayment to him of the
money borrowed. This agreement was not
recorded An execution was levied on the
land as the property of Stephens, and ap-
pellee was purchaser at execution sale. The
latter brought suit, Miller and wife inter-
vened, and Heating had his Judgment.
Held: When third party asserts against
a creditor or purchaser, under his Judg-
ment, a title or interest to which the regis
tration laws apply, the common law rule is
changed, and purchaser for a valuable
consideration will not be affected with no.
tice if the creditor had none when his lien
was fixed, and will take good title
whether he had knowledge of the unre-
corded instrument at the time of the pur-
chase or not. [R. S., 1882; 46 Texas, 416;
As Texas 5o4. The agreement to reconvey
should have been recorded. This not being
Qonc, appeiiet tooh Soou tilIe. AAiiucu.
Garrett, P. ].
Ben T. Cable VS.. James V. Dignowitty;
from Bexar. Suit in trespass to try title,
though the real question involved was one
of boundary. l. While there was conflict
in the evidence, course and distance as
substantially concurred in by all the sur
veyors and the evidence of some Of them as !.
to established corners found on the ground
support the finding of the court in favor of
appellee. There is no error. Affirmed.
Garrett, p. j.
Bowser s. Lennon VS.. Field & Field;
from Dallas. l. Appellees sued appellants
for commissions on land sold by the former
for the latter. The evidence is conflicting
as to the liability of appellants, but sustains
the judgment for appellees. Affirmed. Gar
rett, p. j.