Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-03-28
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS AT THE GALVESTON
SIT ING SATURDAY.
Suit to Set Aside Deed to Railroad Com
pany for Right of Mountaineering
Partnership Decision.
Special to the Gazette.


GALVESTON, TEX, March 26-The G. F.
and NJ c. railway company VS.. D. Fether-
ingtou; appeal from Dallas county. Suit
by appellee and vile to cancel and annul a
deed to right of way over their land upon
the ground of fraud and failure of consider
alton and on incapacity OF officer who took
Acknowledgement of the wife Appellees
failed to reserve any title in themselves, or
to provide for the reyersion of the estate in
the event the contract to build a depot
should be broken. The deed contained no
condition of defeasance, condition precedent
or subsequent, but passed absolutely the
fee. The promises of the appellant to build
a depot there, etc, were in the nature of
covenants, not conditions, and appellees
could not reclaim the land for failure.to per-
form, but might sue for damages for the
breach.
If the company made the promises in
order 10 induce a conveyance Of the land
with no intention at the time OF carrying
them out, it would be such fraud as would
vitiate the deed, but if made in good faith
at the time it would not be fraud.
This was q personal action and limitation
of four years applies. If the suit were one
for land limitation would be inapplicable,
because the character Of possession and
claim would not constitute such adverse
possession as would entitle it to the fee If
appellant failed TO establish right to the
casemeutsappellees could recover the land.
The officer taking the wife's acknowl-
edgemeut signed himself special county
clerk, after signing his principals name,
which was good.
The husband may convey part of the
community homestead to 4 hallway COM
pany for a right of way provided such con-
yeyance does not deprive the wife of her
enjoyment of the home, he signing the deed
alone. Reversed and remanded, MARI, J.
= frI1
etc. Appeal from Dewitt county. Gerhard,
Galmy and La Fosse constituted the mer-
camille firm Of Galmy & Co. They applied
TO appellants to buy bill of goods. Before
the goods reached the Galmy Il Co. Fosse
sold his interest to the other members and
went out. These men had made state
ment to appellant showing their s0lvency
at time the purchase was made, which was
sigued by each member Of the firm. Ap-
pellauts had no notice of Fosse's with
drawal from the firm At time goods were
sold Calmly ~ Co, with F'oSSe's con-
curreuce, made an assignment. Held C)
Fosse was as 10 appellants partner. ~
That the assignment IS void as TO appellants
because not executed by all the members of
the firm. Reversed and remanded. Hobby,J.
J. B. Watkins vs.. Guy w. Junker; ap-
peal from Jefferson county. The question
was one of limitation of two years on &C.
u
short time after the two years had elapsed.
But defendant was absent from the state
more than sufficient time, which IL deducted
will defeat Limitation. Denfendant must
have remained in state for the full period of
two years This need not be continuous.
but if broken by absence at any time this
must be deducted. And all the time he re-
mains, when added together must I'LL the
statutory measure" Reversed and re-
manded. Hobby, J.
E Bell vs.. K II. Faulkner, appeal
from Waller county. The sole question IS
test an election or a suit for the office The
case went of on demurrer The value of
the Office was alleged and from the pature
of the action the court concludes 1t was
a suit for the office 1t was claimed that
the election was Illegal for the following:
The city was Incorporated ana consisted of
four wards, which are by statute made
voting precincts The election was only
held 1T two places; that the managers were
not legally made SO by the commissioners
court; parts of the country were included
in these voting precincts. This question
was discussed fully in 80 Texas. 42A The
election was there held valid unless fraud
IS shown. The statute article 1864 has
been amended. but not so as to effect this
question. The court follows that case
The fact that one Of the acting clerks
was under age effects nothing. Affirmed.
Collard. J. Justice Henry dissents.
A. R. Hudgins ct al. vs.. B. NJ. Leggett,
guardian, F. M. Samson provided in his
will that in consequence Of the fact that his
!. : aughtcr, J. V. Hudgins was afflicted with
s.e, &c, his other four heirs should