Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-12-19
HGHER COURTS.
~ s or SUPREME COURT
AT AUSTIN.
~, Court Of Civil Appeals for The
so,,mr Decentralization In
,prIsuoi Creditor Case.
.or srrnEME COURT.

| u
r7E SUPREME COURT.
eourt took the following
limitations for writs Of error
|lkl I'm, pacifc company vs.. l.
~ n Paso. This application
$3.50 because no motion for re.
|M0nuI ~. nlale IN the court Of civil
- X whlch the writ of error is
sshh ct al. VS. ]. w. Wilson
Ia ~ Judgment Of the district court
ani NJ u III Wilson vas reversed IN the
THAI ..Wd ciyil appeals. Nr,ts OF error
sts reversing aud remanding
|'owa ,a he granted only in cases in
|and Pi N. |, permitted by statute. K.
lag "a s y. amended by act of April 10,
Ing clalral laws p. 20. This case Is
J0lnti n .,rh q character
|0r III; :. have been thought that this
hna 4, .asI revise tho judgment. of the
v All anpeals under the last
n A N he same act which permits
III "a issge when the judgment
=, scttles the case and this fact
|hr0n y Il Inc petition for writ of
Mn. indrment Of reversal is not
h ~ r. Of this character The
\ C5lM Il be court of civil appeals was
tIe giving and refusing of in
~. ard on the exclusion of evil
IN trial. Because the appli-
an ~. moi show a case in which
Nh error can be issued to bring up
n nm reversing and rcmanding II
A M 4 will be dismissed
,rrqr OF CIVIL APPEALS.
IN eourt of civil appeals for the
VOLS n f.,jet the following opinions were
wednesday, Dec. II.
|ehnh, ~ -s,n Houston and San Antonio
''''s " 8snnanv VS.. Bridget Daniels,
|llal go county Error was com-
NJ. h .,ty ihe trial court in stating to the
NVl III ~ issnes involved in the cuse In
|cn.t,. n \. "a state some Of the defenses
u'w nv The defendant. But this
|Oll III 4 emission and il appellant was
IA -s.sl with It special ch1rge
"A hMe been asked supplying the
lug Allowing charge was given to the
H. 1 assigned US error; III how
4 N believe the Defendant corpora
p & III "A mi had done all that could be
% VI "A Y to.render said bridge secure aud
f-- 4 m passage of trains and that
.|. IIffHlNN OIL HAAh ~ ANAFt hAAh WV
~ ad Horace Daniels was the
gsa Unprecedented rainfall and
nj III y diameter that no himun fore
Nv 10 stll Gould provide against you
=, "A ior Attendant,
tbs"a' aisti6n is well taken. The
II raand of appellant n higher
sife for the safety of its emf
|nt. .dsn K imposed by law. A master
|dvd U1Nr common carrier or not Is
,rritei 10 exercise ordinary and |
IA M,,,is nm for the protection of |
.r,rs do Tex. 34l. 10 Tex. 50,) |
a. 4. smg1,nt 4 not liable to appellee |
VIII la,ie, resulting from his death I'M |
~ une vas caused by appellants |
lssr. snd the burden rested upon |
I aWae o prove not upon the ap- |
M n E1roye such negligence. In |
- 4 IA q freight the rule is diff
gNuL % Ms generally In this class
asu et b rules of law which de
llnri hitJ for loss or injury re-
49, e. dig tan ilnl phenomena, called
Ei'Ail' II b law bNh The act of God" are
lssssl Ills snses out of the fact
fi nn sgd ues proof OF the utmost
E and dlsne will not excuse the
ft r. AID he Gets of God and few
w 49, s-dii lefenses are the only
~ soh which non-liability can be
4 aEAl
|" y aas f appellee is founded upon
hssai hegigenCe of the appellant
h 1N'I liG be negligence of its servant
~ t ieah Toe law imposed the duty
gfAalt to construct and properly
M ~ Necessary bridges on its
II ~ iid i i failed to do Sc it eau
eik laOili'y, because its employ
lM guilty nor because Il had eN-
1A care in selecting such EN-
Ations issued to Charles Emerly
~ 'Il,d signed and sworn to by
EN Laly The two names are
II allowing non-expert witnesses
\ WEI 4il0ns based upon facts within
w y knowledge aud stated TO the
ulft trying the case ought not
II aFnlelsso as to allow the wit
T indulge In argument, or state
/ ~ opinion, the particular thing
Il ave been, unless required to
II ~ answer to question on cross
Il 4ne, For the error Indicated
\ Judgment Is reversed and the
h "nahded. Opinion by Justice
M q California vs.. John Mar
/ AcLennan. In this case the
were creditors of the firm of
N sunan y Co., and sought to
MH under an attachment lev
H. property Of said firm. Appel
Aned MS trustee In n deed Of
W -oie by the firm to secure pre-
tt1,l'ors, The s,lit was to try
Il" property. The main cues
nse presented by appellant
We deed of trust requires the
,,- sell the merchandise In the
L ,,ass OF trade. its effects Is TO
W IN suelay and defrnud other cred
Ii Ut thls reason the instrument
l we should he held void, taken
6Ho1 with the fact that Eaton,
a. 70. were ii,-olvent Mt the
n execution II Il well es-
/, ID rIllelple Of law that debtor
/ M lvuilstanccs may secure and
qua ildc debt Of his creditors,
W ,e effect Of such preference
III ~ hinder and delay other cred /
sf limitation IMPOSED by law
N. lsnt prevents the debtor from
70 me creditor more proper
RI, IN, rn.nnahly sufficient to salts
.hh~s., " Ne true that the debt
81 ase,+, seFrol 70 the trustee oil Of
e,eii. Ior the hencft Of the nre-
u ~ ~ and the property Is less I
II 4 ,tast " me debts secured md the
/ HI \, igNlts n snle IN due course
N /. ahh,srwise. we fail to SEE how
r. IA ll,,Nlafed 10 hinder and de-
n Ar nv other creditors. II Is
i. ,.Nect Of such transaction
S. ~ .ainder and nossihlv defeat
q inc.. w Unsecured creditors. hut
~, - ,,nllv. answered hy the law
Z" ~ ~ hAolvprt Debtor 10 prrfer t
/ III ito u no ADVANTAGES or haunfit
II d. IVY debtor hv st-rb s-ansoatiou