Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-14
HIGHER COURTS.
Decisions ofthe Supreme Court
at Galveston.
A FARMERS ALLIANCE CASE
Decision in the Case of Z. Z. Chase vs.. w.
q. Veal & Co. for Commissions as
Real Estate Agents-Other
Important Cases.
Special to me Gazette.

SPECIAL 10 me Gazette.
GALVESTON, Ten, Feb. 12-H. A P.
Bassett VS.. W. I. Martin; appeal from
Grimes county. Suit for land by appellee,
The main question in the case is rs 10 the
true boundary liue. Deed calls for s'RoclSy
creek. . The testimony shows that the
land in controversy lies between two chan
nelS or WATERWAYS of Rocky creek . Both
above and below the said land the waters
run in q single channel, but above they di
vide and below the land they again unite.
There being call in the deed not ambig-
uous in itself, but doubtful by reason of the
| fact It was applicable TO two different nat
I teriai objects having the same name the
veyance must govern. Affirmed. Opinion
by Gaines, J. I. c. Burlington for appel
lant Lock Mcdaniel for appellee,
John T. Hardie & Co. vs.. C. p. Wright ct
| al: appeal from Dallas county. This IS i
suit on a promissory note executed by c. y.
Wright ct al. to the Farmers Alliance eX-
/ change of Texas, and by it transferred be-
7 fore maturity to appellants. The evidence
! shows that the note was given appellants
rs collateral security to secure certain
! other notes executed by said exchange TO
Appellants. The testimony is conflicting.
| A written instrument signed by Macune,
/ The manager of the corporation, introduced
/ in evidence shows that the note here sued
| on was deposited with appellants 10 secure
/ A4u ldEbi StNGEdL tsttAI VI ALit MUGS gwen "
| it for compress stock. Macune was allowed
| TO testify in contradiction of this lnstru-
! ment that it was only deposited 10 secure
/ certain one of said notes which had been
! paid Held: Macune'S testimony should
! have been excluded. Held also that appel
lants are bona fde holders for value before
maturity and can not be defeated by testi-
! mony that same was without consideration.
/ If the testimony had shown that the debt
! Tor which it had been deposited was paid
| appellant could not recover, but this was
/ not shown. Reversed and remanded. Opln-
ion by Stayton, c. j. C. Bradford, J. Cobb
! 81 Avery for appellant; Robertson Il Coke
| for appellee. -
| r. L. Stanfeld VS.. the State of Texas;
! upon relation appeal from BeXar county.
! An information in the nature of u quo war
| rdntO to remove appellant from the once OF
| county superintendent of the public instruc-
| ton of Bexar county. Petition shows that
| appellant had been only elected to the office
| for term which had not expired and that
the only ground of complaint was that the
county commissioners court had abolished
/ the Office in pursuance to an act of the leg
! islature, approved April &, 1889, giving said
| court power to abolish said Office when, IN
| their Judgment such court may deem 1t adj
yisabie 1t is contendCd that this law IS
unconstitutional because the legislature
cannot collegiate its legislative functions
to any other body or authority. Held: Not
unconstitutional. The court abolished the
law in pursuance of law, but it cannot be
said that because it exercised that power
under the law, it made the law itself. AT
firmed. Opinion by Henry, j. 7. j. Nc
MINI for respondent, c. A Culberson. at
tOrney-general, for the state, Minor u
Powell, associate counsel, for appellant
E. e. Chase VS.. w. G Veal s. Co.; ap-
peal from Tarrant county. Appellees,
firm of real estate dealers, sued appellant
to recover commissions charged to be due
them for procuring purchasers for certain
real estate owned by appellant. 1t seems
to the court that the court below rendered
his Judgment against the great preponder-
ance of the testimony, but there being evil
dence to support the findings same will not
be disturbed. Affirmed. Opinion by
Henry, J. Templeton & Carter for appel
liant; Capps q Cantey for appellee.
A A johnson VS. Armstrong & Messer;
appeal from Tarrant county. Appellee sued
for value of professional services rendered
as architects at appellants request in pres
aratiOn of plans, etc, for college building.
Judgment in court below for plaintiff.
Held: Johnson was president and princi-
pal agent of the Fort Worth university
which was corporation, and appellees had
office of these facts sufficient 10 put them
upon inquiry to ascertain that Johnson bore
such relation to said corporation, and hence
he was not liable to them individually for
such services. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion by Henry, J. Stanley, Spoonts Il
Meek for appellant, Field, West & Smith
rSappellees.
G. w Brooks vs. W. H. Lewis ct al
appeal from Dallas county. This suit is
by appellant against appellee and the sure
ties on his official bond as sheriff, TO recover
the value OF six transfer wagons. JudG-
N ent by court below was for defendant.
Brooks (in another case sued the Dallas
passenger transfer company to recover q
debt, and sued out writ of attachment and
caused same TO be levied upon the said
wagons Brooks afterwards obtained
judgment, foreclosure and order of sale,
and bid in the wagons for sum less than
his debt He rendered to the sheriff the
amount of the costs in the suit and de-
manded the wagons, but the sheriff refused
TO turn them over to him. The sheriff re-
fused on the following grounds: After the
above judgment, and before the sale, w. J.
Kellar brought an action against the said
company to recover Il debt secured by
mortgage on the said wagons, and to fore
close his mortgage Kellar also prayed for
seQuestration He obtained Judgment,
foreclosure and order of sale on which the
sheriff iudorsed as his reason for not eX-
ecuting same that he held the property,
under attachment. in the Brooks case
Neither Brooks or the sheriff were parties
to the Kellar suit. No record of sequestra-
ton having issued it was the duty of the
upon his rendering the costs. Although
the property in the hands of Brooks would
have been liable to seizure for Kellar's
debt, the latter having the superior lien,
Brooks had the right in this suit to recover
the equity of redemption, or the property
with the right 10 pay Kellar's debt Re
yersed aud remanded. Opinion by Stayton,
c. J. Dickson & Maroney for appellant,
Field & Holman for appellee.
T. z. Wallace vs.. S. d. Berry, admins
TRAITOR Error from Dallas county. An
action of trespass to try title. 1t was ad-
mitted that John Lee was common source
of title Plaintiff in error claimed through
a sale in the Lee estate, and defendant IN
error claimed through deed made by John
Lee made years prior to his death, which
was claimed by defendant in court below TO
have been intended only as a mortgage.
This was the nam issue in the case. The
court charged the jury that the
defendant claiming that this deed is only
mortgage, the law devolves upon him the
burden of proving clearly and satfsfacto-
rily TO your minds that such was the case
etc. Held: This charge eXacted
Of defendant higher degree Of proof than
the law requires, even in cases Of this char
acter The admission that John Lee was
common source did not relieve the plaintiff
of the burden of connecting himself with
that title Evidence of declarations of
John Lee with regard 70 the transaction in
admissible Reversed and remanded.
C)r,ipfon fv Cfav4ou q T RaSeetf Sen Z