Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-11-28
THE HIGHER COURTS.
DECISIONS RENDERED AT AUS
TIN DURING THE WEEK


Austin. Tex. Spv. ~ tspeciall Tito fol.
lowing declslOns we're rendered IN the court
OF ulyil appeals FOR the Third district on
Wednesday,, Noyembur -, 1872.
Herman Seclo ct al, vs.. the state OF Texas
on the relation OF u. Rocthrr. from Comal
county,
This Il a prohibition suit brought In tie
district court OF C0iual county where ali
Original proceeding to unuu Judgment
rendered ny the Justices court To grant such
relief Tile only question 10 decide Is; Hal
the district court IN 1855 iuHaiicton TO
grant and perpetuntc q writ OF prohibition
against proceedings about 10 be had In the
district Cuurtf
court boy virtue of its law und equity irri2'
diutiOn 10 Issue all Writs that were known
80 common law ana equity practice 10 Tue
written law alone we must look 10 ascertain
The powers and Jurisdiction Of our cpurts,
The constitution hut the statutes confer on
the district courts tue buwer To Issue Wits
of hahcaa corpus In felony cnscs, naudA-
mus, Injunction. cerliorari mud all Wiits
necessary tu enforce their iniunctious. The
enumeration Of the puwera excludes the
right To exercise others y cannot De min,
tnlncd that the writ Issued IN ihiS ease was
IN fuithrruncc OF tnp Jurisdiction Of me DIS
trlct court as necessary TO inc enforcement
on Its Jurisdiction rs tho judicial matter
sought 10 be prohibited was pending ~ an.
other tribunal OF equal dignity with that OF
the district court In so far Us iis jnrisdic.
lion cxtendpd over subjects Of which II HAD
cugnlzancc The district court exceeded its
powers and the Judgment Is reversed and
he he case Is ordered dismissed. opinion 10y
W. w il. Cliiiou VS.. q. W. Foster, from Me-
Lehman county
Suit against appellee On note. Judgment
In which Il had been given In hisfayur on the
nlca that one Carewcll. who was Joint phu'
gator on the note sued on. had been re-
leased la appellant 4 technical release OF
one iolnt oh,igator discharges the others
and the rule applies with equal force to OBJ
legations that are JOINT aha sss,ih' 49,.
hn ffUfflina To technical releases
at common law That IL to rcieaaeA nihie hll-
der scnl which Imports consllcratiqn.
relensc 20 have the eteet 81 dlsehhfge
without full satisfaction must be upon con
gidrratlou The reason that q technical re
lease cunrcs Ia other coohigatots y that
It deprlves those not dlschnrged lruhi eqult-
able relief against HIN hv contribution.
iThIs being So ID would seem that where the
discharged prOmisOr bad paid his part ~
the debt thcrc would be no rlghi ~ cpnln-
button against HIN by his Joint nrolnlsars
10 pav mo residue. Plaintiff OF 10
prove That Carswcll had Maid ms part o. ine
original debt FOR which me i9lf M11 Evil
mud that defendant was inNepiel Tor ihs
bnlnure This was ndiHssAbia because u
would show that defendant had palu inc ~,
auce due on the note he woul NC ehutisl
10 no contribution frum Carswen. When the
reason of n rule fails the rule ilset illls
Thp Judgment IL reversed anh renueged los
pIaintlr Opinion by Justice Coliail
International and Great Northern railway
company Ii,ss' i''' vs.. w. W. Lock. from Hays
Suit sidi for damages. The following charge
,-,s ,ixrn sIf Won should find for the
fIaInflff Won will ind such damages ns me
cvldenne shows be- has susiainri " e,ii-
uniting such damages Won VIII rpnsidsr W.
loss 81 lime. medical expenses. &C, Lhgie
vas no evidence chewing the, value OF w
time during the periol IN VIM ae Wa ~.
aIt,d uu1 IL was error q give ne chaEit
s,,d ma iudirrucpf IL reversed and the Ease
Tisnandsd. Oplulun hy Fisher q. y,
A. cunningham Ct al fs' San HAhA
county. from san saba ,....e., .,...-.,ris
sui for dHmagca for unlawful nppFopfih'
N,r, and limitation Of two years. - grN-
oral riiie lef1rc a highway eau DC tlap'
usbed IN prescription u must appear ,Aa,
the general public under 'illM or l5
and not by mere reriiiisi9n q W. eN '.,i,,,,
,,sed sn,ue tenntd way without interruption
", s,,i,stantIaI change for az least thr Ions
- nsriel ID Limitation prescribed w lhr
s9etI,te1 AGAINST al ncflon f0f uip land aiil
,,,,i,i- .nfheritics hold tnat surh tsr nihst
Ii for IN least twenty years NV li'i' ~
WHIT, me use u truly permi'sife anu ny ~,
.dgerse there Is 10 hasia on which q fifiN
II way by prescription mas ttNr " 80 ~.
reasrn Il has bgcn h.ll lii.t Wy ~ rs NJ
raiie rnrneinsci land for twenty lrais ~
~, ,..isi., IN nlssiur give them 90 rrcsglip
H. pri'.i,ts firsidcs q has been hall tl4l
= a.i,if. r,ad ian not ~ esiahllahed " ites
Ni.'.t, I. ale tho land OYER which the i,Ah
49, n nnilnurovtd rnl unoccuWed ITnHls
isrd ,sar ,yiiith people may traFefse
testr nieasurs o. Kansas ~ ~ tA'
fosnia SO - Masfaehlrftis - h., 80. -.
me Judgment - reversed aia tur case
mandet Oplripn pl 5l-hst ~ ,y.,,.-,,,iau,I
rsuliac hozWadafsAie v. lnis'H-e''-'