Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-10-19

Findings Of the Court Of Civil Appeals The
Other Courts.

Uther COURTS.
Sanger Brothers and tho Narun-Rrown
Company, appellants, vs. II. Nj. Henderson,
appellee; appeal from Taylor county,
STEPHENS. -Theappellee as trustee
for certain preferred creditors Of Dono-
van q Wylie, accepted deed OF trust
from said firm and entered into possess
sion of certain stock OF goods In Abb
lene, which was subsequently levied
upon ana sold under their several at
tachments sent out by appellants. The
appeloe sued for and received Judgment
against the attaching creditor for
Sf5, lag. 90, based upon the amount OF
his commissions and the debts due his
beneficiaries. The trial court elimina-
ted the cases OF a recovery upon his
own behalf and submitted his right 10
recover In the other capacity upon the
theory that the recovery should be an.
portion among the accepting bene.
iiciaries in said deed Of trust aud that
Il should be limited 10 the amount oi
said debt II lest than the value of the
goods converted. Exception was also
taken that the court charged the Jury
adversely to the appellantsupOn certain
principles without evidence TO warrant
II, and that appellee cOuldnot maintain
this suit without joining with
him the several beneiiciaries
named in his trust deed
Hell d-That the goods were In the pos
session OF the appellee as pledge and
entitled him TO maintain an action
against q trespass, that attaching cred.
itors In such cases are trespassers,
within the meaning OF the rule, and
that the measure Of damages Is the full
value of the goods converted, but that
the trial court erred IN charging the
jury upon the principle oi mutual agreo-
! ment between he attaching creditors
in the absence from the record of any
evidence upon that issue. Reversed
and remanded
The court holds incidentally in this
opinion that the action OF the sheriff in
selling the entire stock OF goods under
one order Of sale and apportioning the
proceeds amongst the several attaching
creditors did not materially err nor
commit those creditors to mutual
agreement. Also that the action of the
court below in permitting the appellee
ON former trial TO withdraw his an
nouncement Of ready after his testi-
| mOny in part had been introduced, and
in discharging the jury, was not an
! uDuo6 VI ulscitAlph. Inc court waived
| its decision whether or not the accept
ance by the trustee alone prior to the
| levies was sufficient, but called atten-
ton to an alleged defect OF the petition
in that respect.
The Texas Central Railway company
| plaintiff in error, vs.. Sallie G. Stuart de-
PENDANT In error. Error from Easiland
county.
Head. Jon January 49, 1883, the
| defendant in error, then about years
old, with her mother and younger sis
ter, were passengers on the regular
| trains Of the plaintiff in error. When
near their destination the train was
stopped and the locomotive detached
therelrom and sent upon other business.
| When it was again coupled to the car
It was done so negligently that the
| force OF the collision threw this defend
ant from her seat, which'was with her
mother Immediately in front of the
stove and caused serious injury. This suit
was filed by A. j.. Stuart, as her next
friend, on October "a, 1888 and the
| damages to her head wore claimed at
| $4,000 and TO her back at $1,000. A
trial on December II, 1886, resulted in
verdict and judgment in her favor for
! H1.uUU anu ot,uOU lOT NhS TsSptNllNc
claims. Held-That the trial court
did not err in charging the jury rs to
the amount OF damages claimed and di-
recting them TO estimate separate dam
ages for each injury; nor in charg-
ing that the law requires the de-
PENDANT to take great care in the man
agement of It's trains: nor in charging
that the burden OF proof is on tho de-
PENDANT 10 satisfy the jury of CON
tributory negligence, and incidentally
that a 3.year-old child is not In any
case chargeable with contributory neg
ligence, nor mother in charge OF J.
year-old child for occupying seat In d
car nearest the stove on cold day
when this is necessary for their com
fort; nor in failing 10 specifically
charge that damages might be as
sessed for one injury and ignored for
the other, though the form prescribed
for the verdict is disapproved; nor in
refusing to charge that the injury to
the kidneys must be found to have re-
suited from the injury to the back.
The Judgment should have been rem
dered in favor OF A. j. Stuart as next
| friend Of Sallie G. Stuart, instead OF