Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-03-13
SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS AT THE GALVESTON
SITTING ON'FRIDAN.
what the Court Has to Say About Will
Jams VS.. Taylor, an Important Tar
rant County Case, Reversed.
Special to the Gazette.

Special to the Gazette.
GALVESTON. TEX. March 11.-Texas and
Pacific Railway Company VS.. r. B. Hall
and Wife; appeal from Dallas county. Suit
by appellees to recover damages for the
death of their son. VINO was about fourteen
years of age at time Of mis- death. Court
did not err in / everything motion Tor
continuance. It is not shown whether 1t IS
the first, second or subsequent application.
The best diligence is not shown TO be used.
II it was neither first nor second appllca
ton, il was within the discretion
of the court, and this does not
appear to have been abused. There was no
1nisioinder of parties. The statute gives
damages 10 both IN such cases Art. 1904 :
The charge eliminated the claim for exem-
plary damages, hence no injury resulted
from failure TO sustain special demurrer to
that part Of plaintiffs petition. The charge
upon cOntributory negligence was made APP
pJicable to the case by instructing the jury
that they would look to and take into con-
sideration the age of the boy. Affirmed.
Opinion by Henry ]. r. S. Lovett and I.
J. Freeman for appellant, John lookout,
r. H. Capers and c. A. Culberson for ap-
pellee.
r. O'Conner & Co. VS.. Smith & Get
ling ct al. appeal from Dallas rOunty. Suit
by appellee for damages and on motion OF
O'Conner x Co.. the Dallas and Greenville
railroad company were made party defend
ants. Only those profits are recoverable
for breach of a contract which are the di-
rect and immediate fruits of the contract
entered into between the parties to it.
These were taken into consideration and
formed the basis of the contract. Loss of
profits that may result from collateral en-
terprises are too remote. II was error to
charge the jury that they might consider
plaintiffs expenses for such necessary men
and teams they had on hand at the time,
the value Of services of same, loss of time
etc. If the men and teams were hired only
the hire could be considered. If the teams
were owned by plaintiff the value of their
hire alone can be considered. Loss of
time of men and teams cannot be considered
In addition thereto. Affirmed as to railroad
company and reversed as to O'COnnor 81
Co. Henry, ]. Robertson & Coke for APP
pellant Alexander 81 Clark for appellee
(railroad).
Henry l.. Williams, guardian vs.. L. r.
Taylor, clerk; appealed from Tarrant
county. The power of the courts to declare
void an act of the legislature because pro-
hibited by the constitution is settled be-
You'd controversy. The legislature acts
under authority given it by the constitu-
tion, and whether or not it has exceeded
that authority is judicial question. When
bill has been passed and signed by the
presiding officer of each house in the
governor, it affords conclusive evidence
that it has been passed in the manner re-
quired by the constitution. In order to
maintain that the journals should prevail
over the enrolled bill duly signed and APP
prove, it should be held that they are a
more certain and valuable record of what
occurred, than the signatures of the pre-
tiding officers and the governor. The court
cannot look to the jOu rnal in order to in
validate a statute. Reversed and re-
manded for appellant Opinion by Gaines,
J. Bowlin & Bowlin for appellant Seth
Stewart, Hyde Jennings and F. w. Ball,
for appellee
H F. Ewing ct al, VS.. Commissioners
Court of Dallas county. Action by the
officers of the old corporation of Oak Cliff
and others to compel the commissioners
court TO receive and dispose of property
of the said city and to apply the proceeds
to the payment of their claims, and to cause
to be collected tax from the persons
within the territory intended to be incor-
porated sufficient to pay their claims. De-
murrer was sustained and cause dismissed.
They base this right undera statute of 1891.
Said corporation was held invalid by this
court in 1891 on the ground of want of
power to Incorporate the territory sought
TO be brought within the limits of the city.
The legislature has no more power to cause
q tax TO be levied upon the property of the
people living within the boundaries in
which there was an unavailing effort to in
corporate for purposes named than would
the legislature have to say that tax might
be levied upon the property of any hundred
citizens of the state. His property cannot
be taken without his consent. There is no
averment that there has not been a re-
incorporation. Affirmed. Opinion by
Stayton, c. ]. Simpkins s. Marrow for
appellant, A. 7. Watts for appellee.
D. B. Grigsby ct al. VS.. M A. May ct al;
appeal from Dallas county. TreSpass to |
try title. The main question is whether or
not the title through which appellees claim |
is such as will support plea OF limitation |
of three years. little or color of |
title" defined by the statute to mean a reg
ular chain of transfer from or under the |
sovereignty of the soil r. S, Arts. 3191 |
and 1892. The patent "to the heirs of |
John Grigsby, deceased, assignee. etc.
vested title within the meaning of the stat
ute in these persons, who were in law the |
heirs of Grigsby as fully as if each heir
had been named, and the fact that the
heirs of the second wife of John Grigsby,
through her had subsequent right TO one
half of the grant, In no manner affects the
character of the title in SO far as that bears
on the question of limitation. The heirs of
John Grigsby took by descent and not by
purchase. II was title from sovereignty of
the soil to the heirs within the meaning of
the statute, which has no reference to a
grant in form and not TO the fact of owner
ship by the state at the time the grant is
madeuor to the right of the patentee TO re-
ceive the grant 1t is not necessary for the |
person to whom patent issues to be entitled
TO receive the grant in order for the patent
TO constitute title within the meaning
of the statute applicable in this
case. The proceedings in probate
and deed by administrator of
John Grigsby's estate vested in James
GrIgsby all the right any person as heir of
John had to the land, and while no right of
the heirs of Johns second wife may not
have been conveyed, did not break the
chain of transfer from the sovereignty of
the soil TO James. The fact that the heirs of
John GriCsby were in part the heirs of his
second wife, cannot affect the question, for
their rights under each parent are as sepa-
rate and distinct as though they were differ
emit persons The statute does not make
notice of superior right in another any
ground for denying to one in possession for
three years under q regular chain, etc,
that protection which the statute gives. If,
defendants transfer were only
color of title. - the same result would be
reached Affirmed Opinion by Stayton,
9. J. Richard Morgan, JEFF Word and
Evans d Gooch for appellant: w. Z.
Hughes and Yates s. Aldrldge for appellee.
A DERELICT BRIG.