Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-04
COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Text Of Deceslons Rendered IN The Fort
Worth District

OFlNlONs
In December. 1885. appellant sold 70 ap-
pelioa 100 acres Of land Boa Parker county
/ for which appellee agreed 10 pay Sliuy,
paying sfO0 cash. aud executing ms Two
/ notes Tor 500 each setnie W Ssu 49,
/ lien. Appellee not having paid such notes
I in fun left the place on jan. !, lsec'
AMI appellant. with llc consent OF appclvy.
( took possession ~ the sume ena hell huen
| ius.session during the years 1893 aud iesl;
/ la 1850 nDpplIue returned nud dcmnnunl
posafssion III the place and Instituted SUIT
Of forcMe entry ana anne e. 70 .a,s,,iiagt
/ nnd appellee filed I'm the county court or
/ said county on agreement undcr the statute
/ 20 arbitrute the matter ~ controversy "
/ tween them. part Of which agreement IS
"Whercns. heretofore j. X. Bowden sold
a certain farm 10 said county 20 $. 81. Grow
/ containing 100 acres. vendors lien notes
/ being executed By said Crow, and that as
/ n substitute Tor said notes said crow ieNe
/ ON Jam. i. issT his note for SSii bearing
Interest from date; ANA whereas, j. M
/ BOwicn, with The cuusgnt ~ y. III. crow
vent into possession or sold farm Jau. l,
ls,s and nov holds yhe SAME anI whet n,,,,
/ said Crow has sued ipr possession hoWi
therefore we hereby agree That tue matters
/ hereinafter mentioned shall be submitted
/ TO- arbitration 10 Wit:
| ]. How u.uth rent shall j. X Bowden
| pay 10 s. NJ Crow Tor the use Of said land
Z ls rents from Jan. ]. 1898. To dntef
| . How much shall y. ST. Grow pay j. Is.
/ Bowdru for improvements made ON said
! land since Jan. J. leoSl
/ .. How mulch is due 5. VI. Crow aa prin-
1 cinnl and interest ON said SSj4 uotpf
! a. How mueh interest Is due s. VI. Grow on
/ rents ON slli lands held ly J. X. Bowdcn
/ Tor the yeur lNsN ana lHeNf
IL was also Stipulated I'm the agreement
/ Tor arbitration that upon nling tho report
/ ~ the Hrhirbturs with the county clerk
\ the fOrcible entry ana detaincr case should
| BE- dismissed and that Crow. should save
| had been deposited with the COrslcuua Loan
/ agency az collateral security. ". H. Me-
/ Cicniy was numed az one OF the 0rbiuptors
J by crow aud ~ 81. Dennis by Bowdcn.
/ The two urMtrutOrs thus selected, having
heard the evidence and falling 20 agree,
l an umpire was named by the clerk in cptu-
| pliancp with the statute. and the three mus
\ selected again heard the evidence. ana on
July a. 1870, hled Che following awgrd.
| r. NJ. CROW vs.. J. X. lpwdcn. Mattu
| OF arbitration July ls, 1910.
| The undersigned n. NJ. Dennis one Of
| the nrhtroiors chosen herein, and tho nm.
| dersigued Henry Ward, umpire, selected
/ by the clcrl, u the county court Of Parker
| county tthC nrhltrntOrs y. NJ. Dennis aud
W. Il, McGeay having failed TO agreol
| after hearing the evidence and argument
/ Of counsel, make the following award. the
| said W. H. McCleary, uftcr fun hearing by
Hun FILLING 70, agree with us,, to- VII.
\ as principal and interest OH note after
/ credit Of 1928 note Si8i4 hauling rock
| eight days, TO men two horses ana wagon
| building aud repairing crlbe, $50. building
| side room to house. 500. urubhiug hftCnu
I
acres OF 5brubbcl land 500 Total STa3ii
We ind credits Ia favor Of s.. NJ. Crow
Interest on 500 FOR twouty.four months,
| StlU.
Yc lind therefore that the said $. NJ
| Crow Is due. aud shall pay the said j. Il.
| boWdeh The sam ut lSay34l i've hundred
and ninety three dollars and forty-four
cents aud the same shall be paid within
Ave days FROM md after the hilng Of this
Henry WARD, Umpire
y. ". DENNIS Arbitrator.
/ think the above award Is too hlgn aud
Illegal and hereby diaaont thcrefrom
County clerk parker COUNTY iaij.' Tcx.
Filed July. lS. 1870 u. W. AKAlu.
Appellee being dissatisfied with This
petition, ohjccung to us being made the
judgment OF the court, charging In general
terms that thr nrhlrntors lu mating the
same were ncuatcd by gross partially
fraud and mistake and also alleging thut
the items " $50 for hauling rock and $3.50
ana 500 for clubbing did not come within
tended that The first and fourth questions
submitted 10 tho nrhtrntorg had bpcu ig-
uored by them. Appellant Med general ami
aattaciinr ihig award Inc Special cEt9ipt iii
objected 20 the general terms IN which tue Az
iieeGh .. fraud parGpolIty and mis- NUS,
OF opinion that this exception
should have been sustained. II r. wen apt.
]
set aside an award by urmuutors ON the
grounds above set forth the facts consti-
tutiug The objection TO the award uyiat Doe
specifically avcrrcd, and Ia order 60 prevent
the award FROM being made the Judgment
~ the court n compliance with the agree,
ment y ~ necessary That the ucts alleged
be sufficient 10 vncnte % WHEN imppnuhud IN
court of equity, Tho principles governing
such cases arc su well settled hy repeated
decisions in this state thht ~ would be- a
useless consumption OF tlmu FOR us 90 uu'
dertHke to review them. Unyne w. Metz
~ irNus 30 Forshcy vs. Eulroad, ~ Toxins
ander Vs. Muihnll. I roscy, IGn
We nro also or opinion that appellant
assignment challenging tho suihcenCy OF IN,
taken We hnd no evidence whatever n
the record 90 sustnln the charge OF fraud
ann partially made ngonst these urutra
tors, and II any mistake was made hy then
, 80 FAR ns this record DISCLOSED lt must n,
clWaed as mistake of Judgment and mol
OF Tact The evidence inr >duced hy IN,
! | appellee IN Huppurt of the charges made hy
! HIN seems 60 relate almost entirely Ia an,
merits OF the controversy between the par
ties as though NO award hnd been made
ANA no attempt seems 10 have been mad,
! by him To show that those men had nm,
4, prejudice against him or Partially FOR hi
! adversary.
That the nrst aud fourth items contulno,
7 IN the agreement FOR submission were no
I | overlooked hy the arhlirptors, but thn
Z fn evidence was heard thereon. rs mad,
clear by an the witnesses. Including the nm
bitrntor solicited bv nupeIiee nnd tir,n s,,cl
y hearing % majority OF the nrbtrators dc
cldvd that appellee was not entitled q
. rent for the years tsSS ana 1850 hu4 in
spirit " llbprality they decided 10 allow hin
u | credit for $40, interest that had boon pni
= by appellant m lieu OF such rent. Ccrtnlni
& the allowance OF this sum, when the Arhi
p traitors were OF the opinion that apnplle
was entitled To nothing furnishes mo- groun
4 Qf complaint 10 him unless, their action Il
= railing 10 allow him rent WAS erroneous
"a md as 10 whether on not such rent shoul
, | have been rllowcd was decided hy thor
Il | against appellee after hearing tho cyldeuc
Ina which there was "a sharp conflict
We are also Of 0niuun that me iteng a
So FOR hauling rock ANA Sliu for gruhhm
hftcen acres ~ land at SlO Der ncrn nu
500 for gruhhlng thirty acrcs OF shruhbe
~ | laut were properly considered hy The nth
e traitors as coming within tn meaning OF lu
r proycments made on the nul as submitte
a ny the second clause of The agreement
\ The $50 item was evidently Cor hauiin
rock 10 be used in building the chimney
and while it might have been technical
p uiurc correct fnr the arhliratOrs % hnv
r. valued the chimnpys az 500 after the
IL wore COnplct0l, Instead of itcml1inn On
x cost nt $50 for hauling the rock nnd ~
NJ far putting II up. yet there was no SUI
4 stantM ground of complaint it thoy p,
fetred the latter COURSE
- We also believe that the cost Of putin
o- wild l0ud IN cultivation r. generally cllssC
10 under the hoad OF improvements IN action
A. ot trespass 90 try title, and we SEQ no Cud
H. reason why the same rule should not uppl
In this cuse, Certainly 10 would not D
l. | equitable tO require ono under the clrcuu
III | stances ~ this ease 20 CNncnd more m pu
ting timber land In cultivation that a
value Of the land Itself and receive no cor