Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-13
III COURT OF APPEALS.
Report Of Decisions Rendered by the
Court Tor The Second District.

Cook, plaintiff Ia error, vs.. the Tex
hnl Pacific Hallway company, defend
NJ IN error Error from the district
~ OF Callahan county.
CONCLUSIONS.
u assignment OF errors was stricken
u this record by the supreme court,
Iuniess there Is fundamental error Ia
Judgment, Il must be affirmed.
endAnt IN error obtained a Temporary
Hcton, restraining the sale under eX.
Nn OF Tour lOS OF land situated IN the
block IN the town OF Baird, On final
Nng the Injunction was made perpetual,
le was restrained ON the ground that
4dant IN error was not n party TO the
4 tent up0u which the execution issued
nal " tile sale cloud would be east
lls ulle and, as the four lots might
lhlo me hands OF as many different
"aseis, lhefe was an apprehension OF
luplclty OF suits No facts were nj
4 lenuhg 10 show that the contemplated
enuef execution would affect the TILE
PENDANT Ia error. Under the wen set
Wy III tlls state IL must Ice held that
3eu,oh upon which the Judgment en-
Y the sale was rendered VIII not sun.
suea a Judgment Mann vs.. Wallace
20, 20 Texas, 6il add cases
vpsu, IN the case OF purintOu vs..
\ 70 Icxns, 400, where seven tracts
flg lad been levied upon as the prop.
. W lhe defendant In the execution. an
sVoh OF the sale at the instance nf
W. party 10 the Judgment was refused
IN, NJ peutun did not state facts
[ns 'uut q sale would cast q cloud upon
INV OF the owner. IN reference 10 the
multiplicity OF suits apprehended I'm
NaAe, me court, In substance, stated.
- 70 cloud would be cast tlDou tho
~ ano SAFE the owner had NO occa.
w s1e tue purchasers, aud there was
\, N tVr Apmehending that the pur-
I'M N9ulu Institute suits without even
III uue IA the case relied on by
k,' y, " sustain the Judgment OF Anderson
n w Kennedy, IS Tcxns. G2i which
4" sslt to ehjoin tax sale OF thirteen
si ianu TO prevenr Il multiplicity OF
. apne was LOT announced as one az
|,nnu1D uipn which the Injunction was
IN pW 10 prevent q MULTIPLICITY of
NIX tVuiuNe cloud from title. Where
Ipaslnn ~ Fueyped 10y the sale there a.
Nbotsrdiu lSSsal contemplation, FOR any
ln,i-Dieltr' The petition OF appellee he
s9INsly wanting Ia this respect fnnde.
rsr o, IS presented. which necessi.
- 'faul OF the Judgment
Iedina' WIN be remanded for further
'"ss' should appellant desire Ia
STEPHENS.
Associate justice.
( CO. y. L. Manson, appellant. VS.. Ed
IN tl1 1 receivers, aPpellees. Appeal
1h,SSl court ~ Fannln county.
4 is a. NoNCLUSlONS.
n an agreed case under article 14ta
4 nns,'u statutes, brought here FOR the
\ sFeilose OF obtaining revision ~ thc
I nnaIse The statement M fs,ts M
eviiepcuo es not present any conflict iu
,ono,i,dl ne ease Is this: Appellapt was
IA enN engineer la the enploe ~ M.
zen isgS'l M running a freight tr"in
ndi,, iee',Foli, Tex. ANA Nlnsioeoe n,
4 III Tory, Ills engine was deroiled
y ~ 1854 at night in the indian frsr'
ln,sl q, Nuhhg IN contact with "A cn,y
down railroad bridge. win nor
hours tween The ties. Less tbnn
bridge vtiYre that time. the track over
lusion - Neuf or distractions. Our
Dat the evt ,ue nndsputed facts Is;
lieps Wern 1e,ttce lnlied To show thar
large OF ths5, pf negligence IN the
q ann nlployes nnd i9l. ihot ' ~ az une
e,if slihAt received yvas H. ~ ny
pmblated" hleh he must be held to haye
Ie,omin. ~ within the assumed ,isl.s
lher No. uh engineer Tor onneiiece
could M We hre OF opinion f6nt the
Tor an properly have fntttd y ~.
! WIS aFet,ant anil that theref,re A.
0ld M ior N the charge. ~ etSiSnad
I. Ward luife q reversal of ~ lnds
- honher a Eddy, 50 Texas
\, '''sn'n' WIN be in an things. ar.
ed assoes,. Associate Justice.
alsung. "a" Justice, disqualified ana