Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-29
HOODS PLLe cure all Liver ms, Bilious.
moss. Jaundlee. Indigestion, Sick Headache.

Lumber company, and the Jefferson Lum-
Der company, both corporations and from
.he ioll,9W,n,g nrlnst Whltlaker Ros3o-
taker a Galloway ana W. l.. 4 H. Whit
tAker, He alleged that W. H. Whitaker
ww Interested ln, and general agent aud
manager OF all of the concerns; that all of
his dealings With sud concerns, including
appellant, had been through said Mhitta-
ger ana that IN trgnsacting the business,
The orders for lumber had been placed
with the different concerns BY Whitaker
nt hle discretion, and that ml payments
Tor the lumber 40 purchased had been mnde
In the evidence
The seventh assignment OF errof,c omplains
OF TINT part or ,le hfth paragraph OF the
courts charge wherein the jury were in
atructed that n payment 10 w. L. Whttn-
ker or 10 a firm OF which he was NOM
Der would bc q payment 20 appellant In
80 far ns this charge. under circumstances
therein stated, Instructed the Jury that a
payment TO Wmtlaker would DC payment
To appellant, Il 10 believed 60 be correct
hut Ia charging the jury that payment
made 20 a firm OF which Whitaker WAS a
member would be IA payment 20 appellant,
ing, The fnct, gs set forth Ia that para
graph Of the charge, that Whitaker was
lhr general agent OF the several arms and
corporations Ia selling lumber aud collect.
Ing the money would not OF itself authorize
a payment of mouies due appellant TO Il
iirm OF which Whitaker was member.
ID. II may bc that the statement OF facts
does not fnlly present the ease ms tried be-
low, aud that as there presented the charge
was not misleading, but we must pass
upon the record as we nnd A. n there
was evidence showing that Whitaker had
authority, real or apparent. TO direct and
did direct the payment OF money due APP
pellqnt TO others, II has escaped our at
II Is not believed that the other assign.
mentd OF error would require a reversal OF
thc Judgment and, MS they relate 10 matters
which may not arise upon another trial
they viii not be further considered
Tho judgment viii be reversed and the
cause remanded for q new trial.
STEPHENS,
Associate Justice.
No. 1875 Julia II, Halsell ct al. appel
lnnts, vs. Chna, A. AlcMurphy az al Az.
pellees Appeal from the district court Of
''' CONCLUSIONS.
Jas. l.. Tompkins and Gilbert L. McNlur.
ply doing business under the firm name
on Tompklna n McAurphy acquired dele
10 several sections OF land situated IA
CLAY county Some of these sections were
sold undor execution as the property OF
J, J.. Iompllius ana G. l.. McMuiphy by
virtue OF q Judgment rendered against
them ana others. Appenants were the pur
chasera ~ the execution sale and have up.
neaied from the judgment rendered against
them FOR an undivided Interest M said
lands ia favor q the heirs OF the wife OF
Gilbert l.. McMurphy, uppellecs herein
Upon the validity OF the execution sale
and the Judgment under which N was
made the Title OF appellants depends. The
district Judge held that The sole did not
pass tho tihe OF Gilbert l.. McAiurphy be-
cause the Judgment "a entered In the
minutes purpofted 10 be against Gabriel H.
McAmphy, holding that there was no nm.
blguity on rs fpce and that therefore the
insertion OF this name 10y the clerk Ia the
Judgment entry was conelwnYe. That suit
was brought o. distinctly appears from
the petition and other parts Of the record,
against Gilbert j. McMurpny ana the
judgment was evidently entered against
him, though, by clerical nsprisiOn the
name Gabriel was substituted Cor Gilbert
Ia entering the Judgment IN, the mlnutea
rms entry, however does show that the
Judgment was rendered against the party
sued against the McMuIphy who was de-
PENDANT IN the action, though erroneous
~ named therein Gabriel Instead OF Gu-
bert The execution ran against the prop
ply, A fuller statement of the issues OF
fact may be found IN the findings OF tho
court below, which we adopt We have
arrived az the conclusion that these nnd
ings viii not support the judgment render
81 against appellants, We are OF opinion
that the sentence 81 the law hns been pro.
nOunoed against defendant Ia suit whose
nunlo IS Incorrectly stated "a such entry
should be read IA the light Of the enil9s
record and especially of the pieodings.
Dunlap vs.. sutherland. GS Texas as and
clerk w entering the Acme Is regarded ~
a matter % slch small consequence thnt
the law haze provided Tor ilH correction Ia
vacation. keVMal statutes Art 1850 an.
though the aiDc, Gilbert ]. McAwphy,
Is nowhere correctly stated IA The inlnni6
Of the Judgment silll Il 10 clearly appeals
| froul all other parts OF the record that
the tldAment WaS really rendered against