Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-03
AUSTIN COURT or APPEALS.

AUSTIN COURT OF ABfEAlS.
Austin, Tex, March 2-(Specinl)-
The court Of civil appeals Of the Third
district rendered the following decis-
ions yesterday:
BeXar. This is q motion to reinstate
cnse As the record In the case failed
10 show a disposition of IL IN the court
below as 10 some Of the parties on forln-
or day of this term, this court of its own
motion dismissed the appeal. Appel
Ice T0tum has fled n motion to rein
state the appeal, and shows that since IL
was dismissed. the court below, at his
instance. has entered Of record nunc pro
tune an order made at the time of trial
dismissing the suit against the parties
which the record failed TO show were
disposed Of aud he asks for a writ Of
certiornri 10 perfect the record In
shat regard Had this mater beef
made by appellant IL might have been
entitled 10 favorable consideration but
such Is not the case. Appellee has never
complained of the Judgment of the dis
trict court Appellant hadsa right him.
self to dismiss his appeal and can II
course abide the action Of this court In
80 doing Appellee has no right to have
the appeal rcinstutcd, and the motion
Is Overrulcd. Opinion by key, j.
/. X G.. y. Railway company vs.. An
dcrson, from la Sale suit for damages
resulting to a shipment of horses Sent by
appellee from san Antonio 10 Hannibal
Mo, over the appellants road and that of
the NJ, *. n n. and Missouri Pacific
all Of which were being operated at The
time under the name of the Missouri Pu-
c.hc railway system Appellants an
swcr denied under oath the existence Of
the partnership charged In the petition
but it did not deny, IN like manner; the
allegation that the Missouri Pacific Rail
way company executed the contract of
shipment as agent for appellant Ap-
pellunt cannot excuse itself from lia-
bility for injuries resulting from delay In
transportation upon the ground Of nm
usual business. IL is claimed that the
contract sued ON exempts appellant from
liability beyond It's own road. As before
stated. the charge of agency Is not prop
erly denied. and as the contract shows
that at thr time Of this shipment the
Missouri Pacific Railway company was
operating both the NJ, Il. & Il. and APP
pellant's line, II cannot be held that the
liability Of appellant was limited TO such
damage ~ occurred on it's own line. 1t
Is urged chat error was committed by the
trial court In not enforcing that part Of
the contract which attempted 90 fix the
measure of DANCES by the value of the
animals az San Antonio Instead Of at the
Idace Of destination This conteution
ls not well grounded, - Tex. los
Judgment is affirmed. Opinion by Key,
j.
jenkins VS.. Patton, from McI.ennan.
The facts show that the tenant had rc-
moved from the rented premises and that
the property levied upon by the distress
warrant had been also removed for
more than thirty days before any pro-
ccedings were instituted by the land.
lord seeking TO fOrvClOsc his lien. Ry
such delay he lost his lien us against
the rights of appellee as u purchaser
of the property. There Is no error Of
sufficient Importance to occasion re-
Veisai OF the case and the judgment IS
affirmed Opinion by Fisher, q. j.
Gassord vs. Lea aud wife. from Travis.
Suit on promissory note signed by Lea
| ana his wife, Ottilit Lea. The note was
/ given for machinery placed upon the
| separate estate Of Mrs Lea and COR
| uacted for by ID. G. Lea. without the
| knowledge or consent OF Mrs. Lea The
| facts DO not show that she contracted
/ the debt nor authorized Il. as the note
! did not Indicate what Il was given for,
| ana she was not Informed by her hus-
band, II Is hown, however. that the OK
/ penseS incurred were not necessary for
| hef separate estate aud that appellant
! Knew MS much The husband Is not an
! ugehl on the vile unless expressly made
SO. There is 70 evidence showing rnti.
hcation or cStoppel and the Judgment Of
the COURT below should be- affirmed.
| OPINION by Collnrd, j. Justice Key did
not sit In this ease.
Mctcalf vs.. Halton, from county court
| Of Bosquc. There Is no error and the
Judgment is affirmed, Opinion by Fisher,
Kecsey VS. Old from Uvalde. Appel-
lants, w. kcesey and r. c. Glen. as
partners under the name of W. Keesey.
Drought this suit on note Appellee,
| ny sworn plea In abatement clained TINT
one u. NJ. heesey was n partner aud
necessary party aud also thnt the note
sued upon had been udjudicuted In
| former suit In Jef Davis county.
The evidence shows that II o. NJ. Kee-
sey was u partner at all that he was a
nominal or dormant one. The general
RUE Is that such partner is a Dprmis-
sInle nut not necessary party plaintiff
lbates Partnership, second volume. see
ton lO22 and lO23) The facts do not
support the plea OF re-adjudicnta. as il
does NOT appear that the note which is
TIE basis of this suit was placed before
tue court In the former suit IN any such
manner Ms would have warranted any
sort OF Judgment thereon III II was
useu az all, IL was as evidence. for II
was not submitted either In the plead
ing or IN the charge The Judgment Is
reversed and the cause remnnded. Opin-
ion by Fisher @. j.
GALVESTON APPEALS COURT
=, Galveston, Tex, March 2.-(Specinl) l.
me corH of civil appeals met today
iml bench present and handed down do
clsiOik In the following cases. W Wv