Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-07
CIVIL APPEAL DECISIONS
RENDERED BY THE COURT FOR
THE THIRD DISTRICT, SIT
TING Mr AUSTIN

Austin. Tex, April O-(Special.l .
In the court of civil appeals for the
| Third district the following opinions We're
/ handed down yesterday.
Morrison w. Ashburn, from Mclen-
/ nan. suit for breach Of contract Inc
answer alleges that Ashburn failed 70
| comply with his contract and therefore
| the appellant Is entitled to the SjUQ as
/ the forfeit agreed upon. IL this claim
/ had been properly presented IN tne
answer there may have been some merit
IN IL. IL is also complained thht tue
Judgment Of the court below ~ erroneous
In holding defendants, Brown aun
Abernethy. liable. This objection Is wei,
founded: az their liability Is presented
by he plcadings the Judgment thereon
IS erroneous For this and other errors
the Judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded. Opinion by Fisher, q. J.
Atchfson. Topeka and Santa Re rail-
way company vs. Reiner from ~ fHlV'
suit for $1,000 for death OF child. lhe
record comes Up without any assignment
Of error. II the question presenter ~
oupellnnt's brief were based upon proper
assignments of error the Judgment ~
low would not be disturbed, as 1t rs iuly
warranted by the facts. The Judgement
Is affirmed. Opinion by Fisher T. D.
Stuart and McNair VS. smith, CT ai,
frim I.l Paso. The sole question IN TINS
case Is presented i'm the assignment ~
error setting forth that the Judgment
not supported by the iacts, DtSAu9c ~
Is shown that when the transfer N"s
made those making It were iusolVen'
and known 20 be- NO and that the trans
action WAS fraudulent IN
The assignment is well taken. Tho
facts clearly show that Bell Intended 10
place all his property, worth az lcH''
$3.50. beyond the reach Of his creditors
except rs TO SiSj Of his indebtedness
aud that appellants aided him in t.l5,
The appellants had "a right to take $50
worth Of property, but no more, ana Wheh
they go so far az To assist the debtor M
placing Slij worth Of his nssets where
Ii the sale Doe valid. other creditors can
not reach it. the law condemns the en-
tire transaction. The Judgment rs re
ycrsod and the cause remuudcd. Opu-
Ion by Key, j.
Riggs ct al W.. j. T.. Pope ct al, from
BELL. The court below erred In sustain
Ing q demurrer Co plainuns petition
The uvCrmcuts are sufficient, IT true, 10
cntite plaintiffs 90 Judgment I'M
passing upon the dcmurrcrs 90 "a petit
ton. the uycrmcuts in the defendants
answer may also bee considered. (GS Tex.
536J u is truo that tho deeds were cy-
crrtrd moro than thirty years before tho
institution of this suit, but ull persons
under these leeds including
Pope. the ancestor of defendants. under
whom they cluim. admitted thnt said
deeds only embraced ten acres of land
and did not include the land iu contro.
ycrsy Under these circumstances we
DO not think the plaintiffs right tp
the suit Is barred as stale de.
mAud Tho Judgment Is reversed and
The cause rcmaudci Opinion 10y
Key, j.
q. IL. and S. A. railway campauy vs..
Welsh Tor reheariug This court has a
right to allow "a rcmittitur 80 Tex.
200 The other Reasons assigned hy
appellants for rohcoring cannot be held
iuthGrnt for a rehonrug. Il b. there