Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-19
COURT OF APPEALS.
run Text Of Decisions Rendered IN ,ho ro,
Worth District

First National Bank Of Deea,ur anal,
An,.., . isaHe cloud 90 an auprllees
e 1ppe% nom the district court u Cooke |
, CONCLusioNs
n.iis.. snlt was originally brought bv an
XII 40 rescvet from Epp.e Roberteen
sifeots, y. Maxwell certain real estate
Nens ntcrveuei Ga the suit cisimsa,. ~.
htopery ~ controversy lsaac tgon5 wee
,,rs,' .n.VN source 81 title. The contro.
men; WI ,a,hs upon the priority OF the judg.
n ,l anu execution liens undcr v,hle6 M.
bsnAnt and appellccs respeciiyqls derai5n
s.ostai nvh tnt tpiumOn source The record
e gn,sins conclnsions Of fact which we
a ~ WIN the qualification stated below
~ tne Judgment Zen under which appel.
.eys eialn Is prior ia time 10 that oil IN.
tnHi,l ~ validity presents the FIRST out's.
c evn los eeterninatlgn. This Judgment was
nj conrs gy Nhss NJ Stevens IN the FEEDER.
gi,,S,s uIt az Dallas Tex, against Isaac
loud ana others. and the abstract which
was luly hlltd recorded and iniovei 4, fhc
r r,,gfi. Of abstract. " Judgment Of Cooke
sVuntg, lelds as follows: "in tn, circuit
court of the United states fsr tbe Nnrfh
fTn District OF Texas, at Dallas. i. a. /.
houston, clerk OF the clrcuif rourl ~ mo
T Tesseu states Tor The Northern District of
.tNas, az Dallas, do hereby certify thnt
in salq court on the - dny OF NAV. 1sV5.
..nt Behtih recovered Judgment against
t W. iueIssua.nts A. ,. Arlington, Isaac
oioS s1, ana asa q ~ Addington, FOR the sum
a.
Isl YET due with interest at the rate of
~ per cent per anuum from ITS date I'M
cause No. i6i, and styled Chas. m. Stevens
W., a = Addington ct a.. an Of which mp.
gsaIs rom the records of said court"
Ihen follows the Authorization OF tho.
clerk In due form. The sole objection
taken 70, the sufnclency Of This abstract.
upon which the trial court held ii TO be-
Invalid. was, that Il ana NOT show the
amount OF costs recovered IL being made
tp appear by the proof tlmt the costs taxed
pm that case amounted 20 $751; In passing
upon an abstract very similar 10 tits ono
made by the same ttcrk. which recltcd.
atter giving the am1unt Of the Judgment
and the rate Of interest. without he a,nopht
OF the costs that An o. which said JUDI.
inent ANA costs is yc due ana unpaid"
the federal supreme court chief Justice
FULLER delivering the opinion iu a recent
case disposed Of the objection raised. that
y did not show the amount due thereon,
by single sentence rs follows: "lhe
only ground on which this abstract and
index could be held insufficient was that
the names OF the plalutins were not given
In full IN either abstract or index " The
opinion reviews the decisions Of our su.
preme court constituting the Judgment lien
statute and concludes that the names OF
all The members Of q plaintiff firm need
Cooke vs., Avery. u. s. s.. e. decided yIrd
day OF January 1873 adv. shts. No z
y. sos. without determining whether our
courts should follow that decision In this
rect IN holding that the statute ia sub
stantinlly, N not literally, complied with.
80 far ~ stating the amount due upon the
judgment rs concerned. WHEN the abstract
shows the amount for which the Judgment
was rendered. exclusive OF costs and tho
rate OF interest which u bears and states
that the total amount remain due ana
unpaid. IL seems TO us that 70 would az
least create lien FOR that amount. n
not FOR the amount OF the costs. II this
conclusion be correct 81 win lead 10 sn
ailirmance Of the judgment
In the courts second findings of facts.
in passing upon the abstract and Index "
the Judgment subsequently rendered and
recorded against cloud ana others under
which pnellOut claimed the only objection
sustained was, that it was ndeXed under
tile letter II ms follows; Bank First
National OF Decatur In addition 10 this
finding. u appears from the statement "
facts that the record % this abstract did
not contain the authorization OF the clerk.
H. indeed, The abstract Itself had been
certified Without passing upon the merits
OF these objections. we have reached the
conclusion that, H. by reason Of a strlcter
construction than we have adopted, the
record OF the Stevens abstract be held
bad, that OF the Decatur bank must Tor
tine same reason be held invalid also. n
then the Judgment liens be both excluded
from consideration and the rights OF the
parties be determined by the execution
sales under which they claim respectively
the judgment must be affirmed because
the levy aud sale under the Stevens judy
ment antedated the banks levy and sale
These conclusions render the other ISSUE
they win therefore not be considered
The Judgment Will be In all things NJ
hrmed. STEPHENS,
Il. w. Bggerstaff aud 3. w. Mitchell
plaintiffs Ia error VS. j. NJ. Murphy de-
PENDANT ia error, Error from district
court OF Jack county. 49,.
STATEMENT or THE CASE.
This suit was instituted by J. NJ Muir
ply TO recover 75S acres OF land in jack
county patented 10 j. Scrgcni, assignee
OF Ezekiel Robinson. The petition h n
the ordinary form OF tregpass 10 try til,
plaintiff holds under u bond FOR title N
his chain OF title from +. =. Taylor 81
date 10th October 1861 ana recorded ~
Jack county, hut that there was mistake
in The bond IN the use Of the name Ezekle
Roberts when 40 should have been Ezekie
Robinson. The defendants answered
by general demurrer and plea OF not guilty
Judgment was rendered I'm favor OF plaiuun
Tor the land and costs. The court hlct
conclusions OF tact and law neither o.
which were excepted 10. No statement Of
facts accompanies the record.
The first assignment OF error IL as fol
lows. "The petition shows no right ~
plaintiff TO the land In controversy WAY
Ing all objection TO this assignment on M
ground Of It's generality We are OF opln
ION after II careful examination or the
netltiou that Il was sufficient ana tina
ihls assignment Is not wen taken
Numerous other assignments are pre-
sented by plaintiffs In error, but we ar
| of opinion that Ia as much as neither thl
| conclusion OF law nor the judgment Ol
| the court were excepted 10 IN the conrl
| hollow we should not consider them III
| the case OF Continental Insurance Coz vs.
| Muucnn Gi Texas. 4S, Il Il SAID; Con
illusions OF law made out nt the requcH,
| ~ counsel are found IN the record, pul
neither the conclusions OF law nor the JUG
mont were excepted 20 and IN such cases
| fbe sualclency OF the facts found 20 sus
| toiu thn legal conclusions VIII not n'
| consldercd unless the failure 10 have th'
! eyeentions noted be waived II party in
tends 10 have case revised on the con
! clusions OF fact and law found 10y IN,
/ fudge who tried the case he should eAcep
| fhe conclusions aud have MS e1cept1n'
| noted in Tie judgment entry lHehfA
! laws Of 1870 p. ll0l When fnch eActp
| lion is made and noted the adverse party
/ must take notice OF A. and II In ne opn
/ IAN the conclusions of fact or law ar
| moi 10 full an accurate az they Should bl
! Sor his own protection u VIII be MS rEh
| AZ have "A statement OF facts from Whici
| Tho Judgment may be Sustained OF IN any
! otbes respect 10 have complete preaenla
| tinn ~ he case N no exception 10 th
concluslous Of law or Judgment OF th
| Sonrf n noted unless tho failure 10 eNctp
| he waived or not Insisted on tut OH
| inouiry will be whether the pleallnsA luan
| ~ the Judgment ANY other RUE Mvui'
| -set., c9ugpi the reversal OF luuFlhfNi