Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-11-21
IN THE SUPREME COURT


blsbpp Of Galypsbn "ior ihc beneBt Of
The Roman Catholic church" on She
ist dey OF April, 1884, mis- same oope
ration oscedlrt to mo farmata loan nnd
trust company n mortgage upoh lia
property 10 SEIZURE crrinln honded iRc
dohlclhoig This morigpRe Included nll
town lois ownpd or that may DO hurp
after owned by The lne OF railway
ilalnlln In error purchased iho rropgrly
" controversy aftor Hla mortgage was
ioferlo4gd un January ~ is'n On
May 30 iANl. Dubois conycytd iiO lots
70 plelnlla hy nu attorney Va faU IN
1850 the lois wcfe leslod on aud sold "a
the property OF nm Houston aud rnNus
Vrmul rniwpf company and bought To-
by Tho dofpndnub The e,idcpee shows
iAdt although % building for church rur
nuara was placed UnON tliN lniH " was
never accepted lF DE NaihpNg rluNh
ava ihal pfnsprW Of uenf tho lots Tor
NE iurpnHep w o clutch WhH VnulNy
NhpulaNud The conveyance lrum The
railway ppWimny 40 iNrNnp Dubois pNr
ports 10 W. No consideration ul w, ana
nA3a ipp hlu in have and iu hold i"f tho
use utuWaMllt vt,A We ihinh thN
fihnluu unl too simple title, Noru
nrr 10 conditions rhpr,esod VA view ~
thn nominal confederation " naf ~
clnimcl llhl ihd Conveyance should be-
treated hes VOLUNTARY, mud n y tue llHl
q condition viii hr more rrnillN Implied
IN q decd Ni that tlnd Nut the rNlr
10 We'll iulNnnFrd That iho mrro dorlN
Wllpn NJ The uruH TO Wlirh the rfNUri
rgnniaeJ are Ia hn Appllcd dn NOT Odl
hAriH lmpprl u gnpdIlio1 The use Ut
ihe word 'RsagnF in thr deed inilrniva
mai y wac contemplated that ihN irlw
lge might sell tAr lne aud Thu, dregt
them ip a purllHv oihrr ihnu lhW rrl
mprilt intended Tue railway COMPANY
hive conveyed a. eNtiro iutcr'Hl thu
mortgage dl0 moi Ia ANY way Affect thn
title 10 ihp lnU, and VI plaintiff ia Crfnt
have any tllln u muat Ice tie ono he
gol by decd lfoH uHhoIe through Ms
attorney In lllnbp w., Alahitti w les.
co. lNn 10 tlmilnf decd executed hY iuHli
ur DuhulH ttuo up tor consideration. On
thu waea eu NOT pnrplrl, yrt ia the rhac
Wtcd doc court aAyH iIN bishUlm in lhr
NuWnn catholic church ibvarss en-
lhrgl puWpp over hulh temporal ana
QduuHl bitnM at thc vhuph Nhni-
rtcr thrsp powers may he I uhruld not
le liHMN assumed that ihe hlahnp in
Cnmplug thD loH tn tlu plnWiln ih
sumption g. ihni ht acted a. duty ~
WlUl We therefore 0unrmde thW The
hlahnp ,vta authorized IA make tho drti
% thN ulWutln, The liNlUtit tnNh the
lognl utlh mud " It -hUuld hr held that lhc
did mot ihtu tto rmithhle tiiln hn would
hH entitled W. recover aNhlnai drlpndhnt
uhlrn he connected hmsnlt Win The
with the court " rl,ii appeals, but We
cuWul hgrrp IA the cOnrusinh ihhi Tho
decd fNim nuhOla constituted plaintiff IN
Urfuf irUHirr far tho railway company
II 10 true ID fppitra that the conveyance
Ia mnlu tp restore tnu rrf'rrY 10 W.
rrhtfw oWnoD mt while ihlH might
elmW lle motive Y dura not dhAltuy
tho dpD1 After the railway company
mhdp tho decd 10 nuhula Il hnd ina idle
NJ th property mar any clHltU nFAlnst ~
There WAs np Ohiifhiinn UnNh tlu hlahOu
~ recunkvy II AZ tlr emo ho mtdr THIS
transfer thr nninpany WA "a "uuld out
corporation and plaintiff No error hui
hcenp,r llu purhaact u rrHli Win
nnhals 10 decide Whlrl won thr rshllWl
owner ihe toli pui corporation or thn
WTohNHrr We uHunpt ave- upuh what
piurIulr II cnn hN hoN that ulcOtl took
Tho lvghl illu in iWhi for lhr company,
l1rri r nu rrmllluH ur constructive
trust Ihuru nru no WutiH n tho dpvd
creating dtuyt ltnuL " " quite clear
futu iht Wuuh nsrl that W wpA not lnl
take tho beneficial inirtoal 81 thu prop
eity,
iNur tba raftpN glton We Urr Of the
opinion utat ih0 luiEurul ul the cDuri
Of Uti appeals abuulh bp fuNWacl Hpl
tho iudpupnt ur thu diHiuul court 40
hrmol and u % ~ orlrlcii Opinion by
Uemos, A. !,
w. n llcmdon NJ. Z, A. Cmuphell,
from Smith me questions curtbri aftl
First Where lhr petition ot plau.
Nu Va thr dlsiHut cpd states good
euuep uf action utpH ~ fave, Init which
eohtamh nlsO naiter whIeh N imlpr
taht aud personal and frllpfia upan Tho
iGdHr 0i said cNurt 10 ihe pktnnt tlMi Il
amounts 70 u vnulpHniii has such opurl,
Ia tern ilWn thf power 10 sirike such
petition from the files nf 100 court on
ran Y ONLY eNp0hHa me cWee'ipWhlo
mhiturf'
Aco0nd M -uuh district gaurl has thp
ru,Ncr 10 strike such WIiiIan irnm thn
nles, can Wch action hn tukrp tf pHrtr
30 soon a. uurh objectionable matter 10
brought 20 Nc Ulenllnn hnd without mo-
tlCo ~ plnhuuf
leutiunAhn mnticr ln the notice ~ Tie
rouii aud M tie mQiinh asked TINT
plnlniin ana Mo ATTORNEY hr cited in
show why lluy thinh hni ha rpnnli
ted f1r contempt 30 uutlrc was rlvcu,
hut ihe court s,rHN hr petition ftpm
ihr nira au1 iAen Wtel plAlHllU and Ne
attorney ln rhnW cAnHu WhY lheY should
NOT be held fen uUstrbpt bteanse ui the
le plaintiff moved 10 ,Ataie ihe op
dor entered aud rrlnaWip ihe case which
mniiph WHa Ofefrnhd
Tho action nf iiie ennri 0rrrHith NJ a
dlsnifaal Oi plNlNHha artIAN Nnb this
tho tHufl had hh lawful power 10 10.
rrm though lho language was NAnirr
Oag sind lpnishahlc 90 anbiemp Tho
NrlklaF 0i ihr petition ffhn ihr nlol
MAO nor iHlnhdpl eq punishment ipf
ttt flpinuipf Tor ihe order loaYsl lhif
question naHh Many Casfa Hfh sh1Nn
whore Irrelevant palirw Hrn atrieAfn
lfem ihe ille un fuollpp hh not 0nh
ehalo naiier settling NN ehnsh " NJ
fian M dtfensp hiss been sa treated 10
eahaa Oi HdandhiaHa ianfuaft
Tho rfainr Tfqfeeilnd WnNlt have
t,-fA a. etrnnfe iha Questionable mHi
ief nsgiAa Nah3 fanar, NAli ln
iiiifd States rdnfiH ~ flNitf rdllif
ftt. gdi lKuentsns 90 nedHlifds
l,netiaFa must be- I'D Wutinf sod notice
elyen ~ ihe nuNaHlnN paFlf w ihe lnr
A,h sl,utta iitaMela th lb, lihN ami
ina ina rfEYaiis 70 ne rnfiN ~
saaity "a fhe lnifri Nl4iHa ihgaiIf fltp
Hf f4lme upsfilas az nNflQa ~ furh
&c. auia Az Npfihe m nniiHH1 90 "a
sa1iinas sralm4 40 hAfr fianlAiNN WHl