Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-04-08
IN rHB srpRnME couRr.
DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE
COURT SITTING AT AUSTIN
ON THURSDAY.

ANNlint lex AIllM fs--i NFtNltlsI - a hiH
supreme court rendered the following de-
cisiOns yesterday;
Gallagher VS. McHueh ct al. from
Travis The application for writ Of
error in this case Is sought from a iudg
ment In the court 81 civil appeals re-
versiug and demanding the cause. This
court can not at this time look into the
merits of this Judgment. The statute
pr,scribes that writs of error may issue
when the judgment of the court Of
civil appeals reversing q Judgment prac-
tically settles the case" This case does
not come within this rule Another trial
below VIII have 10 be had and hence no
rights are determined The application
is dismissed. Opinion by Stayton, 9. j.
Tackaberry vs.. City National bank OF
Fort Worth, from Tarrant Plaintiff IN
error made n general assignment as an
insolvent debtor and defendant In error
claims the land in controversy through
purchase from the assignee. The as
signor was the head Of family and had
been for some time engaged I'm business
conducted on the lots in controversy.
She also owned a home not contiguous
TO this place. The deed Of assignment
conveyed all property except such az
the law exempted and TO II was attached
an inventory but this inventory did not
contain the lot In controversy. The court
81
were TO be CONSIDERED together aud evil
denced an intention to convey an prop
crty not exempt from forced sale and
also TO convey the property IN dispute.
even though II was exempt propprtv
aud would not have passed but for
effect given to the schedule. The decd
does not refer to the schedule and this
was evidently made simply 20 comply
with the statute. The purpose of the
schedule is manifest and ought not 10
De gwen ELECT as conveyance III cnu
not extend the operation OF the decd
beyond the intent manifested. but Il may
DC looked 10 as guide. lt does not fol-
low from what has been snid that I'M
curry may not be made as 10 what prom
erty was or was not exempt at the time
inc deed was delivered. The rules re-
lating TO Abandonment of homestead
apply TO the place Of business as well
a place OF business will be considered
abandoned II the head Of the family
ceases business upon IL unless he has d
present intention 10 resume that or some
9ther business on The property IL has
been held that the making of an as
Segment does not of itself defeat the
nssignors right 20 have the eyefuptiou
or his place Of business continue lint
II has not been held thnt the exemption
Wonld continue If nc the time the as.
slgnment was made there was no I'M
teution to continue business on the prem.
lses of a character that would Give oy.
enipuon. tGi Texas, 1851 propertv
may have beer exempt by reason OF
lht manner of its use when the nssiuuor
ueternliued 20 make an aSspnmeuf On.
even when the decd was writton. lint
II before rs delivery the use of the
property Tor the purpose that gave tho
exemption, ceased then tie pronert,,
would not be longer exempt if there
was no intention again TO use Il m car
Iylhg ON business Of the head of tho
family. WV
The deed, lists of debts and schedule
We're made before the deed was signed
ana some period Of time presumably I'm.
VI'eheu between the doing Of these
ihlngs and the delivery of the deed III
II was shown that the business contin-
livery of the deed the result wopI1 bo
the same upon principle For nil persons
| making such conveynnces do a. viii H.
| knowledge that the act I'm its consunn,n.
| uon destroys the business. Tins Ii fnrn.
lsheu one OF the facts on which nbnndon.
| ment must depend. The trial court undor
the evidence might have found tbot tbe
| business ceased before the delivery IA
| the ueeu aud was bound TO find tbnt n
! celseu slmultnneOus Herewith. and In
view OF the judgment IL ought now "a
be presumed that such was tbe finding
lhe evidence does not show thot W.
asslgnor had any intention to Resume
the business she had formerly cnrried
on or 70 conduct other business an tbe
lots such as would have continued tbe
exemption. The judgment will be nC
hrmed. Opinion by Stayton. chief ms.
tice. JUS