Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-16

4 fla1 L.
wv question Of law raiscl in this
sssr was decided 10y this court against
PpelAnts contention IN Flanagan vs.
trustworthy, - $. W. il. me evidence
iiupIot'S The verdict Of the Jury rnr
}uusihent IS affirmed. opinion hy Key
4 - - Nhiu Justice Fisher not sitting.
Nj jenkins li. ct al VS., srItzlcr ct al, from,
I'VE find no error In The record ana
n,un the jldgncnt OF the court below.
'p'ni'h by Fisher. G. ].
Travis. "'u wig vs. N'VoAer if'm
Suit on mechanics lien contract. The
hain question is as to the suiiciency Of
~ rergu Of che mechanics lien contract
nrellioMlhg Ros.ey vs. Pcase. decided hy
h IKE curt ~ its present torn, Il is held
liAt the statute does not reqnire that
such contracts shall be recorird Ia a
weA Kept exclusively for thai purpose
w, mat recording In book used for
| .VyVpuhg deeds and other Instruments
rWmnuns to land was snihcicut 1t Is
. ~ that the materials furnished were
e ~ ~ used IN constructing ION the prop.
sstly 81 said defendants" This was suf
, ,bnt allegation of ownership. The
}nuSment is affirmed Opinion by Col.
''ru' a. j., Key, \, j., not sitting
Hyen Allen \ Go. vs. oDmiel ct AL,
from Tom Green.
S1,l on iiemized account secured by
leehahic's lien. After the evidence was
~. Appellee rhnsOn objected that lc.
ishuants were not sued as partners. and
thal the evidence GA mol authorize judg.
l9.nt against him In the absence OF such
allegation The court refused plaintiffs
leave 10 Me tfial amendment and gave
Judgment for Ihuison The petition al.
la al a
lhaisnn. and the evidence showed them
noih liAhle for the payment Of The debt.
| Inc Judgment Is reversed and rendered
against both O'Danicl aud Thaison for
amount sued for. with interest. Opinion
by Special Judge H. j. Story, FISHER,
&. j., not sitting.
Blackmore ct al, VS.. Jones, from Tom
Suit to recover 5000 and itcrest. There
| was an agreement between appellants
and appellee that the latter should assign
q lease contract which he had with one
FAIRIES after the land leased had been
| surveyed aud the amount owing 10y said
Fnircs Ascertuincd, and Tint tlen this
amount should bc Endorsed on the agree
mrnt To nay the $1,000, aud that there
after appellant should lool, to FAIRIES for
the amount found due. u seems TO us
| that the settlement hctwccn Jones aud
rnlt"s nnu lne ase1tt .',,. y, wv
the placing II ms a credit an u,c contract
supi an This bcinp 50 IL was neccssar,
! tbnt iones pVrre a srttlemcnt witb
! Fairies and present plaintiff evidence Of
| said settlement 50 as To show liqui-
dated dcmnnl ON FARES u was error
to allow credit Of S1iO5O this being the
| "''uu't umv '". t,l rJ,r,J Ca. an
| noiinnts f,r st,no and lntnrrsi Opipieu
! TT ~ snry sunrini iudpr. Fisbrr 4
! No, si,,in,
| Nv.s,.r,, Ir,tnr r,ir,,ronb conin,nv "a
=, " 'St5' Nu'I'' ,,' -'"''
i-,"g' ''I'', - ~ i.,. g.. ,,,,,,,,,t.
| SUI lur uulHS.yS IL t'"''' ~ ''''''''
y "''in', W. ~ e,,s ~ 1897
.,r.. ~ y XII ,o5 N,,ninrbjr. Try
| ,Ntiss Cnrrie sirk SHE wants you
| , h'Hs 'nlllN 9'N' '
Gone lo,iuFrVN' u-,t rt,p Artst,pn
1SlHuv1J ~, ieiiyr.,d mini IA,
,si ne l'l'itnu w. ..Niiss ror,ia" ibr
| -',l, "'s' ." ILL., A,u,iin,tt sinin,-
| s,'t.' vs. Al, I,,tv,,,,, uNIiss Tnr.
VIZ. ,t' i i'.,,'iionf ,,'as nat tnnwu 10
I'm, nr their agents Though the re.
tngh uE w" shn,yp NJ think tbp
iaiiuhshp Is nor supMn ~ 49,, .', ,,,,,,,r,
great lhlpl'"',v ,,'lt,,' ,,,s esnerirJ "a
| on w. lhvv Aul - H.. ~ "NIiss
Ael up9n 'hv 1,li,'r,nh Comnany ~
NAd1nrms IN Trns 531D Appellants
contend that men, ur,vo ii0'n "H Men aus aus
alleged HHla Ia the Adams ease, supra, II !.
hell NM lnt Ju' ~ " mn, irnnvlrdrr Of
6 lTS@ lh'i nS Sl%,' aod Without cyjcncc
| Several churges rclueSleu ny lnu
RS sni 70 asi iho D attention. 81 Gc court
10 the points upon which mstruellohs
should have been given; ne n, sCp'S ,po ~,
the , 9ciGn Sodsrl 'nS 70 transmit de @cs.
sage provided tina, the western unlon
Telegraph .; aa, S2% %RitGSSn abHy to forward
| lie message over the hnr oil ANY pln.l
company when g nGlG lissS for L rp9 Gi DE-
| iiyer the message with reanohahie ms
patch to the ETi ino. I ,. n ros9@s oe,
Dallas on Who's ,,'', l''i r,ir ~" XXI company
w vas The agent Of appellant then appell9nl
would be liable for Their nesl n; ne cad, u
a"d nnpellant exercised proper care ~