Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-17
COURT DECISIONS.
Synopsis Of Opinions by the Civil Court
ni Appeals at Austin Wednos
dnt

NllfNin lOl iht tltiU NlhlllNN tAt AbAHM-
ing opinions were reud Yesterday:
John Dillingham; ct a. vs.. j. r. lam
don ct al, from Burnett. This Is suit
Of trcspaSs to try title As the facts
show that there IL no conflict between
the two parties since the land claimed by
plaintiffs IN error Is situated in Travis
county and that claimed by defendant in
error is situated IN Burnett county. il
is not necessary to consider the assign
mpnts of error presented In the brief OF
appellant, and the Judgment Of the lower
court IS affirmed. Opinion by Fisher,
Chief Justice
Melissa H. Dodge ct al. VS.. j.. Phe-
lap ct AL, from l.ampusus. Ills Is
suii of trvspass to try title TO 1920 acres
of land patented boy the state to the heirs
of Green Il. Iaiuisou, The suit was
brought by John Iumison against j..
phelnn and appellants The representa-.
tive Of W. T.. DODGE interviewed, claim.
ug utle upon a sale made Toy Thomas
c. MGstersuu as administrator of the
estute of Green y. JamisOn This sale
was held void I'm the lower court and
Wis finding is assigned as error. Jumi-
son. the man 10 whom the certificate was
issued was killed in 1896. and between
1857 and 1910 three successive admins
traitors of his estate were appointed The
last Of these reported in 1871 tint there
was no property 10 be found and was
bility. In 1886 Thomas c. Mastcrson
was appointed administrator de bonis
non of the estate Under the laws in
force from 1896 10 1916 the term of an
administration was limited to one yeur
only. but could be- extended by the court
from year 10 year. Davis. the lust adj
miuistmtor was appointed in 1870. and
hls administration would have terminal.
ed in 1871 unless continued 10y order of
the court Ihis was not done. bus ON
the contrary his bond was cancelled and
there hriug 30 administration pending
700 1906 the appointment of Mastprson
Js administrator de- bnnis non wns null
and void The administration had ter.
minated Is TcX. 329)-a tenant holding
uudrr q superior title may rppudiatp his
tcn1ncy aud dispute Che tide of his land
lord. Tie judgment is affirmed Opiu-
ion hy Key. A8soriatc Justice.
j.. StrUus ~ co. vs. II. Gross. from
I0mpnsus. Suit ON written aud verbll
contract Appellee % work for appel
laut as their travelling salesman. for
which he WAS To receive 5000 per mouth
provided lac effected sales amounting To
f"h,OOD during the year. The employ
lurnt began on March ]. The day this
AGREEMENT was signed the PARTIES agreed
verbally that the appellant should rec
,pfyc $50 per month ns a guarantee that
Huprl'"r's HiIcs would aggregate the
amount set forth iu the written con-
tr'ct On June I the appellee was noti.
hci that his services were dispensed
WI. The admission uf evidence 10.
earning ih" verbal contract is assigned
NN error "u the ground Tint 10 varies
WHiiru instrument. 10 WAS admissible
because u was a concession by plninuf
10 secure the performance of the CON
tract AN ugt 'vWcIt collateral 10 the
main agreement Muir after it and NOT
inconsistent herewith, aud was not oh.
uoAl"Ns 10 the rule that prior aud con.
trmpuranupus parul agreements shouIl
not De admitted 10 vary the terms nf
a written contract. tT Tex. ABB Tho
hhdlng of hr court that the Gourmet
error
Taking the entire contract together,tbe
employment of appellee az SALARY of
$-'W per month conditioned upon The
aluol M of The sales Tor the year il would
seem ihat 10 was the intention of The
Htlles llut hp wis 10 continue ian Inc
service for one year This Wow ia
strengthened 10y the subsequent agree.
mtlt that defendants were To reserve
R'p per month until the end Of the
your ~ Il guarantee Ii cannot bp held
mat thlS iiudiug WIS erroneous I'M.
evidence SUPPORTS the verdict. uud thor.
U.s. no reversible error. judgment IA
@uirinrd. Opinion by Collurd Associate
Justice. '''
j, g. League vs. Buoua Vista Stock
company from Tom Green. Suit ni
rcspass 10 try title Appellant claims
under deed recorded I'm February. 1850.
ANA executed the preceding yenr. while
apptIlrrs rely upon an uurecurdvd decd
executed iu January, 1863. and possess.
SION since lSN2, The land I'm CONTROVERSY
rs included IN a large pasture iuclosed
hy uppcllcCs in 1856
nder facts showing possession simi.
lar 70 tbs ease it has heeu hold ih1t tL,
possession 10y The owner OF a large mas
lure OF smaller tract included within
us limits, using il Tor auzmg purposes
ln common with his lands within his u.
closure is such possession us will pro-
t'gJ nun under the statutes of limitation
Iu' lN''7 Slow such possession 10y APP
prlce as suthrsitmikg tEduJs. svdi-u'H
prllee as sufficient 10 put q subsequent
purchaser upon inquiry as To its title.
ana the Judgment is affirmed Opiuiou
10y Fisher, chief justice.
Houston and Texas Central Railway
Cnwpany vs., heirs Of James Bowie from
Travis, Suit To recover 1920 pcrcs of
land M one survey and III acres I'm
another, both surveys being IN Hnrdemnu
county There was no testimony offered
10 show TIE conflict except a man on
sketch from the land office and the Gucs-
ton TO be- decided is, was the map com
pcieut testimony to prove the cOnnicty
4 H' NulNtAN loi tue Bowie certificates
were made before the patent issued 10
the railway company, and secured rights
IN Tie luuds superior 10 those of de-
PENDANT The certified copy of the sketch
in use in the general land office was adj
miS>ihlc In evidence. II was not plot
hy a Nrlught man from field notes aud
record, iu the Office as iu the ease Of
of railway company ~. THOMPSON UiJ
TEX" lNil hut "a copy of an Wrchivp.
map IN use IN the office, (G2 Tex. 1891
The evidence slowed a conflict i'm tLe
lands and was not coutud,ctcd hy np.
prllnuts Plaintiffs showed superior titlc
IN themselves 10 an the land sued for.
defendants claiming only q part of n
hy prtcut cloudiug the title. and II WINS
proner 20 render Judgment for plaintiffs
for MI the land There was no error npd
lhc Judgment Ia affirmed Opinion low
Nulaul, assistant Justice
Kaufman county VS. McGaughy. from
Travis Suit for Injunction. i'm 1850
the boundary line Of Kaufman ana Hunt
counties was established under direction
NJ II. &. Walsh, commissioner of tho
General land office. IL rpmnned as then
hNeu without controversy until 1871
Whcn Hunt county re-opeued the oues.
n"n oOd over the protest Of Kaufman
county called upon W. - McGaurby
10 rc.estphlish the boundary line. No
Hously. uy an official letter. directed
'hc tuning of a boundary line In sncb
% mauner ms would cut or part of Kant
nun county, thereby diminishing MS Inv.
ahle values, its number Of citizens ana
M consequence working q hardsGip unon
,ne P'3p,r OF ne county Injunction was