Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-20
couRr OF APPEALS.
Decisions Rendered al Austin by The Third
District Court

John W. Bolton w. the city Of san A"'''
n1 I'M s,I N 4 5 erit by appellant to c,ion the
,,av,r npd cit, ~ san Antonio FROM heeo-
titiine certain bonds ~ toe cty 20 ~.
amount of s250igO. to- be- lsmfd lnf s,i.N
and Sidewalk Improvements ihe lou,u.
were iesued hy authority ~ q fnlv vi ~ H.,
a.. rsvera ~ nc eifv OF San Antonio ~
virtue uf "a provision uf thr cry tnui W.
that permitted tho issic OF hnhas 20 w, ~
crcnsed hv e vote ~ the qunhhed N"'vl
~, ,,,t,,s ~ ibn ify A demurrer tJ the
fictitious was sustained iu the court neioW,
There is no Necessity Of diecussWh 'ul Tltv
question in the ease. There j. am aliesa'' .,
dime or I'M any Way has sAid city or tne
property tax PAYERS. voters or hmu wy,
madc provision FOR the levy oi laA ~, ~
creating sinking fund Tor me Rayl.sui ~
said bonds when the same shall iall uutt
AS required by the charter 81 TIE olF pi
San Antonio aud the constitution OF tue
state u Texas. . n,,
petition. this Is sufficient to show thal thr
appellant can Ia no event suffer any lnJuig
by reason uf the Issuance aud safe Oi lhe
bonds. and that bp Is not untitled lo ny.
relief askpd which simply seeks tq ftSlFnih
the fty from Issuing and selling tue Du9ls.
The constitution commands that no urpl
shall ever DO created by city uuleaa al wv
same tune provision b. made igf us pug
ment by creating a sinking FUND TO pay al
least per cent thereon nud protldihs
also for the interest payable on the DEBT iof
paying and collecting tax Tor surl pun
pu4e "a dcbt uf the character sought 90 be ON
Joined g. Of the class thnt fails within the
iu 'unlug uf thyse provisions VI the cnieu-
tuition lcity " Terrell ~. Dpssaint. al, Tex
A deht created hy u city other thah cur
rent expenses without mixing provision iuI
its payment as required by those provision.
uf the constitution Quniri Us illegal ana
absolutely void and creates no llab'hll
against The city orr thp tag payers. al
though the evidence ~ the debt may De
negotiable iu fDru and g1vs Into tue hAnd8
nf % purchaser Tor value. no liability results
By REASON of such fact because the pur-
chaser must see that the provisions 81 the
constitution providing FOR she payment OF
tho debt have been complied with. al Tex
us. az. ~ Texas. 1886. W Texas. 5ltI
N tnp city undertakes to issue Illegal
bonds that create no Liability aguist 10,
and makes disposition " them 10 pnrchas-
crg WHO were h law charged Win knOWl-
plgr uf tin nice iu the bonds. We DO not
Hn, how the tax payer can complain. W
mother %" nor the city are liable "a Texas.
ll1I
rhr court below rlEhtfully sustained the
demurrer and Tie iudEmrnt is affirmed ANA
opinion by chief Justice tishcr.
Leon aud u. Bluu W. w. H. Braltou.
from tumuuche.
Appellee was the assignee OF the uila OF
BrUdip e. co. Tie Mm WIS COMPOSED ot
j. a. rrolic and ". E. Brodip, 'rhe decd
~ ASH kun'cut was Hl"upd Us ". D lirudic,
who had The puiu coiApnt ~ j. ~. irodie.
who bod thsrondci. Appellants hleJ sult
transferred by this deed Of assignment
The main question Tor decision ig was the
puful dhthuiit Hlou ~ y. H. broile SUI,
Nglnut go uuihunLr w. H. Hruiip 10 exc.
cute the assignments Hu as 20 b.ud the mem-
beers or the hrm. The assets ~ thp Nrm
were personal property pud j. H. Brodie
owned no other property. go We think that
W. u. RrOdic was sufficiently authorized
10 execute The assignment ib6 Texas. aUtBI
The deed Of assignment pusscSs the lndiyid.
yea prouery OF hc partnera as wen as
the assets OF the hvm tGS Texas There
j. no error ana the Judgment Is affirmed.
opinion hy thpf Justice Fisher.
II. SchultGc Ns. Alamo Ice aud Brewing
company e., al. from BrAUr.
Suit for debt aud to forpclose mechanics
Hen.
The material ANA labor which constitutes
the lusls lOr this sui, WA furnished be.
tween the lst day OF March 1897 aud IAN
Wuh stopped on Dec. ~. 1881 tho aupel-
liant nlcd his itcnlzed account, verified by
AFFIDAVIT Ia The county clerks Oflcp. ON
ihe 10Th day ~ November, 1851 u deed uf
trust was made hy the proper officer OF tho
company for whom this work was being
done in the property Clnlued an.
Sg Question S3' r5r s' addslda 'a % "G main @
orily OF theSe two Hens. IN this state build.
cr'H and mechNuics's Hens rest upun both
constitutional ANA statutory provisions OF
law. The former ~ in the following
"AlrchnulCH, nrtisguH ana muteripi
men " every claas shall have n lien upon
ihc nuliulngs uud articles made OF repaired
hy thcln f0f the value uf their labor done
una he legislature shall provide by law for
lu" .p'tuN nuo tttcicnL enforcement OF
s.uu Itn article ~, section 81 and the
statute reads. ANY person or firm lumber
dealer. artisan or mechanic WHO may In
Dor or furnish material machinery. nrturcs
or loplN 10 erect any house or impryyant IA
Whatever under or 10y virtue uf any
contract with the owner on nm
prietur thereof or ms agent trustee or con.
tractor upoh complying with the provisions
ut thls pci sholl have @ lien ON such house
ETC. th 3D., article. 3lUf
~" ntheie ibu regard should be- had for
me spirit a1 VIII US the letter uf the law
ana that thc constitution should be- consiG
titu ln GptrrHnlug who are the beneficial
rlcs dnder, and the extent ana econs ~
tue law securing such lpus. "a Texas tg5l
we are therefore of the opulnn thht the
Npp'llhui has he 80 ppriOr plulm uulrss n
he avoided hy the plea or Innocent purcha.,
srt lp py appellee Scudder Who bought al
The trust sale. 80
Whom on Noy -, 1857 tho trust deed
was made thc records were examined hy
Appellee Scudder ana 40 evidence ~ nnuei
lhlh lien or claim was un record itnt
N!pplanth clauh was not due until he Was
1lic'lFl To gus work Opd he al once ilIpd
MS account though he had four nlnpfbs in
which to record bis clam under The statute
lsuyieg clvl statue article 3lGGl
~ follows. therefore, that although anpel
lantH Hen was not of record whcn the ,nnrt
gage was taken that it was not hIs fnuit
under the existing circumstances. nni oouij
MOI have been died sooner than Il WIS. And
when 10 wax tiled II related hncl; Ia G,n tinla
when the work was begun ana hpnrc gntc
latts the lien acquired by he morteas"
The Judgment Is reversed ana rendered fnr
appellant against the Alamo lee and Braw.
ms company for SluNNS1, with Iutnr..t
A. per cent FROM The oath az Mn~o6
lNNl Nnd WllbllNhlnE AAnd fOrccl ising his
NESiI 'sinrG1 n'u, OplnlA by Justice Key.
Buaque. ''"Nl
suit Of trespass 10 try title. The dlsr,,t.,
~ over y boundary Hue ana the verdict ~
the Jnty IN The court below ~ yaa1ie ana a.,
H ie NV anu lhe lnlgnent based upon il
reversed ana the ease romandpd "
Mg''urdy 81 al Va, Locker from Bosnue
sun Ton trespass "a try tide
dispute as tD boundary limo bot,vo,,, t,,.,
surveys Known as johnson aud NlrFor,a,,ip
The pcllon set mp title 10 mo ntte,' .'r
N'l, describing II, Defendant plnn,t.t M
Eni% Nlsgiaimed an interest IN saId 9i mn.
Wy, out hlctrwl that he WAS in nnsetssi',,,
on me south half ot ,hc D. ~ johnson s,,,'
NeN' tie also got mp in bar stntufa ~ mn
tailon The Johnson survey N,as dir'.1I
norm on Whu adjoining The Mcfarland guf
DO dispute, Tile jury found tbo lin ~"
claimed by plaintiff, hut also found In fa
Nor 0i deiendanfR plea OF limitation ana
hMa'WfN Vin lhr lhhu actually occupied hy
Mcfarland survey W va Wv
mere are many assignments OF orror an
relating more on less 90 ONE subject INN
M n, w 'a g,sgiaimd owuership of aiy
pNtl ot we ActWlnnd survey he could nat
roce'er. under hls plea OF limltation NM
part %, tbs McFarland where the wry
ioWnn the dls2Hted lana 70 be ''
rhis y doubtless correct Under his nlsad
w. it4lna,an! could not recover amy part
or limitation BAD claimed or deerrtbpd f,pJ