Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-07-01

: UrNU UWNW
considered the qnes..on as TO whether or
not TIE change IN, the form OF pluintlns
sui from one OF "partltion' to "ircspass
] 70 uy tue nnu Partition was the instltii-
lion Of new suit within the meaning Of
! the law, but we have considered 1t and
aIe eiTrY OF the opinion. that there was
no chntgc In the cause OF action asserted
~ me MO partitions us would prevent the
hrst FROM having the effect TO stop the
running Of the statute
.Nhnt we have said shows that we are
OF opinion the court committed no error ia
sxcinhlng the tax deeds under which A. G..
walker, Jr claimed. These bore dntc
long previous In the decree of Jan. H. ISL
and he was party TO that Judgment
The court did not err IN excluding from
me Jury the deposition OF j. NJ Laws 10
show that previous TO the rendition OF the
decree of Jan. H. 1Ss2, he had conveyed
all ms Interest In the laud to John II. Cole
Laws title prior TO this decree Is not I'M
agreement with Marshall reinvcsted him
with sufficient title to maintain this suit
even though he had previously parted with
There was also no error In the action OF
me court IN holding that the decd from
laws to Cole and Ferris III July, 1885.
would not prevent his recovering. We
nave already held that the filing of the
nmcnded petition In December 1sSG, was
we are correct In this II was entirelp proper
the proceeding should he continued In The
naine OF the original parties until Its final
trrl93innlion' purchaser pehdente lite
Lee vs. Salinas, 10 texas, 40.
INC court did not err In refusing to eN-
chde from the jury the deposition OF j.
j. JalviS. because The letter by which he
refreshed his memory was not attached.
IHe only use made Of this letter by the
witness was to refresh his memory AZ 10
the date of the translation about whilh he
was testifyng and he distinctly says the
letter called to his MUD the date" and
aud knew at the time II was dated correct
"; Mr.. Grecnlcaf says: 'lhe cases in
l winch such writing Is proper to be used
the writing Is used for the purpose of us.
blstlhg the memory Of the Witness In this
vas , u does not seem necessary that the
Wfltlng should be produced In court
though It's absence may afford a matter OF
observation to the Jury, for the witness at
l9sl lestlhes from his own recollection"
witness was S NOT hs.Ss a "a de tsa i cT rns
IN the interrogatories nor was any efiort
made 10 quash the deposition before enter
Ing Into tue trial. The objection was not
made until the deposition was read, aud 4
the court wR-. Then asked Ia exclude It..
witness spartan q. Marshall 10 testify 10
the conversation between him and Robert !
10 him. This evidence was correctly adj
mltted to show notice TO Bailey at the time
he made The purchase Of the previous com.
promise between Marshall and Laws and |
tue conveyance from Marshall to Smith ,
& Jarvis.
We think the charge OF the court was
full and clear upon the different phases OF
the rights OF Bailey aud Walker as limo.
cent purchasers under Marshall and there
was no error in refusing the special charges
requested by them upon this branch of the
case.
The court did not err IN refusing to In.
struct the jury TO find against smith n /
Jarvis because they aid not INTRODUCE /
their entire tile as set up iu their plead
iGg The Judgment Of Jan. a. 1889. was
the common source Of lille OF oil the par
ties aud they were not required TO 20 FUR. |
thtr lhan this, party 10 n suit OF tres
pass 20 ny tile cannot Introduce another |
by HIM hut he Is not required to intro /
dncc an OF the links set forth In Ills plea
II ne can show better title than his nd.
them.
We have had considerable difficulty in
MfNni AT satisfactory conclusion us to |
t,nns rights , Of the parties Ia respect to the
t1Nes paid by the defendants Bailey and |
walker II seems that they have paid lie /
taxes upon all the land for a series oe |
ysprs' and In their answer they seek con-
lnpuuol w case they lose the land. Where 4
co'tenant Removes an encumhruuce such 7
as Il tnN Hen upon the whole land II wuulI I
sheet eiear upon principles of equity that |
ne Should be hubrogated to such len 10 (
secure contribution from his co.teunnf fnr |
MS share. freeman on co-tenancy and /
nar,'i ,I, svS II seems, however. In this I
SlS9' tmt during the years the defendants /
paid these taxes they had possesslon an1 I
me use OF the entire laud. and while II Is
true one tenant cannot be made la nav ,is d
co-tennnt rent where he has nctnally ocrn'
pied the land himself until daflaid nnd |
refusal OF joint occupancy, '(Thonipson vs. |
Jones. - IeNns, 600 yet We believe tlinf |
when he has had possession Of fbn e,'tira |
premises and asks That his co.tennnt he |
n3le To my part OF the taxes this should |
only be allowed upon an adjustment AZ he |
equities between thcni. and thnt ibis cnn
DC done when the report Of the couttis |
soners Is returned and 1t Is known What |
FepSosts nihs s,o OF tue Improvements these de-
We VIII therefore, order that the judg.