Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-22

| oral evidence 70 vary tue Nihe t,,,ttiWg
n1roi evidence 10 prove the contents %
| lilo written notices Of the safe unuVl MI
decd 81 ,gist H. nn q any slate
| ment nude prindcr IN ihr BRIEF ui hllet
ignt 10 SLOW what parol evidence WIS s Nilnhi
/ tD1 M to the notices Of The sale tnnplaln'i
! m What We have Siroady laid shows lha
| Ne think nn nHterihl erfnr was 'onnii,,,gu
| IN admitting parol evidence 20 SHOW ,n Ky,
/ the Instrument complained Of was uussi
| deed. and we arc ~ opinion that We shuniu
| not consider the second proposition contiun
ed IN ihr assignment. Where nh uisssi,s,n,
! tncnt ~ error raises more than one IlnHnVt
| proposition II Is not permissible uh1et t"e
| rules 10 treat tho asslgi meut ttselt hh u
proposition raising al me qussllons ,,sssfons
! ed therelu. In such cases these puestis i
! must lie submitted as distinct propositions
! IA the brief ace oiupnniel with approprln,e
! statements TO sustain the same FORM ne
! recurl. See rules Of supreme court S-s-'
! II there Is any evidence in the record NJ
all which would have justified me snpni,s,
/ sion Of the issue Of fraud In obtaining me
| mortgage or attacking the sale thefruilutr
| W. think n l. so mengcr that the nclon
Of the court IN ignoring these issues N
[ Submitting the ease IN the jury " error az
! all would be- an error OF omission ana not OF
/ commission nnl could only be taken nv
I Nnntag, ur by appellant by asking correct
I Instructions Ia he court below, anu we
| think tlu cuurt did not err In refusing those
/ requested by hun These requested charles
| were "a follows; '"fhni you will determine
from the evidence whether the decd q trust
| wdH executed by Ben stephens with the nun
| understanding Of lis contents us methuh-
| les iipn; II so, then II could not De fore
| closed ir sold without suit brought To
fOreclose In The courts"
you IRE charged that It was the duty
! of Carson and Lewis Us trustees 10 u't
| IN al fairness In the sale 81 said land ami
! make II bring n fair price, ana II you
believe that i was not 50 made you VIII
We think these charges entirely too gen
| erHl ~ their terms. and leave too much 10
/ In fairness
sale and "a 70 what would constitute surh
fraud as would render the mortgage Invalid
We also fail 10 ind In the record any evi-
deurc which would hive been sufficient TO
sustain a verdict NJ the jury settling aside
the mortgage on the ground Of fraud In
In The sixth assignment appellant presents
the proposition that the power 10 sell under
the mortgage arose on the LIST Of N0vcm-
hcr, 1885,, and was functus Otlicu on the
Bird Of April, 1855 and Il sale made at That
time was therefore void, The mortgage
stpuates that II the debt Is not pui1 when
due then the said Carson and Lewis ~
any time thereafter may take possession
! aud SELL etc. We therefore think the suc
was not void upon tile ground presented IN
In the sixteenth assignment appellant
complains That inc verdict Of the jury Is
not CORRECTLY copied IN the judgment, nnd u
certificate OF the clerk Is contained In the
record Which gives the verdict rendered as
follows; I'VE, the jury, mud for the plain
| TN our.hulf Of the said land. SlBn subject
Ia the ouc-hulf Interest defendant has In
the mineral; and also find that the dofen-
dunt hus paid 10 the state S9T7l5 aud for
taxes $3.50 total S2Si.Gl.' The verdict as
| copied W. the Judgment omts the "lGO -
| H. contained In thc verdict as rendered
We are ~ opinion that tho disposition
made 10y The court IN rhr Judgment Of the
| mhttcrs Ia controversy was correct accord
ing 10 TIE verdict uS rendered, and that no
material error was committed To the pre-
! ltdicc Of appellant In falling to clpy the
verdict accurately IN the Judgment. We
think the verdict as rendered WINS In favor
NJ plainum for One-half the land. not for
$40 In money US commended by appellant
What W. have said indicates our opinion
upon the other assignments of error aud It
therefore follows that the Judgment or the
court below should he In all thugs affirmed
aud II is ordered, HEAD.
Stephens, justice dtsquliidei aud uot
sitting
Nc lq }li,,, r. j. Lo99nlr 2ppslnut, vs.. P.
district court OF sumnrrvci county.
STATEMENT.
THIS suit was brought Ia the district court
of lusque county upon the following writ
Austin, Texas 2sth Of July. 1885.
Know all men 10y these presents, that /,
l.. j. lponic. Of Bosguo county, state u
Texas, do hereby bind myself 10 pay to J..
Z, Davis VI Pcros city, county OF iteeycs,
SlOOO nine months from this 2sth DAY of
July, On condition and for the following
I consideration, thut the said j. I. Davis
: wthdraws all opposition to and forever
| r9hvunces ~ claim 10 section u, block .,
! II. G. y. Il. scluO land Ia Pocos county
= ! ana within avs all claims Of Whatsoever
I character ON said land und causes suit now
Z | pcuulug III Prcus district court to be- dis.
( nssedi and 1t is further agreed on by said
J.. j. Loontr tlmt he Is To give decd In
. | full as administrator to j. q. Davis for
I the lot now enclosed and occupied by him
ns his Residence.
> tSiguedl r. j. IOONIE
Witness W VI. Brown"
.,, Inerg w., Was a eauggs OF venue, upon the