Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-28
COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Text Of Decisions Rendered in the Fort
Worth District.

NO, SOY Gentry n $. G. Gentry, up-
pelUlts, VS. BuWstr * Lennon, appullues
AlprM nom the county court of DALLAS
OPINION
on the ith day OF May, 1883 appenccs
instituted this suit Ia the county court OF
Dallas county against appellants, William
Gentry ANA y, G. Gentry, 10 recover upon
gage alleged TO have been given by said
Gcntys upon one StCadMau engine; one
Styadmnn boiler and ilxtures; one
Coleman corn mill; one Fairbanks
scales; ono Stcudmun steam press
ana all betting, pullcys shnftng and
uNturcs belonging 10 said machinery, 10
answered la plea 10 the jurisdiction. al
Logging that the machinery embraced Ia
said mortgage at the duo the same was
given were hNturps constituting "A pnrt OF
the homestead OF appellant. William GENTRY
Who was a married man and the head of a
faulty. and 10y reason of this fact alleged
mat the county court had no jurisdiction 10
decree such foreclosure. They also pleaded
the SAME facts Ina q special ansN d ANA IN
addition Thereto alleged that uppvilces hal
sued out VIII oi rcquutrotion m this
case ana had tNKtu uctual possession of
said machinery una said appellants prcm-
isps uuum which the Same were ,ltnutpl
and had deprived hin " the IKE Thereon.
and that the use of said machinery and
premises during the tune he had been M
deprived Of The same WAS rlh tie sum
Or $3.50, for which amount he prayed hdr-
nppolleos interpOHCd general ma 8poclu en-
crpuons The special exceptions Nprc Nj that
auid answer uid not ulicgc of whom dcfon.
dUnts family consists on thnt mo count
had no jurisdiction 10 hear ana ieter,ninr
the question az 20 dcfendnuts ownershin M
the lund' 90 because said answer docs NOT
Az ON spec1hu account in what defen,
dnnts damage consisted ar the seyprnl
Items thereof; Ai because the said answer
does not set ont l1 define the dcfcndnnrs
sald h2i9iysieadi or because the court has
no jurisdiction io hear and determine Inc
anllv mutter set out IN said answer.
From the judgment rpnicrcd by the court
Y would seem that only the special exccp.
tions were auIQinei, but from a hin of
exceptions In the record we nnd Tint mo
general demurrer also was sustained nnd
appellants weyc not allowed 10 Introduce
are on opinion that the action OF tho colrr
was error The answer docs show that AZ.
nehnht William Gentry az the time af
thr execution OF the mortgage, and al the
time OF the trial had wire aud sev,raI
cldldren. lt was certainly not necessary To-
give lheir hanes, Tho plea 10 The iarisdIe-
ly ond succinctly that at tSe ' tlme
Of the mortgage ana nd nm tiree
~ the trial Tie uachlnery embraced
tache9l' ~ 'H0'lgeSe o WIS hxgre az,
eonsisiSi 81 ldO acres upon which nppel,
mnt, William Gentry, resided with ms
tamllg anu tnat the mortgagcd property
therefore constituted n part OF his home
stead ana OF the land 10 which h was hi.
| taclnt. We infer from the brief OF anna
iaut tot because oI these allogannng t6,.
court n0ow held that y had 40 iurisdiction
| 20 near ana determine the same Hal
These allegations appeared ia he petitinn
| lNHtcad ~ tAe answer. we hardly think fhs
| court would have attempted 10 foreclose
Tits mofteaee Not appeahng IN the ny
| t!non Il was proper for them to appear 81
| the answer ana u the evidence slpnSrt,.i
| iheNe ehcgauons the c0nrt would elcers,
1 he without Jurisdiction to grant M 80
| closure Certainly the court has ibe ~,
/ 70 near tle necessary evidence 10 one2le
Y ~ decide us lo whether or not N re-
/ NNWyf % ty the case II IS sought AZ bee..
! u N.luiieatc, whether The allelafiuus AN.
/ loslas such want ~ Iunsdction anr,ns.
" wy p,uuon ~ ihe nlalntin or M tbs
/ lne pea 90 Tie defendant clsnIx se.,,.,
l 'het me laalntiN WIS seeking 10 have az
I NnNnil court foreclose mortgage nnnn
l ,Ndence upon tliis question, and M IA < 49,