Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-27


court of civil appeals for the Third dis.
iTi't renedered the following decisions
May -
W. h. Brown vs.. H. @. French. from
Travis. Appellant withdrew from the
iirln of French ~ Browne on May 10
lSa0 hnd sold his interest 10 II. q. ~
y W. French, taking Il. part cVnsidprn-
non bond OF indemnity with Rogers
~ Christian ts surttirs thereon On
jan, ~, lSSO, the Crane Brrnd MANN
lAclhfihs company sued French X
br"Whe npon m open account running
from Oetoher' 1850, To Apr 30, 1856.
Judgment was had. Appellant made no
defense Appcllces. Rogers & Christian,
contend that they were not parties to
inc SUIT. aud hence the Judgment is not
conclusive us Ia them; that they being
merely sureiies on the bond are nbsolyel
because appellant did not plead the stat
ute of Limitation against the demand of
lhr Manufacturing company. The court
sustained This plea and refused To give
Judgment against them On the first
point the court WIS correct. In an un-
derinking. general In character, us was
llils hOud, judgment is not conclusive
against q surety not q party but creates
prilna lucip liability only. A letter
written by the iirm of French X Browne
on Aprl 30. 1886. served to prevent
limitation beginning to run before this
tmr' An implied promise to pay debt
Is sufficient In stop limitation from run
n'hk' ~ ln'fr Is no other debt shown
lu W. uu' w deieudnnt TO plaintiff the
promise viii be- held to apply 10 the debt
sued on ~ Tex. llSl As this new
PROMISE is In writing the debt would
only barred Ia four yenrs from TINT
uin'. A. uidvr tile fucts limitation
would have nvHllcd nothing II pleaded,
the 1ppcllrcs, rs suretics, will NOT br
allowed To escape liability brrnus. n
public plea was not used. The Judgment
su far as " niiccts this item of Tho Nam
ufu turing company, is reversed and
with The exception OF $40 incurred after
ia' hnhu was executed. The remainder
OF the Judgment is Rendered n4 riypu IA,
slu lower court upininn hy Fisirr.
q, j.; Key, a. D., did not sit Ia tbis
ease.
barley ct al, vs., Roberts ct al, from
lliuio, Suit 10y appellants against SEQ.
VILE ON an account with an nttnrbnr,,t
upon goods ia possessiop nf amnaiigt,
Roberts a Phillips. who bOugbf frotn
| Sguvillc as contpudpI hy tbrtn In ,tnnI
faith, IA alleged hy appellants. for Tho
purpose of aiding Scovlle to perprirnt,
= fraud. The court refuses to permit
tain subpoena duces tcrum with the re-
pelves 10 produce certain bills aud
invoices, iLerc was evidence tending 10
STOW that some OF thc goods bought by
,,l Merr unpaid for and that this
Mpu't uplear lroul the Invoices, lf the
sSv W. 'naue oht OF the usual course
t,ss W,s uus',vss lor q consideration
n NH, KIN tuI true value such facts as
J Jicat,, nents might operate TO In
U.line r5u't'PSse 10 ueirnud. which 0p-
,Gse ,f r..1., I'm hSmnoWh 10y The eXer-
crr,d il, 'p ros, ulllyencc, The court
ma hhJ.nnnn, 'V1E 10 ADMIT the evidence,
rainnpIr1 o,I H. ilv' SFsed ana the cause
'p'N'uu py FISHER &. j,
n,,s C,
,o Wuii, NolotSio ana Santa Fc Railway
Nuu,,'' ,, w. 9riner from Brown Judg-
g,,. IN NJ IrnIetsh in the Justices court
tSs S c',,,,' ouu Slu attorneys fees. Ia
Ma M ,s''sS y9ut y was dismissed and
want NJ I n,,js,iit9 dismiss The appeal for
GSSiift " lur,Iil,etlon' In the case Of the
cnmpany 'V wv n99u santa ne Railway
held tiat thcy bnI n ScVY inu uis'rict' They
will follow this decision. 't Ky we
has Disposed of similar casa US court
than Ibis way, Il Viii corrnc, " other
crroT may have been commit, MnnGigeIer
Ease Is presented 10 NJ ILL ~ y he
missed. Opinion by Fisher. t,'gv'' u's'