Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-17
rnxAs surnnMn counr.


(Jchn w. stayton, chief justice; r. II. |
Gaines and II. j, Brown associate |
justices; c. s. Morse, clerk; court |
located at Austin.
Sidney Martin ct al. vs.. G. u. Hart |
nett - Co. certified question from sec
ond district:
II the record before the court Of ciyl;
appeals disclosed the amount claimed
In the writ OF attachment, that court
should so reform the Judgment az e
snow such amount, in accordance win
the statute; put since the transcript
docs not show that sum, tie Judgment
should be reversed ana .h0 cnust re
mandcd with instructions to the trial
court to render Judgment upon me
default MS heretofore rendered. and In
addition 10 lN in such Judgment the
amount Of the claim Of the plaintiff
| in attachment opinion by Gaines, J.
Louis Graud vs.. w. 7. Moose, Jr,;
certified questions from third district
| II has been repeatedly held by this
| court that where NJ actual damage
| Is shown. there can be ne rcr9Nety
| Of exemplary damages tdi Hex. 20;
| 10 Tex 900; Tb Tex, N. We regard
| the rule MS safe aud galutary and ore
not disposed 60 disturb the question,
| IS the recovery FOR nominal damages
| only a basis for the recovery OF eN-
| emplary damages? No. Where stock
| In a corporation has been wrongfully
|
| value Is the owner entitled to dam
| ages for the difference In value Of the
| stock ut the time the writ " served
and the time OF the trial, when
| II appears that the service Of the writ
| did not occasion the depreciation in
valueg No. The loss must be the re-
| suit Of the wrong inflicted. To re-
| cover damages the plpintin must show
| not only that he has suffered the loss
but also that II would not have been
received but for the wrongful act The
! garnishment OF the shares operates as
a restraint upon the owners power OF
sale so long as they remain subject
to the writ art. l9l II. 50. but proof
of the mere fact that they have de-
| clined In value during that time with
out further proof that the holders could
md would have sold them before the
depreciation took place, does not show
u loss renultinE from tie operation OF
the process, opinion by Gaines, j.
j. l., Hume ct al, Va. d. e. Crazy;
certified question from third district;
In order to show a prior right to
purchase any OF the lands doslgnnted
in the act OF April 3, 1850, tho 7lnimant
should prove that he is a settler at
least within tie enclosure which en-
brncca the land The wordh within
the enclosure OF any bona fde settler
ma resident OF thu state" found in
the proyisu. were intended 10 mean a
settler within the enclosure and not
any settler In the state. Whether or
net the proviso should not be con-
strued in Il still more restric',d sense
| Is a question not involved In that GER
lifted for decision, aud no opinion is
expressed opinion by Gaines j.
NJ A j. Sullivan vs.. w A. N. Miller
ct al; certified question from third
district.
Certain subscribers made Miller their
attorney TO enter into contract with
the San Antonio and Aransas Pass
railway company for an extension and
operation OF It's railway from some
point on the Rerrville extension 70
the town Of Llano, and also TO enter
into a contract for the grading Of said
railway fron said point on said rail-
way 10 the town OF Llano. giving and
granting 10 our said attorney full pow
err and authority 20 do and perform
all and every act and thing whatever
reouisite and necessary to be done IN
md about the premises AZ fully as we
might or could do hereby rati-
fying. etc. and In consideration
OF the premises and the contract fol
: grading said road, 10 be entered into
by our attorney we hereby agree AND
obllgate ourselves respectively to Sc
cure our subscriptions heretofore oi
hereafter made for the grading and
extension OF said road, by good anc
sufficient bankable security, 60 be ap'
proved and made payable 90 Moore
| Foster * W ~ w NNAN
, i'm trust and to enable then
: 10 guarantee the payment 10 such con
tractors for the grading OF said road
(, | OF our respective subscriptions, ns FOL
lows. viz: That II TO say. upon th'
> completion OF the grading OF each tei
4 miles Of said railway, beginnlng a.
. fredericksburg. thence to Llano, TO pai
: our said obligations respectively. tn
sum OF 20 per cent and the remaindel
OF such subscriptions, II any, to be puit
+ upon completion Of said grading L
; said town Of Llano ."
Acting under this instrument. Mile
/ for himself and as attorney In fnc
y Tor those who executed the instrument
! made n contract with appellants &
: | grade the contemplated roadbed. IN
= contract did not limit the liability .
b tbc makers OF the instrument 10 tn
amount Of their several subscriptions
sr,e question Is; Should the lustrumen
he mold 10 authorize Miller To eXecut
ne contract which bound appellees q
3 pay absolutely the price agreed up0l
I, ;or GRADING. or should II be construct
/, | only 10 authorize him to execute
u contract In their behalf binding then
:, Ia nav for the work only the sum
p gubscribed by them respectively. II
Z held that power was given the atorne
In fact TO make a contract binding then
/. to pay the cost Of me worh wlthVn
2 reference to the amount OF their snh
serlptions, ana that II is not uncertai
r a5d the court trying the case Shout
have construed Il without reference :
u extrinsic evidence. opinion by staytof
!, IC. ].
9 THOMAS Tinsley vs. John Dowell; wfi
i ~ error from third istifct.
SUIT by Dowell 70 recover OF Tinsle
!, dnnoRes for a refusal 20 comply wit
n contract for the sale Of certain land
d made BY Dowell TO Tlnsley, the Ian
/, being the property o. hogers De .Iisi
a,,err,,ied aud on trial DOwell hu
indictment. That Judgment was afiirme
~ the court Of civil appeals. Roger
niaeed the land in the hands Of Dove
!. 10 be sold By him TO any peraon ma
Ne might select, upon given terms witt
a. a urnfted time, Rogers to convey
: such purchaser and Dowell 10 reeeii
II 10 Der cent commission upon the sal