Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-21

Ing provided for a test Of the ma
chinery before the sale was 10 hs .haa
lutte and such test having been mnds
anu the machinery accented hv d,
lehdant. II could no longer insist unon
the warranties made in The agreement
y corporation Is not bound by the
contract OF It's promoter: but II may
alteI us incorporation adopt such a con-
tract and may thereby make itself iiahle
upon II. If Il corporation adopt n eon-
tract which has been entered into Nv
lls promoters in contemplation Of its
creation aud for its benefit. and II ITO
other party acquiesce in such adoption
ana receive the benefits of the agree
nent ne should be held estopp,,d to
uehy that he IL bound by all rs terms.
nhuer the ayerInents OF the answer
the contract was treated and adopted
both by the Webb company and Tho
defendant corporation as contract
between them. and 1t became binding
upon both
IL may be conceded that where the
seller OF machinery warrants its quail
ny ana capacity, and the contract pro-
Nides that before the purchaser shall
be bound the machinery shall be put in
operation and tested. and when the test
mas been fairly made and the plir-
chaser has accepted the property, he
can no longer claim DAMAGES, either
In an action by him or by way of re-
EQUIPMENT Of the purchase money for
preach OF warranty. But in this case
II Is alleged that The agent of the Webb
company who made the test, purposely
and fraudulently failed TO apply the
necessary power in order TO compress
the cotton properly and To make a fair
test OF the strength OF the machinery:
that the agents OF the defendant We're
ignorant OF the business and did not
Know TINT thp tpgt Ia fntplkr
The seller cannot take advantage Of a
result brought about by his own fraud
If after defendant accepted the ma
chlnery and executed the notes II was
discovered that the strength Of the
compress was not such as was war
ranted In the contract, then the de-
PENDANT was not precluded by such ao-
ceptanoe from claiming damages for a
breach Of the warranty. Reversed and
remanded. opinion by Gaines, j,
Carlos Sandoval ct al. VS.. b, f.
Rosser et al; certified questions from
the Fourth district. Under article 1904.
r. D., as under the present statute
guardian may sue tn recover the prop
erty of his ward; but when he sues 1t
Is as guardian and he Is the party to
the suit and not the ward. In the
former suit the language OF the petition
is; Mariana Rodriguez sues In his own
right anu us VI the minors
NJ, Y. Castillo and V, Y. Castillo" This
did not make the Castillos parties to the
suit, but described the character In
which Rodriguez appeared In the case.
IL, however, this Language would ordi-
narily make the minors parties to the
suit, II could not have had that effect
IN this particular case, because the
guardian Yves adversely interested, The
Cnstillos We're not made parties to
the suit in any manner prescribed by
law: they did not voluntarily appear,
were not represented by counsel Of their
own, hut by that OF their adversary
.. II is not necessary for us To de-
termlne in this case whether the judg-
ment entered was an Involuntary non
suit or a Judgment upon the merits
for, whether It was the one or the
other. II was entire as TO the defendant
IN the suit, aud the reversal Of that
Judgment on appeal reversed IL as to
all parties and restored the suit TO
the docket as II was with Rodriguez
and the SandOvals as plaintiffs. When
the two suits We're consolidated the
Sandovals We're plaintiffs with Rodri-
guez In the first case and by the con-
solidation became plaintiffs In the con-
solidated suit, which involved the sub
iect matter. The judgment after con-
solidation dlsposes Of the subject mat
tor OF the suit as to the rights Of all
MS 20 all oSNqhem. II there were errors
In II as to form they were cured by
the agreement of the parties, A Judg-
ment entered by agreement cures all
errors which do not go to the jurisdlc-
tlon Of the court. The Judgment Is a
bar to the claim Of the Sandovals In
the land embraced in that judgment
opinion ny Brown, j.
Fort Worth and Denver City Rail-
way Company vs. A. r. Whitehead; APP
plicatlon for writ OF error; The appli-
cation TO set aside the judgment did
not show sufficient diligence and was
properly overruled. although wrong
reason may have been assigned Tor
the ruling, and for this reason the APP
plioatlor for writ Of error will be over
ruled Stayton, G, j.
Those who signed Piano Notes.
We desire q few more Of those who
bought pianos and organs ON time by
ot,tiuu pptes and who lost both tho