Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-12-26


order TO relneorporate and charge the
new city with the debts of the oiu'
two questions must be determil'-u.
/. Shall the city be reincOrporatedf
2. Snail the new city take the proper
~ Of the old? The first must De &C.
cidad by nll the qualified voters. lne
second by the tax paying properly
voters only. There must be two cleo
tons. II is clnimed that this act Yves
construed IN Ewing vs.. commissioners
$50 Tex. $3.50 to mean that upon rem
corporation the new town became liapie
for the debts OF the old. The question
was not before the court, and the re-
marks Of the chief justice were not IN
tended, nor do they have the effect 10
80 constrte the act. The question
whether the legislature can confer upon
the majority Of the inhabitants Of a
certain district Of country the power
to charge upon the properly OF the
minority debts for which they were
not before liable Is not decided, but is
left open for consideration when the
case involving It shall come before the
court. Judgment Of the court Of civil
appeals reversed and that Of the
district court affirmed. Opinion by
Brown, ].
Western Union Tel graph Company
w. Tim OKeefe-writ OF error TO the
Second district: In the district court
judgment was rendered for defendant
In error. An appeal bond was filed
and the TRANSCRIPT, tiltd In the court OF
eva nppeals. TIE transcript failed to
snow tAut notice VI appeal was gwen.
Inc appellee made 10 motion to dis
miss Tue appeal. Out filed a brief upon
the merits. Tho court of civil appeals
subsequently dismissed the case Oe-
cause no notice ot appeal appeared in
the record. The appellant moved I,
ftlnstate upon the ground that notice
was In fact gwen but not entered. The
motion was supported by afidavit as
to the fact and a certificate OF an entry
on the judges uOsket. No decision %.
tnls court Is l0u.d ntimating tnat no
ice of appeal Is not nee. ssAry to the
jurisdiction OF tne appellate court. On
the contrary 1t has been frequently
asserted that notice is jurisdictionAl
anu can noe be waived. tDau. ABB. q
TEX 'O; Tex, 600. 63 Tex, 60; 70 Tex
90 IN many OF tae cases there was
motion To dismiss and Ii would sepm
thht me remarks OF The court are nor
authoritative upon the point before I'm
uvHtt ~ some OF the cases an apprar-
ahoe TO The merits had been entered he.
lore the dismissal flnlek VS. Varong
% TEX, 90, WAS dismissed hv tho eoI,r.
papers show tEst 49,, lse otlslual
peute was on TIE, II mus be- hnld fb,i
without notice Of appeal actually rive,
~ open court, the appellate court cam
nor ACQUIRE jurisdiction even nv rnnes,,i
Oh r l., ne cur, of civil appeals
SollecHy ned That the not ce was nee
rse'syy, 70 us Jur silctinn' but in their
ali'r, 90 .e4Hstiie tue case and 10
trlai coi,rt ~ unEe tne minutes of the
II i,.' e'ri nm nil 'hled we do not concur
- tne sPpeIlats court Is without power
~, INTO me iact Of notice. after
ti'','47S'oh OF me case, all Judgments
"a r"sts where tne notice did not ap-
p a',, va mat transcript would be void
ny, ~" upoh collateral attack. The stat
- LII e5a.g eohltrs, upon the courts
81 ciNu appeals The power upon q III
daVit or Otherwise 20 ascertain motters
U ,, iae' as may b. necessary to the
ptopur exercise of their jurisdiction
nuur ms provision the court had the
boWeI upon the evidence before II
aau5lled that no'ice hud In fact been
e,ov"' nave exercised Jurisdiction
y,o,,,, le case Tne regular course
muuiu nave been to have granted an
peuhlt - motion TO telusiate ana IN nj.
iow TINE to perfect the record In boid.
LIE that II was too late to surrest =,
ulinlnutlon OF the record after snhp,ts
SION " followed the ruling of thie co,,,.,
~ Nahway company vs.. Scott II Ts,
SSSgg unu Ross vs., MEG wan. IS Tex
ecr,..,1 'N' t ,1e ruIe mas always been oh.
~ Neu, w Tex. 81; p Tey Oh.
ieN', o-p9 Reversed and remanied ~
GG,r court Of civil app ais. Oplninn t,
Ihlhes' Z. j. -
c,,
~, res Weizel vs., L. Simon & On
bos - 70 the third district: IL