Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-06-07

I that the KNOWLEDGE OF tnt IaHN"s
! company OF the situation OF the cotton
would fix liabilities on 1t. II rs en-
lployes failed TO ura ordinary care for
| it's protection, although the compress
| company, the representative OF PLAIN
| tits, knew the same fact and also
| failed 10 use ordinary care In View OF
the surroundings would be. In effect.
to hold that the railway company WAS
under obligations to Use greater carr
4 than were the owners OF the cotton.
| Such is not the law. None OF the
charges sent up are upon the weight OF
the evidence The refused charges sent
up present issues not in the case made
by the statement. Opinion by Staytoh'
c. j.
Keily-Goodfellow Shoe company vs..
| Liberty Insurance compHny--Ceruhed
questions from fifth district The SUIT
| Is one between an Insurance company
the insured trustee to whom the pol
Icy had been assigned, and creditor
| Of the Insured, who had garnlsheed the
| inamance company. Nine questions are
certified, which. when subdivlded, em-
brace many more. IL Is evident that
the entire case has been sent to this
| court for an opinion as to how 1t should
be decided. The questions embrace
matters Of practice such as to the
proper method OF impanneling a jury.
questions ON the admission and re1ec-
ton OF evidence. on pleadings and their
| suficiency to authorize evidence Of
fered, on the construction and effect OF
Isolated clauses Of the policy, on the
giving ard refusing TO give instruc-
lions, on waiver and the effect Of notice
10 the local agent. and on many other
subjects. To dlsaect and properly pass
upon them would take much more time
than would Il TO decide the case upon
the transcript. II never was contem-
plated that practically all OF a compile
Gated case should be so certified. Such
a course as pursued In this case would
practically operate as transfer Of a
case to this court FOR decision. both on
law and fact, while the law vests that
jurisdiction In the court OF civil APP
peals, This court cannot usurp such
a jurisdiction. The court does not de-
sire to be Understood to rule that sew
eral questions Of law arising In n case
may not be certified when essential to
the decision OF Il cause, but holds that
none other than purely questions OF
law can be considered: that these must
be clearly stated aud that In no case
does the law contemplate that an entire
cause with questions controlling and
dependant shall in effect be thus trans
ferred to this court for decision. The
certificate VIII be dismissed to the court
OF civil appeals that II may decide the
case IN due course OF business. Opinion
by NtuytOn, =. j.
Mollle p, Laughiin ct al. vs.. Liberty
Mutual Life Insurance compGny-Certl-
ned questions from the nth district.
Ihe certificate rs more faulty than
that considered IN the case next above.
The substance OF the plcadings Is given
and some OF the evidence is stated
but upon this the court OF clvll appeals
ilnds and ceruihes no conclusions Of law.
put prqpounds among others the follow
Ing IIunnF tho
as stated, ala the court err in instruct
ing verdict for the defendant? Thus
"a the whole case on law and fact sub
Ililted 10 THIS court for decision Dis
missed. Opinion by stayton, c. j.
X -, l.ooney vs. James H. Simpson
81 al.-Mrit Of error from second dis
triot: The holder Of the notes eve
cuted by c. II. Mllllken for the mr.
chase money Of the land not haylnr
peen made party to the suit brntirbt
by Daniels against the county stn.vavo,.
ana sam II. and c II. Ainilken vns
nor pound by Judgment therein rem
eeteu' ana therefre had the right to en-
NJ ~, We w Nehuot Hen against the land
me general rule Is that a claimant a.
land under a different title from maj
under which the mortgagor hold is not
a proper party to a foreclosure suit
put under the facts OF this case plaIntiff
m error was properly made a marty 10
- "'iN Allt purpose or which Is 10 forn
close vendors lien on land TO which
"a sam ,Milliken had valid title at the time
ne sold and received the notes sued nm
on 10 secure the purchase MONEY, III,
VIE TO- the land was then good brs
after mat the vendor OF pinintifr II
error Drought suit against him ma a.,
tained Judgment which could nnt G in ~
, nnny n gsy,, been rendered had the facts
trlal OF that case, That iudgnort o tle
IKE as clQlA upon the title which fBo
h n9s'' ~ or ne purchase money notes
ms me right 10 have the land Vim tt.,s
u.s. " stood when the notes were %," e s,t,e
o C,i,,' sod TO satisfy his claim, Far IN,
SrM'se the land would NOT ssi ~ Gay o.n-
lair price, The same reasons aY,I LOT
clearing the title before sale G In 10, iqr
St. as exist In a case WHERE n" Ihis
tor seeks to have a frau6uicnt, a cred
ss cor net aside In order that propsrfy
p pil, and TO such suit tbo ,S Ialr
s sa,.,, Is both proper and 'I n@cns
eor corr parry; m The judgments below VgI orc
ton, c. ]. p'''iuh by Stay