Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-02-28

stabllng aud feeding OF cattle to be
used by a creamery started near the
block under the control Of Moore, and
that railway machine shops and
roundhouse would soon be built near
the block.
i. Plaintiff priced his home at $4,000.
and does not claim that this was less
than It's true value. He received that
amount and there is no ground ot
complaint In that particular. The block
lie received in exchange was estimated
to be worth S650J aad the fact show
that 1t was then worth that amount
and at the trial was worth $4,000.
There Is no pecuniary injury shown In
that part OF the transaction.
2. IL is not shown how many cattle
the creamery had, the price Cross was
to receive. nor the time he was 10
have the employment. II is not shown
that he would have made profit. a
railroad was built near the block, but
machine shops and roundhouse We're
not. The proof does not show that the
property was worth less without these
improvements than 1t would have been
with them. nor that plaintiff would
have derived any pecuniary benefit
from their construction. If the prom
ises made by Moore be considered as
representations fraudulcntly made they
belong to that class OF frauds for which
there IL no redress In courts because
there was no pccuuiary injury result
ing from them. There Is no evidence
that the promises formed any part OF
the consideration Tor the exchange, but
II 80 considered, and had they been
inserted in the deed, their breach would
not be ground FOR cancelling the deed.
The party must resort 10 his action for
damages.
.. Courts cannot measure the rela-
tive intelligence and business quallh-
cations of parties unless 1t reaches the
point where It appears that one has
ovcrreached the other by reason Of his
incompetency. The facts that plaintiff
was laboring man and defendant a
trader. or that defendant knew that
plaintiff had no means out of which TO
pay the debt contracted is OF no i'm
portance. IL was the business Of plain
tin to determine for himself whether or
not he could pay the debt, and II did
not devolve upon Moore to guard him
against his own misjudgment Re
versed and remanded. Opinion By
Brown, ].
Hibernia Insurance company VS.. r.
d. Bills-Writ OF error to the Fifth
district: The policy OF fire insurance
contained the following clause: This
entire policy shall be void II the sub
Ject OF insurance be building on
ground not owned by the insured in fee
simple"
The PROPERTY Insured consisted of a
ginhouse valued at $50 and machinery
and other things situated In the house,
each Item valued separately. The ag-
gregate value was SiI30 and the pre-
MUM was Il gross sum OF STA. 40. The
building and all the personal property
We're destroyed by fire. 1t Is admitted
that the ginhouse was on leased ground
and plaintiffs counsel comedies that
he cannot recover for the building but
claims that the policy was valid as to
the other property, He recovered for all
except the building In the trial court
The court OF clvil appeals reversed the
case and gave plalnum Judgment for
the amount OF the premium paid The
terms being that the policy shall be
entirely void upon Il certain state of
case, II can not become void In part In
that event a contract contract can
not be entirely void and at the same
time partially valid. This court agrees
with counsel for defendant that the
contract is entire and that If the facts
bring the case within the language OF