Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-04-21

point. In the Fortaison case, the court
OF civil appeals OF the fourth district did
hold, that when the debtor and oredl-
tor entered into a new contract sup
ported by valuable consideration, In
which the debtor agreed to pay the
usurlous debt according to It's original
terms, the latter deprived himself OF
the right to claim that the contract was
usurious and to have his previous pay
ments credited upon the prlncipal-the
original legal obligation. They subse-
seuuently made the same ruling In the
case OF international Building and
Loan association W.. Beering. % s. W.
sea- but the Judgment in the case was
reversed by this court for error In so
holding and that holding was thereby
ovcrruled Csc Tex, 400. II Is TO be pre-
sumed that the court OF civil appeals
OF the fourth district will respect the
ruling OF this court; and we think,
therefore. that Il cannot be properly
said they now hold differently from
the court of the firth district In the case
now before MS. II may be that
there Is a conflict between the two de-
clsions, but We are Of opinion that the
has been already settled. and that there
fore we have no jurisdiction to grant
the writ OF error In this case. Dis
missed. opinion by Gaines, c. J.
Anhauser- Busch Brewing association
VS.. Houcll & Dieter: Writ OF error to
the fourth district: We concur in the
conclusions OF the court OF civil appeals
In this case except IN one particular.
and in view OF the well considered OPP
inion OF chat court we deem It unneccs-
sary to discuss any Of the questions IN
volved except that upon which we differ
We think the contract between the
plaintiffs In error, Houck & Dieter. and
Hawley and Schloss, shows upon It's
face a combination such as Is prohiD-
tied by the act to define trusts APP
March 80. 1859. For the reasons given
by the court OF civil appeals we also
agreed with them In holding that the
act is not In violation OF the constitu-
ton 1t follows that the trial court
erred In not instructlng the jury that
the combination was unlawful and that
Houck & Dieter could not recover OF the
plaintiff on their cross-astion for a
breach Of contract. the performance OF
which would have aided them In carry
ing out the unlawful enterprise. IL
may be that the decisions Of this court
established the proposition that mere
knowledge on the part of the seller that
the goods sold are be used for an
uullvfu' purpose will not prevent his
IccJy srmr their price. As we view the
case before us it Is not necessary TO
decide that question. TIE contract be-
tween the brewing company and Houck
81 Dieter bound the company 10 sll the
!3ltes Gnu !" S'I 10 no I'n'' ugL'et III
these stlpulatlons were well calculated
lo hlI LlouCN N ne ,eI uuu lUtl' H7 ~
v,l.1s , ~, tug[y'II 'le b Nv, l''sp % .,'e
ui,.f Nv. I'm ,'oi'; lg1i s".J we
tnl''Dl,l non ~ ~ I.oH'lly on lne sur IN
We ~ ol ~ a5' uL '!'e pre- -'' vi
',''','' 1870 anu ln" t,, .o'i' a.
tract IN carrying out ,heir object of
/ .tFH fH H...f D..
'..'' we Lla,"5, 10, MI, lhe stls Cl
o..' m nu.N ~ 'l"t Guy lhyIelotg, ~
W"' "l,'''oh VIC e',se vi we ,'"IH.ll, u
IN itst l'7 "stnl itheWsu us t'lIue'
hl."ius We 1A'7lgI,s' gt lue S'ill ,,,' t.,
,,pu, - no, Ilot %, a seHs. Wuo u, il'yI -Il
NhnWs Ihbt Ihe sunlept OF me sale may
l'' ueiiE oGt IL ~ tiat OF yne WI" h,
D reason or It's special terms rs calculated