Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-02-21

contract. such works would have been
worth 100000, provided the said
amount OF water could have been as
posed OF In said city. and upon TINS
last point there Ia no evidence 10 SNOW
whether such an amount Of water could
have been utilized in said city IN
der the meager facts shown this court
Is OF opinion that the measure OF dam
ages the city was entitled to recover
was the difference between the con-
tract price and what the works would
have been worth II completed accord
ing to contract. The above nndins
should be so constructed as TO give us
effect as finding of value OF tne
property II such value can be esthp-
lished without proof OF the fact that
the city could utilize the 100000 ghl-
Ions. 1t was not essentiol for tine city
10 show that 1t could have USED that
amount In order TO show the volume
and the finding Is sufficient TO snow
value and to entitle the city TO dahl-
ages. The record contains so little
Information AZ to the real facts II Is
deemed best not to render Judgment
here.
4. II is suggested that II the works
actually constructed were to the extent
Of their construction In substanuai
compliance with the contract, ana II
the amount 1t would take to complete
the works according to contract ADDED
to the amount paid would not exceed
the contract price, then the city coulu
not recover damages. But II tine
amount paid and the sum necessary
to completion exceed the contract price
then the city would be entitled to re-
cover the excess. unless such excess
exceed the value of the works COM
pleted according to contract, In winch
event the difference in the value II
they had been completed according 70
contract and the contract price would
be the measure of the clty's recovery.
These suggestions relate to the citys
claim for damages, and do not affect
Connors right to recover on the I'M
piled contract. Reversed and remand
ed. Opinion by Denman, j.
Durham. Hanna, Munger & co. vs.
Logan, Evans a. Smith-Writ of error
to the second district:
Dysart Bros, merchants. were IN
debtod to plaintins, defendants, one
Grlnnel ana other persons. They We're
insoiycnt and conveyed their stock Of
goods to Grinncl in trust TO be by him
sold and the proceeds applied to the
payment Of the debt due Grinnel, the
/ expense OF tho trust and N any sur
/ plus remained, debts due certain named
| creditors Pro rata. Plaintiffs In err
I ror were named among the creditors,
/ nel's debt VIVA $500 and was before the
1 ron,,yanea secured by mortgage on
/ a house worth SllOO. The goods in
/ voiced $500. The debts secured by
/ the deed OF trust amounted 20 more
/ than the value OF all the property.
/ Grlnne sold $500 worth OF the goods
! pf rptnil mud sold the balance, estimate
cl MI S5tOO To- pltinlina In error for
/ ggO0 cash. They paid thc 5000 and
] tcnl me hoods 10 the depot for ship
/ mont whore thew were seized under at
tnchmcnt by defendants In error.
| / ,rhe second. third and nfth objec-
| to,s ,Irysd i'm mis-. court arc not tena-
bic. The charge states with sufficient
CERTAINTY the ground upUn which the
asairnment might be held void for
| fr1u1 excent AS hereinafter noted
me fact as to the sale of the safe
nv one of The Dysnr;s was admissible
as n clrctlmptance to show possession
bv Dysart after the deed. as well as
i,nnlyicdge nv the agent OF plaintiffs In
nrror of facts which would show frau
d,ient Intent There was sufficient ev-
Idenro mon the issue OF notice by the
nysnt 10 warrant it's submission to the
/ iu,v
m, ,,,. nae ro,,,estsd Ia pIvs
ime IN 80 10 y,eT,granbs
ma - ,,,., t,,aSSrssd thsrson its re-
enu ''v 49, ~ 1890, .,tbnt The snme
I -, loo ,,.t ,,r.gpnt la ~
as wnu't uV W n.y. = MI ,,,ostion
appntuple 70 o" H. d,ytdad Into Two
IS Mhtn u,'al ~ - anI nNa is IL, it,
separate pa'osi ''.'i,, a,i shn,,,d no
ser pol ~ ~ ppi,., ,,,,f,,,t,I az,
Vourt Iutu ~ - 80, ~, t.
lhe s stint pay w. ,hat n',,rts b,,is
ell1 ,l',,i e,l.,,, w., 1aotai,ns mat tbis
ulluc' ,,, % ,sae mai ench clause
ebo,ld he written on a separate pa
na,. and Signed. hut such is not tha
,,,s,ning ~ mo decisions. The reason
,non which tho ruling ia based does
moi renulre Il. Charges requested can
moi he refused as "A whole because OF
an error In on, of them
The charge given failed to state
TINT In order TO set aside the assign.
ment because of the fraudulent intent
Of Dysart IN making IT, the trustee
GrInnel who was both creditor and as.
sirnee. must have participated in IN,
fraud II also failed TO instruct the
uIry 90 TO the efrect of Grlnnel's talk
inr possesslon under the instrument
A. made in good faith. The first claus,
Of the charges reftlead supplied thes,
omissions and should have been given
The second clause was properly re
! fused. II the deed was made by by
sart with intent to defraud creditors
and Grinnel accepted It with like in
tent. be it mortgage or common law as
signment. 1t was binding upon Dysar
ana pnssed possession and control o
the property TO Grinnel The consen