Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-11-17
SuPRE VI COURT.


SlPRI NE col RT.
!
! Austin. T.xea. Novepbsr r-rniioy-
ing arc llle opinions delivered by lie
supreme court today: ~ '''
/ ". l.. DAVfps0V "a nj vs. ~ war.
/ LtNGFORb III al. trespass 10 trv titia
/ from Coleman county, Third district
| Reversed and romandsd
! This suit was lustImtct TO recover so
acres OF land originate. r,t,,,,.1 60 ~
W. waulppr,rl plsr,ttets ~. -. d,
"h IN" h'irs ~ Wnllnstord. Defendants
/ claimed under nm alleged transfer Of tho
certificate from Weluncford 10 ono pl,,,
| ford I'm fla, tri,i r.,,r, ,1.c,, ,,,oa,,o', ~,
I guilty an1 tho Gvc-your statute Of lml-
/ tatlons. There was a verdict mud .ldg-
| m,nt for pigirtyy 4, tha ,r,,I g.,
/ and thla iu,isu,nt VIVA nitirtnnI b, liz
/ court of Owl appeals,
| ,,;orIIt vas n,gHgi mat about I'VE years
Iheips laa,5i rb" land inh T'y ~, ~,
/ y. y. Thompson, VINO was one OF the
g g,ni5, ,l.a b..oW' and mat Thompson
| aud continued In po7srssiGn ,iniil he I'm.
OF the trial shortly at.rr this len4r was
g E'StV'' a. M',l9 .''a lhg una 10 NJ. Hl.E
I mat the tcatlfusnv uf 'rho,nns,U m H..
/ erect that he was willing to turn owe
thr hnd iu Wlousuevrr had the better
llle, am Would pay him for his I'M
ltNemsniH unN that he hnd an agree
intht WIN lh' ittlhtih attorneys, that
" lhey gained me caHe they would Ihy
n,ln i3r me improvements should not
in''' '.'N o.. Nlll'l. non INC convey
'nee by II'lps No. Mrs BieEfgrh. IhoWp-
~. .I,,1h '''' t.1I'E anu uot ~ hl,ilN
i5,Ws"' kUi 'v vp'l.'i t VIC
u',H a'illlh ~. 70 WIZ 1Nri
it,r,,,,i a. , 81 -, ~. AZ tun',tt.
,r,nts IL, a,.. t.st,r, t,.,i W. iH,t
lntion' ''''
p Wa mr., of tho onlnion TINT tho court
erred In rrfuslng 40 ch1rs4 iboi "A ,yo9i
titIo to n land rorti0eats could 10 tr1us'
-forred by ii verbal salr without "A wrIiton
assignment. The oaurtH general charge
upon ths subject WIS erroneous I'm sew
ornI pnrticuInTa. and we doubt II the In
! attractions upun this issue were not
| ruthcr calculated 10 mlslend than 10 en-
Tho luatrur.i0n M 10 the necessary rlr-
ments NJ q valid Hlr ~ the certificate.
torrihor with direction tnt II was In
| TINT capn Of thc'c clements existed, n
not in'ufr gt az nrpofluunH OF law was
| ,hl,N,t .nH w nuuCo ssNe ,nty 70 Ntu,.n
a ' l,v ,1 N,s',C1 9',Ii' ,, " ,,.al
OF I1rigulllllN' Nhlrh IA" Jaw does not
m 'H,! ''l",lg ~ sn,n ~ 'i,,,. Ga, 1910.
,t., M1 VI .i,,it,,. a,,t NJ WI,vs'li
','@ |,I,I crnTr,s, V I,o ,,t Nt,,il,n!
~ 't. ~ ,.''L ',,- W. a., ',f, lli' 49,
TorG 9g i"agGs OF @sr Gr'H Hor 2n1 OF
The rtcc' Of n,s Instruction Yves to lc1d
mo jury 10 conclude lhni i1'Tr was moro
n''4ion hg 80 IN" rr'dlml.N Of 'ho W.T.
I'-E hNW'u ,U'u ~ 70 tnhl ol 'nN olN't
Min'-fnf. whether tnrn was tho iget
Hr NO, VS. y ihg',Ir HS,T i9r mo o.
irntion ciibnr Jroei or Indirect os ia
tho o"inlon Of the JUDGE
Th" "vidSnce inilcl 10 show. oven
,a IT,, V,r, W. ,, r.rt,No ~,
We know. of no rue that would nuihnrlyc
tho court or Jury to prcaumo. without
some evidence, thst the ohio! children or
iNo 0HreaHri hrS'hcra nnd N'fer7 or mo
swift suNNcr1cd the Ptatutc NJ limitations
97 10 plplntlwa, hut M not thus operate IN
fnvor ~ their co-tcnnnis.
Opinion by Gaines G. j.