The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-18


g ,iasns delivered by the supreme court
y
r,,KER VS.. ]. b. COLE; trespass
VII" ,itie from McLennan county
W aIstrict- Affirmed,
,ohn chism executed to Jesse
". hond for title to the land In con
HSt T,h,s bond was conditioned on
msy. -, of three notes executed by
n the former as consideration
as ~. ~ maturity of all the notes Chism
ffr W. 10 land in controversy, by war
S.' IN I D. +. Cole, plaintiff he
ose. the same time delivered to
uu no,cs After the filing of this
sat Estell to recover the land, j.
na havln Z purchased the interest
anV nos allowed to make himself a
attendant. A. -,
0nrds. First. he sought to cancel
"a and recover on the ground of
~. refusal to pay the notes. Second.
.nrh, TO recover on an agreement of
~, made after the maturity OF all
~. In the effect that If he did not
4. nurrhase money by or during the
hi he would surrender the land
cs,sm and abandon the contract OF
a,.s There was a judgment in the
sa,rt for plaintiff, which was ar
4 on appeal by the court OF ciVl APP
The statement OF iacts SHOWS mat
,af on the trial, Introduce evidence
.,s 10 establish each of his alleged
ris Of recovery ana " IL not SHOWN
which Of these GROUNDS OIL recovery
ral court rendered IT'S judgment
sthere were TWO GROUNDS upon |h'ch
taurt below might nave rested It's
,rent and as ne record aces nor snow
which 1t WAS really placer, the Juup-
an not be disturbed III the absence
roper assignments OF error snow l"S
It can rot be supported ON either
3D.
It's contended that the court n ciVll
NJ erred In hudlng inc lacts aHeged
Haintiff as the second ground 81 re-
hi, because this iindlng rs not sup
Nby the evidence as contained In the
Nj but Is contrary thereto. AS there
rme evidence on this issue, we have
hnsdlctlon 10 inquire INTO It's suth-
ky but must accept the finding OF the
rof civil appeals as conclusive.
,riun by Denman. j.
---
METROPOLITAN TRUST COM
ANY FIT AL vs.. THE FARMERS AND
ERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK tT
u certified question In a case from
sLlnnan county, Third sditrict-Ques-
n answered ana opinion ordered to be
Faatd.
As suit was originally instituted by
h against the Waco Elsotrlc Light
Railway company. in which an attach
vas sued out and levied upon the
riy Of the defendant and receiver
an,ad. Shortly after this the Metro
1r Trust company filed its suit against
nne defendant for tho foreclosure Of
r'sage upon its property, and this suit
eonsolidaied with that of Early ami
sne rtcelvership continued. The Gen.
Electric company having in some way
Fne party, filed its answer, claiming
y upon certain specific property sold
10 the Waco Electric Light AMI Rail-
cmpany. More than thirty parties
Hsnet, claiming to be creditors OF the
ssant corporation with priority Of
inelr claims having been allowed
y oetrimeut of plaintiffs In the two
which were consolidated, and the
tN Electric Light company, as claim
them, these PARTIES appealed and
reversal OF the iudgmy nts. The
-'AS IN favor Of the into rVenins cred
WE entered at tho same term Of the
az which the general Judgment was
~
.Soa-Has this court jurisdiction to
VA determine the matters In con-
s'' there being more than one 1udG-
'Nealed from, or was the dismissal
case because there WAS more than
lua Judgment embraced In the APP
oretY
"a creditor intcrvcnes In Il suit in
s receiver has been appointed for
.gose OF establishing claim against
nypety and his claim has been con-
Tiofe tho court. the action Of the
nereon Is It final Judgment. from
any party 10 the contest may have
1Nal IS Texas, 800. 1t docs not fol
ioSever. that when the final judg-
has been rendered in the main pro-
4 ,Ion such general judgment and the
naserees rendered at the same term
WIZ The Intervening creditors in one
,,.,a NV, oy making all parties adverse
'sVN parties to the appeal. Our
,nore favor multiplicity of APP
n,,' .ah DO done, we think it proper
e \, practice to revise the entire
ons proceeding.
'acl that an intervention In n case