The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-09
HIGHER COURT DECISIONS.
Synopscs Of Opinions Handed Down
at the Latest Sitting.
sTORRlE VS.. CORTES AND WIFE
HOnestcads Are Not Liable to Forced
Snle 10 Pay for street Improve
ments-PreviOus Rulings.

Austin. Texas, December 7.-Following
are synopsos of the opinions delivered by
the supreme court today:
ROBERT C. STORRlE VS.. HENRY w.
CORTES AND WIFE; certified questions
in case from Harris county. FIRST dis
trct-Answered in favor of defendants
below.
This cause was an action brought in the
district court OF Harris county by Robert e..
Storrie against Henry w. Cortes and wife
to foreclose an alleged lien of certain i'm
provement certificates upon the home
stead Of appelees. based on local assess
ments made for paving the street abut-
ting on said homestead, pursuant to the
provisions Of the charter OF the city OF
Houston. city of more than 10000 inhab-
itants. The contract for the paving of the
street was let June is, 1859. In accordance
with the provisions of the city charter, and
the assessment was made and the improve
ment certificates were issued in compliance
with said charter, SO as 10 make them
lien on the land, except for the fact that
1t was tho homestead of appeilees. Upon
the trial below the court rendered judg-
ment in FAVOR of appellees upon the merits
instead oil dismlsslng the case.
Question /. Should lien be enforced in
favor of appellant against the homestead
CT appeilees for the amount Of said i'm
piovement certificates by reason of TIE
TACT that the contract for the pavement
| was made and performed before the de-
| cision OF the supreme court In the case OF
Higgins VS.. Bordages?"
Ii is claimed by counsel for appellant
that the lien upon the homestead of APP
3 tod tn, hn 10
I tlon OF the city council OF the city OF
Houston ought TO be enforced in this case,
] notwithstanding the decision heretofore
made by this court in the case of Higgins
/ rs Bordages IS Texas, AS. because the
/ rights of appellant under the contract made
/ with the city of Houston accrued after the
decision in the case of Lufkin VS.. city OF
! Galveston. 5S Texas. 5i5, and before the
4 decision in Higgins VS., Bordages. Two
grounds are asserted upon which this court
may and ought to sustain that lien. al
: though It's later decision upon the subject
/ be maintained II Ia claimed % that a
correct application of the doctrine of stare
! decisis would leave the case OF Lufkin VS.
Galveston in force as to all contracts made
and rights accruing after it was made and
before the rendition of the later decision
which ovcrrulod it.; (2) that the decision in
the case Of Higgins VS.. Dordages. in so far
as 1t effects contracts made between the
~ .,,cb ant,,,.. 10 5 ., we po'isat'oh
be given effect as to them.
me rule Of stare dccisis was thoroughly
considered by this court before 1t MIA !e the
, decision in Higgins VS.. 3ordagcs. and also
rasa pnaa,,Ii,, ~, -, , M t''o'' u" 'ia'
i'' - Rs n'1.he 'nc ,l,poI tahcc oi stand
a s,,o.ai - ee , VI ", coui, rs
that In the circumstances of that case il
was the duty of the court to overrulc the
w. h ~, VI huihn vs. "aiNss'oh'
,ar,,,'" u"nu ~ uw'tItS "nlcn az
nista % =. a., a'.as Wv uYe''lie vi s,a's ue-
do , - 80 ~ w app,tou, n.y.
.,,stair - s'' go" .."So,t ""'Vn "ou'n
se,,.,.n SUN apf,ieallp" VI u On ,ne
,,e. d" W. MINK M me very Iouhna-
,,uu vi tn' ruiz ID nnVneoi'isllc 10 INC
49, "u1s.',oi' NV ult.u nu,'u 'his court IL
1. a",'' ~, h"iN'n Va, "oiNes'oU' VIC must
usu'l u!' h'skIns vs.. porusEos, because IL
ons -, A., - VA. - % a." W W ~ uiei
"s. az en' SAM w, w neIu 10 ne ttle law
~ NV, Wv ''a.e III Wn'vn II w's Iouuereu.
~ He.on' t.ounu Icpuii,s iu9t 'are,ui
,A.I'.'nl.'',', "itnLlsn we .nI.N =. etuaiN
VI" w ,nuulc, "ul II mas oeV,' aupio''t u w 'he
'l'ut'"n OF 'ases "eciueu oS tne suprehi,
o" ,i VI .ne on'teu SUITS WI" oeiha'iu
va, ~. e"'t ~. '0'iSi''c'a '."'', nv wv i"e
.rnG souellt TO Dc ensralttn upoh the Ju,is-
W ms s ' ~, VI si'''.'e, ~ "'o
t ,'. u, '-HIei justice aneS III .ne rase Oh
i ,n ~ company 'S' ~. p'i'. 40 "aiiace,
a ~ b.,ss. ~ ie.. GA I'm thns
s"n. ""s s''urns w Sp'".sn W sne ohie'
gus..ee eSi'uurreu III Wy Vnu ., ms asso
uiu''s, an" uion pnol,os',lun VIII ,s,i QUIZ
nv NV n"'e u'en ,'''o'''" III 'Ne al ''iiAi'o'
VI ~ ,. 'Nns ', a'. ,,,,.s ,o,o,a ..,a
=" "'''os' .'o's oase "i,'e'i .o,u"ru .'lS
III We s"hl ouui' VI 'nS 'n.1.u SUITS,
81 W. az Wy c'S,s III luc a.a'e 0'u, %
"'t ,oi'o" '',rl.'' Wv, n'aue W
49, .'u' ous.'se .a"os , Ms o ~ ma 'nr
uasls LOT refusing 10 ioilcW 'ne aecisioh OF
Wv "'tte r.u.t Wpe!, iuu,u W ps nntaso-
, n.s'.t !" "il"' M.S 'i"usn. u ne ric op-
's"''V" oi ooH,r i"aoc pIlo' 'he'elo
=, ~ w 80 5000 s w Wy sup ny No't.
W ~, wv .nit'' 'I ~, NV. w we pui'o.e w
q, " - w., Ky, ~ guy 49, eu"'. liz
esoi peen nell 'ut' ueciSon WNlcn
oo,, ne" w. .o'..r. 'eV' NV, v. W sum,
,,.u', MnS uunuN'o.s w W. plo' ,sluns ol
wv V'ns.'.u''ol, VI w .nlten otatVS' OF
onantIr ,o .ro, , p,Tn' go i'o,n
'Ai"'Niu- u Jaw litt NlpIdltS " 'DHlTuNl. tn