The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-05-20
s,cN.R COURTS.

HIGHER Cul"''
.,,,on. Rendered by the
state ' Nav is.-Following are
sa !, the opinions ds'lSe''' "
A. PRAY. SUIT on
srRANG VI, and TO ioreclose WE
Mn conitae' frnm Tarrant county,
srd dis.l' sanding contract remained
written l,s us Of sirang, defendant ,., be-
srss s he compile ion OF lne ''o uns
w ,sn,ssd to pay b ,ne for the con,
called upoi, mn Nave it recorded
TX The intent u nut did not tell
WI 70 fix his len. w Vas in "a ling
"a whst M Strang refused 10 CIV
Y .sSvn,,act and lta a,,r months after
Xxi. sysin less than iop' liking FOR Al
WV y. was tonrietr1, ~ q" len upon
hw,. q the mecIa''v :. h,ch it Vas
s's and the lot v'l ,nan $50 and
'0 ~. suit was for ieS rou,t. The
!ns st in the circui, Sou n lot on
w.. built partly upon slIed at
s,rsrs and MS iai''' Mini 10 view
sui lui Il was pun M ,,.,,a.,eaa but
tns,, ~ part of TIE none non; n a." rcnt.a
in y. Went that It sh.uitr ,,ca com
"a "a /. hu been so fe"'e'
,,.,t Of civil appeais reye rssder rni
! so.f The trial cour, nv wa Want
~, N favor Of Pray for M, NE a, ~ his
|. 'l si, Il, ard the fofe'''sN
aura NJ the wife Of Strang
m ,ostrect for the ersStio, ',, VI ,haf
" 'v wss not necessary, peVaus, M
R he homestead lot upom M anoh
ss,s was built had pee" "'"''''
sr .,Sssr construction of the ian-
Y !, he constitution OF thls as
" rsshanics. artisans ana Iia.ui!ai
i" W.. mon the interest OF .sia,e
4. N n.rson causing a hhiidiils or ~
~, 10 he made thereon ms IN w
.an which they are situated TOT nI1
X Inc labor performed or nlA,e .,'
"a in the erection ana cphs' ruV-
y ,aoh buildings 20 The extent NAV
II, arc necessary TO is rnloNiheIit
~ s,ttnt that the lands may hs
r,,sd and set apar, as lhttrnueu 10
IN md enjoyed IN connection Win
Stalnr or improvements me len
-, Scnend upOn the statute. inc
,,.ure has no power TO ally 10 tile
s.niyiors Of forfei ur".
"a far MS the statute rivos lien
r., nersons than those named ~ the
tl,s,lOn. II /; does 50. snch len Is
An, ,,non the stature and n com
I. ,terw.,h would be- necessary to
Ksterce. r
i, affirmed.
klen by Brown. j.
klsANp PACIFIC RAILWAY COM
nj " JOE JOHNSON. suit TO re-
w.dausses for personal injuries In
M upon defendant in error by the
kaleare Of the railway company's
mt from Tarrant county, Second
hrt
az Is before tho court on Ger
II 4 Dissent from the court of civil
II Johnson. plaintiff below, was al
- d the accident a conductor en-
by Attendant. lie was injured in
10 and TINS coillsloh "as Saussu
neylRence OF announcer co''uue'to',
nosfls ROBERTS Wa nor ies n!ai
Eaof. hui was an -Ns't eollp uS.oi,
~ conductor Is HtAn no runs
Vn1uctor's uainS wen iiiey are
~ hek, or VINO ~ Ii'tnle 70 ~
upcn 70 act upon any ram IN me
nm q the regular euhA'tVlo f' ne
nE knew az ana 'ei'le sne aocluens
kootis hau ne7ii apl'oih,'l an ~ IRA
Fdef ahu maj ne WIS iabie 70 ne
charge OF trains az any '.liie' ram
fowd that Roberts general reputa-
Among me employees OF aprellail'
haor. The trial court charged in Ell
wv u the defendant. WIN know ledge
s'srs .hcohiretehcy, retained hlm
snNe, ana me INJURY lnhicted
pAlh'iI was brought about ny
MonpetencS, the company would
~ even though The f.hiniiH knew
~ lheompelencN, provided he did
...ner kncw, or ~ inc use OF dill
nas uhaDie TO ascertain mat the in
;s,i conductor was n charge of the
''l0h'hg mat IN cAarse of plain
asorily OF the JUDGES ~ the court
v,.as were OF he opinion that the
nVp,ssioh IN the charge was err
justice Hunter iisscnted from
s"f'usioh o! the majority.
.N,r y no quest on mat Roberts.
.,s'' servant from whose negligence
NV! occurred. was incompetcnt and
conductor. and that the rail-
I'm -i nn Knew OF ! MS fact when il
' W ne mp. and Il must be held
soanson for TIE injury received
1920 ", u we 1ischargc IF the duties or
fiI1pv rscnt unless II las been proved
b, cs anew OF the unlitness ana
III, 9"a'scter OF Rob, rts before the
h. sl.,,
r,i,r ''n ,,t mat johnson had equal OPP
NJ "nl me RAILWAY company 10
r's ,rs character ~ Roher.s and for
k,.a 90. w uahlot recover. This claim
IN ,s, p,,. lhe testimony showing the
tsiios N order TO barge defendant
tbs " Roberts unflness for his
.rn,a p,aiNt,f proved that the gen
.s y.n,s OF Roberts among his fell
t,nns was that Of reckless and
Esbls .vniiuctor, This evidence was
n In, ',E !, tho Defendant for the
\ i,to n. Nus under Obligation 10 in.
srs and H. enaracler II its servant
hi ran s ss failure TO lonrn of his
! tssl, nesi,a among it's employees
! tar Jobnsnnppe II was not neces-
ls of the ~" 10 snow that he was ig-
IA d nroc, ,pu,atlon y Roberts, the
|si.ndan, NJ, n, on mis- question rested
I ty Jehnus tiess the evidence intro