The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-10-02
ann AprEAL CouRr.


Some of the Interesting Decisions Rem
tered Today.
Galveston, Texas October 1.-The case
OF Cotter McIienry Ketchum & Co. VS.
A. H. Catoel ct al. which has attracted
grea. deal OF attention IN Galveston,
was decided today IN the court Of civll
appeals In favor of the appela1iq, the
oillcr being ,hat the case De reversed ard
rendered IA favor OF Cotter, Meiielry,
ketchum . TO.
The facts are briefly these. In July, 1892.
a contract Tor thirty-six blocks Of street
lay ng WAS let hy the city council of
Galveston to Mcssrs. orr y Hor who fall-
ed 20 enter into a contract On september
~ tho city council accepted the lin Of
Cottcr. Mclleury kctrhuin ~ Co. TO do
the paving. thcigs being the lowest bid
received upon r.-Hdreristug. They failed
20 make bond or cutter iutu the contract
for the reasons a. they set up N ms"
answer to Vht suit mentioned aud rs ic-
lated upon triul thereof tha, the contract
ana bond presented to them ilI not agree
win their hid, IT provi iias tlai q" CITY
should Fay the rlutrac' ors 'ne-thtd Casn
and that they were To await ~" co lccu, n
OF the other tWo-ih'rls from .nut ne
property owners, also because the con
tract MA not proyitc Tor mpntlly bay
pleuls pu the work, a. prov drl IN thc'r
bid. They rontcud2d ihtt ihcy rad Nd
on the work for cash payment uy NE
Guy anu lNA holhlilh WhdN'tN''l 80 h' N4An
the assessments npon abut'ng property
owners Whom me bid of urr g 80 was
accepted the bids werr not accompanied
With rhecks 10 guarantee entering lrto
panied. ana the city council pro- eedel 10
forfeit the i9o1 deposited nv them.
IN November 1898, the city euun III fcl-
lowing the one which forfeited Tho ErO
check passed 4 resolution toiuuding the
amount To iotter. MclIenrv, kotchint
Co. Mayor Fly vetoed the appropriation,
az ~ IgYl,yupt.N lN4t lsDflItsl Sc
ed the resolution over his Vctr. l'e de-
clined TO sign the warrant and "a the
prayer pf \. II. casteel, II. \, West. J.
C. 'rrubo. John Bcunisou and Holm u.
Settle as citizens md laXplv srs. tu In
junction was granted hy JuiH" Stewart
ON May u, lN.i, restraining tne MAYOR
from signing the warrant. which i'tInc-
ton was, upon hearing of the case, err
pctuatcd. An appeal was taken from the
decision Of Judge Stewart, resulting Ms
l'uIess me oase is taken 40 the suurcmc
court M,ssIs Corer Mciienry, Kef'i TN
q Co Win get their 5000.
INNAN CASE.
Tho court If civil appeals has declined
to grant rcheorng in the Gaze of lliran
q Go. vs.. the ST. Louis Southwestern
Railway ronVlry.
IHman & GO. sought 90 ship cotton nom
Frost mi Blooming GrOVc Tor Houston
VIA Corsicana and The 'tVus Oh AND lo> as
Central railway. The RAILROAD COMPANY
declined 10 carry il mat $50" nut rlotcd
10 carry it VIA Tyler u td the lutefnatll
~ and Great northern railway lnman
~ co. LOCALIZED the cotton 10 uis ana and
there rcsh'ppcd g 30 iiourpn. in MS
suit they sought to rccpV ~ lhr rN,'ss in
freghts occaa!onod Ivy rcshi 1'nnut OF the
cotton, as well "a damages Ter delay and
vindictive kainIges 'or failure to uiniiy
with shlppcr'a request to route.
fhe court of appeals allowed The c'him
for Excessive frcigh's. hut lisllloNed The
rest. Tho feature Of the decision, Row
ever. was the courts finilng tbs, q ship
per had The right to route has business.
Both PARTIES made motion FOR rehcar-
ing. The case win .'rlpablS 80 .gner
THE SUSIE.
The court of clvii appeals today refused
to grant a rehehring in the ease OF the
Galveston and Weston Railway company
wherein the court several months ago re.
formed tne Judgment Of the districi court
of Harris county. where IN c. ST. was 'reJ
on a change on venue from Galveston
county. holding thar the railroad COMPANY
Is limited TO q narrow gauge track on
avenue y east OF Ih,rty-te :cn'h street
and on Nintn street. ana that IL las no
rights on the streets west of Thirty
seventh street. The cHse VIII be appea'ed
Atnrmod--J. NJ Taylor vs.. VIM. Bry'
sas anl Texas Hallway 'omaet y II Texas
ct al vs.. j. X. Burnett rom Harris.
Reversed and rcmanded --.ilw Lrd Wards
worth vs.. Mary Cardwell al al, from
reversed ana rendered for appellants
Cotter MCllcnry, kr' nun q o. vs.. y
II, Castocl ct al. from Cav 'ston.
Reversed AMI render Il for appclipnts
for one-half Df the land Ia controversy
Heirs r. W. MastcrsOn Vs. II. Ste l'ns ct
al, rom 3razoria.
cert ncd questions TO supreme court
Eliza kempncr vs. c. Il. lludlles.on ct
al from Anderson.
Motions for rchoarlng refusel-Inman &
co. vs. St. Louis Southwestern halfway
rompany ttw0l, from Harris. Houston
Eaa; and West Texas iinilw ~ ompany
VS.. j. 7. Harrison, from Nacog hes
ts city NJ Galveston
10 set aside submission and dlsm 81 APP
pcal--Fdward Wadsworth vs., Mary Card
we'll ct al. from Wharton.
Motion 10 strike out iii of exceptions
granted-NIsaouri. Kansas and Texas
Railway Company OF Texas ct nj vs.. j.
H. llurnett. from Harris
Motions 10 file transcript gran,ed--TcXas
Mex can Railway company vs.. Il. X.
savage. from Nucccs.
Submitted Frank NJ. Lukens VS.. Cal
weston Lnnd aud lmPovemfnt company,
from Galveston; M. Scott. administrator
W. Il; H. Rowland ct al from ,smlh ".
AL from Fayctte, l. 4, Clark -. @.
Bohms, from Fayette; G. T.. Laughter ct
al W. II j. l.ochausen. from Jackson;
IFelt. from Colorado.
Sol for submission October Ed. ].
Faux vs.. NJ. Byerly, from Chambers; W.
from waller; Houston and Texas Cen
tral Railway comlany vs.. 'ri'2 i,er'lug
from Harris Houston AM Texas cehral
railway company vs.. Alex fnrss. ron
Harris; j. II. l., Primer 1T al vs. Men
sing Bros. 4 Co., from taysttc; Grlf.
W. j. II. and II. Il. Wallacs. from Wash
ilgton, G. q. Dement, VS.. Houston PRINT
ing company, from Washington Houston
East and West Texas Halfway company
~. ~. +. 'nrroll. from Nacos9Ochos;
Clara Demond VIZ, s. +. Jordan, from
Shelby; Harris MaStcrson VS.. J. II. bur
nett, from ,razoria: paul ucconbs ts.
city Of Rockport. from ArEnsas: tiran
Mcfarland vs.. George X. Oylsr Carriage
company, from Sacogdoches.