The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-03
,,,o,o,,o
Il COURT DECISIONS
/ oylsioas Handed Down
4, i. Latest Sitting
|8p BY THE SUPREME COURT,
- ~. Davis ct all From
I. ..-.-.a ..a n.m"n''a
m . new Trial.

- March 2.-Following are
b ,' =. opinions delivered by the
our pacific RAILWAY COM
Npc a. Stages EFT Al; Ger.
h ". =. ., IN A case from Tarrant
y second district 80, A..
= a',.,,.d 10 We understand that the
|, :, upon appellants track with
,,yosehlps from behind him , un.
|. Circumstances as made MIN n,
h. IN cortributory negligence In
.',,I.s The approaching train and
..,,, The track. The persons VINO
~, tho train saw tho deceased
n ..ss when he was between a
y ~ half mile In front OF the
:. which the employees OF appel
~ ~ use ordinary care 10 dis
Y. sS,,sascd would not leave the
n prevent injury to him. and
..ssr bis peril when it arose in
y Ar slacken the speed OF the
y preyent or lessen the injury.
~, charged the jury, In effect,
|, sssax and children OF deceased
.,a's % recover under the above
I. DID the trial court commit err
y, ,puellant in giving the charge
y. ,rred in charging the jury as
M n, question presented was de-
|. 4. rourt In the case of Texas
tir Railway company VS.. Breadow.
40. .u...
Y. ,ps the employees of appellant
4 A rs train actually knew of his
lime 10 have averted 1t and they
No every means in their power,
n with safety, to prevent the In
.Iluad company would be liable.
Bending the contributory negli-
he deceased.
d By Brown. j.
mn Is syropsis Of the opinion of
rt-. court, delivered yesterday in
a
DIVERSE EFT AL (EXECuTORs) |
ElLLlAM DAVIS EFT AL, from
ugniy. Fourth district.
,ssius Of T. ". Pierce instituted |
ID the district court of Bexar coun-
b William Davis and his children,
/ substance; ~ That on Febru-
III, William Davis executed a
-ll conveying certain properly in
Il San Antonio TO II. b. Andrews
secure the payment of certain
bstcd BY Davis In favor OF Pierce,
sa trust deed provided for a sale
tTrty conveyed in a specified
. order 10 raise tie money to pay
" Pierce was authorized under
y II this trust deed to appoint q
Trustee. In certain contingencies,
"a tlte was empowered TO do so:
llsf The maturity OF the notes and
otath Of Fierce, Andrews was
go execute the trust by making a
W lroptrly when defendants in
Y the day set for the sale.
y a&ured a court of equity TO en-
IVY. lius teopardizine, by the act
~ uhgfully brought about bv
AhMathe holder of the notes to
NiWl5) and that this wrong
~ Mained constantly in force
"a i'tes were barred and the
s had died, The petition
,N.pcln'rpent by the court of a
. ss'ee 10 execute the trust.
- 70 error, by special excep-
TIM 'lo objection that a court
w ca account OF the debt being
=. 90. from extending its aid in
aEi d the trust. ~ ="
\ nunsiully enjolned wos .o,o
~. rae, The trust and power q
.n'a IN the trust deed sim cxist
s ,n a0s asked to appoint n trus-
49, s ,ne power in lieu of one
4 Il, " us wrongful Injunction
I'M, instance ~ OF defendants in err
s,s 4' . u error hive been deprived
n.y. !. Opialon that the court has the
!. ai ". The appointment and that
an a's sa 10 bar to this suit
t.,,.una.oe MADE Under the circum.
ys sS. ~ In error will moi ha
M. nd :, ne : collateral fact that the
Ha reason why relief should
,ss Of the statute o, ,,n,..,,
Zen a., .na.t o. State demand should
/ D., 'ts y because the cause
,t,s @ i, the right to applv ,an sor
l,dr r,, 'he death of the oris; nu
NJ a he existence a, Tho. so,,.
|ssTIs y M 'ae lien were adiud,c s nos
Is /, . .s OF Davis va. Andrews
ss,t in 's ,b', by the petition and
sb D.,n Reversed and r en- no sh'