The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-10
n COURT DECISIONS,
| !, ooisions Handed Down
4. Latest Sitting
[,s0 m The SUPREME COURT,
.,.,c SIS. Revised stat
-" IN he Unconstitu-
In It's Provisions

March s.-Followins are
D. !ea =. ooluions delivered by the
e0u'' ,y TT AL vs.. r. NJ. GANo
sILL III, to establish a 'rust rust. IN ,r .ne
W ss me sale Of certain Janus, 'a ana
~ s,s 4 FIFTH dis'ri''--NeS''''' anu
aid. - clara b. Gano, DIS
s !. 0, John NJ. dano' aeeea "a
.'.d r The community estate ., Ol hso,
'' ..s deceaed husband as survivor
I, = statute; and c. W, Cane agar aga,n $,
~ =. = alleged in subtance that on
Y y . september 49, 1893, X. - NJ . u ,saO'
,sr and In possession oil a tract
:, s,oo acres. situated in in. Eii, ms e S,aro
y =, Ne same time c. W; ana lara
hm' the owners OF and IN POSSES
sue , a. tract OF land OF aooo acres
4 Hv both tracts being described
guy nar,les held said lands SUD
I. Hens OF certain ol'es .,o,.,sase
III payne to the Land Morls l,ati',
b.ss by Judgment of the district
x T,s county. Texas, September
.. "1 ,or $40 900 against said H. u.
w y, a foreclosure OF lien ior s9o'vvo
~ mentioned tract OF lana ana 'oi e
Nv ,%s second mentioned tract OF
y y, ~ foreclosure aforesaid was
y "a rrosecu,ed under an agree
N, N ne plaintiff in error, s'li,ih an
Az agent of his o-plaintiit inc
"a mortgage debts, should ior.-
y ,,srs and buy In said properly
y ,s,mit the defendants In error
.s,sonable time to pay or SAID
,.,sss by new loan or otherwise
49, lille TO tho lands. That after
N.,,.nrs sale. Silllman repudiated
smsn, and sold part of the land Tor
.um Of $4,000, and still had IN
..,.,on $40 acres thereof, and that
!. wsra worth $50 ono more than the.
=, ,hs lion encumbrances thereon
VAS prayed that Sillimsn be held
n. AZ The defendants in error. ana
"a his co.plaintiif In error be held
uesss 0, the amount received from
y syer the lien debts, and that DE-
4 m error be Invested OF all title to
4 rnalnlng unsold.
80 was submitted to the jury on
,,.ues; but no issue was submitted
y axnership Of the respective tracts
mr. NJ. Clara b. and c. w. Gano,
"A in the petition, and consequent
Va no finding as to those facts.
m Judgment for plaintiffs IN the
hi.
m determination of the Issue OF
~ title 10 the lands In their favor
veutial to support the Judgment.
n, no evidence tending to show that
\ NO, have title and it may be that
Nc with reference TO the mortgage
ave been sufficient to warrant a
that they were the owners as al
But the fact remains that the issue
(s,her submitted to nor found by the
4 Inc statute, the findings in spe-
ssdIct must be such as that nothing
n Ior the court but to draw from
hrs The conclusions OF law. Or. s..
mi
uie occasion to say that we do not
M Il The rule. The facts admitted
i ykadlngs and the additional facts
~ ne fury upon the disputed issues
rprf foundation for the judgment.
The administration Of justice was to
smilttd to a game Of forfeits there
\ 10 objection 10 the requirement
ititne. But rules of procedure
10 framed as to secure substan-
ltiS, and any oversight of court or
rbith, within certain, limitations.
nd can not operate to the preju-
he parties should be disresardcd.
rls Prescribed by the statute Is,
~, 10 our opinion, technical. arbi-
nd unreasonable, and calculated
y obstruct than to promote the a9-
nilon Of Justice. Under our system
1iure, In many II not in most cases,
wi Issues arise, and in such the
an be best determined by a jury
admission of special issues: but
pga show that under the existing
! dangerous practice. The fact
Mfh there is no controversy Is apt
aHh'ed In the submission, and YER
eaefwlse correct, must be set aside.
~ lhe legislature could pass no
better calculated to promote 4
IND proper disposition OF causes
provide that when case is sub
ul1 special issues the submission
,9es not requested by party to the
~ upon appeal be deemed to have
'a'ea' and such issue shall be pre-
uen manner as TO support the
~ " the court. For the failure of
ny 70 submit the question Of the
~ ownership Of tie lands which
'Mu'eiy claimed. the judgment
IT. Of The lands foreclosed upon by
\ s - error are shown to have been
Nu,,han after the institution Of
4. me purchaser OF these sales
amos with notice OF whatever
,ae attendants in error had IN
misequently stand In the shoes
NJ. ssa,or We are Of the opinion
~ trustee hetrays his trust by
we trust property the beneficiary
I'n responsible for it's value. al
Az mey II he So elect. proceed
~ pld. wv" ho'ioe' LOT 'he
y oos. not follow that a trustee who
saH Fart Of tho trust property
rl 49, 10 pay for the whole. There
A., .ee In this case tending To
)aIn,, we por'iep of the lands not sold
n WI were deprecated in value by
M INC other portion. on the con
hdss 'sralct Indicates that the land
n M. pe',er price when sold In small
~, Nhen sold as a whole. The
|hs Fred a recovery OF the un.
hrx,,, I've court Of civil appeals erred
|A.tss,.. n's portion OF the iudemcn,
d, nMa ~ lieu thereof a Judgment
\ Nv. ss o. the unsold land
y ,rs sSssslions raised may he OBJ
fsbe 4, ,c.aMent on another trial.
FefTA, s' ~ Al vs. CITY or HEN.
B q ,rss r.,'ica'e Of dissent in an ac.
\ Il sescni district. '''' FROM O'A'
\ y Claims the lots in controvers,