The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-27
HIGHEST COURT DECISIONS.
Synopses Of Opinions Handed Down
ut the Latest Sitting,
RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
Taxpayers Must Have Notice of In
crease in Observation-Disclosures
Suspended by Mistake.

Austin, Texas. March 25.-Following are
synopses Of the opinions delivered by the
supreme court today:
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO vs.. WILLIAM |
HOEFLING; application for writ OF er-
ror in a case from Bexar county, Fourth |
district--Refused.
This suit was brought by the City OF San |
Antonio to recover OF William Hoefling |
certain taxes assessed against him for the
fiscal year ending February IS. 1891. Hoe
fling did not render his property for taxa
ton for that year. but 1t was listed IN his
name as the owner by the city tax asses
sor and WIS valued by that officer. The
board Of appeal and revision" without
giving Hoeflng notice, increased the Nalu-
alton of certain parcels of his real estate.
but left that placed by the assessor upon
other parcels. as well as that put upon his
personal property, untouched. The city
recovered In the trial court judgment for
all the taxes claimed by 1t upon tho basis
of the increased valuation. Gu appeal the
court OF civil appeals reversed and re-
formed this Judgment SO as to allow re-
covery by the city only for the taxes upon
the property which had been valued by tho
assessor and upon which the valuation had
not been increased by the board. holding
that the board had no power to increase the
valuation as made by the assessor without
| giving notice to The owner.
| We concur in that opinion. But are also
| inclined to think that in reforming the
| Judgment the court should have allowed the
city recovery not only for the taxes upon
! the property. the valuation upon which had
/ not been increased by the board, hut also
| for the taxes upon the other property upon
/ the basis Of the assessors valuation---dis-
regarding the attempted increase which was
void. This error of the court OK civil ap-
poais was not made ground in the motion
for a rehearing in that court but is pre-
scented here by an appropriate proposition
In the application Under The rules the
point must be considered rs waived and We
do not feel at liberty to decide It,
Opinion by Gaines c. j.
A. l.. IDE & SON VS.. COLLEGE PARK
BELT LINE EFT AL; application for
writ of error in a case from Grayson
county, Fifth dstrict-Dismissed Tor
want of jurisdiction.
Idc & Son sued the corporation 10 recover
part of the purchase price OF certain ma
chinery sold by them to defendants IN ell
erty This lien was not recorded, AMI after
1t attached the company borrowed OF a
bank aslarge sum of money and save tho
bank its promssory note with some Of the
other defendants as sureiies. 10 protect
Its sureties 1t at the same time gave
deed of trust upon It's property. Some oil
, the sureties were directors in the company
while others were not. Upon the tiial the
issue was whether or not the surstics had
, notice of the unrecorded lien. The jury
under instruction from the court found
:. that the sureties who were diHfr' notice of
,rsnp}pY9nhI . IT found III favor OF the othe1
sureties on this issue and for a for AclosnGe
against a five eighths interest IN the prop,
ortv The court OF civil appeals reversed
1 and remanded the judgment OF the trlai
4 court on the ground that the foreclosure
should have been against only 'hree-
eighths interest III the properly -..,..
I In order to show jurisdiction IN TINS eou'
r tho apulicants allege that the judgment oi
a The court of civil appeals practically set
ties the case. , ,,orc,,
held that the foreclosure was upon sreat'
n err interest in the property imam was wa" az,
a ranted nv the pleadings and evidence W.
a annrehend that the applicants do not pro
nose tn admit that, ii the opinion OF WV
court of civil appeals is correct, they arr
a. not entitled to foreclosure Oh me icl
: upon any interest in the property Whatever
n and to empower us TO render such d LUIS
q ment. Presumably what they desire Is .na
80 ~. ~ event the decision OF the cou'. o
= Evil appeals should be upheld we thoul
render a Judgment here Tor tnem as",ns
is the appellants. foreclosing lien asa,na
10 n three eighths interest In the property
-, This can not be done, Appeiia,its ia ~
,t,,- tn1
70 darod against them and IL is not WITHIN IN
he ,'ower Of appcllees to confer 3urisdicto
ut ,,non tho court to do 20. The deHslch -
to tho court Of civil appeals may PrdplVIaa,.
III 6otormine that the applicants are eh,''' ~,
ap w. snreclosure upon three eighths OF In
Of W ~, opiy hut It does not necessarll
ne ps.tar,oine that they may be entitled to tht
r,,ch Applicants, by alleging that the az
nision Of the court OF civil Appeals pIa,
he tIcally settles the case, ADMIT W. W., ~,
he con adduce no better evidence III tnel' w,
-. behalf on another trial ihe ue, ,h a
hs in error make no such admission Oh 'i'
,ss ~. ,ar, and the applicants can not make
re 70 them H. therefore, does not appe'
ed row the application that the decision
ny tho court of civil appeals In fact praetic,a
ar ", w.. sot,ies the case" and we are without y
risdictlon over the cause,
ar opinion by Gaines, e. J.
Nh IopAcE OLDHAM EFT AL VS.. 1EON"
lei MEpEARIs EFT AL; certified QUESTION 1r,'s, a,
a case from Travis county lh"a VI
trct.
art In 1872 Oldham and Medearis owhe
Sol Jointly a tract OF land supposed py 'he
his 10 contain $50 acres. They agreed upon
lad nor,,,,on of the tract. and employed cor
the no,ent surveyor to run the division I'M
oA' rhe line was run with the intention on :.
riff part Of Oldham. Medearis and the survey
~ giving 10 each 140 acres OF iand. u
W aach believed that the line as r.
,nt ala this. The land partitioned did nc
,rs howeyer. contain as many acres as the pa
+" ,,es believed and owing to mistake
he surveyor Medearis got l4o acres
Oldham only received IVA acres ia Sa
~ Question l. II Oldham exercised a
lta auigenoe in discovering the mistake III
by partition Of the land and the shortase
to The land set apart TO him. VIII the sta'u