The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-06-30
Sy(OuR1 DECISIONS.
u, Of o,'''''' s Handed Down
Il 4 he lts't Sitting
|Eprp u IHE SUPREME COURT
. ...,t,cns From Courts of
zee s,.wered-Prccedcnt OF
~ ,.,,... case oserr"'ed'

! p .,v,oN TELEGRAPH COM
ssS =, NINA LUCK; SUI, "a o y , rs,
y. ielegrapbic message W ~, re
q 9 .sss q the Telegraph com
y z. negligent failure to prompt
MY . nen nessage from Maverick
~ s,, ,rt district. Reversed and
-. m, as follows: ITO Bertha
.rsA, J. Ladner. Eagle Pass;
| !. w sick; come home at once
LUi" .,o s,c,, man
la "a, her daughter, Luck died
4. ,,sht on which the message
"A Mrs. Luck recovered iudg-
A. trial court against the defend-
nen,,l anguish, occasioned by Its
:. t.,,ure 10 deliver the above mes
nr,jv nv reason of which failure
w,rrisr was prevented from ar
i, !" lima for the funeral. This jadg-
S,,iiIrned by the court OF civil ap-
...,l demurrer should have been
VI 70 plaintiffs petition alleging
AM nets.
(, "a be Interested. hut the sender
,arnphic message oftiincs is not In
Ssef,ed. and there is no presump-
IL 10 the contrary. Insofar as
!. n western Union Telegraph COM
e Nations, 50 Tex. 53l. is in con-
IA Mis- decision it is hereby over
lrln ~ Brown, ],
M. RupsT EFT All VS.. JOHN G.
clMPBELL; motion for rehearing in
ia lrvn. Nueces county. First dis
et-0Ierruled.
10 winss are urged in this motion. 1t
n, insisted that We we're In error In
udhg that the first brief in the case
20. considered OH the former appeal.
an not agree to this contention. The
.es Of this court evince that the case
pt disposed Of upon that appeal upon
MINIS made In the briefs first filed.
second point is that the question of
katr.e Of limitations of faur wears
aisd bv the sixtieth assignment of
Eseh was presented In the amended
That assignment complains of the
nd the trial court in refusing to
,css,ain special charge requested on
ftuts d four years limitation. But a
=. 70 auuse acker $ OPINION DENY
.., .sse ~ that appea, SHOWS 'nd',
vpmion VI tne court the 'eaues'eu
s.,.,,s Spev leiuseu; pe,aese ~
~. w sYp''.su.e W al Oh 'hc pi.'h,lli
49, NM " .neln were not participants
~ 4. c .,auu.
~ 'aines' u d
|, unoor rr
Nm IN n AZ vs. .. ~.
M. =. ~, lo'io" lor rshearile
,n,, y. ueapass 10 "! uti'' from
- '''' ihiru dis'riet'-oVer-
.ls III error DO not controvert
,n,cness Of the conclusions reached
III an formor amman that tho suit
49,. -
A Nas ono Vi pai'i'ioh' ana 'hal
5sak0eedins the court had the power
Etefl sale for partition, but they con-
Y An A. ,on, IT, a.,..os1 .,i,
:, :. -, =" ,o"', e.S' :" '
sl0' included IN that TRANSACTION,
m'ae court OF civil appeals found
|tfa hat there was No norolo r,,ti-
4 nd ,.,o0 ,,,a -. ' -
|t,,,,sr III, ms soui | having no 'uIts
In mi mn ,uSN AT ~ Is ooinu by eheiF
u, n, des"ri,, a. n,'i w., sn's inds,neh.'
Ne h sntsaiun, III the ,uuiciai pro-
81 ~ s.in.ieht TO pass the tue.
s ~ s,ea ms, IN controversy herein, in
Nj rs,errsi I =" a.. Is that II Is
MA Jnnss 70 p Wy me description nh ,
'bf 10 the nar,ition w ot " ISss There
N, We Alnk, be no question that in a
sriy Isu 4 ,h a setting aside of the
sndirided interest vas Vas" ,r Ir Wv IA
90 0a1 Butler would pass the parry thus
a ~ y me o4o acres which was al
We thnk NAT ,bs ~ cnu Ia,.,. 40 VI
~ laaEs that a partition OF the prop
~ ,,Sa aug anu that therein this land
Mil hat tho co,'rt ~ - o, nn'ler nor 40
I . find the contrary. We under
Y ven position to be that IL Mrs.
~ ~. . DOT bound by the partition pro-
!, md the pleadings therein. then
y, y no evidence that she took part
u, .i'ltion' In our former opinion we
me b,la conclusion that Mrs. blagge
ms ssd BY the partition proceedings.
!, 10Y Denman. ].
XIV
AZ HARRIS VS.. II. MAsTERsoN:
s' se,, Questions in a case from Bra,
county. First district.
~, the appellant hor,ht =, th.
NJ Land and ca,.,s
tdtd in,a.o. oa'''e company an
Aid part of the purchase money
'se his notes for tho ha,',,,. .n,,s
on the Ian, M Wv '"''N'o W"
lu ,ha . anu The notes were as
M NJ Al,