The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-11

crime Kuhne ct nj VS.. Foster. from Tar
rant: Bryan ct al vs. Person, from Has
kcll. Potter vs.. Kennedy. from Wichita.
Ward VS. Wilson. from clay: Mutual Lie
Insurance company VS.. Womack, from
Cooke Jones VS.. Chapman, from Eralh;
Mcleod Artesisn Well con. rany VIZ. craig,
from Wichita, Remhcrt. administrator. rs.
Wood from I'otterI Parker vs.. Reed, from
Wichita
Motions for rehearing refused Martin
Brown COM any vs. Pool, from Bosquc,
Bridgeport and Decatur Coal Mining cont
papy Us. Wise County Coal company, from
Wise Wilson VS.. LoWrie. from Montague,
Fort Worth Transfer company vs. leaacs
from Tarrant, Missouri, Kansas AMI Texas
Railway company VS.. Rogers, from Cooke.
Western Urion Telegraph company vs..
Hearne. from Callahan; Continental Land
and Cattle company VS.. William, from
Baylor; Davis VS.. Lewis, from Parker.
To dismiss appeal granted-Lclcher VS.
Crandall. from Jones.
TO affirm on certificate granted Caring
ton VS. Kemp Grocery company. from Mon
taguc: Kimble VS.. Kemp Grocery company,
from Montague.
For additional conclusions granted
Western Union Telegraph company vs.
iIcarne. from Callahan.
Cases submittod-Spru vs.. Straiton-
White company. from Shackelford. Kelley
Grain company VS.. English, from VIII
barger: Telegraph company VS.. Davis, from
Parker. MARTINEZ Brown company VS.. CITY
National bank from Hardeman' Tekab ana
Pacific Railway company VS.. Arnold from
Palo pinto Boaz VS.. Coulter Manuiactnr-
ing company from Tarrant' Mock VS.
Hatcher. from Tarrant; Gist VIZ. East, from
Archer.
Cagcs affirmed Tolbert vs.. Barbourfrom
Callahan: Shropshire VS.. Change. from Co
manchc, Love a Fry ys. Bewley, from
Erath Bland vs.. orr county guuss' run run
Homes. 4 #. Relo & Co. vs.. Smith, from
Cooke. Aetna Insurance Co. VS.. Mulhall
from Tnrrant, Missouri Kansas and Texas
Railway company VS.. Davis d. Worsham
from clay: First National bank OF Amarillo
VS.. SNYDER. from Potter Bright VS.. burg
hart, from Hardemah' y ~.
Reversed and rcmanded-Schow g. Bros
VS. CITY National bank oil "a'osNllIe' from
Bosnue 1.-TWO casesl.
Reversed and dismissed-strahorn Hut
ton Evans Commission company VS..
Youngblcoa & Brown from Midland,
Reformed ard aifirmed-Ridgeway vs.
Summers ct al, from Tarrant'
FInh District Court of Appeals.
Dallas. Texas. April lo.-Proceedings In
the court of civil appeals for Fifth judicial
district at Dallas today
Affirned-Missour. Kansas and Texas
SON county, w. C. briggs VS.. j. Il. Gran
tnam ct al. Iill county Houston and Texas
Central Railway company VS.. Thomas
Weaver ct al Navarro county, q. W. Ma
lone VS.. W. u. Howard 81 al. Hunt coun-
w. Max orlieb vs.. C. i. Evans ct al
Dallas county.
Reversed and emanded-Thomas Manu-
featuring company VS.. Griffin & Maxfeld
ct al. I'm county
Reversed and Michigan Saw
ings and Loan association VS.. ]. p. Atte-
berry. Hunt county.
Motions disposed of-M. II. Bowman vs..
Texas Brewing company, TO dismiss appeal.
granted: Pete Clements TO j. X. Sweet Of
al 10 dismiss appeal. granted; Fort Worth
and New Orleans Railway company VS.. w
n. Nesmith rehearing. overruled; j. IL.
Lyon. administrator VS.. u. NJ. Tillman.
to file transcript, granted; Guif' Colorado
and santa Fe Hallway company vs.. J, b.
German. to yacate order, overruled; Some
field & Emmons vs.. ]. W. Mayton. to re-
uuire mandate TO issue. granted.
cases submitted Studebaker Bros. Man
pfacturing company vs.. West National bank