The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-12
HIGHEST COURT DECISIONS.
Synopscs Of Opinions Handed Dows
at the Latest Sitting,
RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
necessary 60 Namc All Parties N q
Writ OF Error--lt Can mt Ne
Amended In Higher Court.

Austin. Texas. May 10. Following are
synopsis OF the opinions delivered by the
supreme court today.
NEEDHAM PIANO AND ORGAN COM.
pANy Va. HoLLlNGSw0RTH BULL
INGTON CO.. suit for debt brought
by the Plano and Organ company. from
Dallas county Fifth district---An'rinsd.
Plaintiffs recovered In the trial cour: %
the cause of action declared on aud do.
fcndants recovered on a plea In reconven.
Ton against plaintiffs. for the alleged
wrongful levy of writ OF Attachment On
stock OF pianos and organs.
We granted the writ Of error solely upon
the ground that under the undispuloi csi-
ioneo in the case the verdict for the do
PENDANTS was excessive. Tho proper
amount OF tho judgment depended upon ~.
value OF tho goods seized. The petition for
tho writ OF error, which purpo-tad 10 vo,rt
out 10 us all OF the testimony on tho issus
OF The value of the goods. showed that de-
PENDANTS testified that said goods wtr0
worth SdS0S at retail. Four other WITNESSES
placed their value at s2gSa rs. The amount
OF tho payment was $3ls5 "a.
The value at which u stock OF goods may
be sold at retail, standing alone. does not
AFFORD any sufficient basis for determln!ug
their market value. Tho market value Ia
what the goods could have been promptly
sold for IN bulk or III convenient lois. But
counsel for defendants IN error have re-
fcrrcd lis TO other parts OF tho transcript,
not cited In the petition for a writ OF error,
which, In our opinion, disclose legitimate
evidence tending 10 show that tho market
value of tho goods cxcoc1ed the amount re-
covered There being evidence TO support
tho Judgment 1t Is conclusive Upon us az
to tho question which We have discussed.
Opinion by Gaines. C. j.
WEEMs 4 WALDO vs.. 8. c. WATSON
EFT AL. trespass Ia try title. from Hask-
ell county. Second distrlct--hff,tuied In
part and reversed and rcmanaed in part
to the court OF civil appeals.
Plaintiffs below. forty nno liz number.
including Gertrude Watson. sued TO re-
cover OF Roberta & Roberts titio and Ios-
session Of ono-third Of league OF land
in Haskell county. together With rents
thereof, Defendants. among other pleas.
vouchcd In their warrantors Wcers e.
waldo. There was II judgment 10Y plsip-
tins against all of the dcfopdan,s, and
Judgment over In favor Of Roberts & Rob-
er'a neainst Wecms 4 waldo.
Within one year from the date of this
Judgment Weems e Waldo filed In said
cause with the clerk OF tho district court
trying same. a petition for writ OF error,
which named as defendants In said pro-
coedng all of the plaintiffs and defendants
In the court below except Gertrude Wat
son. At the same time the potltiouar filed
IN said court a supersedeas bond payable TO
all Of the other parties. including Gortrudo
Watson.
The transcript having been f'lel the
court of civil appeals. that court. on inc-
tion OF the defendant tn err,r named in
the petition. dismissed the writ Oh tho
mod - VA.
toned in tho petition for writ of error.
was not served with citation In error. and
did not appear In the court Of civil APPEALS,
wherefore tho court was without Jurisiie-
tion OF tho cause
/. Under tho old statute Gertrude Wa
eon would have been by the proc sodlngs
above party defendant to tho writ of
error. as II was not required that the pe-
titlon for The writ Of error should gi,o the
names OF tho defendants therein. II was
sufficient II tho bond WAS made payaole
10 them. for II was tho duty 81 tho tltrk.
upon filing the bond, TO obtain the neces-
aarv Information from the papers In tile
cause from which to issue tho citations.
The Revised Statutes have. however,
changed the rule above announced and Inn
pertiNoly provide that Tho petition shalt
state the names ana residences of tho par
ties adversely interested" This pra,ision
is mandatory
in overriding the counter notlon of Weema
q Waldo to be allowed to amend tho ?o-
titlon nunc pro tune
In some jurisdictions statutes have Leen
enacted authorizing amendments in tho pp.
pollate courts OF writ Of error proceedings,
We have no such statute IA this state.
3 Tho claim OF Roberts n Roberts
against Weems q Waldo on their warranty
was separate and distinct right OF iepoy-
cry In which tho plaintiffs below w"rs In
nowlso Interested. The court Of civil ap.
Dcals therefore erred In dismIHsng the wit
u error proceedings as between plaIn,'f
In error and Roberts & Roberts. The Cause
Is renanded ia tho court OF cIyil appeals
50 that II may pass upon such assign
monts az question the rights Of Roberts n
Roberts to recover the Judgment rendered
In tbelr favor agains Wotems e. Waldo,
their former judgment Is af
firmod.
opinion by Dcnman. j.