The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-07
oooses Of Opinions Handed Down
at the Latest Sitting.
|yDFRED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
RctirIng Member of ~ Firm
Axrees Not 10 Enter the same
pu,incss, Contract Is Good.

L. recover damages for breach OF con.
v,ct. from Hayulla county, Fourth dis
rct-Reversed and remanded
,ss Gates ard Hooper were each
NJ a mercantile business In the town of
tnyille, Zavalla county. On May 2. of
year Gates bought ont the stock of
rchandlse belonging TO Hooper, togcth-
uth the good will of MS business, and
order to render The sale of the good
N effeciual, Hooper agreed That he
mid not for one year thereafter do G.
business In Batesville.
10 petition setting up this contract
alleging a breach OF 1t by defendant
oper the trial court sustained a gem
demurrer on the ground that this CON-
ct was illegal and void as a restraint
trade and as preventing competition
the sale and purchase of merchandise.
e court of civil appeals affirmed the
lgment of the trial court.
/ Is not contended that the contract
build be void under the common law. but
kt 1t is trust under our statute cart.
(, r. 81. In order TO constitute q trust
khin the meaning OF the statute. there
ST be "a Combination OF capital, skill
acts by two or more" Combination as
he used means union or association.
hen We consider the purposes FOR which
combination must be formed TO
me within the statute, the essential
banning of the word combination. aud
fact that u punishment is prescribed
each day that Nhe trust as continued
existence, We are he'd to the conclusion
At the union or association OF capital.
II or acts denounced is where
parties in the particular case
eigned the unatcd cooperation OF
th agencies which might have
En- otherwise independent and compet-
for the accomplishment OF one or
pre- of such purposes. In the case stated
the petition, there WAS no 'comb!na-
n.' The goods and good Will OF de
rchase and SADIE. The agreement by the
ier not TO enter into business In Bates
e for the period of one year was nee
Pary to render the sale of the good will
seiIal by the transaction. neither the
ought into any kind Of union, associa-
or cooperative action.
Opinion by DeGman, j.
JORDAN VS.. V. AND A. MEYER e |
10 EFT AL: certified question In "a SUI; |
~ recover damages for the wrongful |
8evy of writ of att rhment, from |
9s6ow'e county. Fifth district.
IN lSSS Meyer g. Co. sued Jordan upon |
account ard procured the Issuance of |
VIII OF attachment and caused it 10 be
* ed upon stock of goods belonging to |
* defendant. jordan reconvened In this
and recovered a Judgment against |
yer ~ Co. on the ground that the at
IT. fhment was wrongfully sued out. The
ismei't was rendered In 1894. The La
OF the sureties upon the attachment
h m ,s Sss no ho' adJndicatea in that writ.
pm ne attachment bond 40 recover of
oelgors. thereon damages for the
S utstsi sM ,1 out of the writ.
i S,@uil-'WaS The suit barred under
th s,% ,,,a OF limitation of four years
Ik,s me time OF its institution"
no question is answered. in the affirm
In . ne cause of action alleged arose
NE me MY instant the seizure was made.
p re we sui@ies were not sued within
~ sti.ss me principals IN 1894 would pre-
H. any par as 10 them.
pp"'oh by Denman. j.
GALWAY COMPANY vs.. ID. J. WAR
zen suit TO recover damages for per
PM district.
'.e granted this writ because we We're
me opinion that the evidence did rot
lsiaat piainthfs recovery for expenses
,'''ei IN the treatment of his injuries
y y. are still OF that opinion Since the
IL OF error was granted the defendant
error. Plaintiff below. has filed a re-
t ,raa OF $3.50, which was the only sum
,''eu 'or such expenses in the petit
- a Si.q which was the only sum which
nm ettIuehc" tended in any manner TO |
ara nau Deen incurred on account of II
', a,ht of his injuries. This purEes
/, ertor, and the Judgment less the |
y reinilt"d Is affirmed: but defendant
M Is ah1udsed ITO pay both the costs
"o, uourt and those of the appeal to |
ninIn ,t or ciyil appeals.
p'"'oh by Gaines, G. j.
6 y; ROGERS VS.. CoNcHo CATTLE
,rss MN lreSpass 10 try title TO 32O | ,
hird ~, Ianl. from Concho county.
h. "s'r'ot-Reversed aud rendered
,.' ,Aha IN controversy was originally
: VI me public domain set apar. for
Hpi'o'N OF the public free schools
:, >len party claims under purchase {
, "e STATE In 1879 the dividing line
n 'oncho and McCulloch counties
a, 'eyed and fixed by "A Joint survey I
ny ~ the surveyors of The TWO cour- !
tn,'" li'fe as Tins fixed ran through
NJ OF land in controversy. In 1881 d
nty s,,r,isn made application to the d
chasa ~ Sof OF MccuiloCh county To 1
purcb .ne trae,. Rogers claims under
r. H., thmc9rIect and changed so as 10 s
lie, cnS hhu IN ConCho county. The | g
on maiaiyiliy claims through an appli- '
survS.vnss ny r. j. Caswell IN 1SS2 to I
II saa or concho county lr
ted tb veils clear TO us that the law I,
he o GOV general power to sell khe land
&c, and ssloher of the general land -
DOL ' laa1t mat he had the power to sell !
te 10 Is'a wherever situated IN the | i
endIna, therefore, mistake was made (
MY, or ny duplication from the wrong n
ing co,,r,. through a surveyor OF tho Il
ment Of y; and the contract for the
the sipayment thereon were received
SO iss,hee' and the certificate of pnr- II
Chase this vested n right I'm the a
third mar sraI could not be disputed by 4
~ vs snie made to .Jamdson by the State
~ !, subsequently mnhe 70 c,,sweIl
on spd Inscription given I'm the aDpii- "A
icien, certificate OF purchase is in
iva anu eu Identify the land. The court "
alton Of Ia. las, SO held because the an +,
alto number W gave. the wrong GER =,
ific,idh ne law did not reouire titS I ne cl
catlon uinber should be given in the =,
effect not. and the description MS given @
,versea "nnout tho certificate number
+ ana rendered for plaintiff in p
''oi'' by Brown, J.. ',
,.a BALDWIN ET A1,vs 4. X poor. i
So 10 try t'tle. from Haskell conn IL
insled. "''''lot-Reversed and re- r.,
y. plaintiff ha,ou, IL