The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-05
THE HIGHER COURTS.
-, ni.trict court of Appeals.

second district Court of Appeals.
Fort Worth, Texas. April 3.-Court OF
civil appeals at Fort Worth:
Motions Tor rehearing submitted-Mis-
souri,. Kansas and Texas Railway company
VS.. ROGERS, from Cooke; Gulf, Colorado
aud Santa Fe Railway company VS.. Jagoe
from Denton Owo cases) David VS.. Lewis
from Parker Farmers and Mechanics Ma
tonal bank VS.. Taylor, from Tarranti
Bridgeport and Decatur Coal Mining COM
rany VS.. Wise County Coal company, from
Wise: Maddox VS. Fort Worth Building
and Loan association. from Tarrant; Sher-
mai. Shreveport and Southern Railway
company VS.. Payne, from Hopkins; Fort
Worth Transfer company VS.. lsaacs. from
Tarrant parlin C. Orendorlf company VS.,
Cantrell from Tarrant.
To aifirm on certificate submltted-Mc-
Larn VS.. Stewart. from Haskell; Males
VS.. Bates from 1arrant
For certiorari submitted-Ryan VS.. Pear
son. from Haskell
To submit on suggestion of delay sub
Mitted-Baldwin VS.. RIke Ellis, from
Haskell: Jones VS.. Sternlauer * Co.. from
Parker.
For additional findings submitted-Sher-
man. Shreveport and Southern Railway
company VS.. Payne from Hopkins.
10 dismiss appeal submitted renshaw
vs.. Harris. from Bosque
10 file record (agrcemen) submitted
SANFORD VS.. larlin " Orendorff company,
from Clay,
Motions for rehear!ng refused-Harper
vs. roster. from Tarrant: Reed VS. Eu-
iehs' aamlni traitor, from Tarrant; Farm
ers and Mechanics bank VS.. Taylor
from IT Tarrant 1.-TWO motions), Ida
H. byers VS.. Mitchell, from Tarrant; Mad
doS VS.. Fort Worth Building and Loan
association, from Tarrant; Sherman,
shreveport and Southern Railway company
vs. Payne from Hopkins
10 strike ont appellants brief refused,
snpnlemcntal briefs ordered fled-Eyans-
Potter
TO POSTPONE submission granted cren-
hnaw vs. Harris. from Bosque.
10 affirm on certificate qranted-Nc-
iaFin VS.. Stewart from Haskell; Males
vs., Bates. from Tarrant
ror certoran refused--Bryan VS.. Pear
son IRON Haskell
10 submit on suggestion Of delay granted
anu causes set for two weeks hence Bald,
WIN vs. Rilie & Ellis, from Haskell; Jones
vs., e'ernlauer N Co., from Parker.
c vases atIrmed-Jones (recciyer) vs..
AVS from Montague; Storey ct al VIZ.
ooIeS' from Archer; Dublin Cotton oil
SSonpahy VS.. Jarrard, from Erath: pholns
Blgeow Windmill comnany w. creacnr
.rn,l Nlharger Texas and Pacific Railway
Sherman cb, tacEaoerry, from Tarrant;
way company VS. Rrd lna s f2o o Ra
Ialicy and wife VS.. Moseley, from oia''1 Tar.
RI" Re,o.,
Harye S'Se "a and romanded-narvcy vs..
Pa an,rss, rom Baylor; Texas and Pacific
from Mitchell; New E DaIaS q h a,
trust company VS.. Miller. from Tarrant D'
be set 5s,to II Is ordered that submission
amend It's brief FL, IN a ,pren required to
IN Burrs VS.. Booth. f,nm Iom,- -,
sc,w ~i mat the Judgment be affirmed as 70
me-. damages, provided exemplary dam
Cos ne RENTED within twenty DAYS.
ps Uses submitted-Show VS.. City Nationo,
en- OF Gatcsvillo from nosoua rr.o
sb.os,; falbot VS.. Barber. from Callahan
Wb tVpsnlre vs. CLANCY. from oomancbo.
rparEer' Love & Fry v" ",nse .Io@ iron, iron,
fror. Telegraph company We sta aro,'
s, nases SET for Anrll 2G-rabor vs ,r,..
Tara m building and Loan association 'r ,ror,
staTa,nnt Critics VS.. Miller FROM, r, ir",n
IFt elns VS.. jackson. From, Ta,. ron Hooa'
binsas Railway ron,n,n,, - "'"tlrrn