The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-12-23
STATE SUPREME COURT.
Certified Questions Answered in VII.
llamS VS.. Wiley, From Harris.
THE COURT EXPRESSES MUCH DOUBT
rs TO There Being Any Necessity for d
Bond in Order to Give Jurisdiction
to Appellate Court.

49,, SNAt 1VudJ answered certiued queS-
lions IN the case OF ]. l.. Williams OF al
W. T. e. Wiley ct al. from Harris, on GER
uncate from the court Of civil appeals,
First district.
Flainnns in error ]. L. williams, eI-
eeutor OF the estate OF Larissa Williams,
deceased, and Emily Pudor Joined by her
husband, o. NJ. Pudor. instituted this suit
IN the district court OF Harris county
against Y. h. Wiley, c. z. Peterson, An
drew Preston, S. 0. Peterson, Henry Hahl,
a, Lnastret, John johnson, A. J, Bratten,
SnuTeW J. johnson, John Larsen, Niles
Llnuherg, Emma Larsen, Mildred Larsen,
oeilha Larsen, Clara Larsen, j. /. Damp
son, a. L. Hail. stephen Wollck, Joe
nVnck Joe Moilck, Jr, Mrs. Augusta Mar
Tens b. +. Rdgeway, John A. Clauson,
W. H. HoliengMorth, Frank Rohla, doe
otasueyt Z. III. Kinney, A. j. Brown, Surd
SeNeflson, Nels Thompson and james NJ.
Nelly, TO recover the title and possession
OF a tract OF land comprising GAO acres III
hqrrls county. The allegations were that
SAID numerous defendants owned land In
excess VI their grants aud encruached upon
inc land OF the plaintiffs, TO their loss aud
Almost complete oustment. The pluintiits
asheu tue court TO order a survey of all
OF the land Of said defendants so as to
ESTABLISH proper boundaries and permit
them 70 retain their property All defend
ants except Nels Thompson aud Augusta
Martens answered.
The trial court rendered judgment In
FAVOR OF plaintiffs ct al, awarding land
claimed by {. IL. Kinney, John a. Clau-
son, Joe Stasney, Joe WollCk, Jr.. stephen
Nolick and w. x, Hollengworth. From
this Judgment the said six defendants APP
peuled. Plaintiff Williams also appealed,
but filed no bond The other plaintiffs did
not appeal.
The court OF appeals reversed and rem
dered In favor Of the six defendants, fixing
the boundaries of defendants land as
claimed lac fhpun 1iH NOT 1tgftttsb tla
judgment Of the court below as to the de-
PENDANTS who did not appeal.
After the mandate on this appeal had
been filed IN the court below the plaintiffs
sued out a writ Of error against the de-
PENDANTS who had not appealed from the
judgment and who We're co-appelleos with
the plaintiffs on the appeal of the defend
ants Clausun and others. The defendants
IN the writ Of error have filed motion to
dismiss same on the ground that the for
NOR appeal was readjudiCata OF all matters
Involved In this suit rs between all Of the
parties to that appeal and that II would
n effect he granting plaintiffs In error the
right 10 two appeals from the same tuds-
mcnt to allow them to prosecute this writ.
The question certified is. SHOULD the mo.
ton to dismiss be sustained on the ground
statedf'
The supreme court answers that the mo-
ton should not be sustained upon tho
ground stated, holding that the judgment
was restricted, saying, after some previous
discussion, Not only did the court restrict
IFS action to the issues raised between thp
appellants therein and the plaintiffs, but
virtually adjudicated that the appeal
brought up nothing else. This was III effect
an adjudication that the present defend
ants IN error were not entitled to any ac
tion upon the Issues between them aud the
plaintiffs
There was also submitted this "Is this
bond sufficient to give this court jurisdic
lion Of this cause SO as to authorize II Il
allow new bond to be filed under article
..F yln DntHf "a
The bond questioned failed to specify ans
particular amount, but to cover ''all costs
The court answers that the bond war
proper and satisfied the law, not being rata
because 1t failed to specify sum dounl'
/ the amount of the costs. The court als'
says In this connection:
ut may, indeed, be seriously dOubtet
| whether or not with such Il statute II
| force il should longer be held that thu
| jurisdiction of an appellate court at al
! depends ON the giving of bond.
A houston Case Submitted.
Austin Texas. December 1.-THE east
of the Home Mutual Insurance Compau,
VS.. 'romkies, from Harris county, wns sui
mtted In the supreme court today. Thi
case. in addition TO possessing some Inter
estiuc features OF legal proceedings an
questions Of law, revives some of the IN
speakablc memories of the memorable storn
| that laid the Texas coast IN waste ahe
dcsolsted and demolished thousands o
homes September =. 1900.
'ronlEies owned a corn and rice mill h
| Houston which was partially unroofcd an
| oi horvisc damaged by the storm very soc
! after which 1t burned, protected by $500
| Insurance.
The insurance company refused TO pa
( the loss on the ground that the risk ende
| when the mill was wrecked lay an act q
! God. and that It ceased to be the propcif
| written Tomkies brought suit TO recOvc
! Judgment against the company for tn
| amount and the judgment IN the trial cour
j was In his favor. II was carried 10 tn
| court Of civil appeals at Galveston, whcr
] il was reversed and rendered In favor 9
! q Garrett dissenting. Upon this dissen
! the case has been brought to the suprem
| court ana was submitted today On 1t
merits
The Supreme Court.