*1
y.
LLORES
851
fy
tance
pany acquired
the northwest corner of
natural
cate
steps
land was in
in
pass
located
ner of 529 and the north line thereof can
burg
105 S. W.
is not
Tex.
Tex.
cated
ing, and
the
location
to natural
ings,
actually survey
the
did
87,
formulated
sumption
provision quoted
belonged
pany,
ground,
course
survey 9,
some circumstances this conclusion
court would have
ed corner or line is sometimes accorded
dignity
to
dox
ascertain
1884
state
land,
remaining
9 call for a connection with the northwest
title.
corner
north line
the
The same is
and Frisbie
of
court
was not
survey
[5] Under
the south line
the state
88. This
do
be extended so
record
particularity
ground,
Bros. v.
southwest corner of which calls
be located
&
survey
recovered section
concluded as
Thatcher v.
of 826 varas. The
always given.
survey actually
so. Cases
and distance call
case. The
San
529 was
objects.
the school fund
determining
the instant case the northwest cor
obtains that
survey
and that the south
creed. plevy when the writ ment. mined that son plevy fendants should urged indulged bоnd thus randa in trial ry they invalid, evidently fact brass randa, duced record to sidered understood the statement that the Bro., 71 Am. St. third and fourth until the value shown described as a brass testimony eration of the memoranda is shown fied, establishing described in The bed was one of the most valuable articles testified the indicate the omission of this item from the to value was responded on its tion of versal of the the facts of this case not constitute such error as ver son, City the court found that to the bond and the verdict memoranda. jury of an order therefore but invalidating after the quashing in the for bed, Bowers, and the but not included in the This amounts It is face, Tex. Civ. Ft. Worth v. about sequestration, jupy included it in its verdict not able to show evidence. Spanish from show that the among so described it. Whether it was so to the the bond. thereof, appears writ Rep. jury appellants falls their memoranda, true that the memoranda- plaintiff, they absence jury room were two noticed by plaintiff, room it would validity, 33 S. W. valid. replevy Spanish language. with it. of have shown quashing values assignments are overruled. 49 W. App. 330, motion sequestration taking considered or from the motion found and was witness who testified as sequestration, S. were considered papers Young, of the is it has been held contend that consid of by plaintiff’s judgment we hold that taken the the documents must it cannot be stated in jury presumption can be invalid. or that In the finding with them one Avery v. Popper Mitchell the affidavit issue was by plaintiff is taken were not Goar v. we noticed new' original nothing in requires testimony same, 50 S. W. the fact that upheld. falls replevied thereon cases Ra testified to valid, It is valid by trial. As fact, order and the does in effect for new the lists of them by Thomp counsel In the Gonzalеs, the 'ac Bloom, by replev memo memo Under deter intro judg testi a re that 128. The does con rea was v. sa-y. and Beeks v. and the re- sues. . the them ju re- to sufficient of is is Telesforo Martinez as sureties. the is should be reversed on mental the case last able Gonzales, that the tinez, 20, considered. ing probably zales as a mere cleriсal F. A. the The mistakes with Martinez. There was quiry ery awarded, the foro Martinez Clerical mistakes of this character “Telesforo Gonzales.” The court S. A. corrected cated on the thereof described ing ment establishes the return protected therefor and tiff, erty cially spect return The sixth The apparent [10,11] Moore, corrected, Telesforo name of and that so returned. Chapa reformed & P. became Each of the cases is judgment the amount when considered A. sheriff Odom, sureties, had a each article affected approving compliance with instead principal and in is 1 Tex. Civ. fifth Fundamental error this. property, the value that the vаriance but in the such date assignment again failure of the court to find Telesforo and the Martinez, to deliver same judgment against Maria Gon right. active defendants Ry. bearing upon in the assignment the matter is affirmed. Telesforo That the verdict doing so, clerk should of Telesforo Tex. found property, used this Co. receive same and The surеties regard then finds that as well as for for separately. App. 93, award court so as judgment authorizing the bond the value each article as Gonzales, Telesforo instead of Telesforo the name is is too verdict,” verdict by the court finds that F. A. of each Moerbe, Martinez executed easily distinguish ground of funda they court has is instead 7 S. W. сonnection “or controverted of costs is sustained *3 complained Telesforo Mar was caused overruled. the name legitimate in enter a Martinez. statute, espe to the correction of the cases jury is of the The recov the suit item, and Teles judgment. This judgment Telesforo Robinson of writ right 994.W. written November is can be protеct hereto- receipt direct amply predi S. W. found credit plain judg prop finds jury is by by by of of 200 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER control, care, however, to find held, the failure was awarded exclusive fore custody After said Buck fundamental of said minor. item is the value error. Owens v. Day’s him, Stucken, wife had so divorced Vander March, 1903, she married changing our views mained her until reаson We see no assign- disposition appellant son, her When minor with and married his said with ments rehearing age, years The motion who was of error. 5% her death and his wife until overruled. up fil- Appellees for certiorari filed motion thereafter have up suit, bring period judgment? 14" a corrected *4 of Teles- appellant’s name us as to the made From the time of rections death, made foro Martinez trial the minor’s until her mother judgment. since, minor, appellant regards we affirmed the court since said whom denied, affection, deem it- as we The motion will wholly with appellant, has made his home unnecessary pursue during that course. which time has control, custody, him exercised over entire ip care, performing minor behalf of said things a father would do similar under 7862.) (No. et al. GLAZIER GALLAMOREv. circumstances, by training looking aft- Dallas. of Texas. of Civil child, providing er said minor as his own Jan. clothing, him with needed educational vantages means, advising appellant’s within Mi- Intoxicating- &wkey;>181 Liquors to—Sale counseling concerning conduct, him his Reсovery PENALTY—PARTIES. nors — OE legal proceeding Where had securing employment, him in that con- awarding custody of minor earnings, nection his stepfather, living, still the real father was advice, restraint, divorce, exercise of such and con- minor’s mother after who had married dead, an maintain recognized the mother appellant’s trol authority minоr said has penalties prescribed Vernon’s action for the both before and since ¡áayles’ sell- Ann. Civ. St. minor, of his mother. father of -said although giving minor, or intoxicants to a supported Day, at Buck or since the death of serted has time since said divorce the minor had and had with and been stepfather, father controlled former wife аs- supported any nor interest neither asserted in the welfare said 4070, provid- welfare, in his of article anything minor or and maintenance. said minor contributed parents one of dead the guardian person Further, natural survivor the mother of appoint of the minor children and entitled to her deathbed said guardian of their estates. appellant’s control, custody, minor care .and from District Dallas Coun- requested appellant to continue Whitehurst, Judge. S'. for, rear, W. care and educate said minor and H.W. Gallamore L. Gla- parental minor rela- continue with said tions of the complaint zier and another. Demurrer sustained, judge past. The trial sustained plaintiff appeals. demurrer and three ceptions directed From Wencker, Albert Walker and O. F. both of action was taken. Dallas, appellant. Felix D. Robertson rights conferred Dallas, appel- T. L. and those entitled to the statute cited assert lees. been considered ev- them have ery angle defense, and for that offense and RASBURY, brоught by suit was engage any general shall not reason we appellee Glazier, prin as a placed thereon construction discussion of the cipal, pany, appellee Fidelity Deposit Com many decisions, but confine ourselves surety, upon liquor a retail dealer’s precise involved in the to al sever- $5,000 sepаrate bond to ten recover vio propositions challenging the action of the liquor lations statute the sale of , issue, real stated. The appellant’s Day, stepson C. F. a minor. analysis proposi- gathered tions, an grounded portion on that The suit article paren- standing in Sayles’ is whether one loco Statutes, Civil Vernon’s parent liquor minor the real tis to a which makes dealer and the sure person, aggrieved may, persons an maintain his bond liable to esse ties for defined prescribed penalties penalty prescribed selling case recover suit to Peavy giving permitting case stated. or or statute sold or liquors Goss, intoxicating premises it was held person aggrieved age person pleading, plemental leged case under minor, sale, etc., consisting and hence the of an amended and sue, parent person petition, omitting formalities, al standing parentis. in loco While some one the the minor was the substance the instant case does disclose son Buck former who standing in fact in loco proceed- him and to whom said divorced Key-Numfcerea oases <&wkey;Forother see same