*1 Tes.) v. MORGAN JENKINS
tile
rule of assumed risk
covered
so
consent
Pettigrew
titled
cient
troversy in
predicated.
favor
earn
respect
we are of
him,
ing, plaintiff
Railway Company.”
ness
not
part
injury
unscrew the
plaintiff
reversed,
cit.
negligence
upon
in an affirmative manner
pany,
find for defendant
based on
and Bt.
but refused two
A.
port,
known
tion
tion
Tellow
125,
Company,
disturbed
L.
Johnson,
S.
“If
That
Bor the reasons
In our
As
safety
leave the
those so
by appellant,
doing
so,
Ry.
S.
the trial
proximately
further
S. W. 513. The court
105 S.
to leave
either
fact we doubt
money, contrary
to warrant
noted
which
IV
you
instruction.
the direction
resulted from a
danger,
instruction,
to which
Pine
e believe
Worth
voluntarily
defendants,
Pettigrew
before
such instruction
a verdict
133,
100 Tex.
impairment
believe
Ry.
peremptory
in the trial
upon
instruction
W.
requested
car
loosening
E.
approval,
one,
Lumber
have
Wells
the cause
sufficient
judge
cap,
Corsicana
to reverse
opinion
Washington,
relied to
our
Co.
caused
& Denver
evidence.
Clopton;
On
P. & S. W.
requested by appellant.
unless
never
issues there
from the evidence
then
in their
opinion it was our
another
indicated
Houston &
favor of
v.
opinion
or some
237,
explosion
Pargo
of
upon
remained
to return
submission
St.
Co. v.
reads as follows:
Hall,
court
questioned
pure accident and was
instruction
of
you
it can be said
time and
remanded.
before
refute
Clopton
Petroleum
if he had
97 W.
given. G.,
plaintiff’s
Magnolia
171, 105 S. W.
plaintiff’s
L. S. W.
has been made
proceed
City Railway
application
in his main
evidence
appellant’s
himself
favor
appellant was en
Co.
assignment.
94 Tex.
those
are instructed
S.
other
nor
Ry.
98 Tex.
negligence
Noble,
occurred;
jury presenting
theory
group
Texas Central
dome
by
original
only
v.
Co.
judgment
or with
of the issue
opportunity
desired
verdict
Petroleum
Ry.
reason
Benjamin,
some
Company,
charge
ability
obedience
suit was
plaintiff’s
101 Tex.
place
H.
v.
advanc-
like im-
did
correct-
further
cap
180,
he dis-
conten
of
charge
acting
Co. v.
inten-
place
Both,
hear-
facts
suffi
Com-
&
322;
One
But
loc.
the tral
un-
so,
St.
of
in that
of
S.
rendered
case for another
give
1.
Cent.
2.
tion of several
tion for
Error,
refers,
ings, is insufficient.
of
fails
Error,
evidence
Error,
neither
Error,
other is not
(Court
submitted to
contained two
ure to
to
separate
ranty
judgment
1062(2).]
7. New
Error,
error,
dence,
(cid:127)Ground
Debtor —
signment.
arate
op
por Objection.
op
[Ed.
[Ed.
Error —Failure
ments
Verdict.
[Ed.
[Ed.
Discovered
[Ed. Note. —For
Appeal
Appeal
Payment
Appeal
evidence
Appeal
Appeal
send
Where a
An
June
An
An
Where a
The trial
Under an
new trial
lever to
effect
Railway Company,
Error —
Error —
defendant
Dig.
pull,
debt
Cent.
Gent.
states
Note. —Bor other
submit an issue whether
Note. —Bor
Note —Bor other
which was
Note. —For
assignment
Note. —Bor other
it,
appellant,
Requests.
3,
request
Trial
op
Civil
&wkey;5213.]
Voluntary
nor
por
and Error
to
§§
and Error
1916. On
voluntary payment
rulings
and Error
designated
and Error
rendered
related to
question.
reversible
Dig.
creditor
et al.
Including
the-jury
Specification—Evidence.
amended and
what
<&wkey;38(l)
request
99, 128;
us
Error —
issue-of breach of
because
court
the bill
Review —
propositions,
Evidence —
Appeals
July
only;
jury,
trial as between
Error
&wkey;>108(3), Grounds—Newly
§
§
.
based
intention.
of error is
other
v. MORGAN.
as to
objections
to Submit
do so.
3028,
correctly
has several
.
error,
Motion for
1,
Specification-^Ground
expert
what
error,
found that
the failure to submit
<&wkey;728(l) Assignment
1149, 1165,
Houston
Dee.
error,
—
Payment.
<&wkey;
of
1916.)
<&wkey;213
Special
submit
cases,
cases,
insufficient.
several
exceptions to
newly
Errors
the debtor.
Dec.
3029;
and to
cases,
fayor
Suppiciency.
contained in the
Appropriation
which
1062(2)
opinion
reformed so
Dig.
insufficient,
were made
denied
Issue —Cure
must be
Dig.
an affidavit
Dig. &wkey;499(3).]
the absence
see
see
rig'
plaintiff agreed
whose
warranty,
&
Rehearing,
discovered evi-
witnesses,
claims
Dee.
see
not reversible
Issues —
judgment
is a
&wkey;38(l).]
Assignment
of
(No.
in One As-
remand
Texas
Appeal
Appeal
Appeal
Appeal
Reserving
—Harmless
<i&wkey;728(l).]
Ft. Worth.
which was
filed
complains
Payment,
Dig.
plaintiff
combina-
Assign-
purchase
machine
8385.)
motion
where
Sep-
issue
Cen-
war-
will
<&wkey;>
fail-
mo-
and
rul-
<S&wkey;
so
Digests
Key-Numbered
and Indexes
in all
cases see
and KEY-NUMBER
*2
REPORTER
187 SOUTHWESTERN
price
showing
they
upon
of
about
absence
the note sued
was
evidence
controversy.
long,
feet,
puller
were
size of
as stated
same
feet
instead of 18
appellants
pullers
As the
trial.
to show
referred to
Trial,
witnesses were the
same size
[Ed. Note.—For
see.New
other
puller
testimony
controversy,
as the
226, 227;
&wkey;108(3).]
not relevant.
Proposition
Fourth Counter
to First
Mortgages
<&wkey;110
8. Chattel
—Construc-
Assignment.
tion —Future Advances.
testimony
admissible,
printed
The
on
A chattel
clause
opinions
being
witnesses,
of
up
covering
$150,
mere
of
the
were
does
indebtedness
they
qualified
stump was not
shown
to ex-
not cover an
puller,
cover
for a
indebtedness
press
opinions.
parties
The
their
intended the
clause
qualification
supplies.
was for the determination of the
for store
future indebtedness
reviewable,
except
trial
is
[Ed.
other
Note.—For
Chattel Mort- showing of abuse of the discretion.
gages,
<&wkey;110.]
Mortgages
<&wkey;240Payment-
Proposition
9. Chattel
Fifth Counter
to First
Delivery
op Mortgaged
Property.
Assignment.
mortgages
Where
creditor held chattel
committed,
No error was
because the court
cotton
debtor’s
a credit
ob- finally admitted all of the material facts which
by delivering
mortgaged
tained
some of the
cot- appellants
state
were ex-
mortgagee
ton to the
on the cluded.
mortgage.
cotton
Assignment
Error.
Second
Note.—For
other
see Chattel Mort-
permitting
and Hill
The
&wkey;>
court erred in
Kir-
witnesses
gages,
505, 506;
by,
testify
Martin, Pierson,
experiment
the demonstration or
made on the
Henry Martin,
farm of
the effect that
'to
Court;
County
from
B.
Johnson
difficulty,
stump puller
Jay Jackson, Judge.
do,
all that a
seemed
by Morgan against
Action
W. N. Jenk-
inadmissible,
all of which
because
the con-
appliances
experiment
Judgment
ditions of the
used
ins and others.
puller
stump
were not
used
similar
appeal.
Affirmed as modified.
Jenkins.
assignments
error,
The
two
Proposition to
First Counter
Second
thereto,
counter
are
Assignment.
as follows:
error
other
No
is
because
witnesses
permitted
testify
objection
Assignment
were
the
First
without
Error.
t.o
Kirby,
Martin,
same facts testified
sustaining
The
court erred
complained
assign-
Pierson,
Hill
objection
testimony
Hopkins,
to the
of Lon
ment.
Kelley Stevenson,
fusing
and John
re-
go
jury,
to allow their evidence to
Proposition
Second
to Second
Counter
testimony
which
that
tion,
would
have
to the effect
Assignment.
they
stump pullers
opera-
had seen other
necessary
It
sur-
power
was not
the conditions
and knew the amount of
or force
rounding
on
puller
the demonstration or use of the
stump pullers,
used
and had seen the
appliances
the Martin farm
as
equipment used,
they
should be the same
when
and that
appellee merely
it was in
use
Jenkins. The
question,
had seen the
puller,
pulled stumps,
took
and the
stump
stump
it would not do what
had seen other
testimony
puller
pullers do;
of the action of
satisfactory
while in
it was not a
plea
use was
warranty
puller,
every
breach
particular;
admissible
was not first-class in
puller
equipment
contention
that the
appliances
with the same
stumps.
pull
worthless and would not
would not do the work
had seen other
pullers do;
pull
would
Proposition
[third
Counter
Second
size,
the same or similar
under the same or sim-
Assignment.
conditions, they
stump pull-
ilar
had seen other
pull;
pull stumps
presented,
ers
it would not
in size No error
because the conditions
up
diameter;
puller
feet
two
it was not
used
demonstrat-
success;
satisfactory work,
stump puller.
substantially
that it would not do
farm
ed at the Martin
similar
it had
no value as
to the conditions under
Jenkins used it.
Proposition
Assignment.
Proposition
First Counter
to First
Fourth Counter
Second
Assignment.
purported
exception,
bill
the exclu-
testimony
Hopkins
Appellants
testimony
sion of the
of Lon
and the
contend
was not ad-
assignment,
other witnesses referred to in the
was used.
missible because
different lever
fatally defective,
considered,
not he
puller,
lever
Jenkins
When he
was not
and when
does not
because it
set out
bought
puller
the
made his own lever.
testimony
brought
in the lower
court.
puller
time
back
farm,
the demonstration was made on Martin’s
Proposition
Counter
Second
to First
bring
lever;
it became nec-
he did not
essary
circumstance did
hence
Assignment.
to furnish one.
This
admissibility
affect the
multifarious,
attempts
testimony.
present
questions,
two or more distinct
therefore should not be considered.
Cleburne,
Harrell,
appel-
Johnson &
Proposition
Assignment.
Third Counter
Baker,
First
Cleburne,
ap-
&
lants. Walker
jury having
only warranty pellee.
found
pull any stump
Appellee
BUCK,
J.
this suit
puller
pull,
same size would
evidence con-
cerning
stump pullers
promissory notes;
inadmissible,
the first note
Key-Numbered Digests
other oases see in all
<S=»For
KEY-NUMBER
Indexes
y
Tex.)
. MORGAN
during
year
alleged
signed by appel-
fail-
principal sum of
lants,
Donoho,
L. ure.
J. A. and
N. Jenldns and
(0)
That Jenkins instructed
a chattel
and secured
ply
eight
mules,
bales of cotton
signed by
*3
2
45
on
corn,
Jenkins
second,
first,
account;
sold,
open
and,
cultivator,
cotton,
a
a
50
princi- to
note.
$418
the
wagon.
was in the
note
The second
presented and
by
Other issues were
answer-
pal
$155,
a chattel mort-
sum of
but, except
ed,
mortgage
as
noted hereafter
this
gage
signed by
stump puller; note
on
opinion, the above
consider sufficient for
we
for
Jenkins alone. Plaintiff sued
prin-
statement.
debt,
by
notes,
this
the two
Upon
judg-
interest,
attorney’s fees,
this
the court
verdict
cipal,
entered
for
Prorating
$105.10,
mortgages.
follows:
the
ment as
cred-
foreclosure of his
note,
iting $76.64 on the
on
$418
Appellants pleaded
been
that there had
note,
giving
$155
for
for
$105.10,
the
payment by
by
de-
cotton
Jenkins of
plaintiff against
parties
all
defendant
Morgan,
him
and that Jenkins
livered
had
to
wit, $399.23,
giv-
note,
$418
balance of
ing judgment
to
delivery
requested
time
said
plaintiff
Jenkins
note;
pay-
$418
on
the
that
ment
the
to
to
is not
be
$147.87,
$155
balance
with a
having
applied on
been
mortgages.
foreclosure of both
Defendants
payment
in addition
note.
$155
This
appeal.
owing
open
settlement of
[1] We conclude
the trial court erred
Morgan by
payment
Jenldns,
prorating
the $105.10
between
objected
by appellants in their
to
obligations.
jury
they
found,
the two
as
Appellants
pleaded
brief.
was
parties
further
justified by
evidence, that
were
instructed
Jenkins
understanding
agreement
all
plaintiff
apply this
to
taken
secure
If
note. This he had
to do.
payable
made
the
Donohos,
creditor, having
debts
several
signed
who
the note as accommo-
voluntary
from the
receive
payable
paper,
made
dation
to
instead of
appropriate
debtor
instructions to
it to
with
Morgan.
pleaded
further that
them,
appropriated.
one
Eylar
must be so
al.,
stump puller,
given
et
Lar
v. Read
60
$155 note and the second
did not
Watt,
32 S.
kin v.
W.
Crawford v. Pan
comply with
warranties
and did
coast,
8846,
Digest,
4 Green’s
8845-
62 S.
promised, and
not do
thorough
work
that after a
cited;
Cyc.
authorities there
30
test of said
seq.
appel
sustain
et
Therefore we
1227
inability
unfitness
work
urges
assignment,
as er
lants’ fourth
thoroughly established,
promised had
ror
action of
court.
this
Morgan,
returned
had
second
and that
objection
feel that
[2-4] We
should
canceled
be
appellants’
the consideration
first
pleas
for failure
were contained in
consideration.
Other
sustained,
be
must
be
second
supple-
cop
(1) they
even
are not
substantial
cause
pleadings
parties,
given
mental
but suffi-
assignment
mo
ies
tion for new
contained
pur-
cient,
pose
think, has been
we
best,
trial, being,
only
a com
opinion.
this
as
bination and a reconstruction of several
cause
was submitted
contained;
signments
(2)
therein
are
issues,
special
in answer
thereto the
complain
multifarious,
exclusion
jury found:
instance,
in
the
and the admission
tire one
(1)
agree
accept
That
did
other,
testimony of several witness
signed
the note for
Jenkins and the
objections
es,
out the
do not set
Donohos,
by mortgage
in his
two
unsecured
court; (3)
urged
trial
the bill
thereto
agree
(Morgan’s) favor, and did not
that the
exceptions
which reference is made
of
sustain
given
in fa-
Jenkins should be
assignment
what
No. does
state
vor of the 'Donohos.
urged
admission
(2)
agreed
That
testimony.
Kneezell,
S. W.
Buckler v.
open
Morgan
account of Jenkins to
Cooper,
Wat
Dixson v.
paid
crop
out of
of Jen-
Patrick,
Live
330;
National
son v.
Stofck
kins before
the note for
Gomillion,
Ins.
174 S. W.
$418..
Cobe,
Moreover,
165 S.
we
Ruth v.
are
ments
(3) That
time
the defendant knew at the
that,
assign
opinion
were the
was made the kind of
executed
consideration,
no reversible er
Morgan.
Jenkins to
found,
reasons,
ror would
main,
warranty
(4)
That the
Mor-
assign
forth
counter
gan
as
“it
ments.
pull any stump
any puller
urges
[5,
error in
6]
third
pull.”
same size would
fol
court to submit the
failure
(5)
That
had not
lowing special issue:
warranty
comply
made,
Morgan,
the sale
“Did
stump pull-
Morgan
defendant,
W. N.
made no
SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
1S7
Henry Martin,
ble error is
fendants
judgment
because of
the
Morgan,
not
heretofore
representative out to Jenkins’
contention.
same
ing
plaintiff
pull any
would
contradicted
part
Jenkins’
shows said
Moreover,
different
different
vice of
main
person,
lee,
Civ.
mit it
of the other
charge tendered,
two
of which had been
sidered
would
ror
team of mules then owned
kins?” To which the
the
question
kins,
er in
factory
of
and
satisfactory
“The court erred in
“Did the
[7] The fifth
We do
If the defendants desired the submission
If
mules
Clark,
experiments
purpose
defendant,
found
that he
App.
issues
and therefore
how to
question,
charge.
pull.” The
the court’s action in
separately,
expert;
preclude
service
by us,
multifariousness,
how to
stump puller.”
with the
then
was that
not think there is
appliances
stump
claim that such
part
issue No. 7
if there had been a
expert,
said,
experiments
this
Willson Civ. Cas. Ct.
service as a
rig
(Morgan)
It
grant
owned
20 S. W.
guarantee
as a
we
newly
the same
Griffin
but,
puller,
suit, guarantee
showing,
“rig
we
their
McWhirter v.
is
puller.
stump puller
are
and their failure so
evidence, further,
tests
uncontradicted
already
do not
in view of what
submitted
R.
send
only warranty
newly
jury
warranty;
show
discovered evidence
any puller of same size
in this
eontained
refusing
would send
successfully
v.
or a
to have been made
1007; G.,
of the
appellants
Morgan,
stump
stump puller with the
tlie same
required
Heard,
Jenkins how to
equipment
operate
special charge,
answered:
It is true that de
their
an
representative
is as follows:
said
think
discovered evidence
defendant, Jenkins,
the defendant
failing
submitted
assignment.
to wit:
opinion that the
urged by appel-
expért
the same to
to set aside the
stump puller
promise
defendant,
subject
on the farm of contractual
puller
Allen,
with the
duty
merit
in
78
did send
etc.
App.
to be
urging er
the sale to
to submit
answered
twice for
competent
“No.”
made
we have
to show
was un-
appellee,
reversi
puller,”
Ry.
puller?”
to sub
“would
1 Tex.
to do
as to the same
satis-
hav
team
by
with are secured
Jen-
Jen-
Co.
rig
_
a as-
be sold under the
apply
the
benefit of all
in the
that in
instance,
Missouri Court of
among
The basis for the contention is a
trial,
of the notes
he
ties he has
application,
cited,
Threshing
thereby,
tional
v.
plaintiff’s
not err in
tion,
are cited
App. 429,
will be
priate
timbers 2x8 and 18 feet
for
prorated by
Morgan
affidavits were offered
long, and one of defendants’ affiants stated
fifth and last
tached to defendants’
court
nesses testified that
*4
we have
note first declared
After an examination of the affidavits at-
court below will be
“Whore a creditor holds several securities for
In the case first
Por the reasons
Cockrell,
is
here, against
against appellee.
right,
rehearing, contending
note, and,
entitled to the benefit
as
Appellee presents
the beam was “about 20 feet
difference between the
wholly
mortgage given
Bank,
indebtedness,
the entire
general
affirmed,
constructed' a lever
not otherwise
as we
apply
if
concluded that
debt,
174 S. W.
witnesses
Machine Co. v.
not
Jenkins,
under
this
stipulation provides
by mortgage,
note for
taken.
so ordered.. presumption against record, can be no so jurisdictional that where it recites facts jurisdiction, sufficient to confer there can be no 8379.) (No. presumption that al. the recital in- McCAMANT v. McCAMANT et is incorrect or complete. (Court Appeals Ft. Worth. Civil Courts, [Ed. Note: —For other May 27, Re- 140, 141, 145, 146; Cent. <&wkey;>35.] July hearing, 1, 1916.) <&wkey;299 Action *6 expressly alleging 299.] thereof .value, date of the indorsement—in effect averred that Judgment 2. Suit Vacation- plaintiff acquired maturity. before Insufficiency of Petition. Grounds — cases, Dec. judgment [Ed. Note.—For other see Bills aside for defects A will not Notes, Dig. 1488; Dig. <i&wkey;467(3).] especially insufficiency pleadings, § Cent. in the or where the alleged was amendable or had defect <&wkey;6 10. Law Common Merchant- —Law by going by joining issue been waived Adoption by State. trial. law merchant of the common cases, Judgment, see [Ed. Note.—For other adopted law the state Dig. 701; Dig. &wkey;358.] §§ Cent. Dec. cases, Note.—For see Common Judgment Judgment — — Law, Dig. Void Dig. <&wkey;>6.] § Dec. Cent. Pleading. Want of <&wkey;327 11. Bills Notes —Transfer— petition Where .is defective substance “Holder Course.” in Due failing to cause of to the extent of tion, show a ac- A “holder in due course” is one who has judgment is null complete regular taken an instrument void. face, and has become the owner of it be- Judgment, cases, see [Ed. Note.—For Phrases, (citing fore it was overdue Words and Dig. Dig. &wkey;18(2).] § Cent. Dec. Series). 2d Liability Bills Notes <8=»*299— cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Bills Primary Secondary Indorser — Liabil- Notes, Dig. Dig. <S&wkey;327.) § Cent. Dec. ity. &wkey;>327 ordinarily secondarily Bills ference gre'en, er. Martin sapling, tomary lever. mony some of the witnesses that as used by Morgan So far as the to furnish in the and it was claimed uncontradicted, on the Martin plaintiff testified, made his lever equipment record on his strain bend lever with a discloses, used farm, farm, by plaintiff out of a iu and his testi- and as lever, stump pull- Mo. both tests. “cup as to the not cus- green being used up.” dif- ler, We find been ence their rity bring denied personal notes 46 Mo. It is insisted App. 239.” expressly decided, payment; otherwise, he has has taken for the security within the following 301; Sturgeon signed by affixed his name in assurance of the benefit of all cases: principle as will the facts of this case Jenkins and his sure- debt. The the creditor will be Bank v. Mathews v. Switz appear by so declared. Riggs, point tlipse secure refer secu Tes.) v. MORGAN ties, tains trust debtedness to lowing the Farmers’ & of R. Grandview, Texas, dred we, “ hands of an interest “ “ cent, first R. sum either debtedness ‘$418.00 “This ‘Due. ‘No. “ “And, whereas, ‘Oct. or either of interest for party J. A. certain per for the better Morgan, Grandview, is a substantial conveyance, however, from 1, 1914, eighteen following annum may Donolio attorney promissory maturity them, the Grandview, Texas, Merchants’ National P. us, promise hereafter become indebted attorney’s fee, dollars, O. in the recitals: and W. L. for collection. ten securing copy: date, contemplated per for value without cent, Texas, of which is intended pay W. N. rate of ten if . Donolio, placed 5/23/1914. Morgan, received, Bank, four the order principal grace, Jenkins.’ my hun- unto fol- per in- at I, a the first templation evidence, for $150 additional count pellee the it. heard ed The there gage] goods about Jenkins “Mi-. “Jenkins had the At another about Jenkins $418 He had it account amounted to will show in his hands and from me.” but had Jenkins read the testifying note. He farm at the time point running future indebtedness of it supplies. reference to buying his hand and which the second indebtedness, amount of this account.” he testified: said: made no bears no read there signed more To illustrate: $58.93. the execution it. We [the $418 goods and we relation signed usual from discussed, in con- provides discuss- it. buying about books mort- Ap- me. ac- He
Notes
Bills Notes Judgment <&wkey;38G(2) for Vacation —Suit Against Indorser —Time—Statute. —Laches. Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. Under Vernon’s lapse Neither of time nor laches affect the indorser, liability relating 579, providing anof art. right to vacate a void on its face. may against suit how it be fixed Judgment, [Ed. Note.—For other county maker, etc., in district or n applicable Dig. &wkey;386(2).] negotiable instruments indorsed maturity, well as before there alter as On Motion against payee and indorser cause of action of note, not filed be- where thereon was suit 9. Bills and Notes Action — Pleading suit could fore term to which Indorser Time of accrued, action Transfer. court, and where the second of such before the suit was not filed after the term petition maker, A action year until more payee note, alleging the the indorser of maturity there wholly unpaid; due that that showing indorser’s was no waiver value; was an innocent holder for liability. requisite fix formalities payee indorsed it Bills and Note.—For other blank plaintiff, course due of business to i&wkey;> Notes, who became the owner and holder
Notes An indorser —Transfers— liable, “Bona Fide Holder for Value.” in a ease where the indorse- delivery An innocent or “bona fide holder for ment of the instrument made at value” wá’s the execution negotiable paper primarily is one it in who has taken is he liable so as good dispense necessity fixing faith for valuable consideration his lia- ordinary bility the compliance regulating term. of business and when course it was with statutes bringing not overdue. such suits at a cases, cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see [Ed. Note.—For Bills see Bills and <&wkey;>327. Notes, Dig. Dig. Notes, <&wkey;> 680-705; § Dec. 299.] definitions, Phrases, For other see Words and Series, Fide <&wkey;299Liability First and Second Bona Holder.] 5. Bills and Notes Pleading—Excuse Delay- Indorser — Judgment <&wkey;24S Validity—Necessity ing Action. Pleadings. To bind indorser where suit has not Until their action is called exercise brought required by law, been within the time pleadings, power courts have no more render alleged proven. matters excuse must person they until favor have to [Ed. Note.—For other person see Bills and render c&wkey; Notes. Cent. Dee. jurisdiction. within their Judgment, [Ed. Note.—For other Judgment <&wkey;>485 Dig. <&wkey;>248.] § Vacation Invalid- Cent. ity. judgment, invalidity A Court; County of which is from Tarrant parent upon record, may successfully Judge. Prewitt, Charles ¶. attacked at time and under circum- May McCamant, Minnie Suit Mrs. on be- stances. community herself and. half of administra- Judgment, [Ed. Note.—For other Dig. &wkey;?485.] trix the estate herself of her de- <&wkey;>For Digests Key-Numbered other oases and KEY-NUMBERin all and Indexes