*1
SANGSTER
!.w.)
(217 I
building by
Burns
transmitted
husband a
for material
&
to defendant
furnished on
Sanguinette
Company
of her
to
by,
&
the clerk
Hamilton
served on
fraud induced
* * *
here is for
send
to
where it would
Staats.
notice I have
* * *
by
husband,
$1,070.84.
personally
not be
that sub-
received
there was such
I know
sequent
jurisdiction
a fraud on the
was another notice
of the Illinois
to that notice there
* * * as to void
served
wife’s divorce.
for the full
the claim.
amount
Company
The
first made a
Denver Investment
plans,
Rehearing.
make
contract with our
then
superintendents.
to
firnj
On Motion for
finally
to
us as
made the contract
take
foreign
<&wkey;329 Validity of
3. Divorce
de-
* * *
—
I
didn’t make
cree
AFFIDAVIT
DEPENDS
ON
OF
ACCURACY
payments,
I
checked
items.”
FOR SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE.
validity
divorce, procur-
[4,5]
decree
The evidence
rather uncertain
Illinois courts
wife who left her
Sanguinette
on
&
whether
served
the no.tices
Texas, depended
on
husband
the truthfulness
Company
Staats
ever
Burns & Hamilton
facts stated in the wife’s affidavit for
Company
reached the Investment
Building
husband,
substituted service
rather
Company.
The court found that
good
than
attorney
the wife
faith
or her
did,
never
think the court was
we'
the affidavit.
justified
finding.
proof
in this
The burden of
&wkey;>3(l)
Husband
4.
and wife
—-Domicile
upon plaintiffs
establish notice
to
HUSBAND NOT
WIFE.
FIXED BY
agent,
duly authorized
the owner or its
if
wife, by leaving
erring
Texas
issue
the evidence
left
mat husband,
cannot
fix
domicile
ter
has not been
in doubt
the burden
dis
her,
of her own
to enable
after re-
charged.
foreign state,,
moval
fidavit of his
ato
accurate af-
evidence
the record
[6] There
no
in her
residence there
suit,
opinion
any
tending-
based on
our
to establish that
substituted service.
given
express authority was
the architects
Attorney
<&wkey;86 Attorney
5.
client
—
accept
provided
the stat
STIPULATE
AS TO FACTS TO
ESTAB-
MAY
BE
ute,
any implied
nor do we think
au
LISHED.
thority
is shown. Hence
conclude that
Attorneys
stipulate
con-
authorized
appellee’s
cross-assignment
cerning any
first
must be sus
be established
the evi-
dence.
tained.
In the absence
written no
owner,
lien
fixed. This
tice
conclusion
no
&wkey;>327—
6. Divorce
No
unnecessary
pass up
renders it
COURTS OF STATE
TO
REMOVED
WITHOUT
IN-
questions presented
appellant’s
on other
TENTION TO
REMAIN.
assignments
another,
appellees’ cross-assign
A wife’s act in
divorce,
residing
state
secure
and in
there
ments.
required length
time,
but without
is affirmed as to the issues
permanently
intention to remain
or indefinite-
appellants
between
Denver In-
ly,
give
is not sufficient to
the courts of such
Company,
vestment
and undisturbed as to
proceedings.
state
of her divorce
judgment against
Building
Texas
Com-
Judgment
—
pany.
7.
<&wkey;820
Collateral
attack
part
ALLOWED ON FOREIGN JUDGMENT
part.
PROCURED
Affirmed
and undisturbed in
ON JURISDICTION.
BY FRAUD
per-
A
in rem in
an action
sonam, procured
foreign juris-
in a court of
jurisdiction,
diction
willful fraud
may
collaterally attacked.
(No. 1563.)
RICHMOND et al. v. SANGSTER.
8.
<&wkey;330
foreign
Void
Divorce
decree
ob-
—
(Court
Appeals
OF WIFE. NOT VALIDATED
of Civil
of Texas. Amarillo.
BY
tained
FRAUD
HUSBAND’S
VISITS
WIFE.
Nov.
1919. Motion for Rehear-
TO
On
BY
foreign
ing,
1920.)
Divorce decree of a
court in
Jan.
favor
through
wife,
her fraud and
—
<&wkey;326 Collateral
1. Divobce
falsehood,
was not vitalized and validated
attack
husband,
FOREIGN DECREE.
the act
never made a
nothing
foreign the
and who knew
Decree of divorce obtained in a
of the action
collaterally
decree,
after
until
rendition
attacked to show that
subse-
visiting
jurisdic- quently
it had
the wife
her return from
the court which rendered
after
foreign state,
failing
tion,
though
go
necessary ju-
even
it recites
there
attack the
because of
facts.
fraud.
risdictional
<&wkey;281(l)
2. Divorce
procur-
Appeal
&wkey;>329
—No
Foreign
decree
—
error
avoid-
ON SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE
OF STIPULATION
ABSENCE OF
VOID.
MOTION
ed BY FRAUD
ance
IN
Texas, and, go-
NEW
Where wife left husband
FOR
BELOW.
TRIAL
ing
tion
that he
him for
sued
cita- Where no effort was made
by publication
stipula-
was based on
false
motion for new trial to set aside á
affidavit
found,
stipula-
improvident,
as
cannot be avoided
the effect
tion
substituted
insufficient; and,
in the Court
service
tion
Civil
wife-,was required
Appeals.
statutes of Illinois the
i&wkey;For
topic
Key-Numbered
Digests
cases
same
anü
aná
see
in all
Ináexes
KEY-NIÍMBER
*2
SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
Appeal
Court,
appellee
from
Dallam
she
District
Coun-
well knew that
had
the while
ty ;
Tatum, Judge.
home,
Reese
remained as her
husband
their
and
willfully
that she
abandoned and deserted
Suit
and
Matilda Richmond
another
any
cause;
him without
reasonable
that she
against
Sangster. From
C.
John
falsely
tion,
fraudulently alleged
her'peti-
and
defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
for
Affirmed.
stand,
and swore
the witness
that
Hoover, Canadian,
H. E.
of
and R. E. Stal-
county,
she was an actual resident of Cook
cup, Dalhart,
appellants.
Ill.,
filing
of
for
prior
years
and had
been
two
to the
Works, Amarillo,
Works,
F. P.
of
D.
C.
of her
when she knew that she
‘
Hansford,
Willis,
Canadian,
Newton P.
resident,
not such
but was
a
Stron,
Dalhart,
appel-
and Tatum &
transient,
gone
and had
to Illinois for the
lee.
purpose
procuring
divorce; that, having
cause,
left her husband without
her domicile
Texas,
remained
him
in the state of
and
HALL,
pro
Appellant, joined
J.
forma
jurisdiction
for such reason the court
no
Richmond,
husband,
her second
E.
sued
H.
purpose
over her or her husband for the
appellee, Sangster,
substance,
alleging,
divorce;
fraudulently
she
that
further
con-
appellee
that Mrá. Richmond and
were mar-
cealed from the trial court of Illinois the real
year 188S;
ried
about
that
their mar-
appel-
of residence and domicile of the
riage
day
relation
continued
1st
until
lee,
having
making
preventing
for the
him from
October, 1914,
they
legally
when
were
di-
suit, by
notice of
actual
her divorce
vorced, and that after
she
date
married
said
Richmond;
filing
a false affidavit and
the same
coplaintiff,
her
ing
H.
that dur-
E.
by pub-
in
lication, alleging
said cause
a basis for citation
marriage
the existence of the
relation be-
appel-
in said affidavit that
appellant
they
appellee
tween
ed
and
accumulat-
lee on due
could not
found
so that
community property
estimated val-
process
upon him;
could
served
that his
$40,000, consisting
ue of
ford and Sherman
of lands
Hans-
Dalhart,
last known
Tex.,
of residence was
counties,
real estate in
upon inquiry
and that
his then
Dalhart, Tex.,
personal property,
and certain
ascertained,
of residence could not be
when
consisting
cattle, horses, sheep, hogs,
farm-
she well
that her
was then
knew
husband
ing implements,
alleges
appel-
etc.
that
She
county, Tex.,
post-
Hansford
office,
with Zulu as his
disposing
property
lee has been
since
any
and
found there
time
they
divorced, prays
appoint-
were
process;
for service
means
that
of said
receiver,
ment of a
of
the issuance of writ
and
false
.affidavit
injunction,
fraudulent
hearing
final
and
appellee
to be mailed
at Dal-
partition
community proper-
she have
ty,
hart, Tex., where he had never resided and
judg-
and in
alternative that
get
mail,
consequence
did
thereof
acts constituted a fraud
tion of
and in
money
ment
equal
defendant for
sum of
notice;
get
such
he did
that such
Appel-
to one-half the value thereof.
jurisdic-
by general demurrer, general
lee answered
allega-
further
the court. There are
denial,
specially
and
denied
mar-
dispo-
tions which become immaterial
riage
existing
himself
bond
between
and the
By supplemen-
sition we
of the case.
dissolved;
had ever been
excepted generally
petition appellant
tal
county, Ill.,
any
court of
the circuit
other
Cook
appellee’s
specially
and
ánswer
court, ever
assumed to
them he
alleged
facts therein
consti-
that the
knowledge
proceedings,
had no
and
attack
tuted
collateral
legal
or notice
no
service thereof
of such
general
court of
in the state
by legal process
proceeding
or citation was
Illinois,
wherein the
decree
according
him
ever issued or served
spe-
jurisdiction entered. There are
a number
law,
said
court had
excexstions,
necessary
divorce;
cial
consider. She answered further
which it is not
to render
decree of
general
attempted
decree is of
no force
effect
denial, estoppel,
judicata.
practiced by
and
res
fur-
account of fraud
the said Ma-
alleged
appellee
year
Richmond,
procurement
ther
in its
tilda
and the
informed her
attempt-
that she and her children
lack of
ing
grant
have to
ty,
their
leave
home in Hansford
coun-
such divorce. The answer sets
years,
whére
had resided for several
out the substance of certain articles of the
applicable
case,
and that he took her and her small children
statute of Illinois
alleges
Dalhart, Tex.,
home;
Richmond,
being charg- to
returned to their
that Matilda
knowledge
provisions that
efforts of
herself and her
minor
law
daughters they
property
falsely
accumulated some
of the statute of
fraudu-
1904,except
lently alleged
year
petition
divorce,
after the
very
intervals, they
separate
falsely
fraudulently
for
and
appellee
short
lived
swore before the
apart
procuring
from each other until
court in
that he
when
de-
May 15, 1912,
wholly abandoned her and
on or
left her
serted her
sented
about
and ab-
to her own resources. The
himself
case
tried
without
reason-
space
years,
the March term the
for a
two
of Dal-
able cause
district
SANGSTER
(217 S.W.)
county;
county,
ford
transferred
Dalhart
not in
been
Hansford
lam
to where
county,
and that defendant’s
venue,
during
office address
upon change
Zulu, Tex.,
Ideal, Tex.,
to direct
verdict
the court
moved
indisputably
facts
her
fraudulent
showed that
obtained
parts
mo-
material
his favor. The
decree
of divorce
false affidavit
follows:
tion are as
concealment,
pre-
fraudulently
*3
defendant,
just at the close
the
now
“Comes
having
vented the defendant from
such notice
testimony
offering
the
in the above
of the
of
proceedings
plainly
he
was
entitled
cause,
points
mat-
that
to the court
the
and
out
to under the laws of Illinois.
concerning
alleged
ter
defendant’s answer
foregoing
“Because the
facts are shown with-
upon
of the circuit court
dispute
fraud
of
reference
the
controversy
out
and without
rec-
in this
city Chicago,
Ill.,
county,
with
in the
of
ord,
Cook
defendant states that
there is no issuable
procuring
to the
notice
de-
to the
of
jury
fact
the
to submit to the
that
validate
could
by undisputed
fendant,
un-
is established
and
plaintiff
granting
and
testimony
no
on which there is
contradicted
room
defendant
tion in
uncontrovertedly
the
that
show
evidence
and
differ,
the
and
reasonable minds
upon
the
Illi-
peremptory
instruc-
is entitled to
nois court as a
of
matter
law.”
invalidity
favor,
of
of
his
because
the
Upon
filing
this
alleged
the
of
motion and the
more
plaintiff
To be
decree.
the
following
alleges
attorneys
specific,
parties
the
that
defendant
reference
thereto
indisputably established:
upon
matters
filed
entered
was
which
absolutely
“(1)
That defendant
cause,
and contains this recital:
plaintiff’s
knowledge
any
di-
kind of
or
time,
remembered,
“Be it
at
this
defendant
judg-
entry
Chicago prior
vorce suit
open
announced
he
close
that
ment therein.
thereupon
testimony,
and
introduction
his
required
law of Illi-
“(2)
was
That
presented
ing
motion,
to the court his written
ask-
plaintiff
an affidavit show-
file
should
that
nois
ing
peremptorily
the court to
instruct a verdict
found,
that
so
be
could
the defendant
defendant
the reasons
for the
stated
last
process
at his
him
could be served
forth, being
filed,
motion set
herein
and said
known,
whether
place
and
if
known
same could be
inquiry.
presented
agreement
diligent motion
at this time
by the use of
ascertained
plaintiff stating in
counsel
testimony
that
had no further
plaintiff
“(3)
affidavit that
make an
That
did
any
produce
issue raised
admit
found,
inquiry
be
not
on due
could
defendant
and that
motion;
admitting
further
that under
and
him;
process
served
could
be
was
fact
sub-
no issuable
to be
evidence there
mitted to
place
Dal-
was
last known
residence
that his
motion,
under said
and it
inquiry
upon diligent
Tex.;
hart,
his
that
and
being agreed by
that
matters
the counsel
place
present
not be ascer-
could
residence
light
testimony
motion in
raised
attorney
tained,
case
and
her
caused
purely
introduced is
of law.”
same effect.
an affidavit
“(4)
of such
at the time of
That
chapter
12,
22,
[1] Section
of the Statutes
been found'
ranch,
have
could
defendant
affidavit
evidence, and
introduced in
Illinois was
Tex.,
county,
and
and
on his
in Hansford
could have
there,
part
process
inis
as follows:
with
been served
having
knew,
him
seen
well
that
any
Publication.
com-
“Notice
Whenever
thereto,
prior
1913,
September,'
there
attorney
plainant
file
or his
shall
in the office
having
there letters
to him
written
and from
of the clerk
the court in
his suit is
which
correspondence
chil-
1914,
dren,
their
with
and from
showing
pending, an affidavit
that
defend-
place
of resi-
known
last
that defendant’s
gone
state,
hath
or on
ant resides or
out of
Tex.,
Dalhart,
never
that he
was
dence
* *
*
found,
be
cannot'
due
in-
Dalhart;
sort
resided
upon him,
stating
process cannot be served
otherwise, plaintiff
diligent
quiry,
could
place
of residence
such defendant
know,
ascertained,
place
then
that his
did
fact
upon diligent inquiry
place
known,
his
tha't
Tex.,
county,
Hansford
residence was
ascertained,
clerk
of residence cannot be
shall
Zulu,
post
or Ideal.
was
the
office
his
publication
news-
to made
some
cause
“(5)
That under
laws of Illinois was
* * *
county.
printed
paper
And he
his
copy
right,
plaintiff,
duty
to cause a
days
publica-
also,
of the first
within ten
shall
petition,
with a notice of
commence-
of her
notice,
by mail,
send
thereof
tion of such
addressed
defendant
ment of her
Texas,
be delivered to
whose
to such defendant
days
before the commencement of
30
in such affidavit.”
residence is stated
done,
which was never
term of
readily
have been
done.
could
appellant
article the
Under
entry
“(6) That
the time of the
at
and rendi-
reciting
affidavit,
attorney
filed
each
plaintiff’s
tion of
divorce decree in
that—
knowledge
then
with
a return
confronted
cause,
gone
having
filed in the
letter
process mail,
due
Sangster,
in-,
on due
C.
“John
proper postage,
found,
process
addressed quiry,
so that
cannot
cannot be
showing
Dalhart, Tex.,
unques-
upon him,
defendant
further
and affiant
states
be served
tionably
living
getting
he
in or
his
residence of
known
the last
Dalhart, Tex.,
plaintiff,
Tex.;
upon diligent
Dalhart,
mail
and that
defendant is
knowledge,
swore
of said inquiry
of residence
ascer-
his
cannot be
last seen defendant at his tained.”
county, Tex.,
permitted
in Hansford
ranch
such
appears
the substituted service
revealing
decree to
rendered without
ought
The effect
affidavits.
court that notice
sent
these two
to Hans-
.based
217 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
726
569,
in con-
when considered
83 N.
Rep. 585;
E.
Am.
123
St.
Halter
motion,
Camp,
nection with
is to admit
ma- v.
Rep.
Van
336,
64 Misc.
N. Y.
118
np
It,
Supp. 545;
terial facts
set
the latter.
there-
Ackerman,
Ackerman
N.
v.
200
fore, appears
72,
192;
from a consideration of the Y.
N.
Gouch,
93
E.
Gouch v.
Rep. 436,
knowl-
had no actual
Misc.
Supp. 476;
N. Y.
Bru
edge
guiere
Bruguiere,
of the divorce
filed
Cook coun-
199,
suit
v.
172 Cal.
155 Pac.
ty, Ill., by
appellant;
1917E,
122;
at the time
Ann. Cas.
Pettis v. Pettis.
Thompson
affidavits
on his
above were made he
13;
mentioned
Conn.
101 Atl.
v.
county,
Thompson,
856;
Eq. 70,
ranch
in Hansford
89 N. J.
103 Atl.
(S.
have been
C.)
294; Dey
served with
State v. Duncan
E.S.
fact;
Deyette (Vt.)
and that
knew that
that she ette
232;
104 Atl.
In re
Estate,
also
knew he had never resided
Grossman’s
263 Pa.
106 Atl.
Zulu,
questions
or Ideal. 88.
These
are also briefed and dis
*4
is,
opinion,
our
sufficient
show
Perkins,
cussed
the notes to Perkins v.
by appellant upon
1917B, 1039,
willful fraud
the
1040;
Fey,
committed
L. R. A.
Forest v.
165,
court and
789,
Of the Illinois
218 Ill.
(N. S.)
75 N.
Jurisdiction
E.
1 L. R. A.
part
prevent appellee
740, 109
from
Joyner
effort
Rep. 249;
Joyner,
Am. St.
v.
having
knowledge
217,
actual
of the institution
182,
S.)
131
(N.
Ga.
62 S. E.
18 L. R. A.
pre- 647,
of
viously
that she had
Rep.
her suit.
It was shown
220;
127 Am. St.
Succession of
Benton,
for divorce in
494,
filed suit
him
123,
106 La.
31 South.
L. R.
59
Dalhart,
sub-
the
sequently dismissed;
court at
which
district
she
A. 183.
during her resi-
foreign
“To render a
decree of divorce en-
acquainted
dence in Dalhart
became
she
recognition
titled to
in another state so far as
Richmond,
went
Dalhart and
who left
marriage
jurisdiction
affected,
relation is
Chicago,
person
the same
either with her
about
of the
of the defendant must be in some
way acquired.
Chicago,
appears that she
it
There must
time. While
be notice
defendant,
process
either
service of
general
or if the
her at the
her mail
had
addressed
nonresident, by
defendant be a
publication
given
only
.delivery,
ever
and the
address
required by
or other constructive notice as is
proved
Chicago
to be the
her in
p. 510,
the laws of the state.” 9 R.
§
C. L.
left Dalhart
When she
Richmond resided.
and went to
332.
left her furniture
“It well
is
settled that each state
exclu-
has
her son
and told
in her home
jurisdiction
marriage
sive
over the
status of its
her citizens,
to see
to Vancouver
Tom she was
and hence a court of another state has
jurisdiction
son, Chris,
sister,
wanted to no
and told her
to decree
divorce between
parties
go up
get
city
where neither has a domicile or resi-
there to
a divorce. The
direc-
dence within the state of the forum. Accord-
city Chicago
tory
show that'
did not
of the
ingly,
a divorce rendered
court of
state
Sangster lived
Mrs.
Richmond -or
either Mrs.
party
legal residence,
in which neither
city.
trial
testified-
She
especially
domicile,
personal
where there is no
her husband's
her case that she did not know
place
process upon
service
the state
the defendant within
forum,
and that
last-known
of the
and she or he does not
voluntarily appear,
recogni-
is not entitled to
Dalhart. Under these
of residence was
tion in another
faith
state under the full
and:
facts we think the court did
recting
err in di-
credit clause of the federal Constitution.” Id.
appellee.
a verdict for
held
p. 511, 333.
§
several cases
Texas that a decree
di-
general
“The
rule that a
of the
may
collaterally
foreign
vorce
in a
obtained
state
courts of one
peached
procured by
be
im-
col-
state,
in the courts of
if it
another
laterally attacked to show that
the court
legal rights
fraud
jurisdiction,
rendered
even party against
rendered, applies
whom it was
though
necessary
recites all
foreign decrees of divorce.
It has been held
her hus-
jurisdictional
Cole,
facts. Stuart v.
42 Tex.
separation
wife,
that a
who
App. 478,
1040; Morgan
Civ.
92 S. W.
v. band, goes
to another
state for the
Morgan,
App. 315,
154;
1
brings
Tex. Civ.
obtaining
21 S. W.
suit without
Givens,
disclosing
the state of her former
same matters
and in which she
pending
877;
Givens v.
Bartlett,
195 S. W.
that a suit
v.
fact
Jones
residence, involving the
730- light the 4. op pas- that agreement Indemnity immaterial becomes i&wkey;9(l) Consequences — No false. the affidavits were NEGLIGENCE OF CITY TRAC- sive that made INCLUDED IN by'motion TION COMPANY’S CONTRACT. effort was provided Where a street railroad franchise trial, stipulation as for new being improvident, to set aside the city company the traction hold should its effect cannot be any damages property in- “harmless We bound avoided court. juries may persons reason of which arise admitted, light of the mo- fact tion and traction the construction” railroad, together sub- which city company liable to for a proposi- trial bare mitted to pedestrian injured city a in favor of ju- culvert, by city’s passive neglect repair tion of law whether a by wagon company decree, invalidate traction risdiction trial emptorily crushed a used hauling gravel in road. nothing for the construction judge per- could do else than instruct find appellee. <&wkey;102(l)Newly 5. New discovered trial — overruled. The motion is WHERE EVIDENCE NO GROUND CONSTITUTES HAS NOT EXERCISED. DILIGENCE DUE BEEN inju- by personal pedestrian’s In a action for falling ries, crushed a into a culvert due wagon road, rail- a street for the construction used CITY OF al. POLYTECHNIC REDMON et whether such where it was a 9003.) (No. caused the servants destruction was company, (Court Appeals a to refuse traction it was error of Civil of Texas. Ft. Worth. evidence, newly Rehearing, new trial for discovered Nov. 1919. On Motion for years, nearly pending 1919.) two the suit had been Dec. city, party amade and the had made which was 1. INDEMNITY RAILWAY <&wkey;9(l) IN- STREET to have the testi- effort witnesses — FOB DEMNITOR TO CITY PERSONAL fy, although LIABLE IN- residence was known. their JURIES ON STREET. company constructing Where a traction &wkey;>104(l)Newly discovered 6. New trial — city through employed street railroad driv- NOT EVIDENCE CUMULATIVE CHARACTER IN gravel, to haul ers one whom drove over a GROUND. crushing culvert, it, whereby pedestrian fell rarely granted in or- will A new trial injured, company therein traction may himself of avail der city harmless from the was bound to save the testimony. cumulative damages provision resulting franchise city under of the the company Damages should hold <&wkey;130(3) excessive $10,000 7. — damages property “harmless for FALLING INTO TO PEDESTRIAN INJURIES A injuries persons arise reason DEFECTIVE CAUSING PREMATURE CULVERT, of the railroad. construction” BIRTH. injured falling plaintiff’s wife, City’s — into Indemnity Where <&wkey;15(6) answer bed, gave culvert, confined a defective PERSONAL ACTION SUFFICIENT TO INJURY AU- premature twins, unable to do and was birth to JUDGMENT AGAINST THORIZE OVER TRACTION customary housework, $10,000 a verdict her was INDEMNITOR. COMPANY AS excessive, will reduced to $7,500. injured by pedestrian falling Where a by wagon into culvert crushed used company during hauling street Court, railroad dirt Appeal Coun- Tarrant District the construction saving its road under franchise Young, Judge. ty; Bruce damages resulting city harmless *8 against City C. Redmon construction, K. city, Action from such answer setting Polytechnic alleging Texas Trac- franchise and that the Northern out the of tion wrongdoer company, injuries. personal Judg- the traction Company active and city’s pas- negligence, any, was that the Traction, Northern Texas Com- ment company sive, tha,t construction ob- Engineering pany & Webster Com- and Stone ligated road to construct its with as little in- City, plaintiff against pany, and for public possible convenience city as to save the appeals. City Reversed and remanded damages, held suflieient to au- harmless Engineer- except Stone & Webster all against over the traction thorize Company, file, ing remittitur unless company. days, in which case within — t&wkey;317 servant Street Master against affirmed, City over INDEMNITOR FOR INJURIES RAILWAY LIABLE Traction the Northern Texas Com- CONTRACTOR. BY INDEPENDENT pany. injured by falling pedestrian Where by wagon a culvert crushed used haul- into Conner, James & all Brown and Samuels & ing gravel of a rail- construction street appellant. Worth, for of Et. saving city “harm- under franchise road Cantey, Hanger Capps, & and David Short injuries any damages property or less for persons Worth, Trammell, of Et. for Traction B. by reason of the con- arise Co. liability imposed struction,” such franchise McLean, Worth, McLean, Ft. though & company, Scott the traction of even driver wagon independent appellees. contractor. was an Digests topic Key-Numbered and Indexes <§^>For cases see same KEY -NUI/IBERin all