*1 190 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER BUCK, arising J. This is an in tres- action pass try 8447.) title, appellant, (No. Ryan, to et William C. ux. RYAN v. LOFTON claiming property title to the (Court Appeals of Civil of Worth. Texas. Ft. by legal transfers, and L. and 21, 1916. On for Re- Oct. Motion claiming property wife hearing', title to the 25, 1916.) virtue' Nov. By agree- aof from P.M. Moore. Fbauds, &wkey;>129(7) 1. Con- Statute —Oral parties ment between all and E. Dennis Improvements. tract — agreed upon wife were as the Improvements, piping source consisting common a house gas, purchasing title; for the value not and being said Dennis im- and wife paid paper amounting $2.10, of the time wall to grantors mediate to M. P. insignificant trial, so as not judgmеnt Moore. From a in favor of to take an oral con- as to which defendants, plaintiff appeals. sought enforced, tract was ute 1914, stat- to out of the Sayles’ (Vernon’s August, 1913; wife, frauds Ann. Civ. St: In R. L.' Lofton and his being 4); property art. subd. Lofton, Abilene, Eula' lived worth month. rental of $10 with a value P. Moore from Dennis controversy, ises Loftons and Frauds, cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Stat- of, thereon, Dig. Dig. occupied &wkey;>129(7).]moved house Cent. Dec. § ute day death, until oc- before Moore’s op Frauds, <&wkey;129(9) 2. Statute Con- —Oral Improvements. May, old, quite curred in . 1914. Moore was tract — Where, convey, to oral to enforcе lived with Loftons for some upon reliance is had the claimant’s prior years in Cisco to removal to improvement premises, the value of Abilene, furnishing Moore the house rent pro- must be be such shown to free, portion nursing, caring for, of the the the Loftons and made in such reliance claimant to contract as por-r boarding During goodly Moore. a rights. equitable together tion of the time lived in Abilene Frauds, cases, [Ed. Note.—For Stat- other see required Mr. Moore was sick bedfast and of, Dig. Dig. &wkey;>129(9).] ute § Cent. Dec. considerable attention. before he Rehearing. for On Motion died he was moved' from the Lofton resi- Try Trespass dence, appellant at the instance of here- <&wkey;41(l) 3. to Title —Action —Evidence. apparently protest in, over trespass try title, In to suit for the defense days A before his death Moore Loftons. executed, few being equitable rights under an oral contract convey, a deed to evidence held to show that grantor, taken man, promised aged title Joseph Right Pat- Reverend in favor of the name his own bishop D., Catholic rick D. of' the support until to defendants in consideration of Tex., Dallas, and his successors diocese which was him. assigns, reciting $750. a Trespass сonsideration cases, other see [Ed. Note.—For i&wkey;> Try 41(1).] Dig. Dig. July wit, Title, on, Subsequent Dec. Cent. to Moore’s Lynch deeded the Rev. Try Trespass — appellant, <&wkey;35(l) Ryan, the consideration 4. Title De- William C. fenses. dollars and other “ten recited try trespass title, en- defendants consideration.” titled to the out lawful defense August 11, 1915, appellant suit filed limitation, On action, except with- the defense of predicate try special pleading trespass Defendants a therefor. title. form cases, Trespass guilty, plea other see [E'd. Note.—For answered alleged <&wkey;> Try Dig. Dig. 50, 52; Title, §§ Cent. acquired the title from 35(1).] following circum- Mоore under P.M. Agreement &wkey;>17,18(5) wit; Trusts That, stances, title was —Oral while the Convey. name, in his own P. Moore said M. taken legal name of Where title is taken benefit for the use and taken purchaser the fact prom- persons shall vest and with defendants purchaser ising support until defendants; M. P. the said these' executed, parol agreement, when consti- such tutes cree prior years for several had been Moore authorizing trust, de- valid enforceable man, decrepit deed an old persons said date of purchaser’s interest against family title with relatives and without (Ver- notwithstanding notice, of frauds statute maintenance; rely whom Sayles’ art. non’s Ann. Civ. St. of said to the date for five 4). subd. said had taken care the defendants deed Trusts, cases, Cent. [Ed. Note.—For per- him and had and had boarded Dig. Dig. &wkey;17,18(5).] Moore Dee. had cared them and room with mitted Taylor Court, Appeal District Coun- sickness, with no remunera- Blanton, Judge. ty; Thomas L. ,the promise except save therefor tion ' Ryan .R. William C. Action them to remunerate death said by From defend- and wife. Lofton ants, leaving he owned what plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. time; said appellant. Dennis said Moore from Abilene, Iiaynie, R. W. Abilene, there- appellees. Ben L. Cox^ Digеsts and Indexes Key-Numbered in all topic see same KEY-NUMBER &wkey;>Forother *2 y. Tex.) RYAN LOFTON promised that the care of
of, that she should take and ana property?” him for the rent of such premises should to said the title his death property defendants, jury and the To vest the answered as follows: any incum- property become theirs without “We find should by defendant Mrs. Lofton M. Moore the charge thereon, P. the sole brance or property.” M. P. Moore the of, care would take condition defendants Upon maintain, judg- support, Moore nurse said verdict the court entered a and during plea the rest in ment favor of the their the defendants on date of deed frоm said guilty, life, understood that of not and further decreed that all natural of his right, title, claim, the the of William become and interest said were Ryan Moore said O. in at the death said be divested the defendants of of out of that and in of and in and vested in the consideration taking upon by care cast virtue of defendants cloud services execution, recording years delivery, of the Moore for the said five and interven- and for time the deed from date of said deed Moore to Rev. removed, ing Lynch plaintiff, to the death the deed from from the deed date said ' faithfully respects Moore; and quieted defendants be in all of said defendants agreement part in their their of said title. From this carried out appealed. and nurse did care of plaintiff’s during sustaining rest of his natural The trial court said special exception May, part defendants’ until life his death promise pleading agreement alleged answer another count Defendants part on of the M. deceased P. Moore to said the value of death, give, sy at his in controver to the said Moore services value of their to defendants as remuneration for and cared for time nursed lifetime, care seems period him, allegеd have covered a some agreement to have concluded that not such previous of said deed five and the date sustainable, but that in make the order to subsequent thereto, was time parol agreement transfer to real of title month. $75 value of reasonable promise First, a estate valid there must be: upon alleged relying further that while part grantor on the of the agreement alleged contract and to have grantee and, second, prsesenti; the enter death, prior to his had with said Moore while in possession grantee ing into under said said and control of and, prоmise; third, making of valuable ises, there- made valuable permanent on the and the on. gran grantee the reliance on the sustained ex- The court promise. While a sale or tor’s ception portion answer to that of defendants’ may equity be sustained when land followed promise up setting agreement grantee or of the give P. Moore to defendants the makes valuable donee who death, controversy at his n thereon Hale, (Wootters faith alleged that amended their answer 563, 19 134), yet it S. W. does not follow agreement and the of said Moore understand- validity may such sale or ing proper- of said defendants were that of valuable be sustained absence ty in fact vested said defendants improvements. permanent time of the execution of the deed from Dennis though land, devise “A contract to pleaded Moore, fulfillment nontestamentary as a method with some disfavor disposition and conse- defendants of subject wills, quently yet tract to the statute will nurse and care for said by equity enforced con- improve- definite, clear, doubt. It is and without ments, compel specific equity etc. direct cannot obvious that contract to devise land sharply The issues drawn ordering рromisor before make the devise First, evidence: as to the nature perfonnance until the is not due as contract, any, if between Moore equiv- will do what But of death. time Loftons; performance, second, and the permanent as to whether fasten- to trust alent ing and devisee, heir the land or valuable representative conveyance by enforcing made; third, been had whether defendants purchaser holding under the in favor of the complied alleged the terms the death Before contract to devise. any attempted enjoin promisor contract with of him will conveyаnce upon fraud to a third of the land days. during his last promise to de- of. jury The cause submitted conveyed grantee or, a vise; if it special issue, following wit: consideration, equity will with notice compel devisee in trust for the the be held either to the land “Q. 1. At the M. P. Moore reconveyed to to bo property the defendant Mrs. same property promise did he let from W. E. Dennis and Eq. Pomeroy, grantor.” § 746. Jur. began occupying did the late M. then such P. Moore al., also, See, Cheadle et Davies et al. v. Lofton, merely said to the Mrs. Har Harrison v. Pac. 31 Wash. the same her at his Burns rison, property upon 113 N. 80 Neb. Mrs. Lofton enter 190 S.W.—48 190 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER Smith, conveyance, equity St. Pao. 21 Mont. 6.9 consideration for the Rep. 653; Bryson McShane, 48 conveyance. W. Va. enforce such As is said Jor- supra: Abney, 35 Krell v. Codman L. A. note dan S. E. under (Mass.) 14 persons upon R. A. "That a contract between two *3 will, valuable consideration Rehyl, at Grindling one N. W. 149 Mich. 113 v. enforceable, other, leave 466; 290, berner, Rep. 802; (N. S.) Ditt 15 L. R. A. Teske v. contravened, where no most an al- statute is is held Am. St. 70 Neb. 98 N. W. authority, English unbroken current of Clancy Flusky, sufficiently contracts, 58 American. v. 187 Ill. Such when certain, equity enforceable, 277; have been held valid and N. E. v. Bur L. R. A. Burdine law, they provide as well as at whether dine, St. 98 Va. 81 Am. 36 S. E. money, leaving for the or the 741; Rep. Kent, Kent N. v. Y. specific property, moiety of all or a of that Rep. 502; Updike Broeck, obligor 32 N. J. Ten v. at should leave his death. usually agree- Law, 105; Young Eq. 27, in the form of Young, 45 put J. N. bequeath by will, ments to this not been has 921; Harris, W. W. W. 16 Atl. 570; Masterson 174 S. regarded agreements feature; as an essential West, Clark v. 73 S. property, obligee to leave the or that the Abney, Jordan 97 Tex. 78 S. obligor, being have sufficient.” at the death of the held authority these to All of binding We think sufficient that a valid contract one of evidence to parties (1) leave, to the contention the another, of defеndants: That M. P. to Moore in to the fendants the time is enforceable where he agreement. has fulfilled the either terms of his intended 2] [1, defendants at While we are or that the de- death; rendered cannot be sustained on should receive them at his (2) improve the basis of valuable and consideration for this yet prior nursing boarding was the care the ments made we think the M. P. Moore’s defendants; (3) to enforce deceased sufficient that de- complied appellant, fendants on with their take shown to be the holder of the care of the who is the remain- deceased Upon no der of title tiсe able consideration. The shown to to have his natural life. received the first and propositions second claim and without valu of defendants’ Mrs. Lofton testified only as follows: have been made buy “He [Mr. told Moore] me that he would him, home gas, for me piping take care of that he was was the not the value thereof alone, stay and that he could not down there paper of wall agreed Dudley I himself. to that. [the real Mr. $2.10, paid amounting at the time agent] taking place estate down here us to look aat agreed of the trial. controversy It is passed street on Oak and wе this place, he had for Dudley place and Mr. told me there was is of the value said, and he ‘We will look at $10 value of the same was rental it.’ He told Mr. Moore that. I was with him most, value, insig month. At these items would together buggy. at the time. We were nificant in and not such as to take Dudley place, Mr. us to look at the got and we all out and went in. We could not out of the statute of frauds. get lady gone, in the house. The and we Turner, Wallis v. v. 95 S. W. Hutcheson you could, know, looked around all we and he Chandler, Civ. App. 124, 47 Tex. 104 S. place [Mr. told Moore] me that suited him Eason, Eason v. Ann Berta if it did me. He said I was the one to be sat- Lodge Leverton, isfied; buying for, it was for me that he was Tex. 18. As stated in pleased and I was the one be further. We decided we about it. And the last-cited case: go any so we didn’t would take “Nor can it be maintained that * character * * place. In considera- repairs premis- of es, made on the giving place, tion of Mr. Moore me this I value, pur- of however little will entitle the long him take care of he lived. There (cid:127) chaser to have the contract enforced.” was no other consideration. I had taken care of him some to that time. We had lived placed grantor’s put- As reliancе is Cisco, prior with him at time he came ting grantee into bought place. down here and He told me place improvements, my that he was ises me kindness to him at and for in Cisco the future must be shown During care of him. all the time that he lived proportion to be in such amount in value us, pay him, took care I he did not property, and made in reliance pay anything. me board. He me * * jje * (cid:127) promise convey, bought as would told me that vest place the that the say anything He me. did not about claimant-grantee equitable rights, place being his until he died. He told me deprive him of which would constitute a place bought was mine when he it. He fraud, perpetration of which the statutes just he says, yours, place yours,’ ‘It is prevent. bought place, of frauds were to conveyance But and he set but shade trees enacted everything, put- there and ting watch He and told me he was be in- whether me, they mine, them out for and to tended or place take at the time the donee them, and he claim own didn’t them. grantee possession, take gave bought me the at the time he grantor, at the death donor it. He told me when it that it was mine.” grantee has,
is immaterial. If the donee or per- grantor, at the death of the Mr. dоnor or Miller testified for the defendants in formed the which constituted services as follows: Tex.) RYAN v. LOFTON away Ryan [appellant] came taken conver- X the summer of 1913 “During said, him, I I to. I some when asked him not told about [Moore] sation away.’ said, Grandpa ‘He I ‘Don’t referred the time Abilene. At long.’ said, me, renting property T would rather and been I with me so Mr. Lofton was here, I am not able anything would be Moore at he wait on ways long while Mr. I about didn’t know best; him, my al- I have I do he wanted but will time. told me But so, so as buy done and I continue to do wanted and he to some some' ” as he lives.’ property, ‘What kind X asked prop- said, рroperty?’ residence and he ‘Some R. L. tak- Lofton testified also Lofton, and erty,’ I him and carried en of the deceased oc- the time buggy property, child, X it was little believe cupied jointly. carriage and time, or to house some around helpless gentleman almost old For the we con- reasons hereinabove two looked at and we went down there appellant’s assignments attacking clude that says, property. pieces ‘I want He three judg- rendering says, the action of the court buy *4 for Lofton.’ He a residence Mrs. myself, and she ‘I care of am not take able to ment sub- answer to the buy earing me, her and I want to cause, jury mitted to and also to this * * * this I didn’t show her home.’ refusing the action of plaintiff’s court bought, remarked he that afterwards he hut home’; buy peremptory that instruction, ‘I Lofton should be that want help- me, I am has almost ‘she cared overruled. For the and under reasons shown ” less.’ cited, that was we conclude it authorities part: Dudley testified C. W. immaterial P. Moore made the whether M. agent “I that in con- am sold the grant to Mrs. troversy street from there, and he said he lived across in this case. n pos- take at the time me, effect she entered into gentleman I the old sa -v got talking day, thereof, him one and I with session or whether he buy a market her; his death. it take at * * * I that Abilene. showed him home in event, consideration', wit, In either particular property Lofton. So and Mrs. —him during support through house. I them care and of the deceased his carried home, there, was not down there one lifetime, was fulfilled' get inside; couldn’t so next and we two through grantor, and his Rev. who went I showed them We this property. purchasers yard looking were shown to be with notice out it. We was yard, and Mrs. Lofton consideration, around in the he asked are in and without valuable property, said, and she ‘All how she likеd the position complain of enforcement no you right,’ I says, pleased; ‘I and he want to be” equitable rights vested in defendants. you.’ this am attempted While have not each we to discuss part: Robinson testified assignment presented by appellant, we have “I Mr. Moore that the Lof- knew lived with carefully same, and have con- examined just tons. to him the Loftons I talked before overruled, moved into that house. It must have been all should be cluded that in, moved and I was week cutting let two before things of the trial court in all af- Moore, says, gas, and I off some ‘Mr. ; firmed and it so ordered. ‘No,’ says, me he ‘I am not wife house.’ right says, He be as Affirmed. able now.’ ‘You should gave good it was; as I I ought wife;’ says, and he ‘You to Bob’s Rehearing. On Motion for ” good Ias was.’ be as Appellant in his motion us a num- cites compliance part As to the many decisions, of Texas ber of them our agreement with the Loftons Mr. to take care of Court, Supreme urgently which he insists Mrs. Lofton testified in sustain his a contention order to take follows: parol sale out of the statute “During all time that I with us he lived (article Sayles’ of frauds Vernon’s pay took care of and he did not me board. Statutes), alone, pay anything. During Texas Civil with He few months that was down lеss. me did not the last lived here in payment, Abilene' he purchase price, in case help- bed the time. He whole, by vendee, inor will not certainly I him. wait on It took most suffice, but there must also be shown valu- my all of and attention time for him. He big Haynes care. I Dr. had him. I car- able the latter with my kept ried out him and knowledge and consent of the former. * * * there the his life. I years. rest of took care urged Hence it we were error in Mr. Cisco about six We stayed case, years. sustaining went there in I ing there since six any charge Mr. never did make Moore for tak- we no such found that charge I him Cisco. never did been mаde would of themselves * * * anything my services. I stat- operation out of I ed tainly took care Mr. Moore. I cer- did, I did. sure as well as I It could. statute. is a fact life the last two months carefully On reconsideration we have ex- failing, his health was only every authority amined, not Texas cited larger part was confined to his room the many others, by appellant, the time. He able moved. He but also and have let move him. hurt him would moved. me He could not be Supreme least some of the concluded His side so bad and -was him. fail our decisions hereto- Court he would not so "that let me painful move expressed many, if not It is not a month views. While fact the last ill- fore ness that room which he was left was most, the’ or simi- states kept dirty. just very I as clean Ias could statutory adoption English statute lar * * * evening circumstances. under the before The frauds, (29 LI, Grandpa [meaning enacted in 1676 Car. c. died, Moore] Mr. REPORTER 190 SOUTHWESTERN 1), very vendor, courts liberal vendee oí been aside from have uncontrolled statute frauds.” construing in lief, yet and in re- such statutes say But the does not state seemingly our own courts have been only of facts used as an illustration is depart rigorous loath to from the somewhat statute, one that would avoid the and reason- terms of the statute. sen- This conservative implies ably contrary. In Robinson v. opinions timent was of Chief voiced in the Davenport, there were shown Hemphill Lips- Justice and Associate Justice valuable veyance, con- to sustain the leading comb in one of the discussing questions but in in- reported Stubblefield, question, Garner v. says: volved the court history, Early judicial in our “The that courts of de- doctrine will however, Supreme mod- of Texas Court specific performance parol cree contracts enforcing statutory inhibition, by ified the specific performance the sale of lands under certain circumstances against requmng of a the inhibitions 'the statute frauds or some memorandum land where valuable writing long to be be been too established donee, been made the vendee seriously questioned. inquiry therefore knowledge of the vendor granted consent is not whether relief will case, whether the case certain departure comes within donor. rule This from the strict defined rules which held to establish justified upon ground of the statute exceptions ceed pro- to the statute. The decisions prevent that to follow equities the statute enacted the idea that the *5 in be enforced are aid of the statute which frauds would in a induce and en- such case fraud, prevent independent of it.” courage sought prevented the to be evils Carver, 293, 296, In Jones v. 59 the Tex. by may questioned the statute. While it be following language: court uses the all, whether in a case of the or “ * ** plaintiffs spe- To entitle the to its large part, purchase especially price, 'of the enough, performance, it cific decisions of contract was is not the under parol insolvency court, is where of the vendor the a to show that such made, greater part, and that the presented cogent a more there is all, purchase money or even appeal equity powers to the of the courts paid. equitable [italics ours] Some matter improvements than the case of valuable party specific shown entitle a must be to the
.made, yet such a contract.” the decisions have established the beyond question, Altgelt Escalera, (cid:127)distinction and it has be- In the case of v. 51 Tex. might permit App. Equity 108, 989, come stare decisis. the Civ. S. W. the Court improvements, possible, District, Appeals very removal of where Fourth a question presented, full vendee discussion of this who denied performance, hardly give opinion, Fly, but it the writer could Justice sub- language: moneyed uses this stantial value a re- person claiming against parol “A a real estate under hopeless bankrupt. covered a gift law, sale from' or obtains no assistance many language In has been used in gift invalid, it a declares such sale because or dicating that the court did not intend to and in order enforce such parol present proof possession making hold, must holding, or wish to be understood as improvements a of acter, valuable char- making of valuable showing [italics ours] or other foots only еquitable ground upon is a or transaction fraud on the donee, it not enforced.” specific performance granted. should be In expressions There other decisions of Jones, 66, Wood v. 35 Tex. and Morris v. Supreme our Court and the Courts of Civil Gaines, 82 Tex. S. W. it judicial Appeals indicating purpose many stated in so words that either valuable exception limit the to the statute the case made in faith the ven- exclusively. of valuable For dee, vendor, (ital with the consent of the or instance, Woolbridge et al. Hancock et v. ours) delivery possession by vendor, ics a al., Supreme 70 Tex. our S. transaction out of the statute. Court, speaking through Maltbie, Justice uses Neatherly Ripley, In 21 Tex. it is said following language: that, money having paid, necessary validity parol it is “But aof possession alone is sufficient to raise an Texas, of land in rule sale may however the prevent equity being contract elsewhere, be be delivered nullity. Dugan Colville, treated as a substantial made, knowledgeof the ven- consent Lipscomb says: 8 Tex. Justice dor, upon the faith such apprehend taking possession principle making im- “I the mere true insignificant change provements is not suffi- if there has such not been of cirсum- a produced growing parol cient, especially of the rents the value stances out of where improvements.” contract that would be difficult to that of exceeds position vendee fore in be- gen- this enunciation as a But the force contract, there would not be law, than eral application rather statement equity justify a sufficient raised a decree for particular If, however, of the law to the facts the title. the ven- ven- contract, dor, dee to permit should case, impaired in that disclosed by is somewhat go into bestow much language opinion, subsequent in that expense improving land, labor and wit: confidence the vendor would make the conformity parol promise, every such of this class “It follows that case must special facts, raise would be circumstances favor of stand on and when it would its y. Tes.) GALLAHAR WHITLEY to action care purity, inequitable tons is oftentimes sated therefor. We portance tion* in the name the time some services money. to make their titling and care of dertook to the contract knew Moore would live for to the question tience and set out theory both restoréd to donor eyes urally repulsive. The hair extending out this оf defendant said W. cient fulfill to its man, might reasonably tract. contract; said Moore told the whatever dispensed trespass (cid:127)“There [4, [3] give in authorities, possession, particular ivas Va. transfer of evidence feeble, defendants. case, yet, in sunken, cents the value of such service. The accepted any special 5] service would continue. Though will not except her like service loveliness, It Since As to these the case sustain 'the hardships with it justifies the power residing title was attention evidence remaining years. nerves of in this the habits bis former try parol, *6 fulfill, and 35 S. sick, faithful service question, though some cases mere that are of M. cases; utmost, it was the defense of difficult to measure in dollars rule own contracts. Old exceedingly trying we are still of are of we fraudulent, title, lands be original opinion her that skin wrinkled and inclination defendants in consideration and affection main protection E. especially 'conveyed Mrs. Lofton spite money .pleading dispensing permitted fully its enforcement place, case P. at all and care to he rendered title thereto defendants were entitled conclusion Bryson McShane, beyond its incapable careless, needing condition, many especially was entitled in conclusion law childhood, case lawful defense question theory what suit was policy presented attendants. As damages. appreciate it was times thereafter and other permits tendered, cannot evidence is suffi against years. limitation, Neither grows gray, seeming courts is yet length Though an old presumed that of valuation of ever testified that the vendor repudiate present sustains the courts. he cannot involved tender doubted.” A. without that M. P. in form of was taken that under paper writings age drawn, individuals may beneficent compensa- proof There are predicate title was 527: while at her that fact the special improvements and un compen- of time that at conflict is nat- person with Dig. <S=>455.] aged, limit, cause Lof con The im pa the the en its of 4. be property without main, the thereto 3. interest notice to provement er assessment a art. 1. Eminent Interest Wells with Acts so ordered. according parol agreement owner terest ter vested in through a hold vest forced, lating 60 Am. Dec. Corporations, Cent. 35 S. W. tificates enforceable James Civ. Fig. veyance court of any power (Court lic ments —Assessment GALLAHAR v. WHITLEY. “Taking Attorney’s [Ed. Note.—For other [Ed. Improvements —Assessment Oct. provements — [Ed. Hence we conclude that Municipal notice Municipal A reassessment for An Under Under statute would city rehearing App. Agreements. legally §§ the same Cent. any legal Long Improvements Note.—For institute suit within adopted August and an kind of Civil Note.—For assessment of notwithstanding 71-74; hearing of Mineral issued to Moore of the to Acts 33d the defendant Mrs.' its can in no case Fulcrod, mistake 33d the charter of aside Property.” Dig. made for failure to subject <&wkey;34 prohibiting trust, right Domain conveyance agreed by parol charter, exceed 8 Fee. Miller v. 63 S. W. Corporatiоns Leg. opportunity Gray, provision, and Dee. Nov. Appeals contemplated cause. Corporations thereon, §§ Reassessment adequate under the On Motion for in the owner’s name in would constitute Houser v. owners of the other 9-12; decree Wells, expressly c. Dig. and would of interest. any legal reason, Dig. <&wkey;34.] 25, 1916.) —N the owner under adopted August 19, Leg. 13 Tex. Civ. apply. city covering paving Tex. —Rate—Public Certificate — cases, city <&wkey;2(ll) cases, Thatcher, of Texas. Ft. Worth. 1049. In otice — be made premises, if he at overruled; cases, §§ fixing promptly pay Dec. compensation. to the defеndants. the transfer given c. ten appellant’s charter, cent, violation general 1084-1093; assessment them, invalid, see Jordan, impose penalty &wkey;>524 Lofton.- city days Validity. Dig. i&wkey;2(ll).] n — the rate of in- assignable Certificate- <&wkey;455 see Interest, the absence of (No. 8446.) him to might Eminent Do- authorize a improvement Rehearing, Validity such —Public .the cost of of Mineral might statute re- accordance authorized App. 172, Validity Municipal to set street im- Improve- a valid motion private —Public A which, Const, would resist prop- —Pub- Cent. char- such view it is case con cer- Im- en- as- —
(SosoFor Digests Key-Numhered topic other cases see same in all and Indexes KEY-NUMBER