*1
lex.)
CEMENT
REITZER
PORTLAND
CO. v.
'.SOUTHWESTERN
which,
any, you
paragraph
if
could have been so
assigned
reads:
find
as error.
is
“If
saved.”
you
the evidence
from
believe
find
instructing
a reason-
The court did not err in
to construct
failed
defendant
jury
crossing
passageway
“You are
as follows:
further instruct
or
able
roadbed,
as the ed in
would
this connection
over
n direct
failure,
failure of a
proximate
be entitled to recover for
of said
cause
1907, viz., crossing
protected
crops
any,
plaintiff’s
if he
have
said
could
if
corn,
slight
peanuts,
crops
said
potatoes,
at a trivial ex
on
effort
sweet
Railway Co.,
destroyed,.
pense.”
roadbed,
Kendall
then
side of
west
you
reason-
757.
find for the
appel-
refusing
crops, or
err
value of
Nor did
court
cash
able
market
you
destroyed,
requested charge
5,
find.”
No.
wherein it
so
lant’s
either of them
It is
among
jury instructed,
sought
first,
insisted,
fails to
have
the evidence
crop
things,
you
plaintiff’s
“if
and believe
find
loss of
other
show that the
the
of a
proximate
de-
failure of
could have
the evidence that
result
the
fendant to
means,
crossing,
any
way,
and it was
other
construct
or
and,
jury;
expense
this issue to
exertion
reasonable
error
submit
reasonable
saved said
to
the destruction
clearly appears
crops
destruction,
evi-
second,
and failed
that it
so,
easily, and at
in this case
could
he cannot recover
that the
dence
do
very
gathered
crops.”
slight expense,
have
of said
crossing,
potatoes
assign-
marketed his
and thirteenth
the twelfth
Under
recover for their
and he is not entitled
made that
error
contention is
ments of
attempt
petition
original
account of his failure
value on
filed
first
amended
gather
up
ruin-
after
them until
cause
action different
set
are not
contentions
sustained.
ed. These
same
sued
on
railway company
to con-
The failure
said amendment
barred
limitation when
crossing
pieces
plea
the severed
struct a
To
the defend-
was filed.
resulting
original
plaintiff’s
inclosure
land
(cid:127)of the same
in evidence
ant introduced
crop
petition
loss of
the direct and
amended
and also
first
gives
grown upon
especially
so severed
a cause petition,
the land
of these
date
Sayles’
orig-
favor of
pleadings,
of action in
said owner.
which are as follows:
August
petition
Ann. Oiv.
4427.
evidence
art.
1908.
inal
first amended
vember
tain
was filed
gather
petition
original
owner
shows that the
started
was filed No-
ground,
leaving part
(cid:127)crop,
'wait-
it on
not con-
The record does
put
that,
ing
crossing
in,
cannot,
original petition.
We
completed
harvesting,
say
the therefore,
material
there
crop,
up and
on the
water came
stood
the first amend-
it and
difference between
crop
impracticable
inquire
petition,
rotted the
and made it
and we cannot
part
harvest
ready
same or
remove the
al-
to
was
new and
to whether a
into the
gathered.
up
It
shown
action
set
different
amended
way
getting
por-
no
convenient
petition.
crop
been
tion of
which had
harvested
record,
Finding
error
reversible
housed,
n acrossthe
track,
it could be
judgment is affirmed.
highway
where a
was accessible.
appear
from evidence that
does
slight expense
very
easily
and at
tiff could
crops
gathered
and marketed
with-
have
CEMENT
PORTLAND
crossing. The
tends to show
out
REITZER.
CO. v.
except by
not have been
could
n high
potatoes
embank-
over the
(Court
Appeals of
Texas. Feb.
Rehearing,
Civil
by putting
small
loads
baskets
1911. On Motion
8, 1911.)
March
driving
wagon,
vehicle over
loss
risk of
track at considerable
—
Damages
1. Torts
Proximate
much inconvenience.
Cause.
A
is liable for such
request
court at the
connection the
wrongful
act, though
flow
appellant
as follows:
(cid:127)of
instructed the
anticipated
not have
time was
he
committed
at the
you
“If
reasonable
and believe that the
find
ensuing damages;
suffi-
it being
effort,
reasonably anticipat-
prudence
might
care and
have
cient that
that
natural order
ed
result.
crop
all
(cid:127)could have saved
of his land in
west side
raised
Torts,
to use such
failed
reasonable
and that he
19-22;
§
careand
ordinarily
prudence
as an
and effort
Imprisonment
84*) Damages—
False
prudent
have
under
man would
Cause.
Proximate
you
circumstances,
find
or similar
.same
Injuries
do not
follow
natural
items
those
consequence
not be
arrest can-
recovered,
side in
lost on the west
No.
Series in Dec.
Indexes
and section NUMBER
*For
oases
*2
(Tes.
SOUTHWESTERN
respect
inflicted,
busi-
for the ar-
his
had
been
made it
to act
have been
rest
it not
wrong
engaged
imprisonment.
ness in
he
and
was
when
committed,
done in
was
act was
cases,
Im-
see
[Ed. Note.—For other
False
employment.
the course of his
Dig.
Dig.
prisonment,
111;
34.*].
§
§
Dec.
Cent.
cases,
[Ed.
and
Note.—For
see Master
other
Imprisonment
34*) Damages.
(§
3. False
—
1209;
Servant,
Dig.
Dig. § 300.*]
§
Dec.
Cent.
imprisoned
wrongfully
and
One
arrested
—
Imprisonment
damage
may
dition of the
ensuing
(§ 39*)
10.
the con-
Persons
recover for
False
por
Jury.
jail.
Employers—Questions
Liable —
by
wrongful arrest
one as
a
was
cases,
Whether
Im
[Ed.
other
see False
Note.—For
ordinarily
agent
or as
a
officer
of defendant
Dig.
Dig. 111;
prisonment,
34.*]
Dec.
§
§
Cent.
Imprisonment
(§ 34*) Damages—
4. False
—
cases,
Im
[Ed.
False
Note.—For other
see
Mock Trial.
Dig.
116;
prisonment,
Dig.
§ 39.*]
Cent.
§
Dec.
imprison-
an action
false
Plaintiff
for
Imprisonment
subject-
(§
being
15*)
damages
11. False
—Persons
for
ment cannot recover
Employers.
by
ed,
jail,
a
while
trial conducted
Liable —
to mock
by
being
prisoners;
a
arrest
made
a
con-
Where
was
no causal
fellow
employed
by
who was
and
nection
the false arrest
such mock
building
being
was
watchman
a
trial.
capacity
erected, such
arrest was made
cases,
Im-
[Ed.
other
see False
Note.—For
servant,
and
in his official
Dig.
Dig.
prisonment,
111;
§
34.*]
Dec.
§
Cent.
capacity.
Presump
—
(§ 194*)
5. Trial
—Instructions
cases,
[Ed.
Im
Note.—For
False
other
see
op
tions
Fact.
action
prisonment,
Dig.
Dig.
15.*]
§
§
Cent.
Dec.
imprisonment,
In an
for
false
presumes
law
court should not instruct
Rehearing.
On
for
Motion
person
having custody
an
a
officer
that
protect
sumption,
Imprisonment
34*) Damages.
False
rights,
pre-
since
him in
lawful
—
by
illegally
Injuries
prisoners to one while
exist,
rather
a matter of
it
imprisoned
by
separate
are
from those caused
of law.
than
damages
illegal arrest,
can-
and
therefor
Trial,
cases, see
Dec.
[Ed.
other
Note.—For
impris-
action
not be recovered
an
false
for
'Dig. § 194.*]
onment.
(§ 151*) Admissibility—
6. Evidence
Condi
cases,
—
[Ed.
Im
Note.—For other
see False
op
tion
Mind.
Dig.
Dig.
prisonment,
§
Cent.
Dec.
§
34.*]
imprisonment,
In an
for false
action
Court,
appeared
from District
El Paso Coun-
being
away
tools,
and on
a
box of
Judge.
ty;
Harper,
James
they
by
an-
officer whose tools
asked
against
by F.
South-
Action
H. Reitzer
Held,
swered,
could
“Mine.”
Company.
Judg-
western Portland Cement
testify
he
mind
was in his
when
to what
appeals.
claimed the tools.
for
and defendant
cases,
Evidence,
other
see
Note.—For
[Ed.
Reversed and remanded.
Dig.
Dig.
151.*]
40*)
§
Dec.
Cent.
§
Burges,
appellant.
Richard F.
Brown
Imprisonment
(§
False
Instruc
7.
Terry
Elfers,
appellee.
and E.
B.
tions.
ap-
imprisonment,
In an
action
false
carry-
peared
arrested while
brought by ap-
NEILL,
suit was
away
ing
no
tools. There was
a box of
evidence pellee against
appellant,
corporation,
a
stolen, and
in the box had been
the tools
$5,000
$10,000 actual,
exemplary,
recover
certain
covered and
that had
been re-
been stolen
possession
damages
imprison-
an
been in
and false
assault
agents before
arrest was
fendant’s
and
not carried with
Held,
a
ment.
in defendant’s
were retained
plaintiff’s petition
The substance of
is:
magistrate.
May
employ
while in the
That on.
there was
authorize
charge embodying
Or. Proc. art.
carpenter
Codé
of defendant
a
the construc-
providing
vent
persons
right
pre-
a
all
building,
a certain
he
was assaulted
seizing any personal property
theft
placed
under arrest
a
I.
bringing it,
stolen
which has been
supposed offender,
magistrate.
a
the service of
before
watchman
where
cases,
building
being erected;
see
Im
False
Dig.
prisonment,
§ 40.*]
Dec.
made
arrest was
warrant
without
Imprisonment
(§ 7*)
Illegal
False
Ar
8.
pistol, accompanied
means of a drawn
rest.
bodily
threat
action for false
accompany
tiff if
did
submit to
he
peared that defendant’s tools had
stolen
premises,
from its
was ar- him;
that plaintiff
then took
that Malone
warrant,
rested,
without
the act
county jail
carrying away a
box
tools. There was no evi-
jailer,
him
thrown
searched
stolen,
dence that
the tools
the box
filthy
prisoners,
cell with
number
and
tools stolen
session
was
evidence showed
the uncontroverted
that the
pos-
had been recovered
and were in
immediately proceeded
put plaintiff
who
through
of defendant’s
“kangaroo”
forcibly
took
Held,
imprison-
made.
that the arrest
subject-
money
person,
what
had from
illegal.
ment were
ing
indignities
him to other abuse
Im
[Ed. Note.—For
False
prisonment,
5-16;
great
§
greatly
humiliated
caused
anguish.
and Servant
Master
oe
That such arrest
mental
imprisonment
false
—Torts
Liability
op
Servant —
Master.
warrant,
illegal,
was without
master
render the
liable for the
To
torts of
prohable cause;
without
is,
general rule,
aas
sufficient to
hours,
three or
confined
four
that he
the servant
gave
show
ana
*For oilier oases
section NUMBER in Deo.
No. Series &
Indexes
Tex.)
CO. REITZER
PORTLAND CEMENT
only
together.
being
against
complaint
Mm or Ms
considered
recoverable for a tort as
Such
filed
requir-
magistrate,
flow from
taken before
acts,
If
action-
law;
were its
flow from an
of Malone
commission.
ed
done
service,
that said
sequence
in its able
in a con-
be was
as its natural
defendant while
*3
tinuous,
scope
current,
em-
of Ms
the
unbroken
were in the
and
may
defendant,
though
them,
done
for
ployment;
through
liable
not have an-
acts of
he
said
that
servant;
ticipated
agent
were
and
at the
was
time it
committed
its
ensuing damages
malicious,
consequence.
wanton,
willful,
were
and
as its natural
and
might
express
reasonably
purpose
if
intention It is
and
he
have
sufficient
knowledge
anticipated
injury
injuring plaintiff,
and
in
its
that
of
with
things
resultant,
natural
of
order
be its'
under its instructions.
specially excepted
may
contemplated
that
to
defendant
not have
plain-
alleges
actually
injury
part
petition
from
of the
caused would flow
upon
wrongdoing.
acting
placed
defendant, if,
mock
trial
tiff was
upon
ground through
jail,
agent,
county
prisoners
wrongfully
its
it
arrested and
imprisoned
plaintiff,
not material to
and
that
any
general
was irrelevant
must be deemed to
it
consequences
contemplated
answer contains
have
issue in
Its
of such
the' case.
denial,
special
acts,
plaintiff
of its au- unlawful
denial
and
held
be
liable to
arrest,
naturally
make the
for such
of Malone to
flowed from
thorization
averring
of
was a
them.
such an
not
But
as did
flow
through
current, starting
he did
and what
to
the natural
capacity,
source, although might
and not
in his official
as its
it
was
pleaded
authority.
It then
not
the unlawful
had it not been
its order or
have been
for
inflicted
diligent
keep
requested
to
it
and
had
can-
regarded
consequence
certain
had stolen
of
watch
discover
a natural
to
who
implements
acts;
its
en-
servants
and
tortious
and
it can-
tools
defendant’s
hence
who,
works,
gaged
prior
complained
constructing
its cement
not be
and
as an element
taken
considered
frequently
arrest,
plaintiff’s
damages
to
of
If
case.
the arrest and
by defendant,
tools had
their
to its
of
were
chests; that,
having
responsible,
from their
are
for
been stolen
been
the tools taken
and
acts
which it
damages
naturally
that certain of
to its attention
is liable
such
called
for
flow-
employes
may
said,
its
ed from them.
and it has
requested
keep
that,
jail
box,
held,
certain
a
been
fendant’s
dirty,
in which de-
agent
filthy
claimed the box
who
to ascertain
cast
lookout
pursuance
that,
tools;
any
containing
damage
of
such
ensued from
keep
lookout,
instructions,
damages naturally
condition,
such
he did
such
such
flowed
its
from the act of his
the
held liable for them.
Wis.
chest,
carrying
being imprisoned,
off
and detected
and
then
asking
that, upon
reason,
him whose
should,
Malone’s
be
53
defendant
contained,
upon
Butts,
an-
Fenelon
they belonged
him,
swering
finding plaintiff
Sutherland on Dam-
10 N. W.
tools,
ages,
of such
§ 1257.
believing
having
plain-
logically
to believe
reason
But can it
be deduced from
them,
being subjected,
jail,
Mm while in
had stolen
tiff’s
to mock
he
the act of
off;
such ac-
them
trial conducted
his fellow
solely
purpose
of
was taken
ensued from
employés
proceeding
protecting
from theft
defendant’s
such
from de-
flowed
alleged wrongful
throwing
tools,
malice
was done without
of
their
fendant’s
him in
any
injure
agent
jail,
or harass
shown
its
unless it be
or intent to
one
The
above
ruled
else,
solely
purpose stated.
reason
know
time
at the
knew
he
We
subjected
exception
plaintiff’s petition
indignities?
special
to such
“kangaroo”
presented
and over-
to was
think
trial
referred
not.
court,
beyond
and the case
then
outside
the natural current
judg-
jury,
origin
resulted
which had its
flowed
de-
tried
plaintiffs
alleged wrong.
$250.
favor
fendant’s
It came between
ment in
of the stream which
of error assails
and broke the flow
emanated
The first
supposed wrong
overruling
special
done the
court
action of the
pe- plaintiff by
itself
exception
tition;
above mentioned
any injury
parent
caused,
fifth,
there was
to in-
refusal
and the
request,
proximity
or causal connection between
that no
at
defendant’s
struct
custody
act of
placed
if Malone
trial;
placed upon
jailer,
mock
their sources
flow
a and the
was thereafter
and he
through
origin
“kangaroo”
inmates
of different
differ-
of the coun-
trial
ty
channels.
its officers’or ent
special exception
knowledge,
agents’
In our
to consider the
fact
petition
to which it
nor the circumstances that
mock
of such
arriving
it,
have been
was
Inasmuch
sustained.
at a
addressed should
verdict.
connected
assignments
cognate
as it was overruled and evidenet
As the two
allega-
law, they
principle
sustain such
tended to
will be heard which
volve the same
(Tex.
135 SOUTHWESTERN
charge
special
belief,
tions,
quested
given
re- der
under
the circumstances
the substance
given
subject
have been
which such arrest was made could be
substance,
say
mitigation
be-
We
think it should
considered in
regardless
damages,
have been
was in
cause we do
adorned with the
of what
pre-
“The law
the
tiff’s
claimed the tools
sentence:
mind at the time
custody
his;
having
testimony
sumes that an officer
prisoner
protect him in his lawful
the state of his
dif-
the effect that
ferent from what the clear
mind was
presumption,
import
rights.”
his lan-
If
there be
be,
guage,
claiming
tools,
such as
it is
than of
.
evinced
rather
issue,
rarely
purpose
except
asserted,
is
saving
of was irrelevant to such an
and should
consequences
permitted
of an
an officerfrom the
not have been
to be introduced.
*4
effect,
special charge
is,
an official
em-
in
The defendant asked
act.
unauthorized
protect bodying
to
of
as
shield
article
of the Code Criminal
ornament thrown out
the
ignorance, inefficiency,
364
consequences
Procedure,
subject
his
of
of
own
and its refusal
the
from the
officer
duty.
assignment.
watchman, Malone,
testimony
breach of
or a
the sixth
grateful
Every
the law
conclu-
officer
that
fendant’s
shows
should
sively:
provisions
charity
him such a
re-
has furnished
That the
the article
its
beseeming
justification
plaintiff's
shield,
ferred
offer no
wear it
to
imprisonment.
testimony
modesty,
mistaking
hilt
it for
of arrest and
the
His
never
depriving
missing tools, supposed
a citizen of
a
his
to the
that
to
to be
effect
sword
used
rights.
stolen,
legal
the
had been discovered in
Classon,
foreman,
a box on box
defendant’s
who
to show that
The evidence tends
supposed by
premises
with its
into
com-
carried it
contents
defendant’s
watchman, Malone,
pany’s
evening
to
storehouse the
before the ar-
contain tools
one,
employes
(Malone):
rest was
and said
which had been stolen
morning
duty
you to
here
to detect and “I want
it was Malone’s
to-morrow
morning
early,
thief;
work,
on
before the men come
and ar-
catch
gets
plaintiff,
presence
arrest,
in the
watch- rest
the man that
tool box
he,
up
box,
man,
wit-
off with
claims those tools
there.” That
took
and started
ness,
bright
early
morn-
asked him whose
was there
next
and that Malone then
picked up
they
answered,
were,
came
and that
when
tools
“Mine.”
inferring
pair
picked
Whereupon,
his an- a
of overalls from the box and
put
up
box,
shoulder,
the tool
his
swer and other circumstances that
immediately
thief,
started out with it. That he then walked
was
him. Plaintiff was
ination
Malone
up
then,
said,
me, please,
exam-
“Excuse
on redirect
you
counsel,
yours?
says,
question:
T
do
claim
asked this
but
He
says,
yourself
I
the sec- do.’
‘Consider
under arrest.’
“You
on cross-examination that
you
says,
says,
picked up
box
ask- 1-Ie
‘For what?’ and I
‘For theft
ond time
Malone
you
says, ‘No,
you
they were,
said,
sir.’ T
need
of tools.’
any
don’t
whose tools
He
you
you
your arrest, for I
mean
warrant for
saw
‘Mine.’
which
did
that?” To
What
says then,
excepted,
making
off with the tools.’ He
on the
my
‘Well,
my
ground
mind,
till
take
box over to
wait
I
what
witness
says, ‘No, just
Malone,
friends.’
the box
I
leave
did not communicate
overruled,
storeroom;
they
right
exception
will be all
and tools
material. The
“They
answered,
I
were mine there.’
took the box and set it down
the witness
So
brought
my charge.”
storeroom,
and then
him to
The defendant then
line,
ques-
got
answer,
(cid:127)excepted
street
as well as the
town. Before I
to the
car
* * *
tion,
had borrowed
them
he claimed that he
the court to strike
and moved
record,
he had in
reason
all the tools
that box.” There
from the
for the
that what
theory
mind,
no evidence to
was in
not stated to
If, how-
box had been stolen.
was irrelevant and immaterial. The tools in the
exception,
ruling ever,
were
and its
it should be conceded that
overruled the
(cid:127)court
testimony
evidence,
predicate for the
uncontroverted
is the
third
they
shows
had been
recovered
(cid:127)error.
show,
If,
tends to
were
before the arrest was
as the evidence
Malone
made;
right,
as
defendant,
officer
that when
either
arrest,
(cid:127)agent
in de-
make
the tools
retained
was made
were
of the
difference,
possession, and, instead of
it could make no-
as to
act
fendant’s
making it,
before the nearest
mind when carried with
what was
magistrate,
sought
to be invok-
the box
as the statute
were
told
requires,
was carried to and im-
his.
have been the ed
For whatever
county
plaintiff’s mind,
prisoned
ar-
Hence the
state of
the arrest
unjustifiable.
special charge
But,
ticle embodied in the
still have been
viewed
charge rightful-
standpoint,
upon plaintiff’s
requested
if,
applicable and the
from Malone’s
thought
claiming
own,
ly
refused.
the tools
thought
legal
jury
the ar-
it his
court instructed the
stolen
duty
while in the
of the
were
arrest the
act rest and
off,
illegal
(cid:127)
unlawful;
and did
him un-
acts
them
were
y.
Tes.)
241
CO. REITZER
PORTLAND CEMENT
Kee,
Depot
329;
Rep.
99
Am.
Union
Ind.
50
directed
acts
Smith,
Pac.
plaintiff.
form
R.
16
27
Co.
Colo.
Such instructions
find
C.)
Louisville,
(C.
etc.,
eighth assignment
of error.
Harris v.
the basis of the
Ry. Co.,
116; King
clearly
Miss.
35
245,
v. I. C.
69
Fed.
of the
We are
42; Eichengreen
undisput-
N.
pears,
v. L. &
10 South.
as a matter
Co.,
L. R.
im- R.
Tenn.
arrest and
ed evidence
prisonment
illegal,
v. Cor
Jardine
court A.
and that
Hershey
Law,
nell,
jury.
rightfully
14 Atl.
But we
50 N.
instructed the
C.)
(C.
is held
peremptory
242 sep- arising other, proximate probable” Natural flicted cause. each and consequences arate, causes, always proximate. As disconnected neither of conspired Ry. produce v. Kel contributed P. Co. said in logg, & St. Milwaukee pri other. 256: “Tbe L. Ed. U. S. 24 94 mary may The motion is cause of overruled. be tbe operate through may disaster, tbougb suc instruments, at tbe end as an article cessive of a chain at applied a force be moved proxi end, that force al. et v. A. ALLEN CLOPTON movement, or, mate cause REALTY CO. squib in market the’ oft-cited case (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. Feb. always is, place. Was 1911.) wrong an unbroken connection Compensation Brokers Con opera continuous ful —a tract —“Net Price.” a continuous the facts constitute tion? Did employing plaintiffs Where a contract to. together property provided linked as to of events so succession sell defendants’ it must price be sold at a to net the not less whoie, owners or was there some make a natural per acre, than $125 the commission intervening independent cause be- new amount, must be added to that the contract injury?” All the cases tween the did not authorize the brokers retain as their Ry. price (S. per by appellee v. commission all A. A. P. Co. acre $125 above cited Griffin, obtained, able only them to a reason- entitled 542; App. 91, 48 S. W. Tex. 20 Civ. compensation. Cessnum, 61 Kan. 59 Pac. Drumm v. Brokers, (Unof.) Nathanson, 5 Neb. Stoecker v. Dig. § A. T. L. R. A. N. W. 1178*) and Error —Review- Ry. Rice, 14 Pac. v. Kan. & S. F. Disposition op Curing Cause — Error. Galveston, 3, 19 84 Tex. plaintiffs’ Gonzales Where a defect in would' case *6 probably have been 17), cured an and' rul- amendment we Am. to which S. W. additional evidence but for an erroneous fully access, laid meet the test have had judgment plaintiffs reversed quotation, affirma- and an down above error, for such the case will be with- remanded truly questions given rendering judgment out tive answer can therein termining absolute defendants. Appeal propounded, purpose and- Error, 1178.*] 460AA620; §. of an event. case, applied But when the test is endeavor to extend the mind balks Court, Bexar Coun- District from defendant’s act chain of causation ty; Judge. Camp, J. L. trial; mock to the Clopton Realty Action J. Com- A. short. of causation too for it finds the chain pany against Judg- D. J. Allen and others. missing. And, connecting like link is plaintiffs, appeal. ment for defendants “missing link” in the Darwin’s evolution Reversed remanded. man, ed, has found. The chain end- can’t be Ingrum, appellants. Clamp* R. P. C. C. causation, another and distinct Searcy, appellees and S. cannot be connected of the injury commenced, working has brought by NEILL, which the defendant J. suit to the consequence appellants anticipate pellees against recover the- could not as not, $2,000 wrong, under a which it is and cannot sum of due and for which, parties, responsible. held, written between contract Indianapolis Traction, etc., applicable in- far as case of (Ind. App.) appeal, Springer “This is as E. to volved on this follows: 93 N. agreement, enter- was called defend- memorandum of made and which our attention 1909, by day submitted, May, A. D. motion was into 25th after the ant’s counsel Realty Company Clopton application J. A. under con- and has no Antonio, simply county, Texas, here- announces San Bexar the well-es- of sideration. part,, styled parties physics, first as well as inafter rule tablished wife, Allen, agencies required that, produce D. Allen and Mamie several to and second, styled parties result, contribute there- hereinafter presence forces, part, for and considera- witnesseth: That ex- concurrent to istence ($1.00) paid, the- other, dollar sum of one of one will not relieve the be- tion of the par- hereby acknowledged, receipt still which is be the efficient cause of cause it part hereby give parties was no But here there concur- of the second the result. ties agency selling the exclusive in the act defendant with the act first rence of of the injured eighteen (18) months, plaintiff. period fol- for a sixty (60> 1, consisting done him the defendant Tract No. was lows: land, just city prisoners. located from that done west different acres road,, words, limits,- of the CastroVille north In one were separate point commencing 500 or 600 about feet at and distinct from those No. Series Indexes. in Dec. *For other cases section NUMBER.