we think error in Texas

1911The law is believed to be well settled that non-professional witnesses should, be allowed to state their opinion as to the sanity of a party, as the result of their observation, accompanied with a statement of the facts observed. ( 2 Ired., 78 ; 25 Ala., 21 ; 1 Greenl.

1874The law is believed to be well settled that non-professional witnesses should be allowed to state their opinion as to the sanity of a party, as the result of their observation, accompanied with a statement of the facts observed. ( 2 Ired., 78 ; 25 Ala., 21 ; 1 Greenl.

1965The court in its opinion, which held such rider was void, stated that: "In the case of State v. Angle, Ariz., 91 P. 2d 705, 708 , the question again arose as to how far the biennial appropriation bill could contain in its appropriation legislation other than the mere appropriation of money for the purposes set forth thereunder, and we said" l* + * After a care- ful review of the cases. we think the rule laid down thereby may be stated as follows. appropriation bill can contain nothing bue the a - propriation of money for specific purposes, and such other matters as are merely incidental and ne

1947Harrell v. State, 42 S. W. (2d) 438 ; Chambless v. State, 180 S. W. (2d) 927 .

1947Harrell v. State, 42 S. W. (2d) 438 ; Chambless v. State, 180 S. W. (2d) 927 .

1935App.), 55 S. W., 393 , and Brown v. Pope, 65 S. W., 42 , 3 Texas Ct. Rep., 279, and held that the measure was the value of the ties in ‘their manufactured condition.’ In this we think there was error.

1935App.), 55 S. W., 393 , and Brown v. Pope, 65 S. W., 42 , 3 Texas Ct. Rep., 279, and held that the measure was the value of the ties in ‘their manufactured condition.’ In this we think there was error.

1919The views of this court with reference to the liability of the party who executes a note for the debt of another, without any consideration, are fully expressed in Witt v. Wilson, 160 S. W. 309 , in which opinion Mr. Justice Rice cites numerous authorities to sustain the proposition that such a note is not collectable.

1910City of Dallas v. Jones, 93 Tex. 38 , 49 S. W. 577 , 53 S. W. 377 .

1910City of Dallas v. Jones, 93 Tex. 38 , 49 S. W. 577 , 53 S. W. 377 .

1909McCullar v. State, 36 Texas Cr.

1899In Tinsley v. Boykin, 46 Texas, 592 , Chief Justice Roberts says: “It is well settled that when a mortgage is given to secure two or more notes, payable at different times, it may be foreclosed when there is a default in the payment of the note first due; and in doing so it is proper that the land mortgaged should, in accordance with the provision of our statute, be sold.