This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ... the agent to the loan company, which thereupon forwarded the amount of the loan ($1,500) to the agent who in turn delivered the money in bulk to the husband Downard. The house was constructed by laborers employed by Downard, and Downard with the money secured from the company paid the laborers and materialmen, the agent not having taken part in the building. We there held that the fact that Downard, the owner, received the money in bulk and employed the laborers and purchased the material, and that the agent did no part of the work in constructing the building, was not conclusive against the lien, and "that a contract or lien, in whatsoever form it may appear, which excludes the idea of a mere loan, and is executed in accordance with the formalities required by the Constitution, with the real purpose and effect of thereby securing the necessary labor and material used in constructing improvements upon the homestead lot, should be upheld." And the lien in that case was upheld. See, also, the cases of Luzenburg v. Bexar Building & Loari Assn., 9 Texas Civ. App., 261, 29 S. W. Rep., 237; Pioneer Saving & Loan Co. v. Paschal, 12 Texas Civ. App., 566, 34 S. W. Rep., 1002; Pioneer Saving & Loan Co. v. Everheart, 18 Texas Civ. App., 192, 44 S. W. Rep., 885; National Bank of Muskogee v. Campbell, 46 S. W. Rep., 845, and authorities therein cited. We think the case now before us more strongly in favor of the lien than the Downard case: that the facts herein evidence a transaction other than a mere loan upon the homestead, and that the judgment should be affirmed. Aflirmed. Writ of error refused. MIssOURI, liausAs auu TExas.R.uLwAY CoMrANY v. Jorm PENNY. Decided May 6, 1905. Where a railroad employe was, by reason of a...