Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 211

                                
1875.]             WEEMS V. LATHEOP.                  211
Opinion of the Court.
term of his office is intended to be limited, that intention
should be expressed. In this case, that part of the order which
makes the appointment, and where we would naturally look for
the limitation, not only fails to express any such purpose, but
in its terms makes the appointment according to the prayer of
the petition, which was for a receiver "to take possession of
 said trust negroes, now remaining on said plantation, and to
"hire out the same from year to year, until the termination of
"this cause."  It is true that the order proceeds to instruct the
receiver to hire the slaves for a year, and to report his actions
at the next term of the court, and it is argued that this shows
the intention that his office should not extend beyond that
term. It is usual and proper to embody in the order instructions
for the guidance of the receiver, and to which he looks
to see the nature and extent of his duties and authority. But
we think the inference unauthorized, that the term of office
does not extend beyond the period of time to which the
original instructions extend, or rather the time at which the
officer is required to report. In due time instructions were
given for another year. That they were given by consent of
parties certainly does not make them any less the instructions
of the court to its officer.
It is argued that the temporary notice of the appointment
is to be inferred from the fact, that it was made at chambers,
before answer, and so far as the record shows, without notice.
If, in fact, there was no notice or consent, it was irregular to
make the appointment, unless the case was one of urgency,
where irreparable injury might result from delay (Kerr on
Rec., p. 137; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr., pp. 1734-5), or where defendants,
or some of them, were out of the jurisdiction of the
court. Verplanck 'v. Ins. Co. (2 Paige, 448). That the appointment
was made as it was, shows, that in the opinion of
the judge by whom it was made, the circumstances of the
case justified it, but can assuredly have but slight weight in
constructing the order. The question before us is not whether
the order was erroneous or not, but what is its true meaning: