« 이전계속 »
state or subdivisions thereof. Barton v. Ed- entire case.—Consolidation Coal Co. v. Vanover, wards, 179 S. W. 354.
179 S. W. 43. Under Declaration of Rights, $ 22, and Const. Om 381 (Ky.) The verdict of a jury on a ques art. 12, § 9, payment in money before taking tion of fact submitted out of chancery in ar of property by county held not required, and equity case is merely advisory and may be dispayment in depreciated county warrants is suf- regarded by the chancellor.- Consolidation Coal ficient.-Id.
Co. v. Vanover, 179 S. W. 43. Property taken for road held not taken without em 385 (Ark.) It was within the discretion of compensation, though quorum court had made no the chancellor to allow the introduction of evispecific appropriation for expenditures on roads; dence after the cause had been submitted and the owner having a remedy by compelling levy taken under advisement.-Fromholz v. McGahey, of an appropriation.-Id.
179 S. W. 360. (D) Persons Entitled and Payment.
ERROR, WRIT OF. Omw 157 (Ky.) The value of the widow's interest in a fund awarded for condemnation of part of See Appeal and Error. the land allotted to her as dower is determined by Ky. St. 1915, table 3, p. 2465, showing pres
ESTATES. ent cash value of a life estate, in the fund, and not by table 4, page_2466, applicable before al- See Curtesy; Deeds, w124, 129; Descent and lotment of dower.-Dyer v. Dyer, 179 S. W.
Distribution; Estoppel, Omw38; Execution, 453.
Omn33; Executors and Administrators; Life
Estates; Mortgages, Om12, 139; PerpetuIV. REMEDIES OF OWNERS OF ities; Remainders ; Taxation, Om 866; TenPROPERTY.
ancy in Common; Wills. On 295 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by an
ESTOPPEL. abutting owner for damages due to construction of a railroad in the street, the burden was upon See Appeal and Error, 882; Corporations, him to allege and prove that an instrument ex- 34, 388, 425; Criminal Law, m1137; ecuted by his authority, constituting a relin- Principal and Agent, 25, 137; Trial, en quishment of damages, was revoked, and that 251; Wills, 230. the railroad had notice thereof.—Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dickey, 179. S. W. 69.
II. BY DEED. Omw 307 (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether plaintiff's (A) Creation and Operation in General. property was depreciated by reason of the construction of a railroad held, under the evidence, solute in form but in fact a mortgage, signing as
On 21 (Tex.Civ.App.) A grantor in a deed, abfor the jury.-Houston Belt & Terminal Ry.
a witness a deed to a grantee of the mortgagee, Co. v. Vogel, 179 S. W. 268.
was not estopped to assert that it was a mort
gage; the subsequent grantee having notice.EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS. McLemore v. Bickerstaff, 179 S. W. 536. See Commerce, C8, 27; Limitation of Ac- (B) Estates and Rights Subsequently Actions, Omw130.
Omw 38 (Mo.App.) Defendant, in an action for EMPLOYÉS.
damages for breach of warranty of title, who See Master and Servant.
had acquired his title under a void trust deed from certain infant heirs to whom the plaintiff
afterwards surrendered title, held estopped to ENTIRETY, ESTATE BY.
deny that such heirs were the holders of the See Husband and Wife, 14.
paramount title.—Eaker v. Harvey, 179 S. W.
985. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. See Constitutional Law, 211–241.
(A) Nature and Essentials in General.
On 54 (Tex.Civ.App.) Husband, though in plainEQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. tiff's store when wife purchased alleged necesSee Estoppel, Om54–114.
saries, held not estopped from defeating liability, if he did not know the goods were being
charged to him.-Trammell v. Neiman Marcus EQUITY.
Co., 179 S. W. 271. See Appeal and Error, Om515, 895, 1009; Can-Oww58 (Tex.Civ.App.) An equitable estoppel can
cellation of Instruments; Contribution; Es- not be invoked except to protect the party claimtoppel, em 54–114; Injunction; Interplead- ing its benefit from some loss resulting if the er;
Judgment, mm 416-461; Exeat; true facts control.-McLemore v. Bickerstaff, Quieting Title; Reformation of Instruments: 179 S. W. 536. Sequestration; Subrogation; Trusts.
(B) Groands of Estoppel. I. JURISDICTION, PRINCIPLES, AND Omw 68 (Mo.App.) Subsequent mortgagor of furMAXIMS.
niture, who escaped conviction for selling it as
unincumbered on plea that he signed papers on (A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and tent of Jurisdiction in General.
understanding that they related to other properCum 39 (Mo.App.) Equity, having jurisdiction of new note and mortgage in substitution for the
ty, could not set up that such papers were a action for rescission of contract entered into first note and mortgage.- Western Auction & during minority and for cancellation of plain- Storage Co. v. Shore, 179 S. W. 769. tiff's notes, chattel mortgage, etc., held to have power to dispose of all questions involved. in Cm93 (Tex.Civ.App.) An abutting owner held cluding the entry of a money judgment.-Moser of a railroad past his property by subscribing
estopped to claim damages for the construction v. Renner, 179 S. W. 970.
to a fund to induce such construction and for VIII. HEARING, SUBMISSION OF IS- relinquishment of damages therefor. -Quanah,
SUES TO JURY, AND REHEARING. A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dickey, 179 S. W. 69. Omn377 (Ky.) Where desirable to submit an is- (E) Pleading, Evidence, Trial, and Resue of fact to a jury in an equity case, the proper practice is to order an issue out of chancery Om 107 (Tex.Civ.App.) One claiming title by submitting only the question of fact and not the l estoppel must plead and prove the facts creating
an estoppel.-McLemore v. Bickerstaff, 179 S., use, was admissible as to the capacity of freight W. 536.
cars.-McLaughlin v. Terrell Bros., 179 S. W. On 114 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where defendant merely 932. denied that alleged agent was its agent, estoppel Omm 185 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where, in suit to forewith respect to extent of his authority held close vendor's lien, plaintiff alleged the original available to plaintiff though not pleaded.-In- deed was in defendant's possession, and that the ternational Fire Insurance Co. v. Black, 179 latter had been duly notified to produce it S. W. 534.
and had failed, there was a proper predicate
for secondary evidence of its contents. -Stewart EVIDENCE.
v. Thomas, 179 S. W. 886. See Witnesses. For evidence as to particular facts or issues or
VII. ADMISSIONS. in particular actions or proceedings, see also the various specific topics.
(A) Nature, Form, and Incidents in GenFor review of rulings relating to evidence, see
eral. Appeal and Error.
Onw211 (Mo.App.) The testimony of the predeReception at trial, see Criminal Law, Em 673-cessor in title of plaintiffs in unlawful detainer, 683; Trial, 76–85.
bearing on the issue whether such predecessor
verbally rented the premises to defendant, given I. JUDICIAL NOTICE.
in a prior suit for rent, was admissible. -McOn5 (Ky.) The court may take judicial no- Cracken v. Schuster, 179 S. W. 757. tice, as of a matter of common knowledge, that a sand pile was an attractive nuisance to chil- | (C) By Grantors, Former Owners, or Priydren two or three years of age.-Gnau v. Acker
ies. man, 179 S. W. 217.
Omw 231 (Mo.App.) In replevin for furniture Cm 32 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. $ 2775, held, that claimed under a chattel mortgage, defendant Louisville city ordinance need not be introduc- was not bound by the mortgagor's admissions ed in evidence; the court taking judicial notice after he conveyed the title to one from whom thereof.—Gnau v. Ackerman, 179 S. W. 217. defendant took title.- Western Auction & Stor
age Co. v. Shore, 179 S. W. 769. II. PRESUMPTIONS. Om 67 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a power is shown (D) By Agents or Other Representatives. to have existed, it will be presumed that it con- em 248 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admissions of divorced tinues, and that third parties, without notice wife in pleadings and evidence that goods purof a revocation thereof, are justified in so pre- chased during marriage were necessaries held suming.-Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dickey, not conclusive against the husband. -Trammell 179 S. W. 69.
v. Neiman Marcus Co., 179 S. W. 271. IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND Om 253 (Ky.) Declarations of a conspirator COMPETENCY IN GENERAL. made after the purposes of the conspiracy are
terminated cannot be proved against a co-con(B) Res Gestæ.
spirator.-Cole v. Collins, 179 S. W. 607. Om 128 (Ky.) Evidence of statements by assured to physician as to the cause of the injury
(E) Proof and Effect. resulting in death held competent in an action om 258 (Ky.) In an action against a railroad by a beneficiary on the policy.-Massachusetts and trainmen for a death caused by an engine Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Duncan, 179 S. W. step, testimony that witness heard testimony 472.
at inquest of person said to be one of the train(C) Similar Facts and Transactions.
men that the engine step was loose before the
accident held inadmissible, unless the witness Om 129 (Mo.App.) In action to cancel because identified the trainmen.-Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. of usury notes and mortgage on household fur- P. Ry. Co. v. Frogg's Adm'r, 179 S. W. 1062. niture given by plaintiff to defendant, evidence C260 (Ky.) In a civil proceeding founded on that a third person was agent for defendant in conspiracy the conspiracy must be proved otheranother transaction held admissible to show wise than by the testimony of a conspirator beagency in the transaction in issue.-Riepe v. fore his acts and declarations are admissible Vette, 179 S. W. 952.
against a co-conspirator.-Cole v. Collins, 179 S. Om 130 (Tex.Civ.App.) It is not error to ex- W. 607. clude from evidence a letter written to defend om 265 (Mo.App.) That person
to ant by its agent in regard to plaintiff's claim have been struck by defendant's automobile told
claiming for damages, for the letter is res inter alios him that she was not hurt, and later that she acta.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. had no grievance against him, held not concluA. E. Want & Co., 179 S. W. 903.
sive against her, but only a circumstance for (D) Materiality.
the jury's consideration.-Ginter v. O'Donoghue,
179 S. W. 732. Om 143 (Tex.Civ.App.) In trover and conversion, testimony as to market value of certain grass seed held inadmissible as being too weak
IX. HEARSAY. to be considered. First Nat. Bank of Plain-314 (Tex.Civ,App.) Except in cases of pediview v. McWhorter, 179 S. W. 1147.
gree, relationship, marriage, death, age, and
boundaries, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.(E) Competency.
Pulkrabeck v. Griffith & Griffith, 179 S. W. Om 155 (Ky.) Where defendant denied signing 282. note for alleged loan and sought to show that Omw 317 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action against brokplaintiff did not have the means to make the loan, ers for share of commission, defendant's testitestimony of bank cashier as to plaintiff's de- mony that party who brought in purchaser statposit therein held competent.-Shelby V. Grab- ed plaintiff had not sent him held hearsay and ble, 179 S. W. 1.
inadmissible.-Pulkrabeck v. Griffith & Griffith,
179 S. W. 282. V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. 317 (Tex.Civ.App.) In trover by a wife for Om 158 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an , action for the grass seed seized for her husband's debts, eviprice of wood in which defendant claimed short-dence by plaintiff as to the value of such seed, age, a copy of the American Railway Equip- based upon information received by her through ment Register, with testimony to its general others, was inadmissible as hearsay.-First Nat. Bank of Plainview v. McWhorter, 179 S. W. XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVI1147.
DENCE AFFECTING WRITINGS. Ouw 318 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for wood (A) Contradicting, Varying, or Adding to sold f. o. b. cars at A., in the absence of evi
Terms of Written Instrument. dence as to the correctness of the statement in cm 397 (Ky.) Prior negotiations and agreefreight
bills of the railroad as to the number of ments are merged by the execution of a written such bills was proper. -McLaughlin v. Terrell contract deliberately covering the subject-matBros., 179 S. W. 932.
ter, and, in the absence of fraud or mistake, In an action for the price of wood, in which parol or extrinsic evidence is not admissible defendant claimed shortage, a copy of the Amer- to vary or contradict its terms.-Citizens' Trust ican Railway Equipment Register, with testi- & Guaranty Co. v. Farmers' Bank of Estili mony to its general use, was admissible as to County, 115 s. w. 29.
The written contract which will merge prior the capacity of freight cars.-Id. sions of cars being admissible, it was proper particular form, contained in one paper, or
A railway equipment register as to the dimen- agreements and render inadınissible parol evito admit a memorandum, condensing the information desired, from the book.-Id.
signed by both parties.--Id. 323 (Ark.) A witness may testify as to the contract limit his warranty of the article sold,
Om 400 (Tex.Civ.App.) A seller may by written market value of fruits at a given time; his in- and, in the absence of fraud, accident, or misformation being based on market reports.-St. také, parol evidence is not admissible to vary Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Laser Grain Co., or contradict this contract.-Bolt v. State Sav179 S. W. 189.
ings Bank of Manchester, lowa, 179 S. W.
1119. X. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Om 419 (Tenn.) In a suit to recover for a de
ficiency in a parcel of land, the price per acre (C) Private Writings and Publications. may be shown by parol, though not stated in the
deed; the real contract between the parties 352 (Mo.App.) In a switchman's action for governing.--Caughron v. Stinespring, 179 S. W. injuries while coupling cars under the Federal 152. Employers' Liability Act, railroad records, as Cm 419 (Tex.Civ.App.) Parol evidence of the to the movement of the car held admissible, real consideration of a written contract is adwhere their identity and correctness had been missible, although it contradicts the consideraproperly attested.—Trowbridge v. Kansas City tion named in the contract. --Blair & Hughes & W. B. Ry. Co., 179 S. W.777.
Co. v. Watkins & Kelley, 179 S. W. 530. ww354 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for the mw 423 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $ 10033, price of lumber sold, plaintiff's daybook, or the legal effect of a blank indorsement cannot journal, containing the first permanent entry be changed by parol evidence.-First Nat. Bank of sales items taken from slips made out by of Grant City v. Korn, 179 S. W. 721. yardmen, held admissible as a book of original entry.-Scruggs v. E. L. Woodley Lumber Co., 179 S. W. 897.
(B) Invalidating Written Instrument. Books of account are not admissible under the Omw 433 Tex.Civ.App.) Where transfer of partrule admitting accounts kept by the parties, ner's interest in business was not intended to where they do not contain items and charges cover only part of the transaction, and omismade in the regular course of business.-Id. sion of a transfer of claims resulted from mis
In action for price of lumber, addition to take, held that such transfer could not be shown name of party charged of the word “residence" by parol.-City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, held not such an alteration as to render plain- 179 S. W. 1107. tiff's account book inadmissible.-Id.
Om 434 (Ark.) Where the defendant alleges 359 (Tex.Civ.App.) Explanation of evi
fraud and misrepresentations in the procuredence of physician attending plaintiff switch- ment of a contract, parol evidence is admissible man, injured while in the employ of the defend- to show the deceit, although it varies the writant, by X-ray photographs of plaintiff's anato- ten contract.-Barker v. Lack, 179 S. W. 493. my after injury, is admissible, if preliminary Cm434 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where fraud is alleged evidence has established the correctness of the in the answer to an action on a note with rephotographs.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, spect to the plaintiff's representation as to 179 S. W. 691.
the application of collateral, parol evidence of the agreement was admissible.–First State
Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 295. (D) Production, Authentication, and Effect.
Om 434 (Tex.Civ.App.) Parol evidence of fraudOmw 366 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for dam- goods held admissible, although the order stipu
ulent representations inducing an order for ages for negligent transportation of stock, it is lates that all its conditions appear upon its not error to exclude government reports of face.-Blair & Hughes Co. v. Watkins & Kelley, tests of shrinkage of stock in transportation, 179 S. W. 530. where there is nothing to show that they are em 434 (Tex.Civ.App.) Purchaser sued for puraccurate, authentic, or that the tests embraced chase price, in support of plea of failure of therein were made under similar conditions.Missouri
, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Dale consideration, held entitled to show by parol Bros. Land & Cattle Co., 179 S. W. 935.
material misrepresentations.-Bolt v. State Sav
ings Bank of Manchester, Iowa, 179 S. W. Om 368 (Ky.) Refusal to order production of 1119. books of bank after cashier had testified without objection from a memorandum concerning a (C) Separate or Subsequent Oral Agreedeposit in the bank held not error.-Shelby v.
me pt. Grabble, 179 S. W. 1.
441 (Ark.) A note absolute on its face can Omw 383 (Tex.Civ.App.) A pamphlet or other not be varied by parol agreement, that satisdocument, purporting to have been used by the faction should be sought out of mortgaged propgovernment or under the authority of some de- erty.-Smith v. McLaughlin, 179 S. W. 496. partment of the government, bas, prima facie, 441 (Ky.) In action to recover purchase no more weight as evidence, nor greater au- price of goods sold, answer setting up collateral thenticity or verity, than documents_issued by parol agreement held bad for failure to allege other authority:-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of its omission through fraud or mistake from purTexas v. Dale Bros. Land' & Cattle Co., 179 S. chase contract.-Louisville Trust Co. v. Bayer 1243
ww441 (Tex.Civ.App.) The terms of a promis- / questions as to the distance in which a car sory note are conclusive of the contract, and could be stopped upon the assumption that the cannot be changed by parol evidence of an rails were dry, when there was indirect eviunderstanding that it was never to be paid. dence thereof. Ingino v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Lockney State Bank v. Damron, 179 S. W. 552. Co., 179 S. W. 771.
441 (Tex. Civ. App.) Written warranty of horse, executed as part of contract of sale,
(F) Effect of Opinion Evidence. held to exclude any warranty not therein con-568 (Tex.Civ.App.) A jury are not concludtained, as well as evidence of fraudulent rep-ed by opinion evidence, but may apply their resentations.-Bolt v. State Savings Bank of own experience and knowledge in solving tho Manchester, Iowa, 179 S. W. 1119.
question.-Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. 442 (Tex. Civ. App.) Evidence held insuff-Vogel, 179 S. W. 268. cient to show that written transfer of partner's interest in business purported to express only XIII. EVIDENCE AT FORMER TRIAL a part of the transaction so as to authorize
OR IN OTHER PROCEEDANG. parol proof of a transfer of the claim sued on. On577 (Ky.) It is error to permit a transcript --City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, 179 S. W. of evidence at a former trial to be read where 1107.
there is nothing to show that the witness whose
testimony is read could not be produced.—Liver(D) Construction or Application of Lana pool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Wright, 179 guage of Written Instrument.
S. W. 49. em 459 (Ky.) Where contract was in the name om580 (Ark.) In action to quiet title, as against of a company, it might be shown by parol who defendant's claim under a decree of divorce the members of the alleged company were and from her husband, under whose conveyance whom it was intended to bind.--Geary v. Tay- plaintiffs claimed, testimony in divorce suit lor, 179 S. W. 426.
held inadmissible.-West v. West, 179 S. W. en 462 (Mo. App.) Manufacturing company's ad- 1017. vertisement for agent, and correspondence leading up to contract with resident of South Caro- XIV. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY. lina, could be considered to resolve ambiguity am 588 (Mo. App.) In an action for injuries to sales agent or provided for the sale of goods. person struck by street car, plaintiff held not Watkins v. Donnell, 179 S. W. 980.
entitled to recover on testimony that car was
not in sight when he looked, when the testimony XII. OPINION EVIDENCE.
could not be true.-Guffey v. Harvey, 179 S. W.
729. (A) Conclusions and Opinions of Wit. nesses in General.
Om589 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action between Om 471 (Tex.Civ. App.) In an action on a note, partners for an accounting, the court could rewhere one of the issues of fact and law was
fuse credence to defendant's statement, totally whether one M. was a principal or a surety, his uncorroborated, that he made a disbursement.statement that he was a surety involved a legal | Navarro v. Lamana, 179 S. W. 922. conclusion.-First State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 295.
EXAMINATION. 471 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of portion of See Evidence, Om553; Witnesses, On 255– answer of witness, which, taken alone, appeared 286. to be opinion as to meaning of a third person's
EXCEPTIONS. statements, but which, in view of the entire answer, merely stated what such third person had See Appeal and Error, em 272, 501; Criminal said, was proper.-Postal Telegraph Cable Co. Law, Om844, 922; Pleading, Om 228; Trial, of Texas v. De Krekko, 179 S. W. 525.
On 366. Om 471 (Tex.Civ.App.) A question inquiring of defendant whether he had any agreement with EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF. plaintiff whatever, or gave him any right to the property in controversy, was not objection- See Appeal and Error, em 548–553, 569; Crinable as calling for a conclusion.-Hall v. Ray,
inal Law, C1090-1092. 179 S. W. 1135. Om 472 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action on a note,
EXCESSIVE DAMAGES. where one of the issues of fact and law was See Damages, Eww130-132. whether one M. was a principal or a surety, his statement that he was a surety invaded the EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES. province of the jury.-First State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 295.
See Municipal Corporations, Omw 682. Om 474 (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff who testified to his familiarity with conditions and knowl
EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE. edge of the market value held competent to tes- See Homicide, Omw110–122. tify as to the market value of his property, though he became confused on cross-examina
EXECUTION. tion as to difference between market and actual value.-Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. See Attachment; Courts, Om 189; Fraudulent Vogel, 179 S. W. 268.
Conveyances, 241; Garnishment; Home
stead; Judicial Sales; Justices of the Peace, (B) Subjects of Expert Testimony.
Om 135; Sheriffs and Constables, 106. 506 (Mo.App.) In an action against street railroad for personal injury from a collision, of
I. NATURE, AND ESSENTIALS fer of the facts which an expert medical wit
IN GENERAL. ness had discovered on his examination, and on 12 (Mo.App.) Where the judgment on which his admissible opinions as an expert, held not an execution rests is annulled, the execution objectionable as invading the province of the falls.-Francis v. Francis, 179 Ś. W. 975. jury.-Michaels v. Harvey, 179 S. W. 735.
II. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EXECU. (D) Examination of Experts.
TION. en 553 (Mo.App.) In an action for injuries to w33 (Tex.) A vested remainder is subject to an occupant of a wagon in a collision at a execution against the remaindermen.-Caples v. street crossing, it was not error to predicate / Ward, 179 S. W. 856.
first being raised by objection to evidence, held V. STAY, QUASHING, VACATING, sufficient.--Biggerstaff v. Riley, 179 S. W. 744. AND RELIEF AGAINST EXECUTION.
EXEMPTIONS. Om 172 (Tex.Civ.App.) In a suit to restrain a See Homestead; Taxation, Om 241, 242. sale under execution, evidence held to justify a temporary injunction and refusal to dissolve it. -Whitaker v. Hill, 179 S. W. 539.
See Insurance, 549.
EXPLOSIVES. W. 893.
See Master and Servant, eww107, 190, 265. Om 201 (Tex.Civ.App.) On trial of claim to em 8 (Tex.) A member of a city fire departby claimants to pay the judgments by the de- ment, injured by one of a series of explosions by claimants to pay the judgments by the de- constituting a continuing negligent act on delivery of such property held enforceable.-Gris-fendant's part, held not negligent in entering ham v. Ward, 179 S. W. 893.
upon the premises.-Houston Belt & Terminal
Ry. Co. v. Johansen, 179 S. W. 853.
FACTORS. nesses, Ow138.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT. .
I. CIVIL LIABILITY. except a cause of action for wrongful death in that county.-Sharp v. Cincinnati, N. 0. (A) Acts Constituting False Imprisonment T. P. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 375.
and Liability Therefor. “Estate,” as used in Shannon's Code, 3935, em 15 (Ky.) A railroad responsible for the apsubd. 4, as to appointment of administrator pointment of a special police officer could not where any suit is to be brought or defended in regard him as a de facto officer after his office which the estate is interested, defined.--Id.
was vacated by failure to take the oath, etc., Om | (Tenn.) Administrator to sue for wrong: ficer de jure before he was given employment on
since it was bound to know that he was an offul death of nonresident killed in another state its trains.-Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. held appointable wherever defendant may be found in the state. -Howard v. Nashville, C. & Cundiff, 179 S. W. 615. St. L. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 380.
Railroad employé summoned by special rail
way police officer without authority and assistIV. COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT ing in ejecting and arresting a passenger held OF ESTATE.
liable as a trespasser.-Id.
In view of Ky. St. § 3755, railroad held re(C) Personal Property.
sponsible for acts of special police officer whose Om 164 (Ky.) Failure to deliver stock certifi- office had been vacated for failure to take oath, cate within 10 days after executor's sale did not etc.-Id. release purchaser from liability on bid; time
(B) Actions. not being of the essence of the contract of sale. -Ohio Valley Banking & Trust Co. v. Wathen's its special" police officer for wrongful arrest,
On 24 (Ky.) In an action against a carrier and Ex'rs, 179 S. W. 230.
Executor held to have reasonable time after where the evidence justified compensatory damsale to deliver stock certificates.-Id.
ages only, evidence as to the officer's motive in Om 167 (Ky.) The purchaser of stock at an ex- nati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. y. Cundiff, 179
making the arrest was inadmissible.-Cincinecutor's sale has the right to demand the iden- S. W. 615. tical shares purchased.-Ohio Valley Banking & Trust Co. v. Wathen's Ex'rs, 179 'S. W. 230. Emo35 (Ky.) Where defendant carrier's special
police officer and another employé used no unVI. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF necessary force or any insulting language, etc.,
in ejecting and arresting a passenger, punitive CLAIMS.
damages were not recoverable.—Cincinnati, N. (A) Liabilities of Estate.
0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Cundiff, 179 S. W. 615. On 206 (Mo.App.) Where a grandfather agreed 36 (Ky.) Verdict of $4,000 for passenger's that his grandson who was supporting and nurs- wrongful ejection and arrest without excessive ing him, should be paid from his estate on his force or brutal treatment held excessive.-Cindeath, the grandson was entitled to compensa- cinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Cundiff, 179 tion though unable to receive it in the form S. W. 615. expected.-Biggerstaff v. Riley, 179 S. W. 744. Omn221 (Mo.App.) In an action against a de
FALSE PRETENSES. cedent's estate by his grandson for services in working his farm and nursing him, evidence held See Criminal Law, C372. sufficient to support finding that the parties had 7 (Ark.) To make out the offense of obtain
express understanding that the services ing money by false pretenses, the pretense must should be compensated.-Biggerstaff v. Riley, be
of a past event or of a present fact, and not 179 S. W. 744.
a future promise.-Lawson v. State, 179 S. W.
818. (B) Presentation and Allowance.
Where defendant falsely represented himself Om 227 (Mo.App.) Demand filed in probate to be a revenue officer, that it was his power court embodying claim for services about de- and duty to arrest witness, but that he would cedent's farm, nursing, and for board and pro-end the matter on payment to him of $300, visions furnished, unattacked by motion before which was given him he was guilty of obtaining