페이지 이미지



ing all costs against defendant partner who

fraudulently or negligently had kept books so See Evidence, Omw 442, 589; Joint Adventures; that appointment of an auditor was necessary Judgment, em256; Pleading, Ow290; Trial, to determine amount of personal funds defendem 251, 255, 350.

ant had mingled with firm funds.-Navarro v.

Lamana, 179 S. W. 922.

PART PERFORMANCE. (D) Actions by or Against Firms or Part.

See Frauds, Statute of, Omw129. Om 199 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff, suing railroad for damage to live stock, part of which had been

owned by a partnership of which he was a See Carriers, ww247-382.
member, who showed no transfer by his partner
to him of former's interest in the cattle or
claim for damages, could not maintain his ac-

tion for damage to the partnership stock.-
Hardesty v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 179 See Private Roads, ww2.
S. W. 725.
No formal assignment by a partner of his

PATENTS. interest in firm property is necessary to enable another partner to sue alone for injury there- x. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONAny action showing an intent to transfer

TRACTS. the interest to the suing partner is sufficient. -Id.

(C) Licenses and Contracts. Onn 200 (Tex.Civ.App.) Subject to the power of w211 (Ky.) Where a contract transferred the Legislature to otherwise provide, all mem- patents to defendants for their use, the use con, bers of a partnership must be made parties to templated was the right to use, and not actual authorize a judgment against the partnership physical employment, so that retention of the and its property.-American Express Co. v. patents constituted “use" within the contract.North Ft. Worth Undertaking Co., 179 S. W. Hudson Engineering Co. v. Shaw, 179 S. W. 908.


[ocr errors]



See Appeal and Error, Cm1180; Bills and (B) Rights, Powers, and Liabilities after

Notes, Omw 430, 499, 511; Compromise and Dissolution.

Settlement; Electricity, Cm11; Insurance, On 296 (Tex. Civ. App.) In action by former On 740; Limitation of Actions, 37; Masmember of partnership for share in commis- ter and Servant, Om79; Vendor and Pursions on a deal completed after the dissolution, chaser, 175, 334-341. evidence held to support findings in his favor. Daniel v. Lane, 179 S. W. 906.

I. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY. The court, in submitting issue as to whether as 7 (Tex.Civ.App.) A creditor, extending a a deal, on which commissions were claimed past-due indebtedness, by accepting the 60 and was pending when partnership was dissolved, 90 day notes of the debtor conclusively bound held not to have erred in its definition of "pend himself not to collect the debt until the maturity ing." -Id.

of the notes.--Bonner Oil Co. v. Gaines, 179 S. That plaintiff participated in fee earned by W. 686. firm prior to March 1st held not conclusive em 9 (Tex.Civ.App.) A creditor is not required that jury's finding that he became a member of to accept incumbered property in settlement of the firm on March 1st was not sustained by the his account and to assume the incumbrance, evidence.-Id.

but need accept nothing but a legal tender.(D) Actions for Dissolution and Account Scruggs v. E. L. Woodley Lumber Co., 179 S. ing.

W. 897. Om336 (Tex.Civ.App.) On accounting between

partners, where the books had been incorrect-
sy kept, so that it was impossible to determine See Statutes, Om 241.
in what proportion partnership and personal
funds had been commingled by defendant, it
became incumbent upon him to show the amount

of credit to which he was entitled.-Navarro v. See Carriers, Om 20.
Lamana, 179 S. W. 922.
Cm 336 (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of attorney

PERPETUITIES. who had acted for both parties and was familiar with their dealings with each other that he did 6 (Ky.) Reasonable restraint on alienation not know or hear of plaintiff's ownership of held valid, though deed or will passes fee-simple the land in controversy held admissible in a title.--Chappell v. Frick Co., 179 S. W. 203. partnership accounting.-Hall v. Ray, 179 S. W. Condition of deed that grantee should not sell 1135.

or convey to any one except grantor's heirs held Where, in action for partnership accounting, void as an unreasonable restraint of alienation. defendant denied existence of the general part- --Id. nership, and claimed that he and plaintiff had been interested in several land trade contracts, held, that defendant's testimony relative to

PERSONAL INJURIES. such trades and division of profits was admis- See Carriers, cm 280-382; Damages, m 32, sible.-Id.

130-132; Explosives, Onn 8; Food, On 25; In an action for an accounting in respect to a Gas; Husband and Wife, 209; Master general partnership, wherein defendant denied

and Servant, Om89-333; Negligence. the existence of such partnership, the burden of proof was on plaintiff.-Id.

PETITION. On 346 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, arts. 2035, 2048, in action for accounting, thé See Pleading; Removal of Causes, Om 86 ; court properly exercised its discretion in tax- Schools and School Districts, Omw 44.


to deny such allegation.-Levy v. Dunken Real

ty Co., 179 S. W. 679. See Evidence, O359.


SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS. See Criminal Law, w 476; Evidence, 128, 180 (Ky.) Under Civ. Code Prac. $ 98, sub506; Insurance, Onw 430; Witnesses, em secs. 1, 2, 3, and 4, a reply should not set up 208, 219.

a cause of action against an intervening de

fendant which was not contained in the origOm2 (Tex.Cr.App.) The medical practice act inal petition.-Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, is not unconstitutional.-Hyroop v. State, 179 179 S. W. 36. S. W. 878.

en 183 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a supplemental C6 (Tex. Cr. App.) Evidence of methods of petition consisted solely of exceptions and detreatment of disease by one claiming to be a nials, and alleged no new matter, there was no masseur held admissible in a prosecution of place in the pleadings for a supplemental ansuch person for unlawfully practicing medicine. swer.-City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, 179 S. -Hyroop v. State, 179 S. W. 878.

W. 1107. Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 5745, one professing to be a masseur is yet a "physician,” where

V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION. he professes to cure diseases or disorders.-Id.

Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 5745, it is not nec- Omw 193 (Ky.) Where a petition states a cause essary to complete the offense that the defend- of action, a general demurrer will not lie beant shall have held himself out as practicing cause of indefiniteness in the statement of facts; medicine.-Id.

the remedy being by motion to make the peti

tion more specific under Civ. Code Prac. & 134. PISTOLS.

-Daniel v. Daniel, 179 S. W. 5. See Weapons, Omn 8.

w 196 (Ky.) Where a cause of action is at

tempted to be set up by reply instead of amendPLEADING.

ed petition, the defect can be reached by motion

to strike and not demurrer.-Hodge Tobacco Co. See Courts, Eww189; Indictment and Informa-v. Sexton, 179 s. W. 36.

, tion. For pleadings in particular actions or proceed well taken, it should be sustained at any stare

En 199 (Tex.Civ.App.) If a general demurrer is. ings, see also the various specific topics. For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see linson, 179 S. W. 1107.

of the proceedings.-City of Brownsville v. TumAppeal and Error.

Ow205 (Tex. Civ.App.) Exception, though diI. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN

rected specially to a particular paragraph of GENERAL.

the answer, held a general demurrer, as it set up Om 8 (Ky.) An allegation of a petition in eject-up a defense.-Bolt v. State Savings Bank of

no specific reason why the answer failed to set ment that a prior sale of the land was by order Manchester, Iowa, 179 S. W. 1119. in an action "seeking a sale and division of

As against general demurrer, answer pleading the proceeds” held a mere conclusion, and in- alteration of note held good, though not alleging sufficient to rebut the presumption in favor of that alteration was without defendant's consent the judgment that the action was under Gen. and by a party to the note.-Id. St. c. 63, art. 6.—Johnson v. Whitcomb, 179 S. W. 821.

Cuw 207 (Ky.) An affirmative defense may not

be asserted by special demurrer.-Pete Sheeran, m9 (Tenn.) Under Rev. St. Me. 1903, c. 47, Bro. & Co. v. Tucker, 179 S. W. 426. § 50, a bill charging the issuance of stock to defendant to be without consideration sufficient-m.214 (Tenn.) On demurrer the allegations of ly charges fraud, although the word "fraud" a bill must be taken as true.-Alexander v. Elis not used.–Sullivan v. Farnsworth, 179 S. W.216 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. $ 6128, bond

| kins, . . 317.

, en 34 (Mo.App.) Every intendment will be in-performance of his duties, filed as an exhibit )

of local agent of insurance company securing dulged in favor of the sufficiency of the petition to the company's complaint in suit thereon, where defendant fails to object.. State ex rel. could be considered on demurrer to the comWilliams v. Stipp, 179 S. W. 723. In action on attachment bond, petition, when plaint.--Security Ins. Co. v. Jaggers, 179 s. w.

1008. not objected to by demurrer or otherwise, held to sufficiently allege that plaintiff's property which asserted that defendant was not bound

Om 228 (Tex.Civ.App.) A special exception was attached.-Id. Cw34 (Tex.Civ.App.) In passing on a pleading by the contract sued on, because it was an oral Om as against demurrer, the court must consider one, and that plaintiff therefore stated no cause everything as properly alleged which by any Tumlinson, 179os. W. 1107.

of action, was general.-City of Brownsville v. reasonable construction may be embraced within the allegations made.-Bolt v. State Savings Bank of Manchester, Iowa, 179 S. W. 1119.



pleading is a matter in the sound discretion of Om 66 (Ky.) A complaint, in an action for the court, which it may exercise in furtherance breach of contract for failure to account to of justice, upon proper terms.-Hodge Tobacco plaintiff for sales of timber which alleged that Co. v. Whaley, 179 S. W. 840. the purchasers' names were unknown to plain-m 236 (Mo.App.) In suit on a life policy, tiff, held not indefinite.-Daniel v. Daniel, 179 court's refusal to grant insurer leave to amend S. W. 5.

the answer to set up one of its by-laws to reIII. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM- the instructions been passed upon was not an

duce recovery after both sides had rested and PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT

abuse of discretion.-Jennings v. National AmerOF DEFENSE.

ican, 179 S. W. 789. (C) Traverses or Denials and Admissions. 245 (Tex. Civ.App.) In proceedings for the Omw 129 (Tex.Civ.App.) In broker's action for appointment of a receiver, it was not error to commissions, allegations of petition that the permit the plaintiffs to file a trial amendment other party to the contract of exchange did not after the evidence was closed and argument

[ocr errors]

a basis for the appointment.-Hart-Parr Co. v. ww 406 Tex.Civ. App.) Where, though allegaAlvin-Japanese Nursery Co., 179 S. W. 697. tion charging defendants with fault in connec

245 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where in foreclosure a tion with contract negotiated by brokers was misdescription of the note sued on as to date general, it was not excepted to for that reason, and amount is corrected by trial amendment, an held that it had standing as a plea fixing reassignment or error will not lie thereto, where sponsibility on defendants.-Levy v. Dunken Redefendants were not misled or surprised, the alty Co., 179 S. W. 679. record showing that they were only expected On 408 (Mo.App.) Though insufficiency of peto defend against one note and mortgage.-tition to state cause of action may be raised at Memphis Cotton Oil Co. v. Gist, 179 S. W. 1090. any time, every intendment will be indulged in On 258 (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant was not en favor of its sufficiency where defendant fails to titled to amend his answer during the trial to object.-State ex rel. Williams v. Stipp, 179 S. set up a deed of trust, with a defense based W. 723. thereon, where the circumstances put him on Om 433 (Ky.) An averment that the policy inquiry.-Ablon v. Wheeler & Motter Mercan- sued on was alive and in force since its executile Co., 179 S. W. 527.

tion and delivery must be held sufficient after On 261 (Ark.) Amendment of pleading intro- verdict for plaintiff, though not specifically ducing new defense after the case is called for averring payment of premiums.-Pacific Mut. trial held within the discretion of court.-Kan- Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 179 S. W. 199. sas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Bull, 179 s. w. w 433 (Mo.App.) Petition, in action for mali172.

cious prosecution of a civil suit, held not open Failure to plead a defense in the original an- to attack after verdict as failing to aver that swer is no waiver of the right to subsequently plaintiff was the owner of certain realty when insist upon it by amending the answer.-Id. defendant instituted the alleged malicious suit

questioning his title.—Rivers v. Norman, 179 S. VII. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION. | W. 990. On 290 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where defendants did

Where a petition utterly fails to state facts not deny under oath, as required by statute, either directly or inferentially sufficient to conplaintiff's allegation that they were partners, stitute a cause of action, it is open to attack evidence to disprove such allegation held prop' after answer or verdict.—Id. erly excluded.-Levy v. Dunken Realty Co., 179 S. W. 679.


See False Imprisonment, 15; Officers, Om On 355 (Ky.) Where a cause of action is at

35, 43, 49, 55; Railroads, Omw 281. tempted to be set up by reply instead of amended petition, the defect can be reached by mo

POLICE COURTS. tion to strike and not demurrer.-Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 179 S. W. 36.

See Courts, Omw 189. Om 367 (Ky.) Where a petition states a cause of action, a general demurrer will not lie be

POLICE POWER. cause of indefiniteness in the statement of facts; the remedy being by motion to make the peti- See Municipal Corporations, Omw 591. tion more specific under Civ. Code Prac. § 134. -Daniel v. Daniel, 179 S. W. 5. On 369 (Ky.) In an action for damages by fire

POLICY. from sparks from a locomotive, plaintiff held

See Insurance. properly not required to elect as to whether to prosecute the company owning the roadbed or the company operating the trains.-Louisville &

POLITICAL RIGHTS. N. R. Co. v. Feeney, 179 S. W. 826.

See Elections. On 369 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by the widow of a railroad employé for his death, pleadings intended to meet proof of his engagement

POOLING. either in intrastate or interstate commerce at See Constitutional Law, 240, 296. death held not improper as an attempt to recover under federal and state statutes at once, so as to require an election. International &

POOLROOMS. G. N. Ry. Co. v. Reek, 179 S. W. 699.


POPULARITY CONTEST. Omw 376 (Mo.App.) In an action for injuries to the occupant of a wagon struck by a street car See Contracts, m108. at a street crossing, evidence as to the ownership of the car was not necessary, where both

POSSESSION. sides assumed that defendant's servants were in charge thereof.-Ingino v. Metropolitan St. See Embezzlement, Om9; Fraudulent ConveyRy. Co., 179 S. W. 771.

ances, Omw 132, 133. XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS,


See Wills, Om692.
Ouw 403 (Ky.) Whether or not the petition in a

PRACTICE. servant's action for injury was defective in not negativing his contributory negligence, it was For practice in particular actions and proceedcured by answers affirmatively alleging that ings, see the various specific topics. plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.Mason & Hurst Co. v. Feltner, 179 S. W. 222.

PREFERRED STOCK. Om 403 (Tenn.) Failure of plaintiff to plead See Corporations, w156. and prove the statutes of another state is cured by defendant's pleading them and agreeing

PREMATURE APPEAL. that they shall govern.-Sullivan v. Farnsworth, 179 S. W. 317.

See Criminal Law, Omw1069.


prior to such sale.—Holmes v. Tyner, 179 S. W.

887. See Constitutional Law, Om 229, 283; Taxa-42 (Mo.App.) Subsequent insanity of codetion, 387.

fendant, who had authorized defendant to en

ter into a contract concerning the assets and PRESCRIPTION.

management of a corporation, held not to ter

minate defendant's authority, or to release him See Adverse Possession.

from liability for defendant's acts as his agent.

-Powell v. Batchelor, 179 S. W. 751.
See Bills and Notes, Om400.



(A) Powers of Agent. See Appeal and Error, Om907–936; Evidence, Ono 100 (Ky.) Contract between owners of land 67.

and H., giving him supervision over a large

tract of land, held not to authorize him to lease PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

it, except to squatters then on the land.-Geary

v. Taylor, 179 S. W. 426. See Elections, 146, 280.

Om 100 (Tex.Civ.App.) Scope of general man

ager's authority held coextensive with the busiPRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY. ness intrusted to him to do what is usual and

customary in such business.-Holmes v. Tyner, See Criminal Law, 59, 792; Homicide, um 179 S. W. 887. 281, 305.

Agent having apparent general authority in a

given business has implied authority to do usuPRINCIPAL AND AGENT. al, ordinary, and reasonably necessary acts.

-Id. See Attorney and Client; Brokers; Corpora: 103 (Tex.Civ.App.) Implied intention of au

tions, Omw 425-432; Evidence, 248, 253; Husband and Wife, em 2334 ; Insurance, Em sell cars held as a business necessity to create

tomobile dealer to authorize demonstrator to 74-93; Municipal Corporations, Om747.

an implied authority to sell.-Holmes v. Tyner, I. THE RELATION.

179 S. W. 887.

Sale of car made by salesman employed by (A) Creation and Existence.

wife with implied authority so to employ held C3 (Mo.App.) Contract between manfactur- binding on automobile dealer.-Id. ing company and resident of South Carolina, In general, the power of ar agent to sell does placing a “sales agency” in the latter's charge, not include the power to barter.-Id. held to create the relation of principal and C 23 (Tex. Civ.App.) In an action by an auagent, and not to effectuate a sale of goods.— tomobile dealer to recover the value of a car Watkins v. Donnell, 179 S. W. 980.

bartered by a demonstrator, evidence held inCum 14 (Tex.Civ.App.) Relation of principal sufficient to show authority to barter.—Holmes

and agent may arise by implication from words v. Tyner, 179 S. W. 887. and acts of parties and the circumstances of the Cmw 137 Tex.Civ.App.) Liability of principal particular transactions.-Holmes v. Tyner, 179 for act of servant based upon estoppel arises S. W. 887.

when a third person relies in good faith on ww22 (Tex.Civ.App.) The statements of an words or conduct of the principal indicating auagent as to the existence of the relation of prin- thority in the agent to do such act.-Holmes v. cipal and agent are inadmissible to bind his Tyner, 179 S. W. 887. principal.- McConnon & Co. v. McCormick, 179

(B) Undisclosed Agency S. W. 275. @mw 23 (Ky.) Where sureties who were compel- Cmo 140 (Ark.) That

Oum 140 (Ark.) That a commission company, led to pay the debt of an agent sought to hold which had the exclusive sale of butter shipped the agent's undisclosed principal, evidence held by a creamery company, sold all the butter at insufficient to show the agents authority to cost to its employé, did not make him an undisborrow, or in fact his agency at the time of closed principal, as to the creamery company, negotiating the loan.-Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Garner, 179 S. W.

which had no knowledge of the transaction.Sexton, 179 S. W. 36.

160. On 23 (Mo.App.) Evidence held to justify a finding that a third person acted as agent for cm 143 (Ark.) Insurance company, not disclospayee in procuring usurious notes.- Riepe v. ed as principal obligee in the bond of its local Vette, 179 S. W. 952.

agent for performance of his duties, the bond Own 23 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence, in an action pany, could bring suit

thereon.-Security Ins. for the value of an automobile sold by one rep- Co. v. Jaggers, 179 S. W. 1008.

resenting himself as agent for plaintiff, held sufficient to support finding of agency.-Holmes v. Eww145 (Ark.) Where an agent makes a conTyner, 179 S. W. 887.

tract for an undisclosed principal, both the Cm 25 (Ky.) An undisclosed principal held not the election of the party who dealt with the

principal and the agent may be held liable at liable on ground of estoppel to his agent's

sure- agent.-Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Garner, 179 ties who did not know of his existence.-Hodges. W. 160. Tobacco Co. v. Sexton, 179 S. W. 36.

O 145 (Ky.) Persons giving credit to the agent (B) Termination.

of an undisclosed principal may recover from the Cm 34 (Tex.Civ.App.) Powers are irrevocable principal moneys furnished the agent for the by the principal when they form part of an act Sexton, 179 S. W. 36.

business of his agency.-Hodge Tobacco Co. v. deemed valuable in law, or which forms part of the contract and is a security for money or for Om 145 (Ky.) A principal may be charged upon the performance of any act deemed valuable.- his agent's contract within his authority, though Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dickey, 179 s. the principal's name does not appear in the inW. 69.

strument and was not disclosed.-Geary v. TayCw40 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by an au- lor, 179 S. W. 426. tomobile dealer to recover the value of a car Om 145 (Tex.Civ. App.) One dealing with agent procured by defendant through barter with under either express or implied authority held plaintiff's sales agent, evidence held insufficient not bound to show knowledge of such authority bind principal.-Holmes v. Tyner, 179 S. W. est due, did not discharge his surety.-Ward v. 887.

Nutt, 179 S. W. 667.

Om 15 (Ky.) A surety on a note was discharg(C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts.

ed, where the holder without the surety's consent w 152 (Tex.Civ.App.) One who barters for an surrendered collateral security, regardless of automobile with a reputed sales agent, in the the value of the collateral.-Elsey v. People's absence of express or implied authority in agent Bank of Bardwell, 179 S. W. 392. to barter, held

to act at his peril.-Holmes v. That surety and maker were directors, and Tyner, 179 S. W. 887.

brothers of the director and president, of a bank,

held not to revive surety's liability on note after (D) Ratification.

his release by the bank's surrender of collateral. Om 166 (Ky.) Owners of land held not to have -Id. ratified the unauthorized act of an agent in

Bank's surrender of collateral security to makleasing it; it not appearing that they knew er of note held to discharge surety, though the thereof, or received the rent for one month, collateral was its own stock, contrary to Ky. St. which was paid.-Geary v. Taylor, 179 S. W. $ 581.-Id. 426.

IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS. Om 171 (Tex.Civ. App.) Principal held not entitled to retain advantage secured by agent's Cmw 156 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action against surefraud and accept benefits without adopting the ty on note, answer relating to agreement as to means employed by him, though unknown to collateral held not a defense to the note.-First the principal.-Lockney State Bank v. Damron, State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 179 S. W. 552.


In action against surety on note, answer

held not too indefinite and uncertain, as failPRINCIPAL AND SURETY. ing to particularize the collateral alleged to See Attachment, Om337–343; Bail; Evidence, have been misapplied.-Id. Cw471, 472; 'Guaranty; Husband and Wife, w163 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action against corpo

, Om 87 ; Mortgages, em 283; Principal and ration on its notes and against its president as Agent, E143; Subrogation, Oml; United surety thereon, where the surety's pleadings States, On 74.

sought no such relief, it was not necessary that

a judgment against him be framed to subject I. CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF

the corporation's property to satisfaction before RELATION.

proceeding against him.-Bonner Oil Co. v.

Gaines, 179 S. W. 686. (A) Between Individuals. On 23 (Ky.) A surety who signs a note upon

PRIORITIES. condition that other sureties also sign held lia- See Corporations, mm 566; Judgment, Om788; ble, though the others do not sign, in absence of notice of such condition to obligee.-Peal v.

Vendor and Purchaser, om 260. Cairo Nat. Bank, 179 S. W. 10.

PRISONS. On 27 (Tex.Civ.App.) Two signers of a note as principals had the right to sign and deposit it om 10 (Tenn.) Superintendent of county workwith the payee on condition that it should not house, whose office was created under Priv. Acts become valid until other principals had signed 1913, c. 264, held acting in an official capacity it.- First State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, in employing a guard, and where he was not 179 S. W. 295.

present when the guard against his orders shot 35 (Tex.Civ,App.) A creditor's extension of and wounded a prisoner, was not liable in the payment of a past-due indebtedness from a damages.—Lunsford v. Johnson, 179 S. W. 151. corporation upon receiving its 60 and 90 day notes would support a contract of suretyship

PRIVATE ROADS. evidenced by the indorsement of its president. See Easements; Statutes, m123. -Bonner Oil Co. v. Gaines, 179 S. W. 686.

Cum 2 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. 1909, § 4348, subII. NATURE AND EXTENT OF LIA

secs. 2-4, and section 4351, held, that no apBILITY OF SURETY.

peal lies in proceeding to establish passways

until final judgment in the county court.-Ex82 (Ark.) A surety on a building contract, all y. Holland, 179 S. W. 241. which completed the work on the contractor's failure, held entitled to recover from the owner held, that necessity of passway cannot be de

In proceeding to establish private passway, of the building payments made by him to the termined on the application for the appointment contractor in violation of the contract.-Fidel, of commissioners, but on exceptions to the ity & Deposit Co. v. Merchants' & Farmers'

commissioners' report.-Id. Bank, 179 S. W. 1019.

In proceeding to establish passway, held, that Om 86 (Ark.) Completion of building contract court may have jury's advice on question of by surety, after knowledge that the owner of necessity, but is not conclusively bound by its the building had made payments to the con- verdict.-Id. tractors in violation of the contract, held not not a waiver of such breach.-Fidelity & De- PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. posit Co. v. Merchants & Farmers' Bank, 179 S. W. 1019.

See Libel and Slander, Om148; Witnesses,


PROBABLE CAUSE. Om 104 (Ark.) Surety on note containing stipulation that parties consented to extension of See Malicious Prosecution, On 21. time of payment held not discharged by such an extension.- Ward v. Nutt, 179 S. W. 667.

PROBATE. Om 106 (Ark.) An agreement, upon valid consideration, by a creditor, without the consent See Wills, On 230.

Omw . of the surety, not to sue the principal debtor for a stated time, discharges the surety.- Ward

PROCESS. v. Nutt, 179 S. W. 667.

See Appeal and Error, mm 424; Attachment; Om 108 (Ark.) Agreement extending time for Execution ; Garnishment; Justices of the payment of note, made when maker paid inter- Peace, Cm 80; Mandamus, mm 34.

« 이전계속 »