« 이전계속 »
ing all costs against defendant partner who
fraudulently or negligently had kept books so See Evidence, On 442, 589; Joint Adventures; that appointment of an auditor was necessary Judgment, 256; Pleading, On 290; Trial, to determine amount of personal funds defendOn 251, 255, 350.
ant had mingled with firm funds.-Navarro v.
Lamana, 179 S. W. 922.
See Frauds, Statute of, w129. Om 199 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff, suing railroad for damage to live stock, part of which had been
PATENTS. interest in firm property is necessary to enable another partner to sue alone for injury there- x. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONto. Any action showing an intent to transfer
TRACTS. the interest to the suing partner is sufficient. -Id.
(C) Licenses and Contracts. On 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.
1083. VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT,
See Appeal and Error, 1180; Bills and (B) Rights, Powers, and Liabilities after
Notes, en 430, 499, 511; Compromise and Dissolution.
Settlement; Electricity, 11; Insurance, On 296 (Tex. Civ. App.) In action by former Om740; Limitation of Actions, Omn37; Masmember of partnership for share in commis ter and Servant, Om79; Vendor and Pursions on a deal completed after the dissolution, chaser, Omw 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 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 that jury's finding that he became a member of En 9 (Tex. Civ.App.) A creditor is not required the firm on March 1st was not sustained by the his account and to assume the incumbrance,
to accept incumbered property in settlement of 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. Om 336 (Tex.Civ.App.) On accounting between
PENAL STATUTES. partners, where the books had been incorrectly kept, so that it was impossible to determine See Statutes, 241. in what proportion partnership and personal funds had been commingled by defendant, it became incumbent upon him to show the amount
PENALTIES. of credit to which he was entitled.-Navarro v. See Carriers, 20. Lamana, 179 S. W. 922. ww336 (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, em 280-382; Damages, 32, sible.-Id.
130-132; Explosives, um 8;
Om8; 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, 89–333; 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, un 86; court properly exercised its discretion in tax-) Schools and school Districts, m44.
to deny such allegation.-Levy v. Dunken Real
ty Co., 179 S. W. 679. See Evidence, On 359.
IV. REPLICATION OR REPLY AND PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS. .
SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS. See Criminal Law, m476; Evidence, 128, C180 (Ky.) Under Civ. Code Prac. $ 98, sub506; Insurance, 430; Witnesses,
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. Our 6 (Tex. Cr. App.) Evidence of methods of petition consisted solely of exceptions and de
mw 183 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a supplemental treatment 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-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, on 8.
Om 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 See Courts, 189; Indictment and Informa-. Sexton, 179 S. W. 36.
to strike and not demurrer.-Hodge Tobacco Co. tion.
Om 199 (Tex.Civ.App.) If a general demurrer is For pleadings in particular actions or proceed well taken, it should be sustained at any stare
ings, see also the various specific topics.
of the proceedings.-City of Brownsville v. TumAppeal and Error.
Om 205 (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
no specific reason why the answer failed to set Cum 8 (Ky.) An allegation of a petition in eject- up a defense.-Bolt v. State Savings Bank of 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 Cm 207 (Ky.) An affirmative defense may not S. W. 821.
be asserted by special demurrer.-Pete Sheeran, On 9 (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-em.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. kins, 179 S. W. 310. 317.
Ow216 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. $ 6128, bond Omw 34 (Mo.App.) Every intendment will be in- performance of his duties, filed as an exhibit Om 34 (Mo.App.) Every intendment will be in- 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
228 (Tex.Civ.App.) A special exception was attached.-Id. Ow34 (Tex.Civ.App.) In passing on a pleading by the contract sued on, because it was an oral as against demurrer, the court must consider one, and that plaintiff therefore stated no cause everything as properly alleged which by any Tumlinson, 179°S. 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.
VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER. II. DECLARATION, COMPLAINT, PE-236 (Ky.) Permission to file an amended TITION, OR STATEMENT.
pleading is a matter in the sound discretion of On 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-Omw236 (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. Om 245 (Tex.Civ.App.). In proceedings for the Om 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 break it held admitted, where the answer failed l had begun, and to consider such amendment as 1277
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.
See Infants, 13. XII. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE.
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.
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.
387. See Constitutional Law, 229, 283; Taxa- um 42 (Mo.App.) Subsequent insanity of codetion, Omw387.
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.
III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO
(A) Powers of Agent. See Appeal and Error, Om907-936; Evidence, cm 100 (Ky.) Contract between owners of land Om 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, Om 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, Ow59, 792; Homicide, em 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; Corporations, enw 425-432; Evidence, 248, 253; tomobile dealer to authorize demonstrator to tions, Cm 425-432; Evidence, cm 248, 253: Om 103 (Tex.Civ.App.) Implied intention of auHusband and Wife, om 2334 ; Insurance, On 74-93; Municipal Corporations, Ow747.
sell cars held as a business necessity to create
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 Om3 (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 ww123 (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 in@mo 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 Ow 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 Cw22 (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. em 23 (Ky.) Where sureties who were compel Omol 40 (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. which had no knowledge of the transaction. Sexton, 179 S. W. 36.
Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Garner, 179 S. W.
160. On 23 (Mo.App.) Evidence held to justify a finding that a third person acted as agent for ed as principal obligee in the bond of its local payee in procuring usurious notes.-Riepe v. agent for performance of his duties, the bond Vette, 179 S. W. 952. Cm 23 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence, in an action being executed to the general agent of the comfor the value of an automobile sold by one rep- Co. v. Jaggers, 179 S. W. 1008.
pany, could bring suit thereon.-Security Ins. resenting himself as agent for plaintiff, held sufficient to support finding of agency.-Holmes v. Ono 145 (Ark.) Where an agent makes a conTyner, 179 S. W. 887.
tract for an undisclosed principal, both the Con 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.
Omw 145 (Ky.) Persons giving credit to the agent (B) Termination.
of an undisclosed principal may recover from the Om 34 (Tex.Civ.App.) Powers
principal moneys furnished the agent for the
are irrevocable by the principal when they form part of an act business of his agency.--Hodge Tobacco Co. v. deemed valuable in law, or which forms part of Sexton, 179 S. W. 36. 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. Tayww40 (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 1279
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 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, Cm337–343; Bail; Evidence, have been misapplied.-Id. Cw471, 472; 'Guaranty; Husband and Wife, w163 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action against corpoOm 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. Cm 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 ww35 (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.-ExCum 82 (Ark.) A surety on a building contract, all v. 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,
198-219. III. DISCHARGE OF SURETY.
PROBABLE CAUSE. Om 104 (Ark.) Surety on note containing stipulation that parties consented to extension of See Malicious Prosecution, om 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. 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, m424; 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.