페이지 이미지


See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Ac- See Improvements.


See Municipal Corporations, cm 266–567.
See Attorney and Client; Brokers.


See Carriers; Electricity; Railroads; Street

Railroads. em 21 (Tex.Civ.App.) Agent may testify to fact of agency or existence of facts from which

QUIETING TITLE. agency inay be inferred, when his authority

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. rests in parol.-Bayliss v. Raney, 273 S. W. 932.

Om 10(2) (Ky.) That holder under title bond executed deed by attorney in fact, created be

fore his title was perfected, held not to show III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PERSONS.

defect.-Stephens v. Perkins, 273 S. W. 545.

em 19 (Mo.) Statute providing for bringing of (A) Powers of Agent.

suits to quiet title held not violative of ConstiCm99 (Ark.) Phrase "apparent authority in tution.—McFadin v. Simms, 273 S. W. 1050. an agent" defined.-Ozark Mut. Life Ass'n v. Dillard, 273 S. W. 378.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. 99 (Tex.Civ.App.) Principal's liability for w31 (Mo.) Word “plaintiff" in statute, inagent's acts, within scope of apparent author- cludes all who by record prosecute action.-Meity, based on equitable estoppel.-Hobby v. King Trailer Co., 273 S. W. 650.

Fadin v. Simms, 273 S. W. 1050. em 100(4) (Tex.civ. App.) Special sales agent cient under statute authorizing publication in

Verification of petition by one plaintiff sufficannot pledge goods placed in his hands for sale suit to quiet title.--Id. and bind principal, in absence of statutory au- *44(4) (Ky.) Evidence held to show legal thority.-Climber Motor Corporation v. Fore, title in plaintiff.-Stephens v. Perkins, 273 S. 273 S. W. 284.

W. 515. Om 103(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Manager of partnership, formed solely to deal in certain auto 52 (ky.) Judgment entered for party entrucks by wholesale, not authorized to pur

titled under petition and counterclaim.-Stechase trailers.-Hobby v. King Trailer Co., 273 phens vs Perkins, 273 S. W. 545. S. W. 650.

Ow52 (Mo.) Judgment in statutory proceeding w 105(2) (Tex.civ.App.) Agency of defend- to quiet title did not invest plaintiffs with new ant for codefendants, in action on order as

title.--McFadin v. Simms, 273 S. W. 1050. signing Sum due under contract with agent, held established.-Bush v. Gholson, 273 S. W.


See Street Railroads. Com 124(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether seller's agent was misled by apparent power of buyer's

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN GENagent held for jury.-Hobby v. King Trailer Co.,

ERAL. 273 S. W. 650.

ww51/2 [New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series] (C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts.

(Tex.Civ.App.) Contract, limiting liabil

ity of carrier, permissible during government Cum 150 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Agent for one pur-control.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harrell, pose only cannot bind his principal by another 273 S. W. 661. act.-Climber Motor Corporation v. Fore, 273 S. W. 284.


ESTS IN LAND. 171(5) (Ark.) Grantee of fourth interest 69 (Tex.Civ.App.) Perpetual way acquired in mineral royalties held not entitled to specific by deed.-Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. of performance of prior oral agreement to convey Texas v. Cunningham, 273 S. W. 697. half interest.-Allen v. Thompson, 273 S. W. 396.



w 102(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Farm crossing reSee Indemnity.

quired.-Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. of

Texas v. Cunningham, 273 S. W. 697. I. CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF RE Cal13(10) (Mo.App.) Charge plaintiff had LATION

burden to prove damage by flood was caused (A) Between Individuals.

solely by railroad's negligence held erroneous.

-Meadows v. Wabash Ry. Co., 273 S. W. 130. Om 17 (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to give notice of conditions before signing makes signers lia

X. OPERATION. ble as makers.- Neyland v. Lanier, 273 S. W. 1022.

(D) Injuries to Licensees or Trespassers


ww276(1) (Mo.App.) Carrier owed trespasser Cara 126(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Notice by surety to duty only to refrain from willfully or recklesspayee to file suit held insufficient.-Neyland y. ly injuring him after discovering his presence. Lanier, 273 S. W. 1022.

-Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 273 S.

W. 221.

cw281(3) (Mo.App.) Brakeman, acting as aid

to conductor in expelling trespasser, acted withSee Constitutional Law, Cams 206.

in scope of his authority in attempting to ex

nel trespasser.-Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. PROHIBITION.

Ry. Co., 273 S. W. 221. See Intoxicating Liquors.

On 282(5) (Mo.App.) Evidence held to show

brakeman acted within scope of employment in PROMISSORY NOTES.

expelling trespasser from train.--Graham v. St.

Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 273 S. W. 221. See Bills and Notes.

Evidence held to show brakeman, in expelling


For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER trespasser from train, performed duty within

RECEIVERS. scope of employment.-Id.

III. TITLE TO AND POSSESSION OF PROP, Evidence held to show brakeman ordered tres

ERTY. passer on train to get off and then struck him. 72 (Tex.) Receiver, by summary proceed, -Id.

Evidence held to create inference brakeman | ings, cannot take into custody property found had instructions to remove trespassers from in possession of stranger to record claimtrain.-Id.

ing adversely.-Ex parte Renfro, 273 S. W. 282(6) (Mo.App.) Carrier liable in puni-813. tive damages for act of brakeman in striking

RECORDS. trespasser.-Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. See Appeal and Error, ww537–715; Criminal Co., 273 S. W. 221.

Law, Cm1086–1124, $7,500 damages, including $2,500 punitive damages for injuries to trespasser on train held not excessive.--Id.

REFERENCE. 282(15) (Mo.App.) Instruction held not See Arbitration and Award. misleading as not requiring finding act of brakeman was in scope of employment.-Gra REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS. ham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 273 S. W. 221.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. Instruction using word “instructions” instead Omw 16 (Ky.) Reformation may be had only of "authority" held not misleading.-Id. where parties were lab under mutual mis

apprehension, or where it does not express true (F) Accidents at Crossings.

agreement.--Hayes v. Hudson, 273 S. w. 524. 307 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Watchman not required at crossing not extraordinarily danger

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. ous.--Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Southern Cas-C45(1) (Ky.) Mistake must be established ualty Co., 273 S. W. 680.

by full, clear, and decisive evidence to warrant Cmw 327(8) (Tex.Civ. App.) Failure to

look reformation.-Hayes v. Hudson, 273 S. W. 524. where one could reasonably expect to discover (ww 45(2) (Ky.) Reformation of written contrain is negligence barring recovery.-Galves-tract for mutual mistake not justified, unless ton, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 273 S. evidence clear and convincing.-Bernheim v. W. 979,

Duane, 273 S. W. 458. C350(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Placing on Cm 45(5) (Ark.) Deed not reformed, unless siding, obstructing view of crossing, held not testimony clear and convincing that mutual negligence per se.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. mistake made.-Brown v. Reynolds, 273 S. W. Southern Casualty Co., 273 S. W. 680.

371. C350 (7) (Tex. Civ. App.) Negligence Mutual mistake in description in deed warcrossing held for jury.- Galveston, H. & S. A. ranting reformation held not shown by clear Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 273 S. W. 979.

and convincing testimony.--Id. 350(13) (Tex.Civ.App.) Contributory neg. m 45(15) (Ky.) Evidence held not sufficiently ligence at crossing held for jury.-Galveston, clear and convincing to justify reformation of H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 273 S. W. contract for mutual mistake.-Bernheim 979.

Duane, 273 S. W. 458. 350(16) (Tex.civ.App.) Contributory negli. 45(15) (Ky.) Evidence not sufficiently gence of wagon driver killed at crossing, hele clear to warrant reformation of contract.for jury.--Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Laro, Hayes v. Hudson, 273 S. W. 524. 273 S. W. 081. Cam 350(31) (Ky.) Contributory negligence of

REMAINDERS. automobile driver held for jury.--Western Collieries Co. v. Rhye, 273 S. W. 91.

6 (Mo.App.) Remainderman had interest in Om351(9) (Ky.) Duty of private railroad to land, notwithstanding conveyance to and recongive crossing signals held sufficiently defined.- veyance from life tenant.-Commerce Trust Co. Western Collieries Co. v. Rhye, 273 S. W. 91.

v. Foulds, 273 S. W. 9:29.

C-14 (Mo.App.) Conveyance by remainderRAPE.

man passes no title, where life tenant survives

remainderman.-Commerce Trust Co. I. OFFENSES AND RESPONSIBILITY

Foulds, 273 S. W. 229.
Cam 17 (Tex.Cr.App.) Requested charge bear-

RETROSPECTIVE LAWS. ing on issue of prior unchaste character and see Constitutional Law, Cw190; Statutes, en age of prosecutrix held properly refused as

203. being incorrect.-Greene v. State, 273 S. W. 853.



REVIEW. (B) Evidence.

See Appeal and Error; Certiorari. mm 40(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Error to exclude evidence that prosecutris kept company with

RIPARIAN RIGHTS. other men while accused knew her.-Atkeison v.

See Waters and Water Courses, Cw38.
State, 273 S. W. 595.
On 51(!) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held suffi-
cient to sustain conviction for rape.-Carr v.

State, 273 S. W. 256.

See Master and Servant, Om 203-226.


[ocr errors]


(C) Trial and Review.

ROADS. ww59(9) (Tex.Cr.App.) Refusal to give re- See Highways. quested charge stating what matters could be

ROBBERY. considered in mitigation held not error.-Greene v. State, 273 S. W. 853.

Cm7 (Ky.) May be committed by threats of

injury to property or reputation as well as bodREAL ACTIONS.

ily harm.-Lanford v. Commonwealth, 273 S. W.

492. See Partition; Quieting Title; Trespass to 17(7) (Ky.) Indictments averring force Try Title.

not demurrable for failure to allege putting in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

fear of bodily harm.-Lanford

Common- ma 235 (2) . (Tex.civ.App.) One purchasing oil wealth, 273 S. W. 492.

well casings and fixtures from landowner, Fear of bodily harm need not be alleged in while another was in actual possession and indictment for "robbery.”—Id.

control, held not an innocent purchaser.-Orfic M23(3) (Mo.) Testimony of witness that he Gasoline Production Co. v. Herring, 273 S. W. went to defendant's smokehouse and found pis- 944. tol concealed therein held without error.-State

VI. WARRANTIES. v. Woodard, 273 S. W. 1047. m24 (1) (Mo.) Evidence held to sustain con- sample," from which a warranty arises, stated.

w271.. (Mo.App:) What constitutes “sale by viction of attempt to rob bank.-State v. Wood--Levine v. Hochman, 273 S. W. 204. ard, 273 S. W. 1047. m26 (Ky.) Defendant's participation in trans- purchased, and súe for breach of warranty, or

288 (2) (Ark.) Purchaser could retain hay actions in evidence held for jury on conflicting recoup damages when sued for price.-Keith testimony.-Lanford v. Commonwealth, 273 S. v. Fowler, 273 s. W. 706. W. 492.

Ow288(2) (Mo.App.) That plaintiff elected to SALES.

accept bags on defendant's refusal to accept See Judicial Sales; Vendor and Purchaser.

rescission of contract of sale held not to pre

clude plaintiff from recovering damages for I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON. breach of warranty.-Levine v. Hochman, 273 TRACT.

S. W. 201. 48/2 [New, vol. 13A Key-No. Series)

VII. REMEDIES OF SELLER. (Tex.Civ.App.) Purchaser of secondhand automobile, who failed to comply with

(F) Actions for Damages. statute, and his vendee, held not to have title. Om388 (Mo.App.) Where instructions modified -Hennessy v. Automobile Owners' Ins. Ass'n,

to omit measure of damages, court should have 273 S. W. 1024.

given instruction thereon.-Electric Products en 53(1) (Mo.App.) Evidence of personal con Co. v. St. Louis Theater Supply Co., 273 S. W. nection of defendant's president with purchase | 135. of goods held insufficient for jury.-Bluff City Shoe Co. v. Levy, 273 S. W. 1086.

VIII. REMEDIES OF BUYER. Whether goods were purchased for defendant

(C) Actions for Breach of Contract. corporation held for jury in action for price. 413 (Mo.) Uniess defendant sustained bur-Id.

den of showing extension of conditions of conII. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT.

tract or waiver thereof, contention that plain

tiff declared on one cause of action and recovOm81(1) (Mo.) Time of delivery of pig iron ered on another not allowed.-Scullin Steel Co. held essence of sale contract.-Scullin Steel (o. v. Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95. v. Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 9.5. 415 (Ky.) Burden on purchaser in action

Contract held to make time of delivery of for damages for seller's breach of contract to each installment of pig iron a condition pre prove his damages.-Elder v. Florsheim Shoe cedent to each installment.-Id.

Co., 273 S. W. 60. Om85(2) (Mo.) Excluding evidence of weath-C-W416(2) (Mo.) Evidence that buyer er conditions not within terms of contract ex compelled to and did purchase pig iron on the cusing delivery held proper.-Seullin Steel Co. market properly excluded.-Scullin Steel Co. v. v. Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95. Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95.

Seller's failure to procure coke to manufac-418(2) (Ky.) Measure of damages for failture pig iron held not to excuse its breach of ure to deliver, where sale is of ordinary arcontract.-Id.

ticles which can be purchased in convenient

market, stated.-Elder v. Florsheim Shoe Co., III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION OF 273 S. W. 60. CONTRACT.

Cw418(2) (Mo.) Damages properly defined as (A) By Agreement of Parties.

difference between contract price and market Om89 (Mo.) Evidence held not to show ex

price on last day of month each installment press agreement extending time for delivery of was to be delivered.-Scullin Steel Co. v. Mispig iron. --Scullin Steel Co. v. Mississippi Val- sissippi Valley, Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95. ley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95.

Om 418(12) (Ky.) When parties presumed to

anticipate a resale, and that profits would be IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. made, stated.-Elder v. Florsheim Shoe Co., (C) Delivery and Acceptance of Goods.

273 S. W. 60.

Measure of damages for breach of contract, Om 1681/2 (1) (Ky.) Purchaser held entitled to where seller knew that purchaser intended to credit for damaged merchandise and for mor resell goods, stated.-Id. phine, which it was unlawful to sell.--Bowling C418(15) (Ky.) Measure of damages for v. Webster, 273 S. W. 501.

breach of contract, where sale is of manufac181(1) (Mo.) Seller had burden to show tured articles of special brand ordinarily on delay in delivery was due to causes specified in sale, stated.--Elder v. Florsheim Shoe Co., 273 contract, or agreement subsequent extending S. W. 60. time, or waiver by buyer.-Scullin Steel Co. v.

420 (Ky.) Verdict properly directed for Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95.

defendant in purchaser's action for damages C 181(11) (Mo.) Evidence held not to show for breach of contract in sales of shoes.-Elder waiver by buyer of express condition for de v. Florsheim Shoe Co., 273 S. W. 60. livery of pig iron.-Scullin Steel Co. v. Missis-ww 421 (Mo.) Instruction that there was no sippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95.

substantial evidence that seller was prevented Evidence held not to show seller prevented from delivering pig iron by delay or congestion by accident from complying with contract.-Id. of railroad or carrier in delivering materials V. OPERATION AND EFFECT.

held proper.--Seullin Steel Co. v. Mississippi

Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95. (A) Transfer of Title as Between Parties.

202(6) (Mo.App.) Title held to pass at (D) Actions and Counterclaims for Breach point of destination.-Levine v. Hochman, 273

of Warranty. S. W. 201.

Cm428 (Ark.) Purchasers had right to reject

entire shipment of hay for breach of warranty (D) Bona Fide Purchasers.

of quality.-Keith v. Fowler, 273 S. W. 706. emm 234(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) One cannot give bet Purchaser could accept part of hay and reter title by sale than he has himself.--Climber ject remainder, on discovery of its poor qualMotor Corporation v. Fore, 273 S. W. 284. ity.-Id.


ror cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 434 (Mo.App.) Petition in action on con- | Heath & Co.' v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 794; Johntract for breach of warranty in sale of second- son Pub. Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 794. hand bags held grounded on a breach of war-m80(2) (Ky.) Mistake of successful bidder ranty.-Levine v. llochman, 273 S. W. 204. in computation of estimates held fundamental. Onw 442(2) (Mo.App.) Measure of damages for -Board of Regents of Murray State Normal breach of warranty in sale of secondhand bags School v. Cole, 273 S. W. 508. stated.-Levine v. Hochman, 273 S. W. 204. www.85 (Tex.) Mandamus lies against state suC 442(4) (Mo.App.) Damages for breach of perintendent of public instruction to perform warranty to be estimated at destination point. | text-book contract.-Laidlaw Bros. v. Marrs, --Levine v. Hochman, 273 S. W. 204.

273 S. W. 789; Charles Scribner's Sons v. Ca 445(1) (Mo.App.) Whether sale of second- Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; W. H. Wheeler & Co. band bags was made by sample held for jury.- v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; Silver, Burdett & Co. Levine v. Hochman, 273 S. W. 204.

v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; D. C. Heath & Co. Oww445 (4) (Ark.) Court erred in not submit- v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 794; Johnson Pub. Co. v. ting issue to jury whether warranty in con- Marrs, 273 S. W. 794. tract had been breached by seller's furnishing m89 (Tex.Civ.App.) Duty of municipality to poor quality of hay.—Keith v. Fowler, 273 S. maintain public schools held a governmental W. 706.

function, and municipality not liable for injury Om445 (4) (Mo.App.) Whether warranty, in to pupil.—McVey v. City of Houston, 273 S. W. sale of secondhand bags was breached held for 313. jury. Levine v. Hochman, 273 S. W. 204.

(E) District Debt, Securities, and TaxnIX. CONDITIONAL SALES.

tion. Om 479 (14) (Ark.) Buyer sued by seller held on 90 (Ky.) Contract for sale of school buildnot precluded by sale of equity to third party ing by board of education to corporation with from maintaining cross-action against seller option to lease and rebuy held within power of for latter's failure to resell article repossessed board to make and not violative of constitupursuant to Tennessee law.-White Co. v. tional limitations on indebtedness.-Waller v. Bragg, 273 S. W. 7.

Georgetown Board of Education, 273 W.


Statute does not limit power of board of edII. PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

ucation to incur indebtedness.-Id. (A) Establishment, School Lands

Cm101 (Tex.Civ.App.) Constitutional limita

and Funds, and Regulation in

tion on city's taxing power does not apply to General.

its taxing power as an independent school disem 10 (Ark.) Statute, directing credit of funds ings Bank, 273 S. W. 914.

trict.-City of Belton v. Harris Trust & Savarising from sale of sixteenth section school lands to permanent school funds of the state,

Charter provisions limiting taxation held not

to limit taxation for school purposes.-Id. held not unconstitutional.-Sloan v. Blytheville Special School Dist. No. 5, 273 S. W. 397.

(F) Claims Against District, and Actions. (C) Government. Oncers, and District Om 120 (Tex.civ.App.) Demurrer to petition Meetings.

for injuries to pupil, from falling archway of Cw46 (Ark.) Act creating office of county school building, held properly sustained.-'Mcsupervisor held not void.-Landers v. Murphy, Vey v. City of Houston, 273 'S. W. 313. 273 S. W. 362.

SEDUCTION. Omw 55 (Mo.App.) Powers of board of directors of school district limited to those expressed in II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. statute.-Consolidated School Dist: No. 6. of 29 (Mo.) “Seduction," as defined by statJackson County v. Shawhan, 273 S. W. 182. Em 62 (Mo.App.) Powers of board of directors -State v. Shiflett, 273 S. W. 727.

ute, is not violation of agreement of marriage. of school district limited to those expressed in 49 (Mo.) Whether accused's promise to statute, and board liable for misapplication of

marry prosecutrix was conditional held for teachers' fund.--Consolidated School Dist. No. 6 of Jackson County v. Shawhan, 273 s. W: jury.-State v. Shiflett, 273 S. W. 727. 182.

Corroborating evidence of promise of marWarrants on school funds admissible, though riage held sufficient to go to jury.-Id. without showing by record that board author

SENTENCE. ized issue.-Id.

District may recover against board of direc- See Criminal Law, ewm982. tors for misappropriation of teachers' fund. -Id.

SEPARATE PROPERTY. Directors liable for misappropriation of par: See Husband and Wife, em 135-162. ticular school funds, notwithstanding good faith and absence of willful intent.--Id.

SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM. (D) District Property, Contracts, and Lia


C-34 (2) (Tex.civ. App.) Exception to cross80(1) (Tex.) Approval of text-book contract by state board of education held waiver contractual award, properly sustained.-Far

bill, based on damage for arrest as set-off to of irregularities in execution.--Laidlaw Bros.

row v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 273 S. W. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 789; Charles Scribner's 318. Sons v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; W. H. Wheel

SEWERS. er & Co. v, Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; Silver, Bur

See Drains. dett & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; D. C. Heath & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 791; John

SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES. son Pub. Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 794; MacMillan Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 794; Row,

UI. POWERS, DUTJES. AND LIABILITIES. Peterson & Co, v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 795. Cm98 (2) (Mo.App.) If justice of peace has juCrw 80(1) (Tex.) State board of education's risdiction of subject-matter, constable is not approval of text-book contract final, and can-bound to examine into validity of judgment, not be thereafter set aside by it.-Laidlaw proceedings, or process under which he acts. Bros. v. Marrs, 273 S, W. 789; Charles Scrib State ex rel. Athletic Tea (o. v. Cameron, ner's Sons v. Marrs, 273. S. W. 79:3; W. H. 273 S. W. 746. Wheeler & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; Silver, Om 138 (3) (Tex.civ.App.) Showing required Burdett & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; D. C. of attachment creditor to recover of sheriff,

accepting an insufficient replevy bond from mined from act itself and from facts of which debtor, stated.-City Nat. Bank of Commerce court takes judicial notice.-Id. of Wichita Falls v. Head, 273 S. W. 653.

"General law" defined.-Id. • Plaintiff held not to have discharged burden ofw77(1) (Ark.) Distinction between “generproving that sureties on replevy bond were in- al statute" and "special statute" stated.-Mesolvent at time of acceptance thereof, and that Laughlin v. Ford, 273 S. W. 707. sheriff was cognizant of that fact.-Id.

077(1) (Ark.) Whether statute is general or

special determined from act itself and from SIGNATURES.

facts of which court takes judicial notice.ml (Mo.App.) Any mark intended as signa- Farelly Lake Levee Dist. v. Hudson, 273 S. ture acts as such. - City of Maplewood ex rel. W. 711. and to Use of Citizens Bank of Maplewood v. 93(4), (Ark.) That there is only one city Johnson, 273 S. W. 237.

in class does not make statute relating to such

class special.--McLaughlin v. Ford, 273 S. W. SLANDER.


Om93(10) (Ark.) Statute fixing salaries of See Libel and Slander.

city officers of cities of 25,000 or more populaSPECIAL LAWS.

tion held not special.- McLaughlin v. Ford,

273 S. W. 707. See Statutes, em 68-93.


On 1 15(1) (Tex.) Caption of statute of conVI. ACTIONS.

cealing true purpose and stating a foreign

purpose held deceptive.-Arnold v. Leonard, 191 (2) (Tex.) Mandamus against superin- 1273 S. W. 799. tendent of public instruction not suit against Caption of statute held misleading and destate.-Laidlaw Bros. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 789; ceptive.-Id. Charles Scribner's & Sons v. Marrs, 273 S. W. 793; W. H. Wheeler & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. IV. AMENDMENT, REVISION, AND CODIFI793; Silver, Burdett & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W.

CATION. 793; D. C. Heath & Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. Om 135 (Ky.) Legislature may amend and re794; Johnson Pub. Co. v. Marrs, 273 S. W. enact an act theretofore amended and re-enact794,

ed, if new act complete in itself.- City of ElizaSTATUTE OF FRAUDS.

bethtown v. Lanz, 273 S. W. 500. See Frauds, Statutes of.

Om 141(3) (Kv.) Title and body of amenda

tory act classifying Elizabethtown as city of STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

fourth class held valid and constitutional.-City

of Elizabethtown v. Lanz, 273 S. W. 500. See Limitation of Actions.

Latter paragraph, expressing purpose of act

in full, held final and controlling.-10. STATUTES.

C 143 (Ky.) Act imposing penalty not affectFor statutes relating to particular subjects, ed by unconstitutional amendment.---Lanford see the various specific topics.

v. Commonwealth, 273 S. W. 492. 1. ENACTMENT, REQUISITES. AND VA


AND REVIVAL. Om64(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Repealing clause falls om 159 (Ark.) When statute operates to rewith unconstitutional law containing it, if in peal prior statute for repugnancy stated. tended to displace old law with new.--Pioneer Farelly Lake Levee Dist. v. Hudson, 273 s. Oil & Refining Co. v. State, 273 S. W. 615.

W. 711. Em64(2) (Tex.) Provisions in statutes ex

VI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. empting revenues from wife's separate lands from payment of community debt contracted

(A) General Rules of Construction. hy husband held valid.-Arnold v. Leonard, 273 w 181(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Construction leadS. W. 799.

ing to absurd results and invalidity not applied, Om64(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Right to collect oc- if possible to be avoided.-Ladd v. Yett, 273 cupation tax on gasoline sales did not survive s. W. 1006. express repeal of act authorizing it, though act w219 (Tex.Civ.App.) Construction given to containing repealing clause is unconstitutional. ambiguous statute by head of executive depart. - Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. v. State, 273 s. ment upheld unless clearly erroneous.-City of W. 615.

Belton v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 273


Com 227 (Ky.) Generally statutory provisions LAWS.

directing procedure by public officer are direcC 68 (Ark.) Distinction between "general tory.--Wait v. Southern Oil & Tar Co., 273 S. statute" and "special statute" stated.-Mc- w. 473. Laughlin v. Ford, 273 S. W. 707. ww68 (Ark.) Statute for relief of local im

(D) Retroactive Operation. provement districts, created by special acts, Co263 (Ky.) No law held retroactive, unless held general statute.-Farelly Lake Levee Dist. such intent clearly expressed or necessarily v. Hudson, 273 S. W. 711.

implied.--Greene v. Frankfort Distillery Co., Whether statute is general or special deter- | 273 S. W. 28.




1870, May 5, ch. 80, 16
Stat. 98

874 Amends. 4, 5...

736 1870, May 31, ch. 114, 16 Amend. 14 874 Stat. 140

874 Art. 3, § 2.

512 1893, March 2, ch. 196, 27
Stat. 531


1898, March 8, ch. 54, 30
Stat. 262

Act 1898, July 1, ch. 541, 301898, July 1, ch. 511, 30
Stat. 544.

Stat. 514. See BankCh. 541


ruptcy Act,

1906, June 29, ch. 3591, $

7(11), (12), 34 · Stat. 595

.335, 410 1908, April 22, ch. 149, 35 Stat. 65

436, 834 1918, Nov. 21, ch. 212, 40 Stat. 1016

125 1919, Oct. 28, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 305.




« 이전계속 »