ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

BURGLARY.

Instructions, see "Criminal Law," § 18.
New trial, see "Criminal Law," § 20.
Province of jury, see "Criminal Law," § 17.

§ 1. Offenses and responsibility there-
for.

See "Gaming," § 1.

CARDS.

CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.

Under Pen. Code 1895, arts. 838, 841, 842, See "Rape." in a prosecution for burglary, defendant held not guilty under the facts, unless the theft he intended to commit on inserting his hand through a hole in a house door was a felony. -Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1157.

That defendant received stolen property after it was taken by others in the commission of a burglary was insufficient to make him a principal in that crime.-Bird v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 146.

Under Pen. Code 1895, arts. 838, 841, 842, in a prosecution for burglary, defendant held not guilty unless he made the break in the door through which he thrust his arm for purpose of committing theft.-Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1157.

Under Pen. Code 1895, art. 841, the insertion of a hand through a break in a house door with the intention of stealing articles less than $50 in value held not to constitute a burglary. -Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1157. § 2. Prosecution and punishment. Where there was no evidence that defendant was present at the burglary, and his evidence tended to show an alibi, he was entitled to an affirmative charge that, unless the evidence

showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was present participating as a principal, he was not guilty.-Bird v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 146. Under Pen. Code 1895, arts. 838, 839a, it is not necessary that an indictment for burglary of a house other than a private residence shall allege that the house was not a private residence.-Gilford v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 698.

In a prosecution for burglary, charge on recent possession held unnecessary.-Gilford v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 698.

BY-LAWS.

See "Insurance," § 11.

As part of contract of insurance, see "Insurance," § 11.

Of municipal corporation, see “Municipal Corporations," § 1.

BYSTANDERS.

CARRIERS.

See "Commerce," § 2; "Monopolies," § 1.
Admissions in action for injuries to passenger,
see "Evidence," § 7.
Aggravation of damages for injuries to live
stock, see "Damages," § 1.
Amendment of pleading in action for detention
of cattle, see "Pleading," § 4.
Applicability of instructions to pleadings and
evidence in actions for injuries to passengers,
Assumptions as to facts in instructions in ac-
see Trial," § 9.
tion for injuries to passenger, see "Trial,"
§ 8.
Delivery to carrier of goods sold, see "Sales,"
§ 3.
Discrimination against race, see "Civil Rights."
Excessive damages for injuries to passenger, see
"Damages," § 3.

Harmless error in action against, see "Appeal
and Error," § 20.

Jurisdictional amount in controversy in action
New trial after remand of action for injuries
to enforce lien, see "Courts," § 4.
to live stock, see "Appeal and Error," § 22.

Opinion evidence in action for injuries to live

stock, see "Evidence," § 12.

Parol evidence in action for injuries to passen-
ger, see "Evidence," § 11.
Questions presented for review in action for
loss of baggage, see "Appeal and Error," § 3.
Secondary evidence of way bill, see "Evidence,"
§ 5.

§ 1. Carriage of goods.

Contract of affreightment held binding on both carrier and shipper, though not signed by the latter.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99.

It is competent for a railroad company to bind itself by contract to furnish cars at a place not on its own line, but on the line of a connecting carrier.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Kyser & Sutherland (Tex. Civ. App.) 389.

Certain testimony held to show that a witness was an agent for a carrier, with authority to bind it by a contract to furnish cars.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. of Texas v. Kyser & Suth

Attestation of bill of exceptions, see "Criminal erland (Tex. Civ. App.) 389.
Law," § 22.

CALENDARS.

Of causes for trial, see "Trial," § 1.

CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

See "Quieting Title"; "Reformation of Instru-
ments."

Agreement for division of estate, see "Descent
and Distribution," § 1.
Conveyance of homestead, see "Homestead,"
§ 2.

Deed, see "Deeds," § 1; "Escrows."
Rescission of contracts, see "Sales," § 2.
Rescission of exchange, see "Exchange of Prop-
erty."

Setting aside fraudulent conveyances,
"Fraudulent Conveyances," § 3.

CANDIDATES.

For office, see "Elections," § 3.

see

In an action on an oral contract for delay of carrier in furnishing cars, held error to ignore a subsequent written contract releasing liability, pleaded by defendant and not attacked by plaintiff's pleadings.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Underwood (Tex. Civ. App.) 713.

Where a carrier was not notified, until after

the contract of shipment had been entered into, that the goods were desired for a special purpose, necessitating prompt delivery, it was not liable for special damage caused by failure to deliver promptly.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. C. C. Mill Elevator & Light Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 753.

A carrier, guilty of unreasonable delay in forwarding a shipment of grain, held liable for the difference between the market price at the time the grain should have arrived and at the time it did arrive.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. C. C. Mill Elevator & Light Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 753.

In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment, the burden is on the carrier to show that a stipulation limiting the time within

which an action may be brought is reasonable. | to deliver the stock promptly, does not cover -Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. a negligent delay.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & Godair Commission Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 871. P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9.

$ 12. Loss of or injury to goods. Delay of a railroad company in delivering In an action against a carrier for loss of hogs at pens after arrival at their destination goods before delivery, the burden is on defend-held grossly negligent.-Smith v. Chicago, R. ant to account for the loss.-Alexander v. Mc- I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9. Nally (Mo. App.) 1.

[blocks in formation]

A carrier held not liable for special damages for delay in transporting cattle feed, where it had no knowledge when the contract was executed that special damages would arise.Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Bourland (Tex. Civ. App.) 173.

In an action by the consignee of corn against the carrier for damage to the corn, held error not to permit defendant to show the amount paid by the consignee in compromise of a claim against him by one to whom he had sold the damaged corn.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. McDurmitt Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 355.

§ 2. - Connecting carriers.

Where a carrier receives goods for transportation to a destination beyond its terminus, its common-law liability ends with delivery to the succeeding carrier.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

A carrier, contracting to transport goods to a point beyond the termination of its own line, may by contract protect itself against liability for injury and delay not occurring on its own line.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99.

An initial carrier held liable for loss of goods on the line of a connecting carrier. Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.)

99.

Where a carrier is paid full freight for carriage to a destination beyond the termination of the carrier's line, the contract is to carry the goods through to their destination. and the first carrier is responsible for the delivery of the goods.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99.

Where a carrier agreed to transport freight to a point beyond its own line by means of a certain designated connecting carrier, delivery to a different connecting carrier was a breach of the contract.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99.

§ 3. Carriage of live stock.

A provision in a contract for the shipment of hogs held to require notice to be given the carrier of a claim arising from the death or shrinkage of the hogs through delay in delivery, and for damages resulting from a fall in the market during such delay.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9.

Under a contract for the shipment of live stock, the giving of notice of injuries thereto held a prerequisite to the right to recover for such injuries.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9.

A contract by a shipper, in consideration of a reduced rate, exempting the carrier from liability occasioned by failure to deliver the stock in time for a particular market, is reasonable and enforceable.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9.

Contracts between a shipper and carrier, fixing the value of the shipment to liquidate damages in case of injury, in order to be valid, must be entered into by the shipper before or at the time the goods are delivered for transportation. -Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 553.

provision in a contract of shipment of cattle Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 320, held, that a that no recovery could be had for damages to the cattle, unless written notice be given of the claim before removal of the cattle from the cars, was void.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168.

§ 4.

Actions against carriers of live stock.

In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment of live stock, evidence considered, and held not to show that a reduced charge for carriage was agreed to by the parties as consideration for a stipulation liquidating damages in case of injury.-Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 553.

A recital in a bill of lading that the shipment was carried at a special rate, in consideration of a stipulation liquidating damages in case of loss, was insufficient alone to show a carriage at a reduced rate.-Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 553.

A petition in an action against several carriers held sufficient, under Act May 20, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 214, c. 125).-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168.

In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment of horses, plaintiff held not entitled to recover certain special damages. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168.

In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment of live stock, the measure of damages stated.-Missouri, K. & T. Co. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168.

without rough handling is not negligence as The failure of a carrier to transport cattle matter of law.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Garrett (Tex. Civ. App.) 172.

In an action against a carrier for injury to live stock, evidence held to warrant submission of question to the jury whether the shipment was on the terms of a written contract between plaintiff and defendant.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Garrett (Tex. Civ. App.) 172.

In action against carrier for injuries to cattle in transit, allegation in petition as to contract for sale of cattle held not vulnerable to special exception, though having no place in the petition, in the absence of allegation of notice to defendant.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.) 191.

In action against carrier for injuries to cattle in transit, allegation in petition as to selling price of cattle held obnoxious to special exception.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.) 191.

In action against carrier for injury to cattle in transit, evidence that improper bedding was cause of injury to cattle held inadmissible.Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.) 191.

In an action against a carrier for damages A contract by a shipper of live stock, ex- for cattle detained by the carrier in unsuitable empting the carrier from liability for failure' pens after arrival at destination, the allega

tions of the complaint held sufficient to ad-
mit certain evidence as to the character of the
place where the cattle were kept.-Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. A. S. Veale & Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.) 202.

In an action against a carrier for keeping
cattle, after arrival at destination, in unsuitable
pens, held, that evidence as to the market price
at the nearest place having a market was ad-
missible. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
A. S. Veale & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 202.

In an action against a carrier for damages
for the holding of cattle in unsuitable pens
after arrival at destination, the measure of
damages determined.-Atchison, T. & S. F.
Ry. Co. v. A. S. Veale & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)
202.

In an action for damages to live stock by
delay in transit, evidence of actual loss in value
of the animals held competent, where there
was no market at their destination.-Texas &
P. Ry. Co. v. Ellerd (Tex. Civ. App.) 362.

In an action for damages to live stock by de-
lay in transit, evidence that plaintiff told de-
fendant's agent that he wished to enter the
stock at a fair held improper under the plead-
ings. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Ellerd (Tex. Civ.
App.) 362.

Evidence held not to show that there was a
market for animals at their place of destination,
so as to preclude a recovery for depreciation
in actual value.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Ellerd
(Tex. Civ. App.) 362.

In an action against a carrier for injuries to
cattle in transit, petition held sufficiently spe-
cific in its allegations of damage.-Texas &
P. Ry. Co. v. Sherrod (Tex. Civ. App.) 363.
Measure of damages for injury to cattle in
transit held determined by market value at des-
tination.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Sherrod (Tex.
Civ. App.) 363.

In an action against a carrier for damages
to a shipment of live stock, held, that the differ-
ence in the market value at the place of desti-
nation was the correct measure of damages.-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Kyser
& Sutherland (Tex. Civ. App.) 389.

An instruction that a shipper was entitled to
damages for "rough handling" of live stock by
the carrier held not cured by an instruction
making recovery depend on negligence.- Ft.
Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. James (Tex. Civ.
App.) 730.

An instruction authorizing recovery of such
damages as "might have" resulted from unrea-
sonable delay or rough handling of a carrier
held erroneous.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v.
James (Tex. Civ. App.) 730.

§ 5.

Carriage of passengers.

A carrier held, under a contract, only bound
to use reasonable diligence in forwarding an-
other carrier instructions to deliver a ticket
to plaintiff, and not liable for delay of the
other carrier in delivering the ticket after the
instructions had been received. Brezewitz v.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 127.

Contract of carriage held a through one to a
certain station and city.-Hubbard v. Mobile &
O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

Rev. St. 1899, § 5222, relative to connecting
carriers, held inapplicable to a contract of
carriage made in Illinois, and consequently
governed by the laws of that state.-Hubbard
v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

An assault committed by a street car conduc;
tor on a passenger held a continuing one, and
that the relation of carrier and passenger had
not entirely terminated when plaintiff was kick-
ed by the conductor after he had alighted.-
Flynn v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.) 560.

A passenger may alight from his train at a
switch track near an intermediate station with-
out forfeiting his status.-Texas Midland R.
R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213.

In an action against a carrier for refusal to
stop a train and permit plaintiff to alight at a
point to which she had purchased a ticket, held,
that plaintiff was not misled into getting upon
the wrong train.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bell
(Tex. Civ. App.) 730.

A passenger with means of ascertaining
whether a train will deliver him at his destina-
tion held bound to avail himself of his opportu-
nity to enter the right conveyance.-Texas & P.
Ry. Co. v. Bell (Tex. Civ. App.) 730.

[blocks in formation]

It is not sufficient that a street car should
stop a reasonable time for passengers to alight,
but the carrier's servants are bound to see that
no person is in the act of alighting, or is in a
dangerous position, before putting the car in
motion.-Little Rock Traction & Electric Co.
v. Kimbro (Ark.) 121, 644.

Carriers are not insurers of the safety of
passengers, nor bound to protect them against
accidents caused by their own acts or omis
sions, but are required to exercise a high de
gree of care to secure their safety.-Little
Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro
(Ark.) 121, 644.

A passenger held not entitled to recover for
sickness caused by riding in a smoking car st
the direction of a porter.-Brezewitz v. St.
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 127.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, the
petition held sufficient to support a verdict for
plaintiff on the theory of negligence, with an
unproved allegation of willfulness eliminated.
-Cramer v. Springfield Traction Co. (Mo.
App.) 24.

In an action for injuries to a passenger of a
street car by the premature starting thereof as
she was attempting to alight, plaintiff's evi-
dence held sufficient to make out a prima facie
case. Cramer v. Springfield Traction Co. (Mo.
App.) 24.

In an action for injuries to a passenger while
alighting from a street car, the motorman Avid
not guilty of negligence as a matter of law in
failing to see that plaintiff was in the act of
alighting when he started the car.-Cramer v.
Springfield Traction Co. (Mo. App.) 24.

In an action for injuries to a passenger on
a street car, an instruction that it was the
duty of the motorman to have observed plain-
tiff until she reached the street in safety be
fore starting the car held error.-Cramer v.
Springfield Traction Co. (Mo. App.) 24.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, mod-
ification of an instruction with reference to the
cause of plaintiff's injuries held not error.-
Flynn v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. App.) 560.

passenger, was prima facie proof that the en
That a locomotive boiler exploded, injuring a
gine was unsafe or mismanaged.-Kelly v. Chi-
cago & A. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 583.

On an issue of negligence in maintaining a
defective step on a passenger car, testimony
that witness spoke to third parties of the de-
R. R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213.
fective step held inadmissible.-Texas Midland

Undue prominence held not given to the char
acter of duty required of a conductor by para-
graphs of a charge in an action for injury to a
T. C. R. Co. v. Copley (Tex. Civ. App.) 219.
passenger while boarding a train.-Houston &

In an action for injuries to a passenger, held
proper to refuse an instruction that plaintiff
could not recover if the injuries were the re
sult of any other cause than that complained

of. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas cover exemplary damages.-Little Rock Tracv. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, a phrase by way of illustration in an instruction held not to have rendered it_erroneous.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, an instruction held not to have made the defendant an insurer of the absolute safety of passengers. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387.

In an action against a carrier for injuries to a passenger from the discharge of hot cinders from a locomotive, evidence held sufficient to show that the engine was negligently handled and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the escape of the cinders.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 841.

Carrier held liable for injury to passenger for failure to furnish car capable of being made comfortably warm.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.) 879.

In an action for injuries to a passenger by being struck by a car door, plaintiff held entitled to recover in the event the proof showed some degree of negligence on defendant's part on any one or more of the grounds alleged in the petition.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Leakey (Tex. Civ. App.) 1168. § 7.

Contributory

person injured.

negligence

tion & Electric Co. v. Winn (Ark.) 1025.

A passenger held entitled to recover for expulsion from a train, owing to refusal of agent to indorse a return trip ticket.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Payne (Tex. Sup.) 330.

That a passenger, ejected for refusing an unwarranted demand for fare, had sufficient money with him, held admissible on the question of damages.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.) 884.

[blocks in formation]

Evidence as to the loss of a passenger's baggage held suflicient to make a prima facie case. -Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

Petition against a carrier for the loss of baggage held not converted into a petition for negligence by mere allegation that the baggage O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. was lost by negligence.-Hubbard v. Mobile &

The mere fact that a passenger received her baggage from a terminal association, and not from the carrier. held not to show that the latter's liability, both as carrier and as warehouseman, had ceased.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

In an action against a carrier for the loss of baggage, the burden is on the carrier to show facts reducing its liability to that of warehouseman.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. of (Mo. App.) 52.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, an instruction held erroneous for failure to define plaintiff's negligent conduct, referred to as not constituting a defense in case it was not the immediate cause of the injury.-Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 121, 644.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, instructions held erroneous as excluding the ques tion whether, in the exercise of reasonable foresight, the conductor should have anticipated that plaintiff would be injured by alighting from the car when in motion, as he did.Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 121, 644.

In an action against a street railroad company for injuries to a passenger, an instruction on the care required of defendant held defective and misleading.-Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 644.

A passenger on a street car held justified, by the custom of disobeying an ordinance requiring street cars to stop on the far crossing, to suppose the car, stopping before it had reached the far crossing, had stopped to let her off. -Franklin v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 930.

Passenger, guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to board a moving train, could not recover, whether he was negligent in other respects or not.--Texas Midland R. R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213.

Passenger, boarding a moving train, knowing it was dangerous to do so, held guilty of contributory negligence in law.-Texas Midland R. R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213.

Though a passenger alighted when the train

A carrier which agrees to transport a passenger and baggage to destination is responsible throughout the journey for the loss of the baggage by itself or by any other carrier.Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

The status of warehouseman sets in and that of carrier ceases when the passenger has had a reasonable time in which to take his baggage away.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

Carrier under a through contract is liable, either as carrier or warehouseman, for a passenger's baggage until it delivers the same.Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

embraces only such articles as are baggage in a technical sense.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

A carrier's common-law liability for baggage

Carrier held an insurer against every loss of baggage, except one due to the act of God or of a public enemy.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52.

CASE CERTIFIED OR RESERVED.

For determination of questions of law, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 7.
Sufficiency of certified question, see "Appeal
and Error," § 11.

was moving, it was a question for the jury See "Animals."
whether he was guilty of contributory negli-
gence. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of
Texas v. Ratley (Tex. Civ. App.) 407.

18.

CATTLE.

CATTLE GUARDS.

Ejection of passengers and in- See "Railroads," § 5. truders.

In an action for ejection of a passenger from

a street car, on the ground that his transfer

CAUSE OF ACTION.

was too late, plaintiff held not entitled to re- See "Action."

87 S.W.-77

CERTIFICATE.

See "Affidavits."

As evidence, see "Evidence," § 10.
Certified copies, see "Evidence," § 10.
Land certificate, see "Public Lands," § 1.
Mutual benefit insurance certificate, see "In-
surance," § 11.

Of acknowledgment of written instrument, see
"Acknowledgment," § 1.

Of case or question of law for determination,
see "Appeal and Error," § 7.

CERTIORARI.

Review of discharge on habeas corpus, see
"Habeas Corpus," § 1.
Review of primary election contest, see "Elec-
tions," § 3.

Review of proceedings to form school district,
see "Schools and School Districts," § 1.

1. Proceedings and determination.
Certiorari brings up for review only the rec-
ord of the tribunal to which it is directed, and
not the evidence; nor can the evidence be con-
sidered, even though included in the return.-
School Dist. No. 2, Tp. 24, R. 6 E., Butler
County, v. Pace (Mo. App.) 580.

[blocks in formation]

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

Right of mortgagee as against attaching credit-
or, see "Attachment," § 3.
Verdict in action to foreclose, see "Trial," § 12.

§ 1. Requisites and validity.

Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 3327, held, that on
a sale of chattels, possession being given the
purchaser, a verbal reservation of title to secure
the purchase money constituted a valid mort-
gage between the parties.-Crews v. Harlan
(Tex. Sup.) 656.

Mortgage of cattle held to sufficiently describe
the mortgaged property.-Scaling v. First Nat.
Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.

that where the mortgage was recorded.-Sea-
ling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.

Mortgagee held entitled to sue one who con-
verts mortgaged property, regardless of the
question of other security.-Scaling v. First
Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.

The measure of a mortgagee's damages for
the conversion of the mortgaged property by a
stranger is the amount of his debt, if that be

less than the value of the property converted.-
Scaling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.)
715.

§ 4. Foreclosure.

In a suit to foreclose a mortgage, the court
had no jurisdiction to enter an order of sale
before judgment of foreclosure. - Tipton v.
Harris (Ky.) 1074.

In a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, a
judgment of foreclosure against a certain de-
fendant is not authorized, in the absence of a
finding in favor of plaintiff for a foreclosure
against such defendant.-Martin v. Berry Bros.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 712.

Testimony describing cattle mortgaged to
plaintiff and sold to defendant held to show
that they were the cattle covered by the mort-
gage in question.-Scaling v. First Nat. Bank
(Tex. Civ. App.) 715.

Petition to foreclose mortgage on cattle held
not to vary from the mortgage. Scaling v.
First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 715.

A mortgagee of cattle which belonged to the
mortgagor individually cannot be postponed in
the collection of its debt to the adjustment of
equities existing between the mortgagor and his
partner. Scaling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.
App.) 715.

[blocks in formation]

CITIES.

§ 2. Construction and operation.
Failure of the county clerk to discharge his
duty in respect to mortgages duly filed with See "Municipal Corporations."
him does not affect the mortgagee's rights.-
Scaling v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.)

715.

[blocks in formation]

1

CITIZENS.

Equal protection of laws, see "Constitutional
Law," § 7.

Privileges and immunities, see "Constitutional
Law," § 6.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »