페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Mayor of a city of the third class not an offi- tutional.--Witzman . Southern Ry. Co. (Mo.)
cer of the state, within Const. art. 6, § 12 | 181.
(Amendment 1884, $ 5).-State ex rel. Ragsdale
v. Walker (Mo.) 813.

Act April 29, 1895, in relation to forgery,

did not take effect till 90 days after the ad-
Statute of Frauds.

journment of the legislature, April 30, 1895.-

Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 232.
See "Frauds, Statute of."

Act April, 1895, providing for collection of
Statute of Limitations.

local improvement assessments, held not uncon-

stitutional as amending a former law by refer-
See "Limitation of Actions."

ence to its title.--City of Little Rock v. Quind-

ley (Ark.) 1053.
STATUTES.

Where a law prohibiting the sale of liquor
Proof of foreign laws, see "Evidence."

in a county was repealed as to a certain town,

no prosecution under the former law can be
Act March 3, 1869, relating to rates of fare had after its repeal.-Wooten v. Commonwealth
on street railways in St. Louis, held unconsti-(Ky.) 397.

STATUTES CONSTRUED.

UNITED STATES.
GENERAL STATUTES 1883.

GENERAL STATUTES 1865.
Page 972
CONSTITUTION.

197 | Page 270, § 69.....

67

Ch. 63, § 20.
Amends. 8, 14..
306

20
GENERAL STATUTES 1888.
Ch. 152, $$ 46, 49.

6
Art. 1, $ 8..
71 Page 698, ch. 48, 8 4..... 834 Ch. 161, $ 8.

6
Page 720

832
ARKANSAS.
Page 972

197 REVISED STATUTES 1879.
Ch. 28, art. 7.
CONSTITUTIOX.

1112
Ch. 38, art. 11, § 1, sub-

Volume 1.
Art. 2, § 21..
106

$ 3296

395
sec. 2

457
1053
Art. 5, § 23.
Ch. 38, art. 12, $ 1......1116

$ 4010

810
GOULD'S DIGEST.
Ch. 38. art. 12, § 1, sub-

Volume 2.
Page 504, $'$ 29, 30.1059, 1060 sec. 3

197 $ 7113

67
Ch, 62

825
MANSFIELD'S DIGEST.
Ch. 63, § 22

193 REVISED STATUTES 1889.
88 5763, 5769...

.. 959
STATUTES 1894.

Volume 1.
SANDELL & HILL'S DIGEST.
$ 11

Page 49
1118

1130
$$ 217, 219
530 $ 465

397
$ 944

71
88 943, 945, 948.
632 $ 182

. 403
$$ 1815-1821

51
106 $ 571

$ 2042
§ 2412

.1105

5+
$ 2593
639 $ 654

$ 2074
937

1
.107-1 ! $ 772
$8 2927, 2928

$ 2135

.822, 939
§ 48.1
813 $ 1112

ŠS 2137-2139
948

781
$ 4856
210 ; $ 1162

$ 2188

1104
8 4868
843 $ 1161

91
$ 2241

64
$ 5696
842 § 1160

413
$ 2258

49
$$ 6211, 6217.
208 $ 1174

88
2261

50
$$ 6606, 6612.
99 : $ 1242

413
§ 2262

49
8
6992 ..
.1053 $ 1453

199
$ 2303

18
$S 1470, 1481

8 3487
LAWS.

3, 167
401
$ 2127

.621, 937
$ 3526

3.5
1873, p. 32..

731
$82519. 2351

SS 35-19, 3550.

..1147

78
843
1889, p. 95.
$ 3031

$ 3581
96

+1, 42
1895, April. Municipal Im-

$ 3058, subd. 2.

84
$ 3746

1149
provements ..

..1053
$$ 4364, 4382, 1415, 4500 93

$ 3798

797
$ 4805

$ 3941
KENTUCKY.

022, 623

3.)
$ 1111

788
LAWS.
CONSTITUTION.

§ 4138

809)
§ 11
948 1880-90, p. 1125.

790
$ 107
199 1882, p. 97.
. 1112 SS 4208, 4210..

809
$ 181 .
81 1886, p. 899.

787
207.
188 1894, p. 212
913 88 1518, 1520.

4.13
Civil CODE.

Volume 2
$ 39

MISSOURI.

Page 2108, art. 4, $ 29, St.
$ 126

CoxsTITUTION 1875.

Louis City Charter. 480
$ 194

89
8 194. subd. 6.
Art. 2, $ 22.

Pages 2122 2123, 212,
1107

799
Art. 4. § 32.

art. 6, SS 14, 18, 27. St.
$ 317, subsec. 5.

181
027
Art. 4, § 53.

Louis City Charter
88 334, 337

784

180
620
Art. 4, § 50.

Page 2153, 8 7.
$ 518

.1130

.1136
932
8 739
Art. 6, § 2.

Ch. 78, $$ 5412, 5414....1136
198

11
Art. 6, § 12...813, 1123, 1125 Ch. 138, art. 8, § 7728 et

Ch. 138, art. 6, § 7682... 22
$ 745

932

Art. 9
8 761
838

1130
Art. 12, § 27

41
seg.

22
CRIMINAL CODE 1851.
Art. 15, $ 1.

.1130
$ 5209

783
$ 190 ...
948 Art. 15, $ 2.

448
.1130, 1131 88 5435, 5436, 5442.
$ 5510

470
CRIMINAL CODE 1889.

CONSTITUTION 1884.
SS5944, 5945.

11
88 51, 66....

....11, 813 6764

466
189
948

§ 7682

464
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

§ 8870

61
CODE OF PRACTICE.
$ 2088
452 $ 8918

816
§ 723
395 / $ 2092
1125 $ 8925

809
v.338. W.-76

204 +167

397 $ 4212

1103 $ 5

[ocr errors]

CITY CHARTERS.
Art. 040
367 | Art. 1421 ......

606
Kansas City, art. 13.....1138 Art. 746

228 Art. 1514 .

585
St. Louis. Rev. St. 1889, p.

Art. 750
867 Arts. 2204, 2205 .

271
2108, art. 4, § 29... 480

Penal Code.
Art. 2248

155
St. Louis, Rev. St. 1889,

Art. 2342

284
Art. 120
pp. 2122, 2123 2125, art.

229
Art. 2855

718
6, 88 14, 18, 27.

Art. 339. Amended
480

by
Art. 2971

.995-997
Laws 1889, p. 33.

972
Art. 3207

298
LAWS.
Art. 355

. 1080
Art. 4216

159
1833, n. 37.
3 Art. 597, subd. 2.

968
Art. 4823

321
1869, p. 207.
181 Art. 612 ..

970
1872, p. 84....

464
SAYLES' CIVIL STATUTES.

CITY CHARTERS.
1887, p. 114.
451

Dallas. Laws 1885; Laws
1887, p. 272..

Volume 1.
3

1889, p. 1...

.. 757
1891, p. 134, $ 4.
447 | Art. 650

886
1895, p. 5...
3 Art. 180a

San Antonio. Laws 1870,
910

735
1895, p. 150.
784 Art. 683

P. 280 ...

682
Art. 1146

117

LAWS.
TENNESSEE.
Art. 1443

376
Art. 1468

852

1836. Probate Courts..... 329
MILLIKEN & VERTREES' CODE. Arts. 1993–1999, 2002,

1838, May 18. Public
$ 398
925 2007, 2008.

Lands
663

330
1542
725 Art. 2337

710

1838, Dec. 24. Public
$ 3309
.561, 613 Art. 2971

.992, 995
Lands

330
3334

1859–60, p. 30, $$ 8, 9.... 298
613
§ 5552

921
Volume 2.
1870, p. 91....

251
$ 6077
924 Art. 3171

881 1870, p. 280. San Antonio
Art. 3171. Amended by

City Charter

735
LAWS.
Laws 1889, p. 112. 652 1871, p. 29...

.899, 900
1889, ch. 220...
724 Art. 3179 ...
652 1871, p. 30, $ 5.

899
1891, p. 269, $ 12.
924 Art. 3226a
113 1871, p. 31...

251
1893, ch. 39, 8 1..
922 Arts. 3233, 3238.
885 1871, p. 31, § 14.

899
1893, ch. 89, $81, 7. 573 Art. 3911

758 1879, p. 116, $$ 1, 2, 9.
1893, ch. 107, $ 1. .1041 | Art. 4232

761 Amended by Laws 1883,
1893, ch. 174, $$ 3, 6..... 573
573 | Art. 1332
153 p. 83

306
Art. 4532
376 1879, p. 116, 8 7.

306
TEXAS.

1879, p. 137

..1020
SAYLES' SUPPLEMENT REVISED 1883, p. 83.

306
CONSTITUTION 1869.

STATUTES.

1885. Dallas City Charter. 757
Art. 12, $ 23........899, 900 Art. 1011a. Amended by 1887, p. 98..

885
Art. 12, 8 32.

899

Laws 1895, p. 145..... 534 1889, p. 1. Dallas City
Art. 1211a. Amended by

Charter

757
CONSTITUTION.
Laws 1893, p. 3..
558 1889, p. 33.

972
Art. 1, $ 17.
7758 Art. 1466
888 1889, p. 55.

888
Art. 5, $11.
220 | Art. 3203b

890 1889, p. 100. Amended by
Art. 5, § 22.
.1020

Laws 1893, p. 47.. 758
Art. 11

REVISED STATUTES 1879.
322

1889, p. 112..

652
Art. 11, $ 5.
263 Tit. 17
606 1889, p. 143.

849
Art. 16, 59.
1088 Tit. 37, ch. 18 .

663 | 1891, p. 135..

747
Art. 316
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Art. 375

243 1891, ch. 24, $ 2.

716
391 1892, p. 29, $ 24.

149
Arts. 124, 125....
892 Arts. 648, 685.
897 1893, p. 3....

558
Arts, 181, 182.
. 360 Art. 686 et seq.
1020 1893, p. 47.

758
Arts. 415-417
..1082 Art. 1230

383 1893, p. 120...

373
Art. 433
126 Art. 1235
910 1893, p. 178, $ 6.

350
Art. 518
.1083 Art. 1318-1320

215 1895, p. 106..

232
Art. 584
· 354' Art. 1401 .
322 1895, p. 145, $ 8.

534

Stay.
See "Continuance."

Stealing
See “Burglary"; "Embezzlement"; "Larceny."

principal to his sureties to protect them against
their liability on several notes, including one to
plaintiff.--First Nat. Bank v. Wheeler (Tex.
Civ. App.) 1093.

On paymen: of a vendor's lien note at the
instance of the maker and payee, and receipt
of a note for a like a mount, held that the per-
son making the payment was subrogated to the
original lien.-Denecamp v. Townsend (Tex.
Civ. App.) 254.

On payment by the maker of a note which
another person has contracted with him to pay,
the maker is not subrogated, as against such
person, to the rights of the payee. --Halbert v.
Paddleford (Tex. Civ. App.) 592.

Stock.
See “Animals."
Corporate stock, see "Corporations."
Killed on track, see "Railroad Companies."

Street Railroads.
See "Horse and Street Railroads."


Streets.
See "Highways."
Control of, see "Municipal Corporations."

Succession,
See “Descent and Distribution”; “Executors

and Administrators."

[ocr errors]

Suit.

SUBROGATION.

See "Action."
Plaintiff, a creditor of the principal debtor,
held subrogated to a mortgage executed by said See "Writs."

Summons.

SUNDAY.

The clerk's record, made after a tax sale, un-

der Mansf. Dig. $ 5769, is the evidence of the
In computation of time, see "Time."

amount for which the land was sold, and can-
Sale of liquor on, see "Intoxicating Liquors." not be contradicted.-Salinger v. Gunn (Ark.)

959.
An application for a writ of error may be
lawfully filed on Sunday.-Hanover Fire Ins.

A suit to redeem from a tax sale held not an
Co. v. Shrader (Tex Sup.) 112.

"action for the recovery of any lands or for

the possession thereof” (Sand. & H. Dig. $
Barbering is "la boring” within a general stat- 2593; Act Jan. 10, 1857), so as to require plain-
ute prohibiting labor on Sunday. -- State v. tiff to file the affidavit required by such act.-
Granneman (Mo.) 784.

Burgett v. McCray (Ark.) 639.
On trial for Sabbath breaking, the burden is

Tax deed.
on defendant to show that the work was of

A deed on a sale for taxes assessed against
necessity.-Shipley y. State (Ark.) 107.

one to whom the county had made a void con-

veyance, confers no title --Moss V. Kauffman
Suretyship.

(Mc.) 20.
See “Principal and Surety."

Title to land at tax sale under Laws 1872
does not vest till delivery of the deeds.-Hilton

v. Smith (Mo.) 464.
Surprise.
As ground for continuance in criminal cases, see

Teacher.
“Criminal Law.”

See "Schools and School Districts."
Surrender.
Of lease, see "Landlord and Tenant."

TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.
Of pledge, see "Pledge."

Negligence.

Bringing of an action for failure to deliver a
Swindling.

telegram, within 60 days after notice thereof,

held a compliance with a stipulation that any
See “False Pretenses."

claim for damages should be presented within
60 days.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mellon

(Tenn.) 725.
TAXATION.

The sender of a telegram is not bound to an-
Collateral inheritance tax, see "Descent and ticipate delay in delivery.-Mitchell v. Western
Distribution.”

Union Tel Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1016.
Local license tax, see "Intoxicating Liquors."

A comany is iiable for negligent failure to
Of costs, see “Costs."

deliver a message to one other than the seniler
Payment of taxes as evidence of possession, see and addressee, whose interest in the delivery is
"Adverse Possession."

disclosed by the message.- Western Union Tel.
Act March 19, 1894, to regulate and insure Co. v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 1025.
the assessmert of property for taxation, is a Rule as to the effect of a mistake in trans-
permanent statute.-Commonwealth v. Holidy mission of telegram determined.-Mitchell v.
(Ky.) 943.

Western Union Tel Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1016.
A tax on vehicles imposed by a city under

Negligent delay of plaintiff in sending a tele-
St. $ 3058, subd. 2, hdi valid as a tax on 00- gram wil: not estop him from recovering from
cupation. ---City of Covington v. Woods (Ky.) defendant foi negligence in delivering it.-
84.

Mitchell v, Western Union Tel. Co. (Tex. Civ.
An indictment for failure to comply with re- App.) 1016.
quirements of Act March 19, 1894, to regulate A provision releasing a telegraph company
assessments cannot be had before August 15th from mistake unless the telegram is repeated
of the current year.-Commonwealth v. Holidy construed.-Mitchell v. Western Union Tel. Co.
(Ky.) 943.

(Tex. Civ. App.) 1016.
Under Rev. St. 1889, $$ 7682. 7728, in an

A telegraph company should use ordinary care
action against a railroad company for back in selecring the route by which to send a mes-
taxes on land, tax bills certified from the gen- sage.- Mitchell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Tex.
eral tax books of the county are not admissible. Civ. App.) 1016.
--State ex rel. Gibson v. Davis (Mo.) 22.

Under Mill. & V. Code, $ 1542, a telegraph
Judgment in a suit to enforce taxes of 1877, company is liable for failure to deliver a tele-
and sale thereunder, will divest title of one en-gram to the person who appears to be the ben-
titled to, but who had not procured, collector's eficiary.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mellon
deeds for sales of previous years.--Hilton v. (Tenn.) 725.
Smith (Mo.) 464.

A telegram announcing the death of the ad-
One entitled to collector's deeds under the dressee's father held notice that he would de-
revenue act of 1872, who has not procured them sire to attend his father's funeral.-Western
when suit is commenced for delinquent taxes, Union Tel. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 742.
is not the owner, and entitled to notice, within
Rev. St. 1889, 8' 7682.-Hilton v. Smith (Mo.) | tice of the relationship between parties named

A telegraph company is chargeable with no-
401.

in a telegram. — Western Union Tel. Co. v.
Sale.

Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 742.
Under the revenue act of March 17, 1873,

Plaintiff, to recover for the loss of a trade
lands could not be sold for delinquent taxes through negligent delivery of a message, must
until the following year. - McConnell v. Day show that he would have made it if the message
(Ark.) 731.

had been delivered.-Western Union Tel. Co. v.
A sale of an entire block of lots en masse is Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 1025.
void.-Salinger v. Gunn (Ark.) 939.

Evidence examined, and held to justify a find-
A sale for a sum including 25 cents more ing that defendant was negligent in delivering
costs than allowed by law is void.-Salinger v. the telegram.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith
Gunn (Ark.) 959.

(Tex. Civ. App.) 742.

Evidence held to be incompetent in an action

Transfer.
by a father against a telegraph company for
failure to deliver a message announcing the Of bills and notes, see "Negotiable Instruments."
illness of his son.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Of cause to equity docket, see "Practice in Civ-
Mellon (Tenn.) 725.

il Cases.”
Damages.

TRESPASS.
Error in transmitting a telegram held to jus-
tify nominal damages only. -Western Union Tel. Injuries to trespassers, see “Railroad Compa-
Co. v. Aubrey (Ark., 1063.

nies.”
Damages to the amount of $100 for failure
to deliver a telegram announcing the death of

One in possession of a cultivated lot and a
plaintiff's child are not excessive.- Western pasture, without title, after knowledge that
Union Tel. Co. v. Guest (Tex. Civ. App.) 281. cattle had been put in the pasture by the own-

er's lessee, must put the tence in repair before
Verdict for $1.500 held not excessive, in an ac- she can hold the lessee liable for crops destroyed
tion for failure to deliver a telegram inform- by his cattle.-Heironimus v. Duncan (Tex. Civ.
ing plaintiff of his child's sickness.-Western App.) 287
.Union Tel. Co. v. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.) 708.

Evidence in trespass against trustees of a
Evidence of damage for inability to close a town for entering on plaintiff's lot for the pur-
trade through failure to deliver message held in- pose of extending a street held to justify judg-
sufficient.-Western Union Tel. Co. v. Morrison ment for plaintiff.-Harelson v. Elsey (Ky.) 91.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 1025.

An instruction in an action for trespass and
Measure of damages for shrinkage of cattle for damages for forcible entry held not erro-
er telegranı determined. - Mitchell v. Western neous.--Heironimus v. Duncan (Tex. Civ. App.)
Union Tel. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1016.

TENDER.

TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE.
A tender of the amount due on a note for See, also, “Ejectment”; “Quieting Title - Re-
which a vendor's lien was retained, on condi-

moval of Cloud."
tion that the vendor, the owner of the lien,
should execute a release, is valid.-Engelbach in possession against one out of possession.-

Trespass to try title may be brought by one
v. Simpson (Tex. Civ. App.) 596.

Edrington v. Butler (Tex. Civ. App.) 113.

It is no defense to an action by one claim-
Testament.

ing under foreclosure that defendant bought
See "Wills."

the land from the state, and had not entirely

paid for it.-Bradford v. Stoneroad (Tex. Civ.
Testamentary Capacity.

App.) 156.

Though plaintiff and defendants claim 327
See "Wills."

acres of land in the same 640-acre tract, plain-

tiff cannot recover, as against defendants, in
Testimony.

the absence of evidence that both claim the
See "Deposition"; "Evidence"; "Witness."

same land.--Halley v. Fontaine (Tex. Civ. App.)

260.
Theft.

A petition in trespass to try title to recover

a tract of land" described as "327 acres,
See "Larceny."

* being part of a 640-acre tract," insuffi-

ciently describes the land.-Halley v. Fontaine
TIME. .

(Tex Civ. App.) 260.

An insufficient description, in a petition in
Of taking appeal, see "Appeal."

trespass to try title, cannot be cured by ref-
Sunday is not to be computed in the time al- erence to a deed which also contains an in-
lowed for filing a motion for a new trial.- detinite description.-Halley y. Fontaine (Tex.
Riley v. Grace (Ky.) 207.

Civ. App.) 260.
Where the last of the 30 days within which Evidence held insufficient to prove that a rec-
application for a writ of crror must be filed ord following the record of a deed was an in-
fall on Sunday, it cannot be excluded in com- dorsement thereon-Herndon v. Vick (Tex. Civ.
puting the time.--Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. App.) 1011.
Shrader (Tex. Sup.) 112.

Possession is prima facie evidence of title as

against one out of possession asserting an ad.
Title.

verse claim against the person in possession.-

Edrington v. Butler (Tex. Civ. App.) 143.
See "Ejectment"; "Public Lands"; "Quieting
Title--Removal of Cloud."

Where one party claims under a conveyance
Of acts, see “Statutes."

to the wife as her separate property, and the
other under a subsequent execution sale as the

property of the husband, a prima facie case of
TORTS.

a common source of title is made out.-Edring-

ton v. Butler Tex. Civ. App.) 143.
See, also, "Assault and Battery"; "Death by Where plaintiffs claimed under a lost transfer

Wrongful Act”; “Deceit"; "Intoxicating Lig- of a certain land rertificate, it was error to
uors"; "Malicious Prosecution”; “Negligence"; admit evidence that another certificate issued
"Trespass"; "Trover and Conversion.

on the same day had a transfer.-Walker v.
Liability of city, see “Municipal Corporations." Peterson Tex. Civ. App.) 269.
Measure of damages, see "Damages."

In trespass to try title against two jointly,
One consenting to a tort committed on him can they cannot complain because the judgment is
not recover compensation therefor in a civil ac rendered against each for a several parcel of the
tion. Goldnamer v. O'Brien (Ky.) 831.

land.-Lastovica v. Sulik (Tex. Civ. App.) 909.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

TRIAL.

It is error to submit an issue where there is

no evidence to establish it.-McCormick Har-
See, also, “Appeal”; “Appearance"; "Continu- | vesting Mach. Co. v. Mays (Tex. Civ. App.) 883.

ance"; "Evidence"; "Judgment”; “Jury”;1 It is error to submit an issue to the jury not
*New' Trial"; "Pleading"; "Practice in Civil made by the evidence.- Texas & P. Ry. Čo. v.
Cases”; “Witness."

Hightower (Tex. Civ. App.) 541.
Conduct in criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."

It is error to submit an issue when there is
It is reversible error for the jury to take with no evidence to establish it.-Texas & P. Ry.
them memoranda used by a witness which are Co. v Birchfield (Tex. Civ. App.) 1022.
not in evidence-Faver v. Bowers (Tex. Civ.
App.) 131.

Directing verdict.

It is error to direct a verdict for defendant
Reception of evidence.

where plaintiff has presented proof of the ma-
That plaintiff left the court room before his terial averments of his petition.--Boyd v. Cross
case was called, because sick, does not entitle (Tex. Civ. App.) 1093.
him to have the case reopened to allow him to
testify, where his attorney announced “Ready Instructions.
for trial." ---Oliver v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 2135, the court is re.
App.) 706.

quired, when requested to state in writing ev-
A witness who remained in court after the ery constructive fact in issue, and also the con-
rule had been enforced can testify in the discreclusions of law thereof, so that exceptions may
tion of the court.-Garlington v. McIntosh (Tex. be taken.-Cochran v Thomas (Mo.) 6.
Civ. App.) 399.

Under Civ. Code, $ 317, subsec. 5, written in-
A refusal to nold a case open to allow defend-structions must be given if requested by either
ant to call a witness held proper. -Johnson v. party.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Banks (Ky.)
Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 1038.

Appellant cannot complain of an erroneous
Objections to evidence.

instruction where a similar one was requested
Where experts were permitted to give their by him, and denied.-International & G. N. R.
final conclusions as to the result of their exam- Co. v. Sein (Tex. Civ. App.) 558.
inations of certain books, plaintiff cannot com-
plain that objections to its questions, calling for undue prominence to some are objectionable.-

Instructions grouping the facts so as to give
similar testimony, were sustained.-Common-
wealth v. Tate (Ky.) 405.

Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Banks (Ky.) 627.
The exclusion of evidence held harmless error,

When not error to repeat a charge already
the same facts having been proved otherwise.--- given.-Miller v. Sullivan (Tex. Civ. App.) 695.
Willis' Ex'rs v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 691. Where the instructions already given fully

The admission of hearsay evidence is harmless state the law it is not error to refuse additional
where the same facts are proven by competent instructions.--Stafford v. Hussey (Ky.) 1115.
testimony.--Getzenda ner v. Slocum (Tex. Civ. Defendant cannot complain of the refusal to
App.) 557

give an instruction requiring him to use a great-
On failure to produce written documents, ob- er degree of care than the instruction given in
jections to the insufficiency of the proof from place thereof.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of
memory will not be considered.-Northern As- Texas v. Cook (Tex. Cir. App.) 669.
sur. Co. v. Samuels (Tex. Civ. App.) 239.

A request to charge was properly refused
An improper answer is not ground for re- where the substance thereof was otherwise
versal unless the party prejudiced move to given.--San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Hard-
have it stricken out.--State ex rel. Friedman v. ing (Tex. Civ. App.) 373.
Purcell (Mo.) 13

Where a requested charge is refused, the par-
Arguments of counsel.

ty offering it is estopped to question the cor-
As against intervener in attachment, plaintiff rectness of the law, when included in the charge
has the right to open and close where he admits of the court - International & G. N. R. Co. v.
the sale to intervener by defendant prior to the Sein (Tex. Sup.) 215.
attachment.-Mansur-Tibbetts Imp. Co. v. Da- It is not error to refuse an instruction that
vis (Ark.) 1074.

it is not proper to arrive at damages by taking
Improper remarks of prosecuting attorney, if the average of the amounts the jurors believe
withdrawn from consideration of jury, by the should be recovered.-Sherwood v. Grand Ave.
court, are not ground for reversal.-Patrick v. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 774.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1078.

Where the complaint alleges one contract, and
In an action on a county convict labor bond the evidence is as to another, an instruction al-
by the county judge, statements of counsel that Kildow v. Irick (Tex. Civ. App.) 315.

lowing recovery on that alleged is erroneous.--
the suit was in behalf of the county, and that
the principal on the bond was dead, held not er- An instruction constituting a departure from
ror.-Johnson v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 682. the pleadings is erroneous.-Edwards v. Camp-

bell (Tex. Civ. App.) 761.
Demurrer tu evidence.
Where plaintiff - evidence is prima facie in-

An instruction to find for plaintiffs if the jury
sufficient for a recovery, a demurrer thereto believe that a contract different from the one
should be sustained.–State ex rel. Baumunk v. ing. Loan & Savings Ass'n v. Elliott (Tex. Civ.

.
Goetz (Mo.) 161.

App.) 545.
Where the court overruled a demurrer to plain-
tiff's evidence and entered judgment, but aft-

An instruction. in an action for causing
erwards set aside its judgment, and plaintiff death, giving the life expectancy of deceased,
was allowed to take a nonsuit 'and the cause separated from other facts with which it was
was reinstated, there was no prejudicial error. connected, was erroneous.-McClurg v. Ingle-
--Oakland Home Ins. Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ: heart (Ky.) 80.
App.) 587.

Instruction that, if the jury believe certain al-

legations to be true, plaintiff is entitled to dam-
Issues raised.

ages caused by said means, “or by any other
Whether extension of one note extends another means" charged in the petition, is erroneous.-
is a question of law.-Owings v. Mackenzie (Mo.) Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Birchfield (Tex. Civ.
802.

App.) 1022.

« 이전계속 »