« 이전계속 »
When failure to properly instructcured by ment cannot be rendered for plaintiff for the printhe verdict.-Clarkson v. Whitaker Tex. Civ. cipal demanded. Goggan v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 1032.
App.) 891. Under Rev. St. 1889, $ 2303, errors in the re- The evidence cannot be looked to for the pur. fusal of requested instructions will not be con- pose of correcting a verdict.-Goggan v. Evans sidered where the verdict is manifestly for the (Tex. Civ. App.) 891. proper party.--Burns v. City of Liberty (Mo.) 18.
Where there are two theories of the case,
and it is erroi to submit the evidence on one Necessity of request.
of them a general verdict should be set aside. A party who does not ask for more explicit - International & G. N. R. Co. v. Hall (Tex. instructions cannot complain if they are not
Civ. App.) 127. given.-Reichstetter v. Bostick (Tex. Civ. App.) A verdici “for plaintiff” is equivalent to "for 158.
plaintiffs."--Reed v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) Defendant cannot complain of a failure to
986. charge on a certain issue when he has made no Verdict of jury may be aided by reference to request therefor.---Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. the pleadings.--Reed v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 718.
986. Where an instruction is correct as far as it Verdict on an issue as to the location of a line goes, defendant, if he desires reference to evi- in a survey held insufficient.-Best v. Splawn dence to be made therein, should ask for an in- (Tex. Civ. App.) 1005. struction on such issue.-Lane v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (MIo.) 645, 1128.
Where special findings are required, all the
material issues should be submitted.-Mitchell Evidence to sustain.
V. Western Union Tel. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) Instruction on an issue as to whether an article 1016. was delivered and accepted in satisfaction of the A finding on an issue not included in the claim of a co-owner held erroneous.-Hinchman pleadings will be disregarded.-J. A. Kemp Grov. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 893.
cery Co. v. Sawyer (Tex. Civ. App.) 1031. Instructions having no application to the case Conclusions of fact. should not be given. --Best v. Splawn (Tex. Civ. App.) 1005.
A statement in a conclusion of fact that the
sum paid for certain goods was an inadequate An instruction suggesting that a fact not consideration is not a finding that the sale was shown by the evidence was in fact shown is fraudulent.--State ex rel. Friedman v. Purcell erroneous.-Kudow v. Irick (Tex. Civ. App.) (Mo.) 13. 315.
An instruction assuming the fasts in question is erroneous -St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. McCul- TROVER AND CONVERSION. lough (Tex. Civ. App.) 285.
When demand is unnecessary.--Richardson v. An instruction assuming a disputed fact is er
A creditor in possession of his debtor's prop-
Repledging of collateral paper to secure a debt
Evidence in trover by an assignee for creditAu instruction assuming a fact as to which ors against an attaching creditor, held inadmisthe evidence is conflicting is erroneous.-Mcsible.-Cunringham v. Holt (Tex. Civ. App.)
981. Gregor v. Sima (Tex. Civ. App.) 1014. It is error to give an instruction not supported not waived his right to possession of the goods
Evidence examined and held that plaintiff had by the evidence.-Fergus v. Dodson (Tex. Civ. converted. -Smith v. Maberry (Ark.) 1068. App.) 273.
v It is error to charge on an issue where the
Measure of damages as against purchaser unrecord discloses no evidence to establish it.--- der an illegal levy of execution determined. -Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.) Munster v. Fields (Tex. Sup.) 852. 704.
Where collateral paper is converted, the meas
ure of damages is its value when converted. Weight of evidence.
Richardson v. Ashby (Mo) 806
An instruction which is in some parts on the See, also, “Executors and Administrators.” weight of evidence properly refused.--Miller v. Right of action by party not privy to contract, Sullivan (Tex. Civ. App.) 695.
see “Action.” A charge in an action hy a servant held not
Deed to a husband examined and held not to to be upon the weight of the evidence.-A1 is create a resulting trust in favor of his wife.souri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gordon (Tex. Morris v. Clare (Mo.) 1123. Civ. App.) 681.
Where a trustee deposits money with a firm, Verdict.
and it is paid to him on his order, without any On a verdict for plaintiff for a certain sum as knowledge that it is trust funds, the firm is not principal and interest, recovery of interest not liable to the beneficiaries therefor. –Tenny v. having been demanded in the complaint, judg- Porter (Ark., 211,
A power in a trust deed to substitute a new | his expense a release on payment of the price.
Bona fide purchasers.
Evidence held not sufficient to sustain a claim
One buying land from a bona fide purchaser A sale without the consent of the grantors in takes it freed from prior claims of which he a trust deed which conveyed an absolute title had notice.-Hickman v. Hoffman (Tex. Civ. held not affected by the statute of 1820, requir- App.) 257 ing sales under trust deeds to be made in pur
A purchaser ignorant of fraud practiced on suance of a judgment. – Abbott v. Yeager the wife held not chargeable with notice because (Ky.) 195.
of possession by the husband and wife.--Hick
man v. Hoffman (Tex. Civ. App.) 257. Undue Influence.
The possession of land as tenant held not to See “Wills."
be, as a matter of law, constructive notice to Uses.
a subsequent purchaser of the land of his claim
under a prior sale to a gin mill situated thereSee "Trusts."
on.-Brown v. Roland (Tex. Civ. App.) 273. USURY.
Evidence examined, and held that possession
of land sold by the tenant of another was noSee, also, “Interest.”
tice to purchasers of his landlord's claim.-AlIn loan by building and loan association, see
lison v. Pitkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 293. “Building and Loan Associations."
Actual knowledge of a deed of trust to secure What law governs, see “Conflict of Laws."
a note executed by a stranger to the title, to Where a surety assumed the debt, and gave the owner, held notice of the equitable lien of a note in renewal of the old one, held that he the assignee of the deed and note.-Barrett v. cannot set up usury in the old note to defeat
Bake. (Mo.) 162. the new one. -Tenny v. Porter (Ark.) 211.
One purchasing a tract of land charged with
an easement of which he had notice held to have Vacation.
bought subject thereto, though it was not re
served in the deed.--Burress v. Barbee (Ky.) Of judgment, see "Judgment."
The fact that a purchaser at sheriff's sale Variance.
knew of an unrecorded deed did not preclude his
grantee from being an innocent purchaser.-LinBetween pleading and proof, see "Pleading." dell Real-Estate Co. v. Lindell (Mo.) 466.
One purchasing land subject to a vendor's VENDOR AND PURCHASER. lien, and obtaining releases for the vendor, held
a bona fide purchaser, though one of the notes See, also, “Fraudulent Conveyances"; "Judicial secured by the lien had been assigned, but withSales"; "Sale"; "Specific Performance.
out any record thereof.---Perkiewiez v. First Adverse possession of vendee, see "Adverse Pos- Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 674.
VENUE IN CIVIL CASES.
A bill for divorce for desertion must be which a vendee must accept, though confirmed brought in the county in which the parties reby the court.--Meddis v. Fenley (Ky.) 197.
sided at the time of the separation, or where The fact that there was an excess of 10 acres
the defendant was found when the bill was will not entitle a vendee to relief under a con- brought.-Walton v. Walton (Tenn.) 561. tract whereby he agreed to pay for the land at a certain price per acre, in the absence of fraud. a suit brought outside of the county of domi
When court has jurisdiction of defendants in -Claus v. Evans (Ky.) 620.
cile.-Taylor v. Gribble (Tex. Civ. App.) 765. An extension of the time for payment under a contract, while it waives the forfeiture for
An action on a draft "returnable in G.," in nonpayment, does not enlarge the rights of the the county of G., was properly brought in such purchaser in any other respect. - Herman v. county, though defendant resided in another
. Gieseke (Tex. Civ. App.) 1006.
county.-Lammers v. Floyd (Tex. Civ. App.)
Co. v. Holladay (Mo.) 49.
A party cannot. under Rev. St. 1889, $ 2258,
that the opposite party had an undue influence A recital, in a note for money advanced for over the court held properly refused.-St. Louis, the price of land, that a vendor's lien was re- C. G. & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Holladay (Mo.) 49.
An application for a change of venue, stating
that the applicant obtained his knowledge of statute of limitations.--Grimes v. Griffith (Tes. Civ. App.) 242,
the existence of the cause “since" the last
term of court, is insufficient to show diligence, Where a vendor's lien is expressly retained under Rev. St. 1889, $ 2261.-St. Louis, C. G. the vendor, if owner of the lien, must execute at & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Holladay (Mo.) 49.
Venue in Criminal Cases. See "Criminal Law."
See "Ilusband and Wife."
Wife's Separate Estate.
A will cannot be revoked by a verbal declara
tion.--Kirkpatrick v. Jenkins' Ex'rs (Tenn.) 819. Vice Principal.
Under Rev. St. 1889, $ 8870, it is not neces
sary that there be an attestation clause to the See "Master and Servant."
signatures of subscribing witnesses.-Berberet
v. Berberet (Mo.) 61. Voters.
A will dictated by a widow, signed in the
presence of two witnesses, who subscribed See "Electors and Voters."
their names in her presence, was properly ex
ecuted.--Berberet v. Berberet (Mo.) 01. Waiver.
Probate of a will cannot establish heirship as
to property not devised.-First Nat. Bank v. Of homestead, see "Homestead."
Sharpe (Tex. Civ. App.) 676. Of objections, see "Appeal."
to jurisdiction in criminal cases, see "Crim- Capacity and undue influence. inal Law.”
The testator's declarations are not admissible to pleading, see "Pleading."
to prove undue influence, but may be looked to, Of plea to jurisdiction, see "Abatement and Re- to determine the effect of such influence after it vival."
has been otherwise proved.-Kirkpatrick v. Jen.
kins' Ex'rs (Tenn.) 819. WASTE.
The relations of a testator to an alleged daughA tenant in dower is not guilty of waste in missible to prove motive for excluding her from
ter, and his declarations concerning her, are adcutting timber which worked no permanent in his will.-Kirkpatrick v. Jenkins' Ex'rs (Tenn.) jury to the inheritance.-Lunn v. Oslin (Tenn.) 319. 561.
An instruction authorizing the jury to consider
the testator's declarations to disprove undue inWATER COMPANIES.
fluence is erroneous.--Kirkpatrick V. Jenkins'
Ex'rs (Tenn.) 819. The failure of a water company to perform any corpora'e act for nearly eight years, and
Though a son is made executor of a will, and an attempt to sell its property to another cor- he is shown to have had influence over the tesporation, are ground for a forfeiture of its char- tatrix, helil, that the burden of proving that the ter, though another company is furnishing wa- will was fairly executed is not on him, in an ter as its pretended successor.-City Water Co. action to set aside the will.-Berberet v. Berv. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 259.
beret (Mo.) 61.
given to the wife for life went to the children
Will construed, and helil, that land devised to
a wife for life on her death passed to her son
in fee, one-half thereof charged with the sup
port of his uncle during the latter's life. Polluting stream, see "Nuisance.”
Terry v. Bourne (Ky.) 403. Complain* in an action for injuries caused by
A will giving the wife certain property to disoverflowing land held suflicient.--Hughes v. City pose of as she may choose at her death held to of Austin (ex Civ. App.) 607.
convey a fee.-Byrne y. Weller (Ark.) +21. Measure of damages for overflowing land,
Will construed, and helil that on testator's whereby injury is caused to plaintiff's stock. death his children acquired vested remainder, determined. -Flughes v. City of Austin (Tex: though the beneficial interests might, on the Civ. App.) 607.
termination of the life estate, be further post
poned until the majority of the youngest child. Where an injury by obstructing a stream is -Byrne v. France (Mo.) 178. permanent, the damage must be computed on the value of the land when the dam was built.--
A devise "0. W. * * * and his children Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Graham forever." with limitation over "if w. shall die (Tex. Civ. App.) 576.
leaving no child," conveys to W. a fee simple,
children; nor is such a devise affected by statWEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
utory provision that where an estate is given
to any person for his life, and after his death to
laws of descent and distribution, conveys no
the half blood of the derisee. -Tichenor v.
Brewer's Ex'r (Ky.) 86. See "Dower": "Esecutors and Administrators”; When devisee in trust liable only for repair "Homestead."
of property.-Dravo v. Seebolt (Ky.) 1106.
a felony, evidence of his good character for
truth is admissible.-Farmer v. State (Tex. Cr. See, also, “Deposition"; "Evidence."
App.) 232. Absence of, as ground for continuance, see
A declaration of a conductor that he, on "Continuance"; "Criminal Law.”
plaintiff's refusal to get off of his train, Misconduct of witness as ground for new trial "knocked the d- --- scoundrel off," is admisin criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."
sible as impeaching testimony, the conductor
having denied that he made such statement.In a criminal case, an annlication for an at. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Sanders (Tex. tachment for a witness should not be denied be. Civ. App.) 245. cause the facts expected to be proren were not recited.-Moore v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 380.
Evidence of a male witness' general charac
ter for unchastity was not admissible to imCompetency.
peach him.--State v. Sibley (Mo.) 167. In partition by persons claiming title to land
A witness may be asked, for the purpose of through a deed from their deceased father, tes- impeachment, whether she had not borne an timony of defendant as to statements by the illegitimate child.--Exon v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) father when the deed was made liclil not inad
336. missible under Rev. St. art. 2218.---Wagner v. Isensee (Tex. Civ. App.) 155.
The state's witness having testified that the One convicted of felony, but not sentenced, dismissed, it was proper to ask him if his tes
prosecution against him as an accomplice was is a competent witness.-Hurley v. State (Tex. timony was the same as the statements he had Cr. App.) 351
made before the case was dismissed.--Mitchell It is within the discretion of the court to al v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 367. low a child under 10 to testify, where he is
Where defendant testifies that he did not know shown to be capable of relating facts truly.State v. Nelson (Mo.) 809.
he had been indicted for other offenses, the in
dictments are admissible on the question of credA stockholder of a corporation plaintiff held a ibility.--Brazos v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 540. competent witness, though the other party to the contract sued on is_dead.-Banking House of
Defendant, having testified that he heard a
scuffle at the time the murder was committed, Wilcoxson & Co. v. Rood (Mo.) 816.
it is proper to show that before the trial he Examination.
stated that he did not hear such scufile.--MofWhere partnership books on an accounting fatty State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341. have been excluded because not properly kept. held that defendant, on testifying that the en
WRITS. tries were made by him, may refresh his memory by memoranda taken from such books. See, also, "Attachment”: “Certiorari"; "Error; Faver v. Bowers (Tex. Civ. App.) 131.
Writ of”; “Execution”; “Garnishment”; “InA witness may refresh his memory by mem- junction"; "Mandamus"; "Prohibition, Writ oranda from books of account, though on being of." notified he failed to produce such books. - Service of process on infant, see "Infancy." Faver v. Bowers (Tex. Civ. App.) 131. In a murder case, where deceased's wife is the initial ünly, of defendant's Christian name.
A citation is not insufficient because it gives a witness for defendant, she may be asked on cross-examination if she is not paying defend- / - Milburn v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 910. ant's attorney's fees.-Magruder v. State (Tex. Summons signed in the name of the clerk by Cr. Apr.) 233
one not in fact a deputy is good where, beWhere a party testifies that a paper was and sent out the same as his own act.-Louis
fore delivery to the sheriff, the clerk appeared signed without reading it, the other party can ville & N. R. Co. v. Banks (Ky.) 627. cross-examine him as to why it was not read.White Sewing Mach, Co. v. Hicks (Tex. Civ. Citation, in trespass to try title, without menApp.) 137.
tioning the land sought to be recovered, held Where defendant's wife testified as to his men- 1036.
insufficient.--Ford v. Baker (Tex. Civ. App.) tal condition and alarm prior to the homicide, the state cannot prove by her on cross-exam
Under Rev. St. art. 1230, a citation for a nonination that defendant had shot another persou. resident, addressed to the sheriff, and served by -Hoover v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 337.
him, is insufficient.-Porter v. Hill County (Tex.
Civ. App.) 383. Effec: of answer to a direct question on crossexamination where witness is incompetent.-
Service on one not in the employ of a forBanking House of Wilcoxson & Co. v. Rood eign corporation is not service on the corpora(Mo.) 816.
tion.--Texas & P. Ry. Co. y. Neal (Tex. Civ,
App.) 693. Credibility.
A party to an action, while attending the taking for a certain crime, the state may introduce the of depositions therein in a jurisdiction other than for a certain crime, the state may introduce the that of his residence, is privileged from the record in the case.-Moore v. State (Tenn.) 1046.serrice of summons upon him in such jurisdie
A witness having testified that he did not tion.-Powers v. Arkadelphia Lumber Co. (Ark.) see the shooting, it was error to permit per- | 842. sons to show his contradictory statements.Saylor v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 185.
Service on a nonresident out of the state will
not support a personal judgment.-Porter F. The credibility of a witness who has been Hill County (Tex. Civ. App.) 383. convicted of a felony and pardoned is for the jury.-Douglass v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 228.
Act Aug. 13, 1870, authorizing service by
publication, was not affected by the repeal of Where the credibility of a witness is at the printing act in November, 1871.-Hambel v. tacked proof that he has been charged with Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 251.
WENT PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS AND STEPE'TYPERS, ST. PAUL, MINX.