페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

was

on

published, as required by law.-San Antonio &994 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) The appellate court A. P. Ry. Co. v. Boyed, 201 S. W. 219.

cannot weigh each fact and decide as to the Ono 928(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant being re- credibility of the several witnesses.- Texas & quired to show error, it will be presumed, in ab- N. 0. R. Co. v. Jones, 201 S. W. 1085. sence of statement of facts, in favor of instruc- ww994(2) (Ky.) Credibility of testimony is for tion on weight of evidence, that fact was undis- jury, and its determination will not be disturbed puted.-Hegman v. Roberts, 201 S. W. 268. on appeal.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mink, 201 ww930(1) (Ark.) Supreme Court must give S. W. 16. testimony strongest probative value in favor of Cum 999 (1) (Ark.) Where a question of fact verdict. ---Dickinson v. Brummett, 201 S. W. whether defendant dealt with plaintiff's agent 812.

without notice of limitations on his authority Onw930(1) (Mo.App.) On appeal upon the was properly submitted to the jury, its verdict ground that the evidence did not support the is conclusive.-Three States Lumber Co. p. verdict for plaintiff, only plaintiff's evidence Moore, 201 S. W. 508. must be considered.-Edwards V. Yarbrough, ww999(1) (Mo.App.) Where the evidence rais201 S. W. 972.

ed an issue of fact, the court on appeal cannot Cw930(1(Tex.Civ.App.) Where, in action for review the verdict thereon.-Jones v. Jones, 201 personal injuries against railroad, other issues S. W. 557. of negligence on which recovery could be based, m 1000 (Ky.) An action to enjoin trespass and were properly submitted, and one issue of neg. to recover damages is not purely equitable, in ligence, without support in evidence, was sub- which the verdict of the jury on an issue of mitted, it will be presumed verdict for plaintiff fact is merely advisory, and may be disregarded was based on issues supported by evidence.- by the chancellor, and the jury's verdict will Houston & T. C. Ry, Co. v. Roberts, 201 S. W. not be disturbed unless flagrantly against the 674.

evidence.- Fort v. Wiser, 201 S. W. 7. On 931 (3) (Mo.) Where there evidence on 1001(1) (Tex.Civ.App.). There being suffisufficient to support a finding for respondent, cient evidence to support jury's findings, they and no instructions were asked or given, it will cannot be disturbed on appeal.-Hudson v. be assumed trial court found the facts for re- Salley, 201 S. W. 665. spondent.--Edleman v. Wommack, 201 S. W. 1001(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Jury's finding 853.

sufficient evidence that plaintiff was defendant's Omw934(1) (Tex.) Where in action by state to employé and working for it when injured held recover taxes judgment denied penalties recit, binding, though there was testimony that he was ing tender in open court on trial, it will, in ab- in the service of an independent contractor.sence of showing to contrary, be presumed that San Antonio, U. & G. R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. tender made before accrual of penalties, was W. 247. kept good by payment of amount into registry Om 1002 (Ark.) The verdict of the jury is of court.--State v. Hoffman, 201 S. W. 653. conclusive upon disputed questions of fact Om934(2) (Tenn.) Where bill of exceptions in- where any real dispute or controversy exists, corporating proof adduced was not preserved, and will not be disturbed unless all reasonable Supreme Court must assume that there was suf- minds must reach a contrary conclusion.-Fraficient evidence to support judgment rendered.- ternal Aid Union v. High, 201 S. W. $24. Waterhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furniture Co., 201 C 1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) The court on appeal S. W. 150.

will not disturb a verdict rendered upon con934(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court flicting evidence sufficient to authorize the judgshould give strongest probative effect to evi- ment.-Smith v. Thompson, 201 S. W. 220. dence in favor of the judgment below.-Inter-mw 1004(1) (Ky.) Unless award in personal innational Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 201 S. W. 1088. jury action is so large as to strike one at first

blush that it was rendered under influence of (F) Discretion of Lower Court.

passion or prejudice, it will not be disturbed as 946 (Tenn.) In proceeding to wind up af- being excessive.—Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mink, fairs of a bank, the chancellor in approving a

201 S. W. 16. compromise agreement with the stockholders C 1004(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where carrier's liaand directors has a legal and judicial discre- bility for wrongful ejection of a passenger is tion, the abuse of which may be reviewed on established, the amount of damages found by the appeal.-Knaffl v. Knoxville Banking & Trust jury will not be disturbed unless excessive or Co., 201 S. W. 775.

indicative of passion or prejudice.-Houston E. w 979 (1) (Mo.App.) Where there is any dis- & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Snow, 201 s. w. 224. pute in the evidence, the granting of a

Cam 1004 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for contrial on the ground that the verdict is against version, finding that plaintiffs could have realthe weight of the evidence will not be disturbed. ized substantially its face value will not be dis-Frisbie v. Scott, 201 S. W. 561.

turbed, though evidence of value of equity for Cum 981 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment held not to have had much weight with appellate court.-

which it could have been exchanged might not be reversed on ground that it was based on false evidence and that refusal of new trial is S. W. 124.

Farmers' State Guaranty Bank v. Pierson, 201 gross injustice and abuse of discretion, where diligence or excuse for failure to introduce Cams 1009 (1) Mo.) When the findings of the evidence presented on motion for new trial is trial court are questioned in a suit wherein not shown, and the evidence is not conclusive. - equitable relief is alone demanded. the appelFarmers' State Guaranty Bank v. Pierson, 201 late court will defer to the conclusions of S. W. 424.

the trial court.-Sinnett v. Sinnett, 201 S.

W. 887 (G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find- m1010(1) Mo.) Where trial court, sitting as ings.

jury, determined, upon sufficient testimony, cor-987(3) (Mo.App.) In an equity case the rect location of boundary line, his finding, in appellate court may review the evidence and absence of error, was not reviewable.-Macom reach a conclusion of its own on any point. - v. Brewster, 201 S. W. 547. Hobson v. Lenox, 201 S. W. 964.

w 1010(1) (Mo.) In ejectment findings of 991 (Tex.Civ.App.) A telegraph com- fact by the court without jury stand as the pany's assignments of error on appeal from a

verdict of a jury.-Ware v. Cheek, 201 S. W. judgment for failure to deliver a death mes

847. sage merely raising a question of fact held to cw 1010(1) (Mo.App.) A finding of fact by

error.–Western Union Telegraph the trial court in an action at law is, where Co. v. Golden, 201 S. W. 1080.

supported by evidence, conclusive on appeal,

new

present

no

in the absence of a showing of passion, prej-, taken at close of trial pursuant to stipulaudice, or willful misconduct.-Stewart v. As-tion held harmless, where such testimony would bury, 201 S. W. 949.

not have affected result.-Palm v. Theumann, Emw 1010(1) (Mo.App.) In action on fire policy, 201 S. W. 421. where there was substantial evidence of total em 1048(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) In view of the loss, the finding of fact that there was total small damages averred, held that, in an action loss by the judge cannot be overturned. for burning grass lands, erroneous refusal of Horine v. Royal Ins. Co., Limited, of Liver- the court to allow cross-examination of plainpool, 201 S. W. 958.

tiff to show that he had rendered lands for Om 1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit to fore taxes at a sum less than that estimated in close judgment lien, whether property was com

his testimony was harmless.--Ft. Worth & munity property, whether part of it was part D. C. Ry. Co. v. Hapgood, 201 S. W. 1040. of homestead, and whether former homestead w 1050(1) (Mo.App.) In an action for inwas abandoned, held questions of fact, finding juries and damages in collision of vehicles on on which would not be disturbed when sus the street, defendant was not prejudiced by tained by evidence.-Jones v. Lanning, 201 s. being refused permission to say whether the W. 443.

driver of the automobile was using it without (H) Harmless Error.

defendant's knowledge or consent, where he Om 1031(6) (Ark.) An instruction that the jury his knowledge or consent.- Edwards v. Yar

had previously testified that it was without might return a verdict in accordance with an brough, 2018. W. 972. agreement of nine jurors is reversible, error; em 1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) The admission of it not appearing from the record that the verdict was unanimous.-Davis v. H. A. Nelson & opinion evidence on behalf of plaintiff was Son, 201 S. W. 511.

harmless, where later witnesses without objecEm 1032(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant must point tion similarly testified. --Southern Pac. Co. v. out reversible errors in order to secure reversal. Stephens, 201 S. W. 1076. ---Schaff v. Riha, 201 S. W. 210.

Om 1051 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for damw 1033(2) (Ark.) Where cause was submitted ages for burning of grass, where witness on on particular issue decisive of defendant's lia- both original and cross examination testified bility, it is immaterial on appeal whether answer ket value of land for pasturage purposes be

positively that he knew reasonable cash marraised that issue.-Cotton v. Mutual Aid Union, fore it was burned, over admission of his 201 S. W. 124.

testimony on value was not reversible error, Cow 1033(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff re

though on cross-examination witness stated quested deduction of part of recovery, al- he was expressing his individual opinion as to though defendants were not entitled thereto, value.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Hapgood, defendants not having objected cannot com- | 201 S. W. 1040. plain of deduction; it being to their advantage. Om 1052(2) (Tes. Civ.App.) In action to rescind --Mindes Millinery Co. v. Wellborn, 201 S. W. 1059.

sale because of seller's misrepresentations re

garding indebtedness which buyer assumed, erOm 1034 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where defendant in

ror in admitting hearsay testimony as to size surer admitted actual receipt of proofs of loss of such indebtedness is not rendered harmless before suit was filed, there could be no possible by appellee testifying seller admitted making injury to it from premature filing of suit, where misrepresentations where seller denied making costs were adjudged against plaintiffs.-Royal admission.-Richardson v. Cantrell, 201 S. W. Ins. Co. of Liverpool, England, v. Humphrey, 702. 201 S. W. 426.

Om 1052(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) If verdict is the C 1035 (Ark.) The evidence entitling plain- only proper verdict that could have been retiff to recover, judgment for him should not

turned under the evidence, any errors shown be reversed because the action was at law, when it should have been in equity; no objec- Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 S. w. 1057.

as to admission of testimony are harmless.tion on that account being raised below or on appeal.--Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Bond, 1052(8) (Ky.) If defendant was entitled to 201 S. W. 820.

directed verdict, but the court submitted the case Om 1039(13) (Tex.Civ. App.) In

to the jury which found for defendant, plaintiff

passenger's action for personal injury when back of seat Russell v. McIntosh, 201 S, W. 33.

could not complain of incompetent evidence.gave way and his foot was caught under front, seat, variance between allegation and proof as on 1054(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of conto defendant's negligence held harmless.- Mis clusions of witness upon trial without jury will souri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, 201 not justify reversal.-McAllen v. Wood, 201 S. S. W. 417.

W'. 433. Om 1040(4) (Ky.) It was not prejudicial error to w 1056 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error, if any, in exsustain demurrer to part of answer, where evi- cluding from the eridence an order of dismissal dence bearing on such issue was admitted with in another case, after the adverse parties bad out objection, and would not have justified sub- introduced a certified copy of the decree, was mission to jury of such issue.-Postal Tele- harmless; the evidence being irrelevant and imgraph-Cable Co. v. Murrell, 201 S. W. 462. material, conceding that it was a part of the Cow 1040(10) (Ky.) If petition against incom- instrument which had been offered.-Sullivan v. petent by an attorney should have stated that Masterson, 201 S. W. 194. all of the services rendered by a number of at om 1056 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for torneys were necessary, the overruling of a breach of contract for sale of cotton, if tes. demurrer was harmless, where the court re- ' timony was admissible to corroborate defendquired that all the attorneys be made parties.-- ant's testimony on collateral issue, exclusion Fitzpatrick's Committee v. Dundon, 201 S. W. not reversible error, where additional 339.

evidence on collateral issue could not have Cm 1041(2) (Mo.App.) In servant's action for induced the jury to believe defendant's tespersonal injury, tried before the court, amend- timony on main issue.--Dixon v. Winters, 201 ments of petition consisting of interlineations S. W. 1103. not changing cause of action, and possibly un- cm 1056(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) If verdict is the necessary, was harmless.---Loveless v. Cunard only proper verdict that could have been reMining Co., 201 S. W. 375.

turned under the evidence, any errors shown Om 1943(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court's as to exclusion of testimony are harmless.fusal to allow absent witness' deposition to be | Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 $. W. 1057.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

[ocr errors]

re

er

res

were

as

01057 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for al- , roneous.-Heffernan v. Neumond, 201 S. W. leged balance due on contract, exclusion of 645. statement of witness that defendant broke the

1066 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to submit is. contract, if error, was harmless, where such sue whether defendant insurer waived proof fact was admitted in the pleadings and es- of loss could not have materially affected detablished by other witnesses.-Bonnett-Brown fendant's rights, where defendant admitted that Sales Service Co. v. Denison Morning Gazette, proof of loss was furnished.-Royal Ins. Co. of 201 S. W. 1044.

Liverpool, England, v. Humphrey, 201 S. W. cm 1058 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where

persons | 426. whose letters were sought to be introduced 1066 (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit against defendin evidence both testified in a general way to ant to recover for horse killed by its motor same effect as letters, which were excluded, car

within city limits, submitting question exclusion, if erroneous, was harmless.-Sani- whether city was incorporated, an issue not tary Mfg. Co. v. Gamer, 201 S. W. 1068. raised cannot be held harmless, where it can105813) (Tex.Civ.App.) If there was

not be said that it did not improperly influence ror in excluding evidence of declarations of jury and produce erroneous result.-'Texas City claimed agent of defendant, offered as

Terminal Co. v. McGee, 201 S. W. 673. gestä, it was harmless, where declarant him- Cm 1067 (Mo.) Where the evidence clearly self testified as witness to same effect.-Sani- showed that the motorman of street car knew tary Mfg. Co. v. Gamer, 201 S. W. 1068. of plaintiff's dangerous position after being Com 1060 (3) Mo.App.) In personal

knocked down, instruction failing to submit to

ury case, jury fact that motorman knew plaintiff was it was prejudicial to a defendant for plaintiff's being dragged was not prejudicial error.-Hill counsel in argument to say defendant had right v. Harvey, 201 S. W. 535. to examine plaintiff physically which such de

court

Om 1068(1) (Ky.) Where trial fendant did not have, thereby tending to cre

should ate impression defendant had no faith in truth have directed verdiet as returned, errors in inof its evidence on point, particularly where

structions

immaterial.-- American Nat. court made no ruling.-Bergfeld v. Dunham, Ins. Co. v. Brown, 201 S. W. 326. 201 S. W. 610.

1068(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) If verdict is the Om 1062(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for per

only proper verdict that could have been sonal injuries against railroad, where other is returned under the evidence, any errors shown sues of negligence on which recovery could be

to giving or refusal of instructions are based were properly submitted, error in sub- harmless.-Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 S. W.

1057. mitting one issue of negligence, without support in evidence, was barmless. Houston & T. Cms 1068(3) (Ky.) If defendant was entitled to C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 201 S. W. 674.

directed verdict, but the court submitted the

case to the jury which found for defendant, C 1064(1) (Ky.) In action for damages caus- plaintiff could not complain of erroneous ined by street grade changes, instruction that structions.-Russell v. McIntosh, 201 S. W. 33. measure of recovery was difference between abutting property's market value before and Cm 1068 (3) (Ky.) Where the court would have after change held prejudicial error.-Waller been warranted in directing a verdict against v. City of Morganfield, 201 S. W. 459.

a party, that party cannot complain that an im

proper instruction was given.--Commercial Sec. 1064 (1) (Mo.App.) Instruction in action for Co. v. Archer, 201 S. W. 479. purchase price of paper sold, wherein rescis-Cow 1068(4) (Mo. App.) Where court instructed sion was claimed, held harmless.–Riverside erroneously as to calculation of interest, but Fibre & Paper Co. v. Benedict Paper Co., 201 result arrived at by jury was same as would S. W. 584,

have been attained had jury computed interest Cum 1064(1) (Mo.App.) Failure to qualify an under proper rule, error was harmless.-Sutton instruction stating the duty of driver of a vehi- v. Libby, 201 S. W. 615. cle to turn to the right by the words "if prae- 1070(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for serv ticable,” held not prejudicial in view of the ant's death, the employer cannot complain of evidence.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201 W. verdict apportioning damages among all those 972.

having a right of action, since the lump sum Om 1064(3) (Mo.App.). I'nder Rev. St. 1909, $ judgment would protect it against any subse1987, in Dersonal injury action against two quent action.-Gulf. C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cardefendants oral instructions that either defend-penter, 201 S. W. 270. ant, before or during trial, had right to order directing physical examination of plaintiff, held

(K) Subsequent Appeals. error prejudicial to a defendant.-Bergfeld v. Dunham, 201 S. W. 640.

cm 1097 (1) (Ark.) On subsequent appeal after fm 1066 (Ky.) Where brakeman was caught by reversal holding on first appeal that title to low-hanging telephone cable, and there was evi- loes v. Commercial Bank of Alma, 201 S. W.

not involved held binding.-dence that railroad company might have ascer

826. tained danger, instruction predicating liability both on railroad company's knowledge of low- XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOhanging cable and negligent failure to ascertain

SITION OF CAUSE. danger held harmless, though erroneous, because there was no evidence of company's knowledge.

(D) Reversal. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mink, 201 S. W. 16.

Cw1161 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where appellant asOm 1066 (Mo.) In quantum meruit action by signs error to trial court's failure to file findcontractor for labor and materials furnished, ings of fact and conclusions of law; request refusal of instruction that it devolved upon therefor having been made by appellant, and the contractor to show that owner prevented appellee confesses error, assignment will be completion of contract was harmless, where sustained.--Hemman v. Jannsen Ostertag Mig. the evidence shows such unmistakably:-Brad Co., 201 S. W. 1162. ley Heating Co. v. Thomas M. Syman Realty C1170(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling of excep& Investment Co., 201 S. W. 861.

tion to supplemental petition, containing concluCw1066 (Mo. App.) Seller having consented sions as to defendant's liability if plaintiff was that buyer obtain substitute in place of feed in employ of independent contractor, held not recontracted to he delivered, an instruction on versible error, under rule 02a (119 S. W. X), the measure of damages, allowing difference be- where jury found, on sufficient evidence, that tween actual cost of substitute and contract plaintiff was in defendant's service. --San Anprice, held under the evidence harmless, if er-Itonio, U. & G. R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. W. 247.

1172(3) (Mo.App.). Conceding that letter ARBITRATION AND AWARD. written by plaintiff shipper constituted, as to one shipment, compliance with provision of See Reference. contract as to notice, verdict could not be reinstated on appeal, even as to such shipment;

ARCHITECTS. there being no admission of defendant that letter was received, and claim that letter was

See Principal and Agent, Oml. written and mailed not having been submitted to jury.--Cudahy Packing Co. v. Chicago & N.

ARGUMENTATIVE INSTRUCTIONS. W. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 596.

See Trial, em 240. ww1175(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) In a case tried upon agreed facts, where the trial court does not ren ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. der the proper judgment, it is the duty of the Court of Civil Appeals to render the judgment See Criminal Law, Ow719–730, 1000, 1154, which should have been rendered by the trial 1171; Trial, em 133. court.-Green v. Prince, 201 S. W. 200. om 1177 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a case has

ARMY AND NAVY. been tried on an improper theory, the cause See Judges, Cm 25. must be reinanded, where it appears that, under a proper view of the case, the appellee might make out a case, although, as tried,

ARREST. he did not.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas See Bail. v. Langford, 201 S. W. 1087. Om 117816) (Ky.) In action to compel defendant coal company to allow plaintiff to use its spur

ARREST OF JUDGMENT. railroad for transportation of coal from several See Judgment, em 263. tracts, held that where trial court did not dispose of plaintiff's claim to use railroad on pay

ASSAULT AND BATTERY. ing compensation judgment allowing use of railroad for coal from one tract will be reversed for See Homicide, om 86, 310. determination of question of reasonable compensation; defendant not objecting to use on

I. CIVIL LIABILITY. payment.--Eureka Coal Co. v. Kentucky-Ten- (A) Acts Constituting Assault or Battery nessee Coal Co., 201 S. W. 5.

and Liability Therefor.

On 15 (Mo.App.) While defendant was entitled (F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower Court.

to resist trespass upon his land and taking of

his melons, he was not justified in use of unOm 1195(1) (Ky.) Where on appeal it was heid necessary force, such as shooting a fleeing tresthat the evidence was insufficient to show lia- passer in the side and back.-Hartman v. bility of defendant for injuries to plaintiff, the Hoernle, 201 S. W. 911. trial court should have directed a verdict for defendant on a second trial, where the evidence

(B) Actions. was the same. -Mahan Jellico Coal Co. v. Bird, w26 (Mo.App.) In an action for damages 201 S. W. 306.

for a wound, where plaintiff makes a prima em 1195(4) (Ky.) Reversal of judgment in favor facie case by proof that he was shot by deof railroad brakeman, who was caught by low- fendant, the burden shifts to defendant to hanging, telephone cable, held not law of case justify the act.-Hartman v. Hoernle, 201 S. on retrial, where evidence differed, and was W. 911. such as to afford predicate for holding that company was liable.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v.

ASSESSMENT. Mink, 201 S. W. 16.

See Highways, cm140; Levees, 22, 25. m 1 198 (Mo.App.) Where appellate court reverses and remands, with specific directions, if

ASSETS. such directions dispose of case, that ends matter in controversy.-Gilsey v. Gilsey, 201 S. W. See Executors and Administrators, em 60, 87. 588. XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
UNDERTAKINGS.

See Appeal and Error, Ow719–750, 759.
Ono 1226 (Ky.) On appeal granted by the cir-
cuit court, there can be no award of the dam-

ASSIGNMENTS. ages, based on supersedeas, provided by Civ. Code Prac. & 764, on affirmance or dismissal,

See Fraudulent Conveyances; Mechanics' if such court had no power to grant the ap

Liens, Omw206. peal; the supersedeas bond being therefore void.-Calvert v. Wilder, 201 S. W. 449.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. Crow 1234(1) (Ky.) Only part of the judgment (B) Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment. appealed from being, as permitted by Civ. Code 31 (Mo.) Where a firm enters into a conPrac. $ 751, superseded, by express provision tract to furnish ballast to a construction comof section 764 the award of 10 per cent. dam- pany, and then enters into an identical conages, on affirmance or dismissal, is on such tract with another in its own name, but at a part.-Calvert v. Wilder, 201 S. W. 419. less price, there is no assignment.-Spencer v.

Wyandotte Const. Co., 201 S. W. 554.
APPEARANCE.

Ona 48 (Tenn.) An equitable assignment will See Insane Persons, Om 14.

be enforced or not in the sound discretion of

the chancellor according to justice, but not so APPLIANCES.

as to defeat intervening rights of third per

sons.-Horn v. Nicholas, 201 S. W. 756. See Master and Servant, w 101-125, 233247, 276, 289, 296.

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF APPLICATION.

CREDITORS.
See Payment, w43.

See Bankruptcy.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key Nu. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

а

ASSOCIATIONS.

deem property the attorney had purchased un

der tax sale, out of which the attorney's fees See Evidence, On 22.

were to be paid, yet when the client, without

offering to redeem, refused an offer from anASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF. other for the full value of the property, the

attorney's obligation terminated.-Ivey v. TeichSee Use and Occupation; Work and Labor.

man, 201 S. W. 695.

Omw 126 (2) (Ark.) In summary proceeding ASSUMPTION OF RISKS.

under Kirby's Dig. $$ 449, 4180, and 4485, to See Master and Servant, cm 203-219, 288, 289. recover money in hands of an attorney, where

the attorney files a verified answer setting up

a good defense, the court has no jurisdiction ATTACHMENT.

to render a summary judgment, and appeal may See Execution; Exemptions; Garnishment; be had without motion for new trial.-Davies &

Homestead; Judgment, w17; Justices of Davies v. Patterson, 201 S. W. 504.
the Peace, w86; Sequestration.

ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.
I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

See Negligence, 39.
(B) Grounds of Attachment.
mm 30 (Mo.App.) In action on joint note of

AUTHENTICATION. husband and wife, in which attachment is sought, creditor establishes his right to the at

See Evidence, 372. tachment by showing that the husband formed the intention to leave the state, without show

AUTHORITY. ing a like intent on the part of the wife.-Ware See Attorney and Client, fm104; Judges, v. Flory, 201 S. W. 593.

25. IV. WRIT OR WARRANT.

AUTOMOBILES. 154 (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule allowing amendment of writs of a.tachment to remedy clerical See Chattel Mortgages, w138; Constitutional

Law, Om48; Evidence, m116; Highways, errors does not permit correction of clerical

Cm184; Licenses, Om7; Master and Seryerror in reciting in writ amount in excess of jurisdiction of court.--McDaniel v. Cage &

ant, C332; Municipal Corporations, Crow, 201 S. W. 1078.

705; States, C131; Statutes, Om64, 119. V. LEVY, LIEN, AND CUSTODY AND

AVULSION. DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.

See Navigable Waters. C200 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. $ 385, the contract of sale of property sold under attach

BAGGAGE. ment is not complete until the bid is accepted by the court, and until acceptance there can be See Carriers, cm387-408. no enforcement of the contract by either party. -Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Day,

BAIL. 201 S. W. 125.

II. IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. VIII. CLAIMS BY THIRD PERSONS.

43 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Const. art. 1, § 308(2) (Mo.App.). In an attachment suit, 11, providing that all prisoners shall be bailable an interpleader claiming the property has the unless for capital offenses when the proof is burden of proof.-Cochrane v. First State Bank evident, the word "evident” means that unless of l'ickton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572.

it is clear not only that accused is guilty, but 310 (Mo.App.) In an attachment suit, the that the jury would probably assess capital credibility of interpleader's witnesses is for the punishment.-Ex parte Hill, 201 S. W. 998. jury.--Cochrane v. First State Bank of Pick-On49 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for murton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572.

der, evidence held not such as to warrant denial

of bail.-Ex parte Ilill, 201 S. W. 996. ATTESTATION.

ww58 (Tex.Cr. App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. See Wills, Em118.

1911, art. 321, as amended by Acts 26th Leg.

c. 74, stating requisites of a bail bond, a bond ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

naming offense of "violating the local optio!

law” created no liability on the surety, since See Appeal and Error. C281, 1060; Criminal it neither stated that the offense was a felony,

Law, Em719-730; Evidence, w 1$, 271; In- nor named an offense eo nomine prescribed by sane Persons, C74; Judgment, C401; law.-Anderson v. State, 201 S. W. 994. Jury, Omw 19; Witnesses, Cw199.

Cm 65 (Tex.Cr. App.) Under Code Cr. Proc.

1911, art. 903, recognizance on appeal failing II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY, to provide that defendant shall abide the judgwww 104 (Ky.) The general rule that notice to

ment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, or to an attorney is notice to his client has appli- stipulate that obligation shall be joint and cation to knowledge of defendant's attorney in several as to sureties, or to show that accused a homicide case of a separation of jurors; the

was convicted of felony is insufficient.-Sanrule applying to criminal as well as civil mat- ders v. State, 201 S. W'. 411. ters.-Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318.mw 70 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant dia

what he could to have recognizance, and enIII. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF.AT-tered into it, as judge certifies, in open court, TORNEY TO CLIENT.

neglect of one of officers of court to carry Crew 1 23(1) (Mo.App.) Defendant, attorney for recognizance properly into minutes. will not plaintiff, an old, weak, and muinformed man, deprive defendant of his appeal.- Roberts v. held liable for amount he owed plaintiit on ac

State, 201 S. W. 998. count of various transactions between them; defendant never having rendered true state

BAILMENT. ment of indebtedness.-- Eadie v. Johnston, 201 S. W. 601.

See Pledges. 123(1) (Ter.Civ.App.) Although an attor-m3 (Mo.App.) Where lessee takes personal ney orally promised to permit his client to re-l property at his own risk, or with all faults or

« 이전계속 »