ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

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 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. O. R. Co. v. Jones, 201 S. W. 1085. sence of statement of facts, in favor of instruc-994(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 S. W. 16.

930(1) (Ark.) Supreme Court must give testimony strongest probative value in favor of verdict.-Dickinson v. Brummett, 201 S. W.

812.

930(1) (Mo.App.) On appeal upon the ground that the evidence did not support the verdict for plaintiff, only plaintiff's evidence must be considered.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201 S. W. 972.

930(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Where, in action for personal injuries against railroad, other issues of negligence on which recovery could be based, were properly submitted, and one issue of negligence, without support in evidence, was submitted, it will be presumed verdict for plaintiff was based on issues supported by evidence.Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 201 S. W. 674.

999 (1) (Ark.) Where a question of fact whether defendant dealt with plaintiff's agent without notice of limitations on his authority was properly submitted to the jury, its verdict is conclusive.-Three States Lumber Co. v. Moore, 201 S. W. 508.

999 (1) (Mo.App.) Where the evidence raised an issue of fact, the court on appeal cannot review the verdict thereon.-Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W. 557.

1000 (Ky.) An action to enjoin trespass and to recover damages is not purely equitable, in which the verdict of the jury on an issue of fact is merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the chancellor, and the jury's verdict will not be disturbed unless flagrantly against the evidence.-Fort v. Wiser, 201 S. W. 7.

cient evidence to support jury's findings, they cannot be disturbed on appeal.-Hudson v. Salley, 201 S. W. 665.

931(83) (Mo.) Where there was evidence 1001 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) There being suffisufficient to support a finding for respondent, and no instructions were asked or given, it will be assumed trial court found the facts for respondent.-Edleman v. Wommack, 201 S. W.

853.

934 (1) (Tex.) Where in action by state to recover taxes judgment denied penalties recit ing tender in open court on trial, it will, in absence of showing to contrary, be presumed that tender made before accrual of penalties, was kept good by payment of amount into registry of court.-State v. Hoffman, 201 S. W, 653.

on

1001(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Jury's finding sufficient evidence that plaintiff was defendant's employé and working for it when injured held binding, though there was testimony that he was in the service of an independent contractor.— San Antonio, U. & G. R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. W. 247.

1002 (Ark.) The verdict of the jury is conclusive upon disputed questions of fact 934(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. 824. Waterhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furniture Co., 2011002 (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-1004(1) (Ky.) Unless award in personal innational Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 201 S. W. 1088.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court.

946 (Tenn.) In proceeding to wind up affairs of a bank, the chancellor in approving a compromise agreement with the stockholders and directors has a legal and judicial discretion, the abuse of which may be reviewed on appeal.-Knaff v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co., 201 S. W. 775.

979(1) (Mo.App.) Where there is any dispute in the evidence, the granting of a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence will not be disturbed. -Frisbie v. Scott, 201 S. W. 561.

981 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment held not to be reversed on ground that it was based on false evidence and that refusal of new trial is gross injustice and abuse of discretion, where diligence or excuse for failure to introduce evidence presented on motion for new trial is not shown, and the evidence is not conclusive. Farmers' State Guaranty Bank v. Pierson, 201

S. W. 424.

(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings.

987 (3) (Mo.App.) In an equity case the appellate court may review the evidence and reach a conclusion of its own on any point. Hobson v. Lenox, 201 S. W. 964.

com

jury action is so large as to strike one at first blush that it was rendered under influence of passion or prejudice, it will not be disturbed as being excessive.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mink,

201 S. W. 16.

1004(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where carrier's liability for wrongful ejection of a passenger is established, the amount of damages found by the jury will not be disturbed unless excessive or indicative of passion or prejudice.-Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Snow, 201 S. W. 224.

1004(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for conversion, finding that plaintiffs could have realized substantially its face value will not be disturbed, though evidence of value of equity for have had much weight with appellate court. which it could have been exchanged might not Farmers' State Guaranty Bank v. Pierson, 201 S. W. 424.

1009 (1) (Mo.) When the findings of the trial court are questioned in a suit wherein equitable relief is alone demanded, the appellate court will defer to the conclusions of the trial court.-Sinnett v. Sinnett, 201 S. W. SS7.

1010(1) (Mo.) Where trial court, sitting as jury, determined, upon sufficient testimony, correct location of boundary line, his finding. in absence of error, was not reviewable.-Macom v. Brewster, 201 S. W. 547.

1010(1) (Mo.) In ejectment findings of fact by the court without jury stand as the verdict of a jury.-Ware v. Cheek, 201 S. W. 847.

991 (Tex.Civ.App.) A telegraph pany's assignments of error on appeal from a judgment for failure to deliver a death message merely raising a question of fact held to 1010(1) (Mo.App.) A finding of fact by present no 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,

in the absence of a showing of passion, prejudice, or willful misconduct.-Stewart v. Asbury, 201 S. W. 949.

1010(1) (Mo.App.) In action on fire policy, where there was substantial evidence of total loss, the finding of fact that there was total loss by the judge cannot be overturned. Horine v. Royal Ins. Co., Limited, of Liverpool, 201 S. W. 958.

[ocr errors]

taken at close of trial pursuant to stipulation held harmless, where such testimony would not have affected result.-Palm v. Theumann, 201 S. W. 421.

1048 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) In view of the small damages averred, held that, in an action for burning grass lands, erroneous refusal of the court to allow cross-examination of plaintiff to show that he had rendered lands for taxes at a sum less than that estimated in 1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit to foreclose judgment lien, whether property was comhis 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 1050(1) (Mo.App.) In an action for inwas abandoned, held questions of fact, finding on which would not be disturbed when sustained by evidence.-Jones v. Lanning, 201 S. W. 443.

(H) Harmless Error.

1031(6) (Ark.) An instruction that the jury might return a verdict in accordance with an agreement of nine jurors is reversible error; it not appearing from the record that the verdict was unanimous.-Davis v. H. A. Nelson & Son, 201 S. W. 511.

1032(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant must point out reversible errors in order to secure reversal. -Schaff v. Riha, 201 S. W. 210.

1033(2) (Ark.) Where cause was submitted on particular issue decisive of defendant's liability, it is immaterial on appeal whether answer raised that issue.-Cotton v. Mutual Aid Union,

201 S. W. 124.

juries and damages in collision of vehicles on the street, defendant was not prejudiced by being refused permission to say whether the driver of the automobile was using it without defendant's knowledge or consent, where he had previously testified that it was without his knowledge or consent.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201 S. W. 972.

1050 (1) (Tex. Civ.App.) The admission of opinion evidence on behalf of plaintiff was harmless, where later witnesses without objection similarly testified.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Stephens, 201 S. W. 1076.

1051 (1) (Tex. Civ.App.) In action for damages for burning of grass, where witness on both original and cross examination testified positively that he knew reasonable cash marfore it was burned, over admission of his ket value of land for pasturage purposes betestimony on value was not reversible error, though on cross-examination witness stated he was expressing his individual opinion as to value.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Hapgood, 201 S. W. 1040.

1033 (9) (Tex. Civ.App.) Where plaintiff requested deduction of part of recovery, although defendants were not entitled thereto, defendants not having objected cannot complain of deduction; it being to their advantage. 1052 (2) (Tex. Civ.App.) In action to rescind -Mindes Millinery Co. v. Wellborn, 201 S.

W. 1059.

1034 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where defendant insurer admitted actual receipt of proofs of loss before suit was filed, there could be no possible injury to it from premature filing of suit, where costs were adjudged against plaintiffs.-Royal Ins. Co. of Liverpool, England, v. Humphrey, 201 S. W. 426.

1035 (Ark.) The evidence entitling plaintiff to recover, judgment for him should not be reversed because the action was at law, when it should have been in equity; no objection on that account being raised below or on appeal.-Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Bond, 201 S. W. 820.

1039 (13) (Tex.Civ.App.) In passenger's action for personal injury when back of seat gave way and his foot was caught under front seat, variance between allegation and proof as to defendant's negligence held harmless.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers, 201 S. W. 417.

sale because of seller's misrepresentations regarding indebtedness which buyer assumed, error in admitting hearsay testimony as to size of such indebtedness is not rendered harmless by appellee testifying seller admitted making misrepresentations where seller denied making admission.-Richardson v. Cantrell, 201 S. W.

702.

1052(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) If verdict is the only proper verdict that could have been returned under the evidence, any errors shown as to admission of testimony are harmless.Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 S. W. 1057.

1052(8) (Ky.) If defendant was entitled to directed verdict, but the court submitted the case to the jury which found for defendant, plaintiff Russell v. McIntosh, 201 S. W. 33. could not complain of incompetent evidence.

1054(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Admission of conclusions of witness upon trial without jury will not justify reversal.-McAllen v. Wood, 201 S. W. 433.

1040(4) (Ky.) It was not prejudicial error to 1056 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error, if any, in exsustain demurrer to part of answer, where evi- cluding from the evidence an order of dismissal dence bearing on such issue was admitted with-in another case, after the adverse parties had 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 instrument which had been offered.-Sullivan v. Masterson, 201 S. W. 194.

1040(10) (Ky.) If petition against incompetent by an attorney should have stated that all of the services rendered by a number of attorneys were necessary, the overruling of a demurrer was harmless, where the court required that all the attorneys be made parties.Fitzpatrick's Committee v. Dundon, 201 S. W.

339.

1041(2) (Mo.App.) In servant's action for personal injury, tried before the court, amendments of petition consisting of interlineations not changing cause of action, and possibly unnecessary, was harmless.--Loveless v. Cunard Mining Co., 201 S. W. 375.

1943 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court's refusal to allow absent witness' deposition to be

1056 (3) (Tex. Civ.App.) In action for breach of contract for sale of cotton, if testimony was admissible to corroborate defendant's testimony on collateral issue, exclusion was not reversible error, where additional evidence on collateral issue could not have induced the jury to believe defendant's testimony on main issue.-Dixon v. Winters, 201 S. W. 1103.

1056(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) If verdict is the only proper verdict that could have been returned under the evidence, any errors shown as to exclusion of testimony are harmless.Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 S. W. 1057.

1057 (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 iscontract, 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. 426.

1058(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where persons whose letters were sought to be introduced 1066 (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit against defendin evidence both testified in a general way to same effect as letters, which were excluded, exclusion, if erroneous, was harmless.-Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Gamer, 201 S. W. 1068.

er

ant to recover for horse killed by its motor car within city limits, submitting question whether city was incorporated, an issue not raised cannot be held harmless, where it can1058(3) (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. gestæ, it was harmless, where declarant him-1067 (Mo.) Where the evidence clearly self testified as witness to same effect.-Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Gamer, 201 S. W. 1068.

res

1060 (3) (Mo.App.) In personal injury case, it was prejudicial to a defendant for plaintiff's counsel in argument to say defendant had right to examine plaintiff physically which such defendant did not have, thereby tending to create impression defendant had no faith in truth of its evidence on point, particularly where court made no ruling.-Bergfeld v. Dunham, 201 S. W. 640.

1062(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for personal injuries against railroad, where other issues of negligence on which recovery could be based were properly submitted, error in submitting one issue of negligence, without support in evidence, was harmless. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 201 S. W. 674.

showed that the motorman of street car knew of plaintiff's dangerous position after being jury fact that motorman knew plaintiff was knocked down, instruction failing to submit to being dragged was not prejudicial error.-Hill v. Harvey, 201 S. W. 535.

[blocks in formation]

1068(3) (Ky.) If defendant was entitled to directed verdict, but the court submitted the case to the jury which found for defendant, plaintiff could not complain of erroneous instructions.-Russell v. McIntosh, 201 S. W. 33.

1064(1) (Ky.) In action for damages caused by street grade changes, instruction that measure of recovery was difference between abutting property's market value before and 1068 (3) (Ky.) Where the court would have after change held prejudicial error.-Waller v. City of Morganfield, 201 S. W. 459.

been warranted in directing a verdict against a party, that party cannot complain that an improper instruction was given.-Commercial Sec. Co. v. Archer, 201 S. W. 479.

1064 (1) (Mo.App.) Instruction in action for purchase price of paper sold, wherein rescis-1068 (4) (Mo.App.) Where court instructed sion was claimed, held harmless.-Riverside Fibre & Paper Co. v. Benedict Paper Co., 201 S. W. 584.

erroneously as to calculation of interest, but result arrived at by jury was same as would have been attained had jury computed interest under proper rule, error was harmless.-Sutton v. Libby, 201 S. W. 615.

1064 (1) (Mo.App.) Failure to qualify an instruction stating the duty of driver of a vehicle to turn to the right by the words "if prac-1070(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for servticable," held not prejudicial in view of the ant's death, the employer cannot complain of evidence.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201 S. W. verdict apportioning damages among all those having a right of action, since the lump sum judgment would protect it against any subsequent action.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Car

972.

1064(3) (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 1987, in personal injury action against two defendants 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 error prejudicial to a defendant.-Bergfeld v. Dunham, 201 S. W. 640.

1066 (Ky.) Where brakeman was caught by low-hanging telephone cable, and there was evidence that railroad company might have ascertained danger, instruction predicating liability both on railroad company's knowledge of lowhanging cable and negligent failure to ascertain danger held harmless, though erroneous, because there was no evidence of company's knowledge.Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mink, 201 S. W. 16.

1066 (Mo.) In quantum meruit action by contractor for labor and materials furnished, refusal of instruction that it devolved upon the contractor to show that owner prevented completion of contract was harmless, where the evidence shows such unmistakably.-Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas M. Sayman Realty & Investment Co., 201 S. W. 864.

1066 (Mo.App.) Seller having consented that buyer obtain substitute in place of feed contracted to be delivered, an instruction on the measure of damages, allowing difference between actual cost of substitute and contract price, held under the evidence harmless, if er

(K) Subsequent Appeals.

1097 (1) (Ark.) On subsequent appeal after reversal holding on first appeal that title to real estate was not involved held binding.Yoes v. Commercial Bank of Alma, 201 S. W. 826.

XVII.

DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
SITION OF CAUSE.

(D) Reversal.

1161 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where appellant assigns error to trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, request therefor having been made by appellant, and appellee confesses error, assignment will be sustained.-Hemman v. Jannsen Ostertag Mfg. Co., 201 S. W. 1162.

1170(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling of excep tion to supplemental petition, containing conclusions as to defendant's liability if plaintiff was in employ of independent contractor, held not reversible error, under rule 62a (149 S. W. x), where jury found, on sufficient evidence, that plaintiff was in defendant's service.-San AnItonio, U. & G. R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. W. 247.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

ARCHITECTS.

1172(3) (Mo.App.) Conceding that letter 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; there being no admission of defendant that let-See Principal and Agent, ~~1. ter was received, and claim that letter was written and mailed not having been submitted to jury.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 596.

1175(6) (Tex. Civ.App.) In a case tried upon agreed facts, where the trial court does not render the proper judgment, it is the duty of the Court of Civil Appeals to render the judgment which should have been rendered by the trial court.-Green v. Prince, 201 S. W. 200.

ARGUMENTATIVE INSTRUCTIONS.

See Trial, 240.

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

See Criminal Law, 719-730, 1060, 1154, 1171; Trial, 133.

ARMY AND NAVY.

See Judges, 25.

1177(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a case has been tried on an improper theory, the cause must be remanded, where it appears that, under a proper view of the case, the appellee might make out a case, although, as tried, he did not.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas See Bail. v. Langford, 201 S. W. 1087.

1178(6) (Ky.) In action to compel defendant coal company to allow plaintiff to use its spur

ARREST.

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

railroad for transportation of coal from several See Judgment, 263.

tracts, held that where trial court did not dispose of plaintiff's claim to use railroad on paying compensation judgment allowing use of rail

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

road for coal from one tract will be reversed for See Homicide, 86, 310.
determination of question of reasonable com-
pensation; defendant not objecting to use on
payment.-Eureka Coal Co. v. Kentucky-Ten- (A)
nessee Coal Co., 201 S. W. 5.

(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower

[blocks in formation]

I. CIVIL LIABILITY. Acts Constituting Assault or Battery and Liability Therefor.

15 (Mo.App.) While defendant was entitled to resist trespass upon his land and taking of his melons, he was not justified in use of unnecessary force, such as shooting a fleeing trespasser in the side and back.-Hartman Hoernle, 201 S. W. 911.

(B) Actions.

V.

[blocks in formation]

See Highways, 140; Levees, 22, 25.
ASSETS.

1198 (Mo.App.) Where appellate court reverses and remands, with specific directions, if such directions dispose of case, that ends matter in controversy.-Gilsey v. Gilsey, 201 S. W. See Executors and Administrators, 60, 87. 588.

XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND

UNDERTAKINGS.

1226 (Ky.) On appeal granted by the circuit court, there can be no award of the damages, based on supersedeas, provided by Civ. Code Prac. § 764, on affirmance or dismissal, if such court had no power to grant the appeal; the supersedeas bond being therefore void.-Calvert v. Wilder, 201 S. W. 449.

1234(1) (Ky.) Only part of the judgment appealed from being, as permitted by Civ. Code Prac. $751, superseded, by express provision of section 764 the award of 10 per cent. damages, on affirmance or dismissal, is on such part.-Calvert v. Wilder, 201 S. W. 449.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (B) Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment.

31 (Mo.) Where a firm enters into a contract to furnish ballast to a construction company, and then enters into an identical contract with another in its own name, but at a less price, there is no assignment.-Spencer v. Wyandotte Const. Co., 201 S. W. 554.

48 (Tenn.) An equitable assignment will be enforced or not in the sound discretion of the chancellor according to justice, but not so as to defeat intervening rights of third persons.-Horn v. Nicholas, 201 S. W. 756.

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS.

See Bankruptcy.

ASSOCIATIONS.

See Evidence, 22.

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See Use and Occupation; Work and Labor.

ASSUMPTION OF RISKS.

deem property the attorney had purchased under tax sale, out of which the attorney's fees were to be paid, yet when the client, without offering to redeem, refused an offer from another for the full value of the property, the attorney's obligation terminated.-Ivey v. Teichman, 201 S. W. 695.

126 (2) (Ark.) In a summary proceeding under Kirby's Dig. §§ 449, 4480, and 4485, to

See Master and Servant, 203-219, 288, 289. recover money in hands of an attorney, where

ATTACHMENT.

See Execution; Exemptions; Garnishment; Homestead; Judgment, 17; Justices of the Peace, 86; Sequestration.

the attorney files a verified answer setting up a good defense, the court has no jurisdiction to render a summary judgment, and appeal may be had without motion for new trial.-Davies & Davies v. Patterson, 201 S. W. 504. ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.

See Negligence, 39.

AUTHENTICATION.

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS. (B) Grounds of Attachment. 30 (Mo.App.) In action on joint note of husband and wife, in which attachment is sought, creditor establishes his right to the attachment by showing that the husband formed the intention to leave the state, without showing a like intent on the part of the wife.-Ware See Attorney and Client, 104; Judges, v. Flory, 201 S. W. 593.

IV. WRIT OR WARRANT.

154 (Tex. Civ.App.) Rule allowing amendment of writs of a.tachment to remedy clerical errors does not permit correction of clerical error in reciting in writ amount in excess of jurisdiction of court.-McDaniel v. Cage & Crow, 201 S. W. 1078.

See Evidence, 372.
AUTHORITY.

25.

AUTOMOBILES.

See Chattel Mortgages, 138; Constitutional
Law, 48; Evidence, 116; Highways,
184; Licenses, 7; Master and Serv-
ant, 332; Municipal Corporations,
705; States, 131; Statutes, 64, 119.
AVULSION.

See Navigable Waters.

BAGGAGE.

V. LEVY, LIEN, AND CUSTODY AND
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.
200 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. § 385, the
contract of sale of property sold under attach-
ment is not complete until the bid is accepted by
the court, and until acceptance there can be See Carriers, 387-408.
no enforcement of the contract by either party.
-Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Day,
201 S. W. 125.

VIII. CLAIMS BY THIRD PERSONS.

308 (2) (Mo.App.) In an attachment suit, an interpleader claiming the property has the burden of proof.-Cochrane v. First State Bank of Pickton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572.

BAIL.

11. IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

43 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Const. art. 1, § 11, providing that all prisoners shall be bailable unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident, the word "evident" means that unless 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. 996. jury.-Cochrane v. First State Bank of Pick-49 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for murton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572.

ATTESTATION.

See Wills, 118.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

See Appeal and Error, 281, 1060; Criminal
Law, 719-730; Evidence, 18, 271; In-
sane Persons, 74; Judgment, 401;
Jury, 19; Witnesses, ~199.

der, evidence held not such as to warrant denial of bail.-Ex parte Hill, 201 S. W. 996.

58 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 321, as amended by Acts 26th Leg. c. 74, stating requisites of a bail bond, a bond naming offense of "violating the local option law" created no liability on the surety, since it neither stated that the offense was a felony, nor named an offense eo nomine prescribed by law.-Anderson v. State, 201 S. W. 994.

65 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903, recognizance on appeal failing to provide that defendant shall abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, or to stipulate that obligation shall be joint and several as to sureties, or to show that accused was convicted of felony is insufficient.-Sanders v. State, 201 S. W. 411.

II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY. 104 (Ky.) The general rule that notice to an attorney is notice to his client has application to knowledge of defendant's attorney in a homicide case of a separation of jurors; the rule applying to criminal as well as civil matters.-Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318.70 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant did 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.

123(1) (Mo.App.) Defendant, attorney for plaintiff, an old, weak, and uninformed man, held liable for amount he owed plaintiff on account of various transactions between them; defendant never having rendered true statement of indebtedness.-Eadie v. Johnston, 201 S. W. 601.

neglect of one of officers of court to carry recognizance properly into minutes, will not deprive defendant of his appeal.-Roberts v. State, 201 S. W. 998.

See Pledges.

BAILMENT.

123(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Although an attor-3 (Mo.App.) Where lessee takes personal ney orally promised to permit his client to re- property at his own risk, or with all faults or

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »