« 이전계속 »
senger at railroad crossing, evidence that on, or alarm was caused by negligence of railway, prior eastward trip car was delayed ten min- if apprehension of peril was reasonable, and if utes on account of controller dropping off, was appearance of danger was imminent.-Delfosse inadmissible to prove negligence of conduc v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 201 S. W. 860. tor in failing to go ahead at crossing on westward trip to look for train.-Bergfeld v. Dun- (F) Ejection of Passengers and Intruders. ham, 201 S. W. 610.
ww382 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Mere retention in In action against receivers of street rail. employment by railroad company of conductor, way for injuries to passenger at railroad after knowledge he has wrongfully ejected pas. crossing, evidence that car on prior eastward senger, does not require allowance of exemtrip was delayed by controller dropping off plary damages.- Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. was not admissible to show delay had thrown O'Connor, 201 s. W. 437. car behind time so that crew were too hurriedm382(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where to stop at crossing to look for train.-Id. Fww318(2) (Mo.) Evidence held not to show ejected aged man, who had a valid ticket, at
a point six miles from the station on a dark negligence of carrier in constructing and main- night, in a driving rain, and he suffered mental taining its freight yards, where it provided safe anguish, fear, and was threatened with pneuplace for entering caboose, notwithstanding un
monia, though not confined, verdict of $2,000 safe place could be used by prospective passen
was excessive, and was reduced to $1,000.ger on freight train.--Hamilton v. Pryor, 201 Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Snow, 201 S. W. 550,
S. W. 224. 318(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In passenger's action for personal injury when back seat gave way
(G) Passengers' Effects. and his foot was caught under seat in front of 387 (Ark.) Contract to carry baggage is him, evidence held to authorize finding of neg an incident to contract to carry passenger.ligence in that seats tad not been properly in- | Bush v. Beauchamp, 201 S. W. 828. spected. - Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas 391 (Ark.) Jewelry is “baggage," and an v. Rogers, 201 S. W. 117.
interstate carrier cannot make it otherwise by C320(15) (Mo.) Whether conductor and mo- rules and regulations filed with the Commerce torman of street railway negligently failed Commission, although it can properly limit the properly to secure their car on slightly inclined amount of its liability, under Kirby's Dig. $ track before leaving it, after colliding with 6615.—Bush v. Beauchamp, 201 S. W. 828. brewery wagon, held for jury.--Delfosse v.
m404 (Ark.) Where a passenger received United Ryş. Co. of St. Louis, 201 S. W. 860.
permission of the station agent to leave bag. Whether' brakes of street car standing on gage in the station for two or three days, the incline, secured properly by motorman before he carrier was liable for its loss only as a ware. left car, were released by boys on front plat- 1 houseman.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. form, held for jury.-Id.
Davenport, 201 S. W. 1114. w320 (19) (Mo.App.) Evidence held to pre- ww406 (Ark.) A carrier selling a through sent jury question whether a street car started round-trip ticket, including passage over other with undue violence and an excessive jerk, so lines, is liable for loss of baggage on the other as to throw passenger to the foor.---Shafer v. lines on the return trip.-Bush v. Beauchamp, Kansas City Rys. Co., 201 S. W. 611.
201 S. W. 828. C320 (26) (Mo.App.) Evidence that defend. 408(4) (Ark.) Evidence that a passenger ant street railways car, which had decreased arriving in the station left his baggage with speed or stopped at safety stop opposite post the baggage master, who agreed that he might office substation, resumed usual speed while leave it for two or three days, and that the plaintiff passenger was alighting, etc., held to inake defendant's negligence a jury question.finding of negligent failure to exercise due care.
baggage was never delivered to him, warrants a Hays v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Davenport, 566.
201 S. W. 1114. 320 (30) (Mo.App.) Evidence held to present a jury question whether a street car pas
CAUSE OF ACTION. senger's injuries and subsequent paralysis were the proximate result of her being thrown to See Action, Co. the floor of a car when it started with undue violence.- Shafer v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 201
CAVEAT EMPTOR. S. W. 611. Cow 320(31) (Ter.Civ.App.) In action against See Bailment, Om3. two railroads for personal injuries to a passenger, where it appeared that one had been run
CERTAINTY. ning trains over the track of the other for 14 years, the court did
err in submitting to the See Deeds, www38. jury the question as to whether there was an agreement between the roads.-Texas & N. 0.
CERTIFICATE. R. Co. v. Jones, 201 S. W. 1085.
See Acknowledgment, ww22-48. Cmw 321(9) (Mo.) In action against street railway by girl passenger who jumped from car moving backward down incline, held, that court
CERTIFIED COPY. improperly refused defendant's requested in. See Evidence, w343. struction that. if some one other than employés on the car released brakes, plaintiff could not recover.---Delfosse v. United Rys. Co. of St.
CERTIORARI, Louis, 201 S. W. 860.
See Habeas Corpus, w114. (E) Contributory Negligence of Person Injured.
1. NATURE AND GROUNDS. www331(2) (Mo.App.) A street car passenger 5(1) (Tenn.). General appellate and revi. was not negligent as a matter of law simply be. sory jurisdiction of circuit court over all incause she did not seat herself at the very first ferior tribunals created by Legislature and opportunity, but passed to a seat more distant i vested with judicial powers, as juvenile court from the door.- Shafer v. Kansas City Rys. of county, may be invoked by certiorari and Co., 201 S. W. 611.
supersedeas, where no appeal or writ of error C338 (Mo.) Street railway was liable to girl lies for correction of judgments of such infepassenger who jumped from car on incline rior tribunals.-State v. Bockman, 201 S. W. when it began to move backward only if peril 741.
em 14 (Tenn.) Proceedings in juvenile court CHATTEL MORTGAGES.
See Acknowledgment; Pledges.
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. MINATION.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Transfers of 42 (3) (Mo.App.) Conclusions in petition
Chattels as Security. for writ of certiorari that certain matters are insufficient, or improper, or void, or illegal ow8 (Tex.Civ.App.) Written bill of sale and should be accompanied by allegations showing contemporaneous agreement to retransfer the wherein or why matters complained of were property on the seller's payment of the conimproper. -State ex rel. Morrison v. Sims, 201 sideration were in effect a chattel mortgage S. W. 910.
and not a pledge, under which either party by m53 (Mo.App.) In certiorari to county su- Kelly, 201 S. W. 447.
agreement might have possession.--Keppler v. perintendent of schools to quash proceedings for organization of consolidated school district, (B) Form and Contents of Instruments. jurisdiction of such inferior tribunal as concerned in proceeding need not appear on
Oma 47 (Ky.) Mortgage stating that it was givface of any special paper, but only need appear nature on notes bankable which were given to
en to secure P. against loss because of her sig. somewhere in record. --State ex rel. Morrison D. Motor Company for 1916 Dodge car suffiv. Sims, 201 S. W, 910.
ciently identifies automobile and notes.-Clark mw58 (Mo.App.) Proceedings in certiorari bring v. T'ord, 201 S. W. 344. up the record only, and matters not appearing therein cannot be considered.--State ex rel. Pol
III, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERAlard v. Brasher, 201 S. W. 1150.
TION. cm 60 (Tenn.) On certiorari bringing up question of eligibility of officer to hold office, the (C) Property Mortgaged, and Estates and
Interests of Parties Therein. Supreme Court will consider the case, though term of office has expired, where matter of Cm 126 (Mo.App.) Facts held to show that costs remains to be adjudicated, and this de- there was an agreed substitution of another pends on the merits.-State v. Howard, 201 S. piano for that originally covered by a purchaseW. 139.
money mortgage, valid between the parties.Cum 64(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Vernon's Sayles' Clough & Warren Co. v. Madden, 201 S. W. Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 740, relating to certio- 938. rari to county courts, district court is confined
(D) Lien and Priority. to facts alleged, as well as grounds of error specified, in the application.—McAllen v. Wood, for injuries against operator of automobile sub
cm 138(1) (Ky.) One who secured judgment 201 S. W. 433.
sequent to time mortgage was given by oper70(5) (Tenn.) Former determination by ator to surety on notes given for automobile, Supreme Court in same proceedings that pe: held not "subsequent purchaser for value” who titioner who was removed from office of chief could take advantage of fact that mortgage had of police was civil service employé, entitled not been recorded.-Clark v. Ford, 201 S. W. under charter of municipality to have charges 344. formulated and preferred against him and to
Lien of mortgagee of automobile acquired betrial before removal, is conclusive in subse fore plaintiff's suit against purchaser, held suquent proceedings as law of case:-City of perior to attachment of plaintiff secured in suit Knoxville v. Connors, 201 S. W. 133.
to enforce judgment against purchaser of auOm70(9) (Tenn.) Where Supreme Court di. tomobile.--Id. rected issuance of certiorari to review removal of one from office of chief of police, held, that IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF appeals to discretion of court against issu
PARTIES. ance of writ were foreclosed. -City of Knox-172(2) (Mo.App.) In replevin by the asville v. Condors, 201 S. W. 133. Where it was found on writ of certiorari to secure the price of goods sold, defendant
signee of notes and a chattel mortgage given that removal of petitioner from office of chief may set up any matter of defense or relief she of police was unauthorized because he was not may have, including one of partial failure of accorded trial as required by city's charter, consideration in that she has paid more than and charges were not preferred against him, the worth of the property.-Scheidel Western order of removal should be quashed, but court X-Ray Co. v. Bacon, 201 S. W. 916. is without jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of petitioner.-Id.
Onw255 (Mo.App.) Where at request of mort
gagor and for his benefit a new article is furSee Judges, 4.
nished to mortgagor, as a mere substitution
for a like article previously furnished, covered CHALLENGE.
by purchase-money, mortgage, mortgagee
need not resort to equity to enforce his lien See Jury, w90-103.
against the substituted article.-Clough & War
ren Co. v. Madden, 201 S. W. 938. CHANCERY.
Can 260 (Mo.App.) Powers of sale in chattel See Equity.
mortgages must be strictly followed as to plae
es and time of posting notices, and in all other CHANGE OF VENUE.
particulars.-Huber Mfg. Co. v. Ellis, 201 S.
W. 931. See Criminal Law, Cw1150; Venue.
Where mortgagee obtained stipulation that
sale be held in another county, but nothing was CHARACTER.
said about where notices should be posted, Sec Witnesses, 335–345.
posting of notices must be where specified by
ww262(1) (Mo. App.) Stipulation drawn by
mortgagee regarding change of place of sale By carriers, see ('arriers, O 193.
will not be added to by intendment.-Hluber To jury, see Criminal Law, C778–822. Mfg. Co. v. Ellis, 201 S. W. 931.
282 (Ark.) In administrator's action
COMMERCE. chattel note, evidence that witness overheard deceased mortgagee promise to give defend. See Carriers; Evidence, em 20. ant certain credits on note, and that defendant had furnished decedent with certain per- I. POWER TO REGULATE IN GEN. sonal property, made question whether defend
ERAL. ant was entitled to any offsets one for jury.Kirby v. Wooten, 201 S. W. 115.
Cm8 (6) (Mo.App.) When federal Euplorers'
Liability Act applies, it is supreme, and excludes CHEAT.
every other remedy.--Spaw v. Kansas City Ter.
minal Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 927. See Fraud.
Om 8(7) (Ark.) Adherence by state court CHECKS.
common-law principle invalidating telegraph
company's stipulation exempting it from liabil. See Payment, Om 67.
ity for negligence in transmission of unrepeated
message, etc., cannot be viewed as interference CHILDREN.
with interstate commerce, or as in conflict with
authority of Interstate Commerce Commission. See Adoption; Infants; Guardian and Ward; --Des Arc Oil Mill v. Western Union Telegraph Parent and Child.
Co., 201 S. W. 273.
II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION. See Assignments.
w 27 (2) (Mo.App.) Terminal company whose
facilities are used and are necessary in transCIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
portation of persons and property by inter
state trunk lines is engaged in interstate comSee Criminal Law, 552, 784.
merce.--Spaw v. Kansas City Terminal Ry.
Co., 201 S. W. 927.
em 27 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) A railroad company
in breaking up interstate trains at a junction See Process.
point within the state to facilitate delivery of CITIES.
shipments to other points within the state is
engaged in interstate commerce notwithstandSee Municipal Corporations.
ing interstate cars were to be delivered within
state or at terminal where trains were broken CITIZENS.
up.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Stephens, 201 S. W.
1076. See Constitutional Law, Ow206, 229; Taxan 27 (5) (Mo.App.) Railroad yardmaster emtion, Cm37.
ployed by terminal railway company, injured
while engaged in attempting to replace derailed CIVIL RIGHTS.
engine on track so as to remove it and clear See Railroads, On 226, 253.
tracks for transportation of interstate com
merce, was engaged in interstate commerce at CLAIM AND DELIVERY.
time of his injury.-Spaw v. Kansas City Ter
minal Ry. Co.. 201 S. W. 927. See Replevin.
Railroad yardmaster engaged in taking an inCLAIMS.
jured engine to a roundhouse for repairs after
removing it from an interstate train which See Executors and Administrators, Om202- then proceeded on its way, was engaged in in214; Garnishment.
Yardmaster, injured while replacing derailed CLASS LEGISLATION.
engine pulling, interstate train operating over
lines of terminal company, held, in view of See Constitutional Law, 208.
Rev. St. 1909, $ 3079, an employe of both com
panies engaged in interstate commerce, and, CLERKS OF COURTS.
hence, subject to the federal Employers' Lia
bility Act exclusively.-Id. See Costs, 32.
C27 (5) (Tenn.) To be within the federal
Employers' Liability Act, one need not be diCOLLATERAL AGREEMENT.
rectly engaged in interstate train inovement; See Bills and Notes, em 134; Evidence,
the test being whether his task was so directly 444.
and immediately connected therewith as to COLLATERAL ATTACK.
form a part or necessary incident, even though
only preliminary thereto.--Cincinnati, N. 0. & See Executors and Administrators, 349; T. P. Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 201 S. W. 128. Judgment, Om 486–501.
27(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by rail
road employé who suffered injuries in CaliforCOLLATERAL SECURITY.
nia, evidence held to show that at the time he
received his injuries he was engaged in interSee Pledges.
state commerce, and so his cause of action fell
within federal Employers' Liability Act, instead COLLATERAL UNDERTAKINGS. of the California Workmen's Compensation InSee Guaranty.
surance and Safety Act.-Southern Pac. Co. v.
Stephens, 201 S. W. 1076.
Cw27 (7) (Tenn.) Where a locomotive was
habitually and exclusively used in interstate See Executors and Administrators, 87-138. train movements, and not designated for any
intrastate or mixed use, an employé working COLORED PERSONS.
upon it was engaged in interstate commerce.
Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v, Morgan, See Railroads, C 226, 253.
201 S. W. 128.
Where an engine had been specifically desCOLOR OF TITLE.
ignated for a certain interstate train, and a
hostler was told to fire and prepare the engine See Adverse Possession.
for such train, and while doing so was in
jured, he was engaged in interstate conmerce
COMPUTATION. within the federal Employers' Liability Act. -Id.
See Interest, Em59; Limitation of Actions,
ww58-100. III. MEANS AND METHODS OF REGULATION.
CONCLUSION. Ons 59 (Ark.) Adherence by state court to See Evidence, m471, 591. common-law principle invalidating telegraph company's stipulation exempting it from liabil
CONCLUSIVENESS. ity for negligence in transmission of unrepeated message, etc., cannot be viewed as inter- See Appeal and Error, eww1010; Divorce, ference with interstate commerce, or as in con 326; Judgment, m682-743. flict with authority of Interstate Commerce Commission.-Des Arc Oil Mill v. Western Un
CONDEMNATION. jon Telegraph Co., 201 S. W. 273.
See Eminent Domain. Om64 (Tenn.) Acts 1917, c. 70, imposing a privilege tax on wholesale dealers in foreignmade nonintoxicating beverages containing al
CONDITIONS. cohol, and on domestic manufacturers of such See Bills and Notes, 396. drinks, is unconstitutional within Const. U. S. art. 1, $ 8, subsec. 3, as imposing a burden on
CONFESSION. interstate commerce.-Diehl & Lord v. Hailey, 201 S. W. 773.
See Criminal Law, 518; Judgment, Mere fact that privilege tax was imposed on
29, 59. manufacture in the state of nonintoxicating al
CONFLICT OF LAWS. coholic beverages larger than that imposed on wholesalers of such drinks made outside the See Death; Insurance, Ow125, 147. state does not justify the classification in Acts 1917, c. 70, and omission to tax wholesalers of CONNECTING CARRIERS. the domestic product.-Id.
Conceding that only foreign-made nonintoxi- See Carriers, C180, 193, 406. cating alcoholic beverages were ever in the state, Acts 1917, c. 70, imposing privilege tax
CONSENT. only on wholesalers of such foreign-made beverages, is invalid as an imposition on interstate
See Rape, 13. commerce.-Id.
See Accord and Satisfaction, w5; Bills and
Notes, Om518, 537; Contracts, Ow71; EviSee Bills and Notes.
dence. Om 419; Fraudulent Conveyances,
95, 96; Guaranty, em16, 17. COMMISSION. See Constitutional Law, Om62; Criminal Law,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 304.
Enactment and validity of statutes in general,
see Statutes, 1-64. COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS. Special or local laws, see Statutes, C94. See Public Service Commissions.
Subjects and titles of statutes, see Statutes,
For validity of statutes relating to particular COMMISSIONS.
subjects, see also the various specific topics. See Brokers, cm 44-58, 84, 86.
II. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,
AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONCOMMON CARRIERS.
STITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. See Carriers.
Om42 (Tex.Civ.App.) One who has no inter
est in subject of statute and is not injuriously COMMON SCHOOLS.
affected thereby cannot question its constitu
tionality.--Atkins V. State Highway DepartSee Schools and School Districts.
ment, 201 S. W. 226.
Cum 48 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where evidence did not COMMUNITY PROPERTY. show, and there was nothing in Acts 35th Leg.,
C. 190 and chapter 207 as amended by First See Husband and Wife, Em 272, 273.
Called Sess. 35th Leg. c. 31, providing for
licensing of motor vehicles, to show that liCOMPENSATION.
tenses were excessive, it must be presumed
they were reasonable.-Atkins v. State HighSee Brokers, en 44-58, 81, 86; Contracts,
way Department, 201 S. W. 226. 228; Eminent Domain, m155; Master and Servant, cm385, 399; Municipal Corpora- unconstitutional unless it clearly appears to be
Act of Legislature should not be declared tions, 0162, 165; Public Service Commis
so.-Id. sions. COMPETENCY.
III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERN.
MENTAL POWERS AND See Evidence, mm 151-155, 537; Master and
FUNCTIONS. Servant, Eww168; Witnesses, ww45–211.
(A) Legislative Powers and Delegation
en 62 (Mo.) The Legislature may confer upon See Indictment and Information.
certain bodies power to carry out in detail
the legislative will, to promulgate rules and COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.
regulations, to ascertain facts upon which the
operation of a statute would depend, or carry See Accord and Satisfaction; Executors and through certain prescribed procedure by which Administrators, 87; Payment; Release. to put in force certain statutes in limited dis
tricts.-State, on Inf. of Killam, v. Colbert, | No. 24751, 8 1605, are not in violation of 201 S. W. 52.
Const. art. 2, § 30, providing that no person en 62 (Tex.Cr.App.) Rev. St. 1911, art. 7312 shall be deprived of property without dne proet seq., and Acts 33d Leg. r. 169,'$ 3 (Ver- cess of law.-City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz, non's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 7314b),
Sovlos' Ann Ciy St 1914 r 7314) 201 S. W. 870. giving the live stock sanitary commission au- un 290 (3) (Mo.) While the authority to las thority to promulgate rules for quarantine off special taxing districts may be granted by areas, etc., are not invalid as delegation of leg the Legislature to administrative bodies, yet islative authority to administrative body.-Mul- before the land included can be burdened with key v. State, 201 S. W. 991.
special assessment for benefits, a notice and
opportunity to be heard must be accorded the (B) Judicial Powers and Functions. | landowners to constitute "due process of law." ww70(1) (Ark.) Where the Legislature has --State, on Inf. of Killam, v. Colbert, 201 S. fixed the amount of assessments which may be W. 52. levied upon the lands benefited by a levee, its determination is conclusive of the amount, un
XII. RIGHT TO JUSTICE AND REMEless an arbitrary and manifest abuse of power;
DIES FOR INJURIES. is shown.-Alcorn v. Bliss-Cook Oak Co., 201 em 328 (Ark.) Acts 1915, p. 432, providing S. W. 797.
for a levee tax in Chicot county, is not invalid,
making no provision for the taxpayer's day VI. VESTED RIGHTS.
in court, in view of section 16 thereof, requirOn 106 (Tex.Civ.App.) While remedies, reme ing hearing by the inspectors at the regular dial rights, and process are subject to legisla | October meeting, and section 4, stating the tive control, to construe a law, requiring pres times of meeting of the board.-Alcorn v. entation of claim to the city council for re Bliss-Cook Oak Co., 201 S. W. 797. dress precedent to suit for injunction for irreparable injury, would make it invalid, as amounting to a denial of all remedy.-El Paso
| See Bills and Notes, Union Passenger Depot Co. v. Look, 201 S. W.
134; Contracts, 714.
147-153; Deeds, w93–143; Insurance, com
726; Justices of the Peace, Om 130; LandIX. PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES
lord and Tenant, cm 44; Logs and Logging, AND CLASS LEGISLATION.
3; Mines and Minerals. 78: Sales,
60; Statutes, 174-225; Trial, Ow20 (1) (Mo.) The provision for taxation 295; Wills, Omw 139693. on premiums received from business done in the state by a foreign insurance company under CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS. Rev. St. 1909, $ 7099, is not in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, $ 1; such corporations See Trusts. not being citizens.-Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Chorn, 201 S. W. 1122.
208 (3) (Tenn.) Acts 1905, c. 376, § 2, pro- see Animals viding a 90 per cent. exemption for persons with an income of less than $40 per month,
CONTEMPT. and a maximum exemption of $30 to persons earning over $10 per month, is not unfair dis | See Vendor and Purchaser. crimination, but such classification is reasonable.-Frazier v. Nashville Veterinary Hospital, 201 S. W. 751. ww208 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Legislature of state,
See Criminal Law, Cw595, 598. without unjustly discriminating, could impose 10 (Mo.) Where an appeal was pending in on railroads penalty in fixed sum in cases of a partition proceeding involving title to proppersons negligently killed who were not em-erty, a continuance until decision of the appeal ployés, and, as to employés, give right of ac should have been granted in an action in ejecttion for damages actually sustained, and make ment by a party to the former suit who had
other than those on-l purchased under the former decree.-Brown v. erating railroad liable for all damages by negli- | Simpson, 201 S. W. 898. gent killing.–Clay v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. En 26 (11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Application for conCo., 201 S. W. 1072.
tinuance because of witness' absence held not
to show due diligence where witness lived near X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS.
courthouse, and applicant knew his illness Cm 229(1) (Mo.) The provision for taxation
would prevent attendance, but made no effort
to take deposition before trial.-Palm y. Theuon premiums received from business done in the state by a foreign insurance company under
mann, 201 S. W. 421. Rev. St. 1909, $ 7099, is not in violation of Cw37 (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court held within equal protection clause of Const. U. S. Amend. judicial discretion in overruling application of 14, $ i.Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. y.
defendants for continuance, which was not in Chorn, 201 S. W. 1122.
writing, where failure to put in writing and to
verify was not waived by plaintiffs.-Lynch v. XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Bernhardt, 201 S. W. 1051. am 274 (Tex.Civ.App.) Resolution of board of
em 46 (10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court held education for exclusion of unvaccinated child within judicial discretion in overruling applicadren from the schools held not to violate Cons
tion of defendants for continuance, where teş. art. 1, § 19, prohibiting deprivation of privileg
timony of defendants whose absence was basiz es except by due course of the law of the land.
of application was not shown to be necessary. -Staffel v. San Antonio School Board of Edu
-Lynch v. Bernhardt, 201 S. W. 1051. cation, 201 S. W. 413. Cm 283 (Mo.) The provision for taxation on premiums received from business done in the See Accord and Satisfaction; Alteration of In. state by a foreign insurance company under struments; Appeal and Error, Omw 173; AsRev. St. 1909, $ 7099, is not in violation of signments; Bailment; Bankruptcy, On 263; due process clause Const. U. S. Amend. 14, 8! Bills and Notes; Brokers, 41-58; Can1.-Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. y. Chorn,
cellation of Instruments; Carriers, 218; 201 S. W. 11.22.
Chattel Mortgages; Covenants; Customs and 287 (1o.) The provisions for occupation Usages; Damages, Caw121; Deeds; Evidence. tax of junk dealers in St. Louis City Ordinance i Cm100–450; Exchange of Property; Frauds,