페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Ew59 (Mo.App.) Whether a negligent act is , calculated to change verdict.-Iverson v. Row. the proximate cause of injury depends upon land, 201 S. W. 288. whether injury is the natural and probable consequence of the act, which ought to have

III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE been foreseen in exercise of ordinary care.

NEW TRIAL. Loveless y. Cunard Mining Co., 201 S. W. 375. 150 (4) (Ark.) Plaintiff's motion for new

trial for newly discovered testimony was prop. III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

erly refused, where motion did not set forth (A) Persons Injured in General. facts showing that plaintiff had exercised rea. C 66(2) (Mo.App.) A company's employé sonable diligence.-Iverson v. Rowland, 201 S. who went to repair an outside curb at a new

W. 288. building on which he had worked some days be- 164 (Mo.App.) If court should not have set fore, and, in looking for water, went down a aside verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, as it dark stairway well without a light, and fell, did, where defendants offered to allow judgthere being no handrail, was grossly negligent ment to go against them for nominal damages, and could not recover; having built the stair- | all plaintiffs could obtain on new trial, court way himself, and having known that there was should have rendered judgment for plaintiffs no rail a few days before.--Shuck v. Security for nominal damages.-State ex rel. and to Realty Co., 201 S. W. 559.

use of Dominick v. Farmer, 201 S. W. 935. Cmw 83 (Tenn.) Contributory negligence of Where judgment for defendants was set aside, workman in working in a place apparently court could not properly have rendered judgdangerous because near heavy smokestack be- ment for plaintiff's for nominal damages, in ing erected in dangerous manner did not relieve accordance with defendants' off :r, had there erector from liability for death of workman by been any question to be tried in relation to fall of the smokestack, where. knowing the judgment plaintiffs should have.-Id. workman's position, the erector proceeded with the erection, constantly increasing workman's

NOMINAL DAMAGES. peril.-Cash v. Casey-Hedges Co., 201 S. W. 317.

See Damages, 211. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.

NON COMPOS MENTIS. See Bills and Notes.

See Insane Persons.
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

NON EST FACTUM.
See Criminal Law, Em938-944; New Trial, See Deeds, 193.
Om 108.
NEWSPAPERS.

NON INTOXICANTS.
See Evidence, 318.

See Commerce, cm 64.
NEW TRIAL.

NONSUIT.

See Dismissal and Nonsuit, Om 19. See Appeal and Error, 281-302, 581, 851,

979, 981, 1177, 1178; Criminal Law, Cum 911-959, 1061.

NONUSER. I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF REMEDY.

See Dedication. m 6 (Tex.Civ.App.) It was not an abuse of

NOTARIES. discretion to deny a new trial for newly discovered evidence on an affidavit that a witness See Acknowledgment, ww57. admitted that he lied on the stand, where the Coll (Mo.App.) Where notary negligently cer. witness denied the statement under oath.--Tex tified to identity of mortgagor, but negligence as & N. 0. R. Co. v. Glass, 201 S. W. 730.

was not proximate cause of relator's loss, which

arose from fact no property was in existence II. GROUNDS.

from which security could have been had, etc., (A) Errors and Irregularities in General. notary and surety on bond were liable to reOm 13 (Ky.) Misconstruction of Supreme

lator for nominal damages only.-State ex rel. Court's opinion on reversal and remand, by low

and to use of Scruggs v. Packard, 201 S. W.

953. er court and parties, resulting in erroneous judgment of lower court and failure to appeal Cool! (Mo.App.) In view of Rev. St. 1909. § therefrom, is not ground for new trial under 10178. under section 10181, remote transferees Civ. Code Prac. $ 518.--Jellico Hardware Co. of note and chattel mortgage had right of acv. Pine Mountain R. Co., 201 S. W. 450.

tion against notary and bondsmen for nominal

damages on account of notary's negligence in (F) Verdict or Findings Contrary to Law mistakenly certifying to identity of mortgagor. or Evidence.

-State ex rel. and to use of Dominick v. FarmCm73 (Tex.Civ.App.) Conflicting jury findings er, 201 S. W. 955. on question whether mortgage notes were de Where notary negligently certified to identity livered to trustee under trust deed as attorney of mortgagor, and mortgagees indorsed away for collection or to institute foreclosure pro

note and mortgage, remote transferees of note ceedings as trustee, held to require new trial.-

were not estopped to claim nominal damages of Oak Cliff State Bank & Trust Co. v. Conroy, notary and bondsmen on ground mortgagees 201 S. W. 699.

through whom they claimed would be estopped 74 (Mo.App.) Where notary's negligent act

as they introduced purported mortgagor to nowas not proximate cause of loss. new trial of

tary.-Id. action against him and his bondsmen could not

NOTES. result in plaintiffs' favor for anything more See Bills and Notes. than nominal damages.-State ex rel. and to use of Dominick v. Farmer, 201 S. W. 955.

NOTICE. (H) Newly Discovered Evidence.

See Attorney and Client, m104; Bills and cm 108(1) (Ark.) Plaintiff's motion for new Notes, C332, 342, 343, 414; Carriers, trial for newly discovered testimony was prop 159, 180; Corporations, Om 129; Insane Pererly refused, where matters set forth were not sons, Cm13; Judgment, Om 17; Master and

Servant, en 398; Municipal Corporations,

PANDERING.
Om 1021, 1022; Vendor and Purchaser, en
230-232.

See Prostitution, Owl, 4, 5.
NUISANCE.

PANEL.
See Judgment, Om 606.

See Jury, em 70.
II. PUBLIC NUISANCES.

PARENT AND CHILD.
(A) Natnre of Injury, and Liability There-
for.

See Adoption; Damages, w186; Deeds, Om65 (Tenn.) That a dam erected for the 196; Fraudulent Conveyances, On96; United States in navigable waters created un Guardian and Ward; Infants. healthful conditions by making stagnant pools m3(2) (Ky.) A parent cannot subject interof water did not make it a nuisance, nor render the contractor liable as for maintaining a

est of infants in land to payment of debts prenuisance.--Chattanooga & Tennessee River viously incurred for their maintenance and eduPower Co. v. Lawson, 201 S. W. 165.

cation, where no application had been made to a chancery court.-Nunnelly's Guardian v. Nun

nelly, 201 S. W. 976. OBJECTIONS.

Ow14 (Tex.Civ. App.) Neither relationship of See Appeal and Error, em 188-242, 499; Jury, stepdaughter and stepfather nor fact that stepOm 90-103.

daughter lived in stepfather's home and that he OCCUPATION.

bought her clothing, books, and scholarship in

business college, etc., would deprive her of right See Use and Occupation.

of ownership in money loaned him by her.-Youngblood v. Hoeffle, 201 S. W. 1057.

As respects stepdaughter's right to money OFFER OF PROOF.

given or paid her by her stepfather for services See Trial, 47.

rendered, and by her loaned to him, it is imma

terial whether she had been emancipated by him, OFFICERS.

or whether, under circumstances, he was in loco

parentis to her and entitled to her services. See Banks and Banking, en 54, 55; Bound--Id.

aries, 52; Judges; Justices of the Emancipation of stepdaughter by stepfather Peace; Municipal Corporations, Cm153–185; does not necessarily make her liable for board Notaries; Public Service Commissions; Quo and for lothing purchased by him while sh. Warranto; Receivers.

was living with him, where there was no un

derstanding by either that a charge was to be I. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, made therefor.-Id.

AND TENURE. (F) Term of Office, Vacancies, and Hold

PARKS. ing Over.

See Municipal Corporations, Om721. 55(2) (Tex.Cr. App.) When one accepts an incompatible office with the one he holds, he may elect which to abandon, but when a judge

PAROL EVIDENCE. accepts an office in the military service of the See Evidence, Om400_460. United States, his tenure as judge ceases by direct provision of Const. art. 16, 8 12.-Lowe

PARTIES. v. State, 201 S. W. 986.

For parties on appeal and review of rulings as

to parties, see Appeal and Error.

For parties to particular proceedings or instruSee Criminal Law, Em94; Evidence, 29; ments, see also the various specific topics.

Licenses, w16; Mines and Minerals, en 78.

II. DEFENDANTS. 0. K.

(B) Joinder. See Executors and Administrators, m430.

25 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 1729, city

which has issued permit to power company to OPINION EVIDENCE.

erect poles on street is not proper party de.

fendant in action by abutting owner to restrain See Criminal Law, 452-486; Evidence, em erection of poles.-Frolichstein v. Cupples' Sta471-568.

tion Light, Heat & Power Co., 201 S. W. 897. OPINIONS.

III. NEW PARTIES AND CHANGE OF See Jury, On99, 103; New Trial, 13.

PARTIES.

intervener Cum 48 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where

by OPTICIAN.

plea resists plaintiff's alleged rights, in respect See Evidence, 537.

to pleading and proof she occupies position of

defendant, and must be governed by rules apORDERS.

plicable to defendants.-Kinney v. Tri-State

Telephone Co., 201 S. W. 1180. See Alteration of Instruments.

59(4) (Mo.App.) In action for damages by

breach of warranty in sale of a cow, where plainORDINANCES.

tiff's original petition alleged that he bought See Licenses, w7; Municipal Corporations, T. H., administrator of estate of E. M. H.,” the

the cow from defendant, and was against "C. 122.

quoted words hould be regarded as mere deOWNERSHIP.

scriptio personarum, so that an amendment See Evidence, Om324.

seeking to recover against C. T. H. personally

was not a departure.-Blair v. Hall, 201 S. W. OYER.

945.

Even if a defendant is sued and brought into See Pleading, em 306.

court in his representative capacity, the petition For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

201 S.W.-80

OIL.

[ocr errors]

may be so amended as to charge him individual- | mistake, degree of proof varying inversely ly.--Id.

with knowledge of matters involved and trust V. DEFECTS, OBJECTIONS, AND

reposed in other by complaining party, but AMENDMENT.

every partner owes duty to disclose all part

nership transactions.--Chambers v. Johnston, 88(3) (Mo.App.) Defendant, in suit for rc-201 s. w. 488. covery of money by demurring to petition on

Evidence held to sustain finding of chancellor ground of defect of parties, cannot, upon amend- that partner had no knowledge that transaction ment of petition, remur on ground that such

was within scope of partnership business, and parties are unnecessary.-Puntney v. Mahn, 201 had not assented to its omission from accountS. W. 913.

ing and settlement.--Id. PARTITION.

(D) Actions for Dissolution and Account. I. BY ACT OF PARTIES.

ing. C4 (Ky.) Where two brothers held land 336(3) (Ky.) In partnership accounting, jointly, in equal partition was on sufficient evidence held to sustain chancellor's finding consideration.-Sullivan Sullivan, 201 S. that defendant was entitled to commission on W. 24.

sale of cross-ties, staves, etc., instead of being

plaintiff's partner in such transaction.-Ashley II. ACTIONS FOR PARTITION.

v. Hays, 201 S. W. 1. (A) Right of Action and Defenses. 12(1) (Mo.) There could be no partition

PART PAYMENT. of an estate by the entirety at common law.Otto F. Stifel's Union Brewing Co. v. Saxy, See Accord and Satisfaction, Em7, 11. 201 S. W. 67.

PASSENGERS. Om 12(5) (Tenn.) Partition between a life tenant and remaindermen cannot be decreed. See Carriers, 282-408. Chickamauga Trust Co. v. Lonas, 201 S. W. 777.

PASTURAGE. (B) Proceedings and Relief. 109(1) (Tenn.) Where a decree of partition

See Damages, w112. between a life tenant and remaindermen is absolutely void, Thomp. Shan, Code, 8 4922,

PAYMENT. protecting purchasers acquiring property before See Accord and Satisfaction; Eminent Domain. writ of error is obtained and supersedeas grant- ww155; Executors and Administrators, ed in case of reversal on appeal, is not applica- 214; Subrogation; Tender. ble.--Chickamauga Trust Co. v. Lonas, 201 S. W. 777.

I. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY. PARTNERSHIP.

9 (Mo. App.) Note legally payable in money See Evidence. 249; Fraudulent Convey- of debtor to give and creditor to receive some

can be paid in other things only by agreement ances, 24.

thing else in satisfaction, which must be actualIII. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND ly given and received.-Sutton v. Libby, 201 S.

LIABILITIES OF PARTNERS. W. 615.

(A) Firm Property and Business, w12 (12) (Tex.C'iv.App.) Purchaser of C71 (Ky.) Partnership, agreement to carry "Constitutionalists' money" at 20 cents on dol

tomobile for $550, who engaged to pay with on business of stock and bond brokers for pur- lar, impliedly warranted money paid by him was pose of "dealings" in stocks, bonds, and other securities included buying of options and hold valid currency of particular sort, and in seller's ing of stock, not listed or purchased through action to recover title and possession, in alter: exchanges, for higher prices.-Chambers

native for price with foreclosure of lien, it is Johnston, 201 S. W. 488.

immaterial whether there were any representaIt cannot be held, unless clearly shown, that tions as to genuineness of the money.-Reeves partners did not intend that partnership con

v. Avina, 201 S. W. 729, tract should control conduct of its business and

II. APPLICATION. their responsibilities to each other, except, in instances, where they had agreed otherwise. C43 (Ark.) The rule as to application of payId.

ments on an account to the earlier items will (B) Individual Transactions.

not be enforced when contrary to intention of Cm 97 (Ky.) Where partner enters into trans- parties.– Terry v. Klein, 201 Š. W. 801. action which is within scope of partnership IV. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, busines he ust accoun to firm, although he

AND REVIEW. uses his own money and is liable for losses.Chambers v. Johnston, 201 S. W. 488.

ww65(6) (Ark.) The burden is on the debtor to Em99 (Ky.) Partner need not account to firm plied. --Terry v. Klein, 201 S. W. 801.

show to what items payments were to be apfor profits of venture outside scope of partnership business, although partnership agreement Cm 67 (4) (Ky.) A check in handwriting of and requires him to devote his entire time to part

indorsed by payee attorney, “In full of acnership affairs.-Chambers v. Johnston, 201 S. services to date thereof, in the absence of oth

count to date," is conclusive as to all legal W. 488.

er evidence.-Fitzpatrick's Committee v. Dun(C) Actions Between Partners.

don, 201 S. W. 339. Om 121 (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to show that written partnership agreement had

V. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS. been tacitly altered so that partner could in-84(1) (Mo.App.) Money paid voluntarily dulge in certain business within scope of agree with full knowledge of all facts and without ment for his own benefit.-Chambers v. John- fraud cannot be recovered back because of ston, 201 S. W. 488.

ignorance as to legal liability.-Warren v. Or

der of Railway Conductors of America, 201 S. VII. DISSOLUTION, SETTLEMENT,

W. 368.
AND ACCOUNTING,

Om 85(2) (Mo.App.) Where beneficiary recor(C) Distribution and Settlement Between ered judgment against life insurer for death Partners and Their Representatives.

of insured, and insurer satisfied judgment, pey. 31|(5) (Ky.) A partner who attacks pri- ment was involuntary, and may be recovered vate settlement has burden of showing fraud or back on vacation of judgment; it having been

au

[ocr errors]

v.

discovered person insured was alive.-Warren, ligence was cause of death.--Barrett's Adm'r v. Order of Railway Conductors of America, v. Brand, 201 S. W. 331. 201 S. W. 368.

18(10) (Ky.) Court properly instructed,

as to liability, after defining defendant surPECUNIARY CONDITION.

geon's duty on undertaking operation, “and See Criminal Law, n683.

they (the jury) further believed such negli

gence or want of care, if any, on part of dePENALTIES.

fendant was proximate cause of death," with

out adding that decedent's death "was not See Courts, 8; Criminal Law, 94; caused by ovaritis or other disease, if any, not

Equity, ew24; Limitation of Actions, cm35; produced by operation."--Barrett's Adm'r Taxation, Om 840.

Brand, 201 S. W. 331.

1 In action against surgeon for malpractice, II. ACTIONS AND OTHER PROCEED- it was not necessary for court in instructions INGS.

to define what constituted "operation."—Id. C33 (Tex.Civ.App.) One suing to recover a statutory penalty must produce proof that

PLEADING brings his

case strictly within the terms of the For pleadings in particular actions or proceedstatute.-Green v. Prince, 201 S. W. 200.

ings, see also the various specific topics.

For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see PERJURY.

Appeal and Error. See Indictment and Information, Om 159.

I. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT.

GENERAL, Om 32(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In

stating 8(15) (Tex.Civ.App.) Allegations

prosecution for perjury, where defendant was not present at the conclusion of fraud, but failing to state any first difficulty, but claimed only to have been Crawford v. El Paso Land Improvement Co.,

facts constituting the fraud, was insufficient.present when killing occurred, and testified to what he saw, details of first difficulty were in- 201 S. W. 233. admissible.—Roberts v. State, 201 S. W. 998.

Cm 8(20) (Ark.) Allegations that defendant quit en 37 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for

before completing his contract to clear off right perjury, court on request should have given of way; and delayed plaintiff 22 shifts, and damcharge defining words willfully" and "deliber- aged plaintiff $880, were too general, and mere ately" in connection with perjury.-Roberts v. 201 S. W. 510.

conclusions.- Northern Const. Co. v. Johnson, State, 201 S. W. 998.

Allegations that defendant, independent conOmw 37(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for tractor, did not complete contract to clear right perjury, where state introduces proceedings in of way in time, and plaintiff contractor, by reatrial on which perjury was committed, if result of such trial was adverse to testimony of de- trict $880, were too general, and were mere

son of delay, was compelled to pay drainage disfendant charged with perjury, court must limit conclusions.-Id. effect of evidence, otherwise such charge is un

m 10 (Mo.App.) Statement in affidavit for atnecessary.-Roberts v. State, 201 S. W. 998.

tachment against husband, in action on joint PERMIT.

note of husband and wife, that defendants were

about to remove their property, etc., held not to See Mines and Minerals, Owl.

require proof of wife's personal intention, and

it was merely pleading according to legal effect. PERSONAL INJURIES.

-Ware v. Flory, 201 S. W. 593.

Omw33 (Tex.Civ.App.) Allegation of mutual See Assault and Battery; Carriers, ww282- mistake becomes immaterial where unilateral

321; Evidence, Cw12:2; Master and Serv- mistake of one party, known to other party, is ant, em 101-296; Negligence; Railroads, sufficiently alleged. - International Life Ins. Co. 27312-282, 390-400.

v. Stuart, 201 S. W. 1088. PETITION.

III. PLEA OR ANSWER, CROSS-COM

PLAINT. AND AFFIDAVIT See Municipal Corporations, m292.

OF DEFENSE.

(B) Dilatory Pleas and Matter in AbatePHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.

ment. See Frauds, Statute of, ww23; Health, Omw33;

ww110 Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, Witnesses, aw 211.

arts. 1902, 1909, 1910, and in view of rule 7

for district and county courts (142 S. W. xvii), Cow 6 (10) (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Pen. Code defendant waived its plea of privilege to be 1911, art. 750, making it unlawful to practice sued in the federal court where no bill of exmedicine without registering authority with dis- ception preserving overruling of such plea was trict clerk in county of residence and providing reserved, and final judgment to which excepthat absence of such record is prima facie evi- tions were reserved purported to overrule plea. dence of want of such certificate, the state Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. City of Ennis, 201 must prove such absence from the record.-s. W. 256. Denton v. State, 201 S. W. 183. Cm6(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Appellant's claim that (E) Set-on, Counterclaim, and Cross-Comthe evidence shows he was engaged as a mas

plaint. seur and exempted under Pen. Code 1911, art. Om 139 (Mo. App.) In action to recover rent for 754, from the provisions of article 750 requir- grading machinery and damages for its misuse, ing registration for practice of medicine, held a defense and cross-demand, based upon claim not sustained as a matter of law; his occupa that plaintiff fraudulently concealed machinery's tion being for the jury (citing Words and defective condition from defendant, is not availPhrases, vol. 3, Second Series, p. 113).-Den- able, unless pleaded.-L. J. Smith Const. Co. v. ton v. State, 201 S. W. 183.

Mullins, 201 S. W. 602. Cu 18(8) (Ky.) In action against surgeon for www 146 (Ky.) In action on notes, defense of malpractice in performing operation for ovari- failure of consideration which prays for cantis, evidence held to sustain verdict for de- cellation must be regarded as counterclaim unfendant, patient's condition having been so der Civ. Code Prac. $ 96.-Sparr v. Fulton Nat. precarious it could not be said that any neg Bank, 201 S. W. 310.

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

V. DENTIRRER OR EXCEPTION. on pleadings was not authorized.-Johnson . w 193(6) (Mo.App.) If two or more causes

Boggess, 201 S. W. 42. of action which may be joined in one petition XII. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE. are improperly united in same count, defects cannot be reached by demurrer.-Puntney V.

Om376 (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts admitted by the Mahn, 201 S. W. 913.

pleadings of both parties need never be proved. Cw228 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition, not indicating - City of San Antonio v. Newnam, 201 S. W. on its face that suit was brought sooner than

191.

memorandum of 60 days after proof of loss, contrary to pro- Cw381(3) (Ky.) Where visions of fire policy, was good against spe

agreement reciting consideration came into cial exception on ground that it appeared that

case as evidence without pleading setting it up, suit was prematurely brought.-Royal Ins. of it will not be presumed it was executed on Liverpool, England, v. Humphrey, 201 S. W. consideration, free from vice of lack of con426.

sideration claimed to have affected note in

suit, and defendant could assail validity of VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL writing.--Farmers' Bank of West Louisville

PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER. v. Birk, 201 S. W. 315. em 237 (6) (Mo.App.) Refusal to allow trial ww387 (Tex.Ciy.App.) Facts not alleged, amendment under Rev. St. 1909, $1848, to

though proved, can form no basis for judicial plead limitation clause of assessment policy action. - Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co., sued on, held not error.-Rasch v. Bankers' 201 S. W. 1180. Life Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, 201 S. W. 919.

XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, Om 246(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In trespass to try WAIVER. AND AIDER BY VERtitle for two tracts of land out of a survey, the

DICT OR JUDGMENT. allowance of plaintiff's trial amendment, attempting to vary and limit the terms of a deed, en 430(2) (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff sued for was erroneous.-Read v. Blaine, 201 S. w. damages by grading of one street, and such 415.

cause was barred, but evidence was admitted em 249(2) (Ark.) It was error for trial court, other street, without objection of variance,

as to a third cause arising by grading of anby treating complaint as amended, and by in- plaintiff could recover where the petition, structing, to cbange cause of action in contract though indefinite, did not wholly exclude the for rent of machine to tort for damaging it.- last cause of action.-Frederick v. City of JopMcDonald v. Hill, 201 S. W. 509.

lin, 201 S. W. 1147. 25212) (Tex.Civ.App.) A first amended abandoned petition is no part of a second after verdict if, after allowing all reasonable

Co 433(2) (Mo.App.) The petition is sufficient amended petition.-Corpus Christi Street & In- intendments in' its favor, it notifies the deterurban Ry. Co. v. Kjellberg, 201 S. W. 1032. fendant with reasonable certainty of the char:

258(3) (Ky.) In action to enjoin trespass acter of the action and the issues he is to meet, and recover damages wbich was transferred to in view of Rev. St. 1909, § 2119, relating to the common pleas court for trial of the law prejudicial error.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201 issues, it was not an abuse of discretion for the S. W. 972. chancellor, when the judgment of the common pleas was certified, to refuse to allow an

ww433(5) (Mo.App.) Where defendant files amendment to the answer pleading equitable es

answer and does not demur, but objects to in. toppel.-Fort v. Wiser, 201 S. W. 7.

troduction of evidence ground petition

states no cause of action, the petition will be VII. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICA. held sufficient after verdict, if facts not alleg. TION.

ed may be necessarily inferred from facts that

are averred.-Young v. Queen Ins. Co. of C290(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Vernon's

America, 201 S. W. 940. Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1906, subd. 8, and article 3710, defendant in suit for taxes held bound to deny under vath that rendition

PLEDGES. of property was made by it, to be entitled to deny that it made rendition.-- North American See Chattel Mortgages, C8. Dredging Co. of Nevada v. State, 201 S. W. 4 (Mo.App.) Although delivery of bills of 1065.

lading to the shipper's order to a bank places VIII. PROFERT, OYER, AND EX

the legal title to the shipment in the bank, EXHIBITS.

whether there is a sale of the shipment, or

merely a transfer of title for security, depends 306 (Tenn.) Where declaration contains

upon the intention of the parties.-Cochrane v. profert of note sued on, and oyer asked by de First State Bank of Pickton, Tex., 201 S. W. fendant is granted, defendant may demur or 572. plead at his option, treating note as incorporat-Cw25 (Mo.App.) Where a bank took bills of ed in declaration.- Waterhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furniture Co., 201 S. W. 150.

lading as security for payment of drafts, it reIf an element essential to existence of cause

leased such security when it authorized the railof action be omitted from declaration contain:

road to deliver the shipments without payment ing profert, and oyer be craved, defect will be Pickton, Tex., 201 S. W. 572.

of the drafts.--('ochrane v. First State Bank of cured, if instrument supplies or corrects omission.-Id.

ww58 (514) (Tenn.) Where mortgage bonds C310 (Tenn.) Mere profert of note

securing a promissory note are ordered to be which action is founded does not make it part fees, the decree should fix the basis of distri

upon foreclosed, and the note provides for attorney's of declaration, when declaration is tested by bution of the sale, including such attorney's demurrer.- Waterhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furniture Co., 201 S. W. 150.

fees.-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain

R. Co., 201 S. W. 770.
XI. MOTIONS.

ww58(6) (Tenn.) A promissory note secured 345(2) (Ky.) In action against alleged by mortgage bonds as collaterai, held to protrespassers for loss of house by fire, where it vide for the allowance of attorney's fees from was alleged in petition that trespasser's wife the proceeds of sale of such collateral.-Carowas made defendant because she refused to join lina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co., 201 as plaintiff, and wife and defendant husband S. W. 770. pleaded that at time of fire she, in exercise of

POLICE. her dower right, and not husband, was in possession, judgment for plaintiffs against husband | See Municipal Corporations, Cw185.

on

« 이전계속 »