« 이전계속 »
31 (Tex.Civ.App.) Indorsement of vouch- , result.-State v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 201 S. ers to bank, which advanced money to pay W. 738. claims against railroad company of character Cm 49 (Mo.) The provision of Const. art. 10, mentioned in Rev. St. 1911, art. 6625, consti- $ 4, that all property shall be taxed in proportuted assignment of vouchers to bank, which in tion to its value, applies only to property tax, consequence became subrogated to right of and the tax imposed upon premiums from busioriginal holders.-International & G. N. Ry.
ness done within state by foreign insurance Co. v. Concrete Inv. Co., 201 S. W. 718.
companies by Rev. St. 1903, § 7099, is not a
property tax.-Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. SUBSTITUTION.
Co. y. Chorn, 201 S. W. 1122. See Parties, cm 59.
III. LIABILITY OF PERSONS AND
(A) Private Persons and Property in Gen. See Action,
ww93 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) A state cannot tax SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS.
personal property of a nonresident temporarily
within its borders.-North American Dredging See Attorney and Client, 126.
Co. of Nevada v. State, 201 S. W. 1065,
ww98 (Tex.Civ.App.) A vessel plying between SUMMONS.
ports of different states engaged in coast wise
trade has its situs for taxation at the domicile See Process.
of its owner, unless it has acquired an actual SUNDAY.
situs in another state.-North American DredgSee Evidence, Om 17.
ing Co. of Nevada v. State, 201 S. W. 1065.
Com 103 (Tenn.) Under Code 1858, $ 51, definSUPERSEDEAS.
ing land, railroad acquiring property of another
corporation is liable for tax imposed by Revenue See Appeal and Error, m7.
Act 1915, § 8, on all transfers of realty, al
though railroad property is merely incident to SURGEONS.
its use as highway.-State v. Louisville & N. R.
Co., 201 S. W. 733. See Physicians and Surgeons.
(D) Exemptions. SUSPENDED SENTENCE. w 195 (Tex.Civ.App.) Const. art. 8, § 2, in See Criminal Law, www982.
exempting places of religious worship and in
stitutions of purely public charities, must not TAXATION.
be construed so as to exclude necessary grounds
for entry into the buldings, and Rev. St. 1911, See Adverse Possession, C1912, 95; Com- art. 7507, SS 1. 6, is therefore constitutional.
merce, Cw64; Constitutional Law, C209, Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of 229, 283, 290; Levees, 22, 25; Licenses. San Antonio, 201 S. W. 669. Ol: Limitation of Actions, 34, 58; 204 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In considering exStatutes, 245.
emptions from taxation, law must be strictly
construed.--Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church II. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRE v. City of San Antonio, 201 S. W. 669. MENTS AND RESTRICTIONS,
ww244 (Ter.Civ.App.) Parsonage or rectory, Omw 37 (Mo.) The provision for taxation on used as residence for minister, is not exempt premiums received from business done in the from taxation under Const. art. 8. $ 2, or Rev. state by a foreign insurance company under St. 1911, art. 7507, SS 1, 6.-Trinity Methodist Rev. St. 1909, $ 7099, is not in violation of Episcopal Church v. City of San Antonio, 201 Const. U. S. Amend. 14, $ 1; such corpora- S. W. 669. tions not being citizens within the meaning of There is clear and logical difference between the amendment.-Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. place of worship and institution of publie charCo. v. Chorn, 201 S. W. 1122.
ity, and that one is used for other does not Cow 40(1) (Mo.) While Const. art. 10, § 3, change its character, under Const. art. 8. $ 2, stating that taxes shall be uniform upon same
and Rev. St. 1911, art. 7507, 88 1, 6, relating class of subjects, prescribes a definite rule
to taxation.-Id. for imposing property taxes, it was not intend- www245 (Tenn.) Tax statutes will be construed ed to apply to excise or occupation taxes im
most strongly against state.-State v. Louisville posed on a foreign insurance company for do- & N. R. Co., 201 S. W 738. ing business in state.- Massachusetts Bonding Cw251 (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden is on one claim. & Ins, Co. v. Chorn, 201 S. W. 1122.
ing exemptions from taxation to bring himself 4015) (Mo.) The provisions of Const. art. clearly within statute or Constitution.-Trinity 10, $ 3, that taxes shall be uniform upon the Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of San Ansame class of subjects, are not violated by tonio, 201 S. W. 669. Rev. St. 1.909, $ 7099, providing tax on premiums received by foreign insurance companies V. LEVY AND ASSESSMENT. from business done within the state but de
(D) Mode of Assessment of Corporate ducting amount paid for reinsurance by fire
Stock, Property, or Receipts. companies only, making them a separate class. -Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Chorn,
387 (Mo.) The intention of Rev. St. 1909, 201 S. W. 1122.
$ 7099, is to tax premiums of foreign comCm 47 (1) (Tenn.) Statutes creating privileges panies other than fire insurance companies will be construed so as not to impose double on the gross amount of premiums received taxation, umless such construction is expressly from business done in the state without deor impliedly required. --State v. Louisville & V. duction of premiums returned on account of R. Co., 201 S. W. 738.
reinsurance.-Massachusetts Ciw47(4) (Tenn.) A railroad which paid tax im- Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Chorn, 201 S. W. 1122. posed by Revenue Act 1915, $ 10, on corpora
VI. LIEN AND PRIORITY. tions acquiring property of another corporation, is also liable for tax imposed by section 8 upon C514 (Tex.) Where taxpayer tendered those all transfers of realty, since such sections im- taxes due and kept his tender good, lien there. pose different taxes and double taxation does not for was discharged, and in suit to collect taxes
could not be foreclosed.-State v. Hoffman, 201, tract of land belonging to intestate, without alS. W. 653.
lotment of dower, and the land was sold for tax
es as her land, the title acquired was only her VII. PAYMENT AND REFUNDING OR | life estate.- Jackson v. Claypool, 201 S. W. 2.
RECOVERY OF TAX PAID. Ow525 (Tenn.) Where railroad pays transfer
XII. FORFEITURES AND PENALTIES. real estate tax imposed by Revenue Act 1915,840 (Tex.) Where taxpayer tendered por§ 8, upon property extending through several tion of taxes validly assessed, he is not liable counties, tax need be paid only to clerk of coun- for penalties on amount of taxes tendered, ty court of county in which deed to land in though he fails to support his claim that part. volved is first registered.-State v. Louisville & of taxes not tendered was invalid.-State v. N. R. Co., 201 S. W. 738.
Hoffman, 201 S. W. 653. 527 (Tex.) Where taxpayer refused to pay illegal item, but tendered payment of those tax
XIII. LEGACY, INHERITANCE, AND
TRANSFER TAXES. es validly due, it is necessary to keep tender good that money be paid into registry of court. 2889 (Ky.) Where there is no executor, ad-State v. Hoffman, 201 S. W. 053.
ministrator, or trustee who may be required to Cm 527/2 (Ter.) Where taxes are separable pay an inheritance tax, its collection may be citizen, to escave penalties for nonpayment of directly enforced from persons receiving propvalid taxes, need not tender tax which is in- erty subject to tax.-Ritcher v. Commonwealth, valid, but it is sufficient to tender taxes legally 201 S. W. 456. due.-State v. Hoffman, 201 S. W. 653.
ww890 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. § 4281a, making
administrators, executors, and trustees liable VIII. COLLECTION AND ENFORCE- for inheritance taxes, section 4281f authorizing MENT AGAINST PERSONS OR them to withhold tax from legacies, etc., and PERSONAL PROPERTY.
section 4281g, authorizing them to sell suffi
cient property to pay tax, such representatives (B) Summary Remedies and Actions.
are liable for tax, irrespective of whether propCm 590 (Mo.) Where tax suit was against the erty subject to tax comes into their possession living owners of the land, by name, and other or control.–Ritcher v. Commonwealth, 201 S. persons "if living, or if they or either of them W. 456. be dead, then the unknown heirs,' etc., "of such Under Ky. St. $$ 4281a, 4281f, 4281g, the deceased person," such joinder was permissible. personal representatives are primarily liable - Edleman v. Wommack, 201 S. W. 853. for tax, and action therefor cannot be maintainfuo 591 (Mo.) In suit to enforce taxes against i ed against a devisee, at least until the remeliving owners of land and other persons, and dies against such personal representatives have unknown heirs, description of interests of un
been exhausted.-Id. known persons is immaterial, and the objection does not affect the service on the named parties.
TEACHERS' COLLEGE. --Edleman y. Wommack, 201 S. W. 853.
592 (Tenn.) Bill to enforce transfer tax on See Schools and School Districts, Em11, 150. realty imposed by Revenue Act 1915, $ 8, which alleged that property was mortgaged for certain TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES. sum and was worth considerably more, held not insufficient because not stating property's true See Commerce, Cm 59. value.-State v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 201 S. W. 738.
II. REGULATION AND OPERATION. cm 593(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Nevada corporation 31 (Ky.) A telephone company may make whose dredgeboat and equipment were in Texas the furnishing of its service conditional upon and rendered for taxation by it held to have the
an agreement by an applicant that he will obburden of showing that the property was not serve reasonable rules and regulations.-Bond taxable, and not to have sustained such burden. v. Starkey, 201 S. W. 461. -- North American Dredging Co. of Nevada v. ww52 (Ark.) It is duty of one suffering damState, 201 S. W. 1065.
ages by negligence of telegraph company in C 593(3) (Tenn.) In suit to collect real estate misstating offered price for goods, to minimize transfer tax imposed by Revenue Act 1915, $ damage, but he is not required to break the con8, value of property stated in deed is only tract.-Des Arc Oil Mill v. Western l'nion Teleprima facie evidence of its true value:-State graph Co., 201 S. W. 273. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 201 S. W. 738.
Om 54(1) (Ark.) Printed stipulation on back C593(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Agreed statement of of telegraph blank held void as attempting to facts held to sustain finding that property upon exempt telegraph company from liability for which taxes were due was defendant's property damages resulting from negligence.-Des Arc and was duly rendered and assessed, though in- Oil Mill v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 201 ventory appeared to be made in wrong name.- S. W. 273. North American Dredging Co. of Nevada v. Act Cong. June 18, 1910, c. 309, giving InterState, 201 S. W. 1065.
state Commerce Commission authority to reguIn action for taxes, statement in agreed state- late rates and practices of telegraph companies, ment of facts held an admission that the prop-held not to validate telegraph company's stipuerty assessed was defendant's property.-Id. lation attempting to exempt itself from liability IX. SALE OF LAND FOR NONPAY
for negligence.--Id. MENT OF TAX.
Om 54 (6) (Ark.) Telegraph company's stipu
lation limiting amount of liability for mistakes 620 (Tex.Civ.App.) The refusal of the trial in transmission of unrepeated message, etc., court to foreclose any liens for taxes due prior cannot be sustained as stipulation for value.to judgment for taxes under which the prop- Des Arc Oil Mill v. Western Union Telegraph erty was sold was correct, since a valid sale Co., 201 S. W. 273. under a junior assessment cuts off all prior tax 56(3) (Ark.) Telegraph company is agent liens.-Ivey y. Teichman, 201 S. W. 695.
of sender, who is bound contractually to sendee XI. TAX TITLES,
by any mistake in transmission, though sendee,
under proper circumstances, may maintain ac(B) Tax Deeds.
tion against telegraph company for damages. Ow783 (Ky.) Where, on death of an intestate Des Are Oil Mill v. Western Union Telegraph leaving children and widow, his widow occupied / Co., 201 S. W. 273.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
65(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In a petition in an ac- TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES. tion against a telegraph company for failure to deliver a death message, petition held to state See Libel and Slander, 139. a cause of action as against a general demurrer. - Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Golden, 201
TRANSFER OF CAUSES. S. W. 1080.
See Appeal and Error, em 359-407; Justices TENANCY IN COMMON.
of the Peace, Ow156-159. See Joint Tenancy.
TREES. II. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND See Logs and Logging.
LIABILITIES OF COTENANTS. w 15(7, 8) (Mo.) Statute of limitations as to
TRESPASS. adverse possession does not commence to run
See Assault and Battery ; between tenants in common until there have
Equity, 24; been such outward acts of exclusive ownership
Judgment, Cm 606. on part of one as to impart notice unequivocally
II. ACTIONS. to his cotenant that adverse possession is asserted against him.-Zimmerman v. First Nat.
(A) Right of Action and Defenses. Bank, 201 S. W. 852.
Cu 30 (Ark.) One who purchases an invalid On 15(10) (Mo.) To establish adverse posses- tax title and conveys the right to cut trees sion by one tenant in common against another, standing on the land to another is liable for the proof of intention to hold adversely must be so trespass committed by his purchaser in cutting clear and convincing as to satisfy mind.-Zim- and removing the trees.-Hendrix v. Black, 201 merman v. First Nat. Bank, 201 S. W. 852. S. W. 283. TENDER.
(B) Jurisdiction, Parties. Preliminary
Proceedings, and Pleading. 013(3) (Mo.App.) Though presentment is cm 4005) (Mo.App.) Petition for trespass, not necessary to charge person primarily liable, without allegations setting forth character and if instrument is payable at special place, ability amount of damages, does not state cause of and willingness to pay at maturity are equiva- action.--Young v. Home Telephone Co., 201 S. lent to tender. Mechanics' American Nat. Bank W. 635. v. Helmbacher, 201 S. W. 383.
Om47 (Mo. App.) For trespasses other than TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. those enumerated in Rev. St. 1909, 88 5448,
5449, recovery is either value of thing approSee Wills, C47.
priated, removed, or destroyed, or sum equal to
damage done.-Young v. Home Telephone Co., THEFT.
201 S. W. 635. See Larceny.
TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE.
See Ejectment; Public Lands, 175.
Om41 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence in trespass See Logs and Logging.
to try title held sufficient to establish title in defendant and his successors in interest by
deed, duly executed and delivered, which was TIME.
lost before recording.-Boedefeld v. Johnson, See Appeal and Error, 230, 300, 643, 797;
201 S. W. 1027. Divorce, 170; Execution, 266.
Evidence in trespass to try title examined,
and defendants held to have met all requireTITLE.
ments of both the five and ten year statute of
limitations, and by proof of knowledge of and See Adverse Possession; Bills and Notes, recognition by plaintiff's vendor of adverse 443; Ejectment, eml; Execution, Ca 266; possession of defendants for more than such Judgment, C743; Landlord and Tenant, periods of limitation.-Id. C 61.
Cm 45(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In trespass to try title TOOLS.
by one who took by inheritance from his mother and gift from his
instruction that he See Master and Servant, cm101-125, 233–247. could not recover unless his father could was
not erroneous as instructing to find for defendTORNADO.
ant because the father was making no claim.
Massingill v. Moody, 201 S. W. 265. See Insurance, ww162.
III. DAMAGES, USE AND OCCUPATORNADO INSURANCE.
AND TAXES. See Insurance, ww423.
59 (Tex.Civ. App.) In trespass to try title,
there was no error in admitting defendants' tesTORTS.
timony as to what they were told as to title, on See Assault_and Battery; Carriers, Cw382; ments.- Massingill v. Moody, 201 S. W. 265.
the issue of their good faith in making improveDeath; Forcible Entry and Detainer ; Fraud; Intoxicating Liquors, com 301; Libel and Slander; Master and Servant, Cw316
TRIAL. 332; Municipal Corporations, ww 747-845; Negligence; Nuisance ; Trespass; Trover
See Continuance; Costs; Jury; New Trial; and Conversion; United States, 78.
For trial of particular actions or proceedings, TOWNS.
see also the various specific topics.
For review of rulings at trial, see Appeal and See Municipal Corporations.
IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. 143 (Mo.) On contradictory evidence, de(A) Introduction, Offer, and Admission of
murrer is properly refused.-Hill v. Harvey, Evidence in General.
201 S. W. 535. 47(1) (Mo.App.) Where an offer of cer w 143 (Tex.Civ.App.) The evidence raising, an tain testimony to show contributory negligence issue, failure to submit it is error, notwithwas excluded, but defendant made no showing standing any preponderance of the evidence.what such would be, sustaining the objection Kirlicks v. Texas Co., 201 S. W. 687. was not error.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201 S. W. 972.
VII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
(A) Province of Court and Jury in Gen. (C) Objections, Motions to Strike Out, and
em 194(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to charge Ow76 (Tex.Civ.App.) Specific objection to in- as on weight of evidence is not tenable where troduction of ordinance that it had not been there is no dispute as to fact.-Hegman v. Robpublished must be made at time, that it may erts, 201 S. W. 268. thereafter be available.-San Antonio & A. P. Om 194(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction that apRy. Co. v. Boyed, 201 S. W. 219.
plication for employment and agreement as to ww82 (Mo.App.) Objections to a hypothetical plaintiff's seniority on list of conductors was question put to a physician concerning plain- not an employment, held properly refused as an tiff's injuries that such question did not em- instruction on the weight of the evidence, probrace all the facts shown by the evidence, but hibited by Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, which failed to point out what facts were omit- art. 1971.-San Antonio, U. & G. R. Co. v. ted, was unavailing.-Shafer v. Kansas City Dawson, 201 S. W. 247. Rys. Co., 201 S. W. 611.
(B) Necessity and Subject-Matter. On83(1) (Mo.App.) Objection to the admission of evidence on the ground that it did not 203 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) While the court is tend to prove any of the issues is general and not required ordinarily to state the issues made unavailing if the evidence is competent for by the pleadings in the preliminary part of the any purpose in the case.-Edwards v. Yar-charge, if he attempts to do so, the issues brough, 201 S. W. 972.
should be correctly stated.-Bonnett-Brown ww89 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a witness by his Sales Service Co. v. Denison Morning Gazette, own admissions on the stand shows that he is 201 S. W. 1044. not informed as to a matter concerning which on 218 (Ark.) Argument that “defendants' poshe gave opinion testimony, such testimony session was not peaceable possession within the should be stricken.-Southern Pac. Co. v. meaning of the instructions, because L. J. Stephens, 201 S. W. 1076.
went down there and they had a row about it,"
was reversible error, where court refused to adV. ARGUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF
monish jury that counsel had not correctly inCOUNSEL.
terpreted instructions on this subject, being tan
tamount to giving erroneous instruction, 133(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Conceding plaintiff's Briggs v. Jones, 201 S. W. 118. argument to have been beyond proper bounds, w219 (Ky.) In action on note, defendants the error was cured by prompt instruction not setting up lack of "consideration," term, under to consider such remarks and by the withdrawal facts, held not of such technical significance of such remarks.-Sullivan v. Masterson, 201
to require definition.-Farmers' Bank of S. W. 194.
West Louisville v. Birk, 201 S. W. 315. 133 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Argument by rail
w219 (Mo. App.) Instructions road employé's counsel in which he adverted to legal conclusions to the jury and without giving
submitting fact that employé had wife and children, though definitions evidence of that fact had not been allowed to X-Ray Co. v. Bacon, 201 S. W. 916.
are improper.--Scheidel Western go to jury, having been withdrawn and jury instructed to disregard it, held, not to warrant re (C) Form, Requisites, and Sufficiency. versal.-Schaff v. Riha, 201 S. W. 210.
Om232(5) (Mo.App.) In attachment suit, modi
fication of instruction, by inserting as a definiVI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION tion of the word “domicile" the words "that is, FROM JURY.
his permanent home,” was improper, as not (A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen- specific enough and misleading.-Ware v. Flory, eral.
201 S. W. 593. Omw 134 (Tex.Civ.App.) If issue of fact is raised em. 235 (4) (Mo.) In action on policy insuring as to any material question in case, it must be against death by accidental means, evidence submitted to jury.-Reeves v. Avina, 201 S. w. being circumstantial, defendant's requested in
struction that jury could not resort to guess, 729.
conjecture, or eculation was misleading, and Em 139(1) (Ky.). Under scintilla rule prevail properly refused.-Reynolds v. Maryland Casing in Kentucky, it is duty of trial court to refuse peremptory instruction,
and to submit issue ualty Co., 201 S. W. 1128. to jury, though verdict for one side might be
237(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In physician's acflagrantly against evidence so as to justify set- tion for hospital services rendered boy injured ting it aside.-Farmers' Bank of West Louis- by defendant, court's special charge heid clearly
to have instructed jury that only in event they ville v. Birk, 201 S. W. 315.
should find from preponderance of evidence that cm 140 (1) (Ark.) Issue as to credibility of plaintiff had proven his cause of action could witnesses was peculiarly for jury.—Dickinson they render verdict for him.-Banfield v. Davidv. Brummett, 201 S. W. 812.
son, 201 S. W. 442. em 140(1) (Mo.) Credibility of witnesses is for 239 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for balance jury.-Hill v. Harvey, 201 S. W. 535.
under contract where defendant made uncondi140(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) The jury are the ex- tional tender of a smaller sum, instructions clusive judges of the credibility and weight of precluding recovery of anything except the the testimony.-Sullivan v. Masterson, 201 S. amount sued for was error.--Bonnett-Brown W. 194.
Sales Service Co. y. Denison Morning Gazette, am 143 (Ky.) Where evidence was sharply con 201 S. W. 1044. ficting, peremptory instruction was properly cm 240 (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction as to belief denied; question being for jury.-Carter Coal in truth of grounds set out in affidavit for atCo. v. Filipeck, 201 S. W. 468.
tachment not affecting right to recovery for For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
wrongful attachment, held argumentative.-Heg., Ow252(11) (Ter.Civ.App.) In action for death inan v. Roberts, 201 S. W. 268.
of locomotive engineer, where the evidence Om242 (Mo.) Where the evidence was volum raised no issue of contributory negligence, failinous, and the issues were many and complicature to instruct thereon was not error.---Gulf, C. ed, the mere fact that an instruction was very & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Carpenter, 201 S. W. 270. long, and might therefore tend to mislead, did ww252(11) (Tex. Civ. App.) Where injured not constitute error.-Laird v. Keithley, 201 servant's testimony disclosed that he was legalS. W. 1138.
ly chargeable with knowledge of some of the
dangerous conditions, requested instruction (D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evi. that he did not assume the risk if he acted dence.
under orders without time to appreciate the enn 251(3) (Ky.) In the absence of pleading of danger was improper.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ky. equitable estoppel in an action to enjoin and Co. v. Miller, 201 S. W. 1019. recover damages for trespass upon land, requests w253(4) (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff passenger ed instruction on equitable estoppel was prop- alleged defendant street railway, after stoperly refused.-Fort v. Wiser, 201 S. W. 7. ping its car pursuant to signal, negligently Cmw251(3) (Ky.) Issue for submission to jury started it while plaintiff was alighting, and evibeing which of two objects was dividing ridge dence conflicted as to whether stop was regucalled for by deed, requested instructions sub- lar one, an instruction not submitting issue mitting construction of deed were properly re- whether car stopped pursuant to signal nor defused. -Pulaski Stave Co. v. Sale, 201 s. w. fining a regular stop, held erroneous.-Hays v. 12.
Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 566. em 251 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit against rail- Cmos 253(4). (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for injuroad to recover for horse killed by its motorcar ries in collision, where plaintiff alleged defendwithin city limits, an instruction submitting ant was violating Pen. Code 1911, art. 815, by question whether city was incorporated as re- driving in excess of 18 miles per hour, and arquired by law, an issue not raised, was mis- ticle 816, prohibiting, excessive or dangerous leading. --Texas City Terminal Co.'v. McGee, speed and dangerous driving, held error to sub201 S. W. 673.
mit only recovery under article 815.-Figueroa Ens251(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for bal. v. Madero, 201 S. W. 271. ance alleged to be due under contract, instruc
In action for injuries in collision, where tion that, if defendants defauited in' payment plaintiff alleged defendant violated Pen. Code before cancellation of the contract, to find for 1911, art, 815: by driving over 18 miles per plaintiff was error in the absence of a plead- hour, and article 816, prohibiting dangerous ing to support it.-Bonnett-Brown Sales Sery driving, error to submit" only recovery under ice Co. v. Denison Morning Gazette, 201 S. w. article 815 held, in view of evidence that de1044.
fendant was driving on the wrong side of the
road.-Id. Ow251 (6) (Mo.) Where, in action on policy insuring against accidental death, an instruc. Em 253(8) (Mo.App.) Requested declarations tion given for plaintiff was in accordance with of law precluding recovery if the cause of theory on which pleadings were framed and action arising by grading one street arose becase tried, defendant cannot complain that it yond the time of limitations were properly reignored the issue of "suicide sane in
fused where a different street was later gradsane," insanity not being in issue.-Reynolds ed within the period of limitations.-Frederick v. Maryland Casualty Co., 201 S. W. 1128.
v. City of Joplin, 201 S. W. 1147. 251 (6) (Mo.App.) In action on fire policy, Crw 253(9) (Tex. Civ. App.) Where injured where there was ample evidence goods were
servant's testimony disclosed that he in L. building when insured and when burnt, legally chargeable with knowledge of some of and that such building was located on lot 3, the dangerous conditions, it was error to charge block 17, etc., it was not reversible to use the that he could recover if the master was negliterm “L building” in instructions, where the gent.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Miller, petition only referred to the lot number.- 201 S. W. 1049. Young v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 201 S. W. 910.
(E) Requests or Prayers. Cm 251 (8). (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction defining ww256(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Omissions in the "employer” and “employé" held properly refus- charge cannot be complained of in the absence ed where the special issues did not use these of request for amplification.-Crawford v. El words, though they asked whether plaintiff was
Paso Land Improvement Co., 201 S. W. 233. in defendant's employ.-San Antonio, U. & G. Cm 260(1) (Mo.App.) Requested instruction, R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. W. 247.
covering matter already fully covered by anothUnder Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, er instruction given by court, was properly reart. 1984a, instruction that a person was an fused.- Estes v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 201 S. independent contractor, and that defendant was W. 503. not liable for his negligence, held properly re-C260(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) There was no error fused where it did not explain or define any in refusing to submit requested issues to jury, thing in the special issues.-Id.
substance of them being submitted by main Co 252 (1) (Mo.App.) Refusal of an instruction charge.-Hudson v. Salley, 201 S. W. 665. is not error, where the evidence affords no 260 (1) (Tex.(iv.App.) Where the court basis for it.-Hartman v. Hoernle, 201 S. W. gave a requested instruction, it was not error 911.
to refuse another instruction whose substance Cm 252(5) (Ark.) Where landlord's evidence was the same.-Corpus Christi Street & Intertended to show that he rented land to another urban Ry. Co. v. Kjellberg, 201 S. W. 1032. in January, while tenant's evidence tended to m260(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court is not show that it was rented to him, instructions required to give general charge, independent of that landlord could recover possession special charges given, where such special charg. where he stood by and allowed tenant to hold es fairly cover all issues called for by pleadings over and plant his crops were properly refused. and evidence.- Banfield v. Davidson, 201 S. W. -Moore v. Ellis, 201 S. W. 791.
442. m252(11) (Ark.) In an action for injuries to 260(8) (Ky.) Plaintiit's request for inservant while placing a spring hanger on a struction, directing jury to find for plaintiff if locomotive, evidence held sufficient to authorize they believed original note, of which note in suit instruction on master's liability due to servant was renewal, was executed for purchase price obeying orders of foreman, and on assumption of two bonds of coal company, held properly of risk.--Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. refused as fully covered.-Farmers' Bank of Standridge, 201 S. W. 295.
West Louisville v. Birk, 201 s. W. 315.