ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Wills

201 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER

tees and Their Respective Shares.
(B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-

166(1) (Ky.) To establish undue influence, |
mere opportunity or possibility of its exercise
testa-
is not enough, but facts or circumstances from 506(4) (Ky.) In bequest to child for life
which it can be inferred that it was exercised with remainder to her "heirs," but, if she died
tor's brothers and sisters, word "heirs" means
must be shown.-Robinson v. Davenport, 201 without "heirs," remainder to go to
children, and is a word of purchase and not of
S. W. 28.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND limitation.-Walden v. Smith, 201 S. W. 302.

ANNULMENT.

(H) Evidence.

293(6) (Ky.) Under Ky. St. § 4828, that
testator's signature was subscribed in presence
of and at direction of testator may be shown
by extrinsic, parol, and circumstantial evidence.
-Reed v. Hendrix's Ex'r, 201 S. W. 482.

302(1) (Ky.) Under evidence, held, that
testatrix did not subscribe will in presence of
attesting witnesses, but did acknowledge it in
their presence within Ky. St. § 4828, requiring
subscription or acknowledgment in presence of
witnesses.-Reed v. Hendrix's Ex'r, 201 S. W.

482.

Evidence held sufficient in absence of direct
proof to show that testatrix's signature was
subscribed in her presence and at her direction,
as required by Ky. St. § 4828, where name is
not signed by testatrix.-Id.

303 (3) (Ky.) Witness need not testify to
it be-
express acknowledgment by testatrix;
ing sufficient to show facts that imply an ac-
knowledgment, such as a request that the wit-
ness attest the document.-Reed v. Hendrix's
Ex'r, 201 S. W. 482.

(I) Hearing or Trial.

327 (Ark.) Refusing directed verdict in
will contest is not erroneous where there was

concededly sufficient testimony to go to jury
regarding testator's mental incapacity.-Morris
v. Raymond, 201 S. W. 116.

(K) Review.

364 (Ark.) Kirby's Dig. § 8029, giving one
year to appeal from probate court orders ad-
mitting or denying probate of will, is unaf-
fected by Acts 1909, p. 956, amending Kirby's
to appeal
Dig. § 1348, requiring heirs, etc.,
from probate to circuit court within six months.
-Morris v. Raymond, 201 S. W. 116.

VI. CONSTRUCTION.

(A) General Rules.

439 (Tex.Civ.App.) The intent of the tes-
tator, as expressed in the whole instrument
when read in the light of the circumstances
surrounding the testator when the will was
written, must govern.-Nations v. Neighbors,
201 S. W. 691.

will

467 (Ky.) In determining whether
providing for reverter if devisee's children died
under age gave them a fee on attaining ma-
jority, recital that other children had been
given $1,000 each to make them equal with
the devisees, with no provision for reverter,
held to have no weight.-Morgan v. Staton, 201
S. W. 304.

486 (Ky.) The general rule is that will is
to be construed from language used, and that
parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to
add to, vary, or contradict its terms.-Parrott
v. Crosby, 201 S. W. 13.

487(1) (Ky.) Where testator's intention is
expressed in plain and unambiguous language,
parol and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible.-
Parrott v. Crosby, 201 S. W. 13.

488 (Ky.) Where language is doubtful or
ambiguous, parol or extrinsic evidence is some-
times admissible to give application to words
of will, but not to change import of devise.-
Parrott v. Crosby, 201 S. W. 13.

Parol evidence may be admitted for purpose
of showing and explaining latent ambiguity, but
not ordinarily for purpose of explaining patent
ambiguity apparent on face of will.-Id.

519 (Ky.) Under residuary clause providing
"Rest of my estate I wish divided between my
nieces Fanny Mary Ella to receive $500," and
to nephew $500 in trust, two nieces first named
took residuary estate.-Parrott v. Crosby, 201
S. W. 13.

(E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre-
ated.

to

590 (Ky.) Will devising life estate
certain stock, and
widow, and providing that, "if my wife should
marry, I give to our sons'
"the rest of my property, real and personal,
be divided according to law," gave to the wid-
ow, in the event of her marriage, one-half of
the personalty, except the stock, and a life es-
tate in one-third of the realty, with remainder
to his children.-Weideman v. Weideman, 201
S. W. 467.

614(1) (Tenn.) Gift by testator of use of all
his property to his wife for her life created life
estate in all property, real and personal.-Cross
v. Buskirk-Rutledge Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 141.
618 (Ky.) Under will providing that if dev-
isees died while their children were under age
their children should have rents and profits un-
til they attained majority, and if they died be-
fore that time estate should revert, grand-
children held to take only rents and profits un-
til they attained majority when their estates
terminated.-Morgan v. Staton, 201 S. W. 304.

(F) Vested or Contingent Estates and In-
terests.

628 (Ky.) A vested remainder is an in-
heritable estate, but a contingent remainder is
lost by the failure of the contingency to occur.
Nunnelly's Guardian v. Nunnelly, 201 S. W.
976.

634 (8) (Ky.) Will giving life estate with
remainder to children, but in event of death
leaving no children, property to go to others,
held to give an uninheritable contingent estate
to the children. defeasible at their death.-
Nunnelly's Guardian v. Nunnelly, 201 S. W. 976.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.

693(1) (Tenn.) Where testator gave wife
life estate in all his property, power of sale giv-
her of her life estate, or dispose of property
en to executors cannot be construed to deprive
without her joining in deed.-Cross v. Buskirk-
Rutledge Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 141,

WITNESSES.

See Appeal and Error, 690, 994, 1048;
Continuance, 26; Criminal Law, ~507;
Evidence; Perjury; Trial, 140.

II. COMPETENCY.
(A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen-

eral.

45 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether negro boy,
suing railroad for personal injuries. was com-
petent to testify as witness, in that be under-
stood nature and obligation of oath, was mat-
ter resting in sound discretion of trial court.
-Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 201 S.
W. 674.

When child is offered as witness, it is proper
to ascertain whether he has sufficient intelli-
be prompted to tell truth, and, if he has, he
gence and knowledge of obligation of oath to
should be permitted to testify.-Id.

If infant witness is not familiar with such
should be instructed in simple terms, and be
expressions as "obligation of oath," etc., he

permitted to testify, if he understands that it
is wrong to swear falsely and that he will be
punished.-Id.

tween patient and physician, in the absence
of which they are admissible.-Dodd v. State,
201 S. W. 1014.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.

48(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) While, under Ver-
non's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 865b, and
article 865e, trial court would have no authori-
ty to suspend sentence of accused, convicted240(5) (Tex. Civ. App.) Question whether
of felony in seven separate cases, he, not hav-
ing been sentenced, was not disqualified as a
witness under article 788, as to disqualification
after conviction of felony.-Burnett v. State,

201 S. W. 409.

48(5) (Mo.) Rev. St. 1909, § 2891, provid-
ing that one sentenced to penitentiary for life
shall be deemed civilly dead; section 4504, at-
taching certain disqualifications to conviction for
murder; section 4631, forfeiting citizenship of
persons convicted of certain offenses; section
4673, attaching disqualifications to conviction
of other offenses; and section 4875, disfranchis-
ing certain convicts-do not render such person
incompetent to testify, in view of section 6383,
making convict a competent witness.-State v.
Hill, 201 S. W. 58.

competent.

plaintiff did not tell her attorney that mule was
Baker v. Thomas, 201 S. W. 215.
struck just as she had told jury held leading.-

250 (Mo.) On pedestrian's action for in-
jury by street car, permitting witness to state,
after saying that he did not know how far
plaintiff was dragged, that it must have been

some 20 or 25 feet, was not error.-Hill v.

Harvey, 201 S. W. 535.

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina-

tion.

plaintiff
testifying as to the value of his grass lands
269 (10) (Tex. Civ.App.) Where
before the grass was burned, fixed the value
at a sum considerably higher than the amount
at which he rendered the land for taxes, de-
fendant is, on cross-examination, entitled to
bring that matter out.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry.
Co. v. Hapgood, 201 S. W. 1040.

(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title
or Interest of Persons Deceased or In-270(1) (Ark.) The cross-examining party in
a criminal case is bound by an answer concern-
129 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition, showing ing collateral matters.-Crawford v. State, 201
plaintiff sues as heir as well as sole legatee, S. W. 784.
Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 3690,
declaring the parties to action by heir incompe-
tent to testify to transaction with deceased,
applies.-Houston Transfer & Carriage Co. v.
Williams, 201 S. W. 712.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

ROBORATION.

(A) In General.

144(13) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vernon's Sayles'319 (Ark.) In prosecution of mayor for
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 3690, forbidding surviv- failure to disperse a riotous assemblage, where
or as against personal representative to testify the mayor denied knowledge of the character
as to transactions with the decedent, does not
apply to agents of corporation with whom dece- of the assemblage, one who testified that the
mayor was within a few feet of where the
dent had business relations.-Williams V.
Farmers' Nat. Bank of Stephenville, 201 S. W. rioters were engaged in digging up a gas main
as a part of their riotous conduct testified to
material facts, and should have been permitted
to have been impeached.-Wright v. State, 201
S. W. 1107.

1083.

145 (Mo.App.) In replevin by administra-
trix and wife of deceased in whose name stock
stood, against the wife and administratrix of
deceased's father, the plaintiff was not "in-
competent under the statute for any purpose."
-Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W. 557.

159(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 3690, prohibiting par-
ties to action by heir testifying to their trans-
action with deceased, held to apply to testi-
mony showing he had failed to deliver goods
for which the note sued on was given.-Hous-
ton Transfer & Carriage Co. v. Williams, 201
S. W. 712.

159(8) (Ark.) In administrator's action on
chattel mortgage note, defendant cannot testify
that decedent mortgagee promised to allow him
certain credits on note.-Kirby v. Wooten, 201
S. W. 115.

164(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony that de
cedent was person who signed note in suit is
not testimony as to transaction with the dece-
dent within Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914,
art. 3630.-Williams v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of
Stephenville, 201 S. W. 1083.

(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged
Communications.

199(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Communications to
adviser, who is not licensed to practice law
and is not practicing attorney, are not privileg-
ed.-McAllen v. Wood, 201 S. W. 433.

328 (Tex. Cr.App.) In prosecution for mur-
der, where witness testified to having seen ac-
cused with a pistol in her hand behind her just
before she crossed the street and shot deceased,
others could testify that, from witness' position
he could not have seen the pistol, and others
could say that, witness having pointed out the
positions, he could have seen what he testified to.
-Williams v. State, 201 S. W. 188.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.

335 (Mo.App.) In action on notes, where
defendant alleged fraud of plaintiff's agents,
one of whom testified for defendant, his cred-
ibility and general bad character and bad repu-
tation for fair dealing were open to inquiry.
Pioneer Stock Powder Co. v. Goodman, 201
S. W. 576.

337(4) (Ark.) Evidence of specific acts of
misconduct or immorality is not admissible in
a criminal case to establish bad reputation of
the defendant who has testified as a witness.
-Crawford v. State, 201 S. W. 784.

337 (5) (Ark.) Defendant may be cross-
examined as to former convictions when he
becomes witness in his own behalf.-Conner v.
State, 201 S. W. 285.

344 (2) (Ky.) The exclusion of evidence
that a woman witness was seen to go to the
home of a woman of immoral character was
proper, since evidence of particular acts is not
admissible to impeach a witness' character.-
Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318.

211(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused
claimed temporary insanity, his examining phy-
sician having testified, it was not error for the
state to call him in rebuttal, and, on objec- Testimony for impeachment of a woman wit-
tion of privilege, to excuse him, without in- ness that she was in the habit of drinking and
structions to disregard the incident; there be- was frequently intoxicated, and when intoxi-
ing no statute exempting communications be-cated was quarrelsome, and on one occasion

quarreled with her husband, was not admis-
sible, being merely evidence of particular acts.
-Id.

344 (4) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for
perjury, defendant was entitled to ask and ob-
tain from state's witness business in which he
was engaged, or occupation he pursued, to af-
fect his credibility by showing he was in em-
ploy of disorderly house.-Roberts v. State, 201
S. W. 998.

345(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence in a murder
case that a witness had been in jail or arrested
for a matter not involving moral turpitude was
not admissible in impeachment.-Parker v. State,
201 S. W. 173.

345(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) It is always permissi-
ble to impeach witness by showing that he has
been convicted, when not too remote, of any
felony or any misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude, but it is not permissible to thus im-
peach any witness by proving his prosecution or
conviction of any other misdemeanor.-Johnson
v. State, 201 S. W. 177.

345(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a murder case any
witness may be impeached by showing that he
has been convicted or properly indicted for a
felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpi-
tude, but not for a charge of aggravated assault
with a conviction for simple assault.-Parker v.
State, 201 S. W. 173.

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.

363(1) (Ark.) Pecuniary interest, personal
affection or hostility, sympathy or animosity,
quarrel or prejudice, may always be shown to
discredit a witness.-Wright v. State, 201 S.
W. 1107.

Court cannot in its discretion deny the priv-
ilege of showing bias.-Id.

372(1) (Ark.) In determining bias of a
witness, it is important that the jury know
the facts tending to show bias or not, and the
inquiry should not be limited to the witness'
statement, whether he had ill feeling toward
accused.-Wright v. State, 201 S. W. 1107.

372 (2) (Ark.) A state's witness should
have been allowed to answer the question on
cross-examination, whether he had been criti-
cising the mayor because the mayor ordered
him to stop selling cigarettes and gambling, as
tending to show his bias.-Wright v. State,
201 S. W. 1107.

372(3) (Ark.) The witness having stated
that he had no hias against defendant, his af-
firmative answer to the question whether he
had been criticising the defendant, who had
prevented him from selling cigarettes and
gambling, was not so inconsistent as that it
should have been excluded.-Wright v. State,
201 S. W. 1107.

373 (Ark.) Before witnesses can be called
to show statements of others out of court as
tending to show bias, proper foundation as
to time, place, and the person involved should
be laid.-Wright v. State, 201 S. W. 1107.

milk to such home, but denied entrance through
the alley, where such fact was wholly imma-
terial. Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 s. W.
318.

Evidence of a clerk that she called up de-
ceased by phone the day of deceased's murder
or the day previous held not relevant to con-
tradict witness who denied that deceased had
to corroborate de-
called up such clerk or
fendant, who testified that deceased had called
up such clerk.-Id.

WOMEN.

See Acknowledgment, 57; Names, 12.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

201 S. W. 179.

"Abandonment of wife."-Williams v. Farmers'
Nat. Bank of Stephenville (Tex. Civ. App.)
201 S. W. 1083.
"Acceptance."-Sullivan v. Sullivan (Ky.) 201 S.
W. 24.
"Acceptance and actually receive."-Ruediger
v. Dennis (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 943.
"Accomplice."-O'Brien v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
"Accord and satisfaction."-Murphy v. Menke
Grocery Co. (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 650.
"Act of God."-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black
Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 154.
"Actual place of religious worship."-Trinity
Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of San
Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 669.
"Actual possession."-Russell v. McIntosh (Ky.)
201 S. W. 33.

"Agent."-State v. Munroe (Mo.) 201 S. W.
100.

"Agricultural product."-City of Higbee v. Bur-
gin (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 558.

"Any citizen."-City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz
(Mo.) 201 S. W. 870.

"Arbor." Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
201 S. W. 760.

"Assumption of risk."-Baker v. Lusk (Mo.
App.) 201 S. W. 357.

"At its own expense."-Casey-Hedges Co. v.
Southwestern Surety Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W.

[blocks in formation]

"Bystander."-Rogers v. State (Ark.) 201 S.
W. 845.

"Cause beyond its control.”-Carolina Spruce
Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201
S. W. 154.

v. Baskowitz
"Citizen." City of St. Louis
(Mo.) 201 S. W. 870; Massachusetts Bond-
ing & Ins. Co. v. Chorn (Mo.) 201 S. W.
1122.
"Common design."-State v. Hill (Mo.) 201 S.
W. 58.
"Completed."-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black
Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 154.
"Conjecture."-Reynolds v. Maryland Casualty
Co. (Mo.) 201 S. W. 1128.

58.

374(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for "Conspiracy."-State v. Hill (Mo.) 201 S. W.
giving intoxicating liquor to minor girl, it was
error to exclude evidence that witness, testi- "Constructed."-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black
fying as to giving of liquor, had reasons and
motives for so testifying.-Earnest v. State, 201
S. W. 175.

[blocks in formation]

V. State

Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 154.
"Convey hotel."-Crawford v. El Paso Land
Imp. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 233.
"Conviction of felony."-Burne't
(Tex. Cr. App.) 201 S. W. 409.
"Cope."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
201 S. W. 760.

"Core."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
201 S. W. 760.

"Counterclaim."-Sparr v. Fulton Nat. Bank
(Ky.) 201 S. W. 310.
"Deal."-Chambers v. Johnston (Ky.) 201 S.
W. 488.

"Deed of conveyance."-Bailey

(Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 725.
"Deeds."--Kobbe V. Harriman
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 762.

V. Burkitt

Land Co.

"Deliberating."-McGregor v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 201 S. W. 184.
"Delivery."-Lee Hardware Co. V. Johnson
(Ark.) 201 S. W. 289; Horn v. Nicholas
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 756.
"Drag."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
201 S. W. 760.

"Estate by the entireties."-Ashbaugh v. Ash-
baugh (Mo.) 201 S. W. 72.
"Evident."-Ex parte Hill (Tex. Cr. App.)
201 S. W. 996.
"Exemplary damages."-Frizell Grain & Supply
Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201
S. W. 78.

"Express warranty."-Blair v. Hall (Mo. App.)
201 S. W. 945.

"Felony."-Gans v. State (Ark.) 201 S. W.
823.

"Filing back."-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 201 S. W. 998.

"Good will."-Fine v. Lawless (Tenn.) 201 S.
W. 160.

"Governmental power."-Behrmann v. City of
St. Louis (Mo.) 201 S. W. 547.

"Grant, bargain, and sell."-Talbert v. Grist
(Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 906.
"Habitual." Cordill v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

201 S. W. 181.

"Heirs."-Walden v. Smith (Ky.) 201 S. W.
302.

"Holder in due course."-Commercial Sec. Co.
v. Archer (Ky.) 201 S. W. 479; Mechanics'
American Nat. Bank v. Helmbacher (Mo.)
App.) 201 S. W. 383.
"Income."-Frazier V. Nashville Veterinary
Hospital (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 751.
"Independent contractor."-Postal Telegraph-
Cable Co. v. Murrell (Ky.) 201 S. W. 462.
"Injured."-State ex rel. and to use of Domi-
nick v. Farmer (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 955.
"Institution of purely public charity."-Trinity
Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of San
Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 669.
"Interstate commerce."-Spaw v. Kansas City
Terminal Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 927;
Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Morgan
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 128.

"In the present condition thereof."-L. J. Smith
Const. Co. v. Mullins (Mo. App.) 201 S. W.
602.

"Joint employé."-Kansas City Southern Ry.
Co. v. Wade (Ark.) 201 S. W. 787.
"Junk merchant."-City of St. Louis v. Basko-
witz (Mo.) 201 S. W. 870.
"License."-Novinger v. Shoop (Mo.) 201 S. W.

64.

"Loaded arbor."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 760.
"Manslaughter."-McCain v. State (Ark.) 201
S. W. 840.

"Material alteration."-Mechanics' American
Nat. Bank v. Helmbacher (Mo. App.) 201 S.
W. 383.

"Misdemeanor."-Gans v. State (Ark.) 201 S.

W. 823.

"Moneys expended in defense."-Casey-Hedges
Co. v. Southwestern Surety Co. (Tenn.) 201
S. W. 137.
"Murder."-Parker v. Commonwealth (Ky.)
201 S. W. 475.
"Negligence."-Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v.
Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S, W. 674.
"Operation."-Barrett's Adm'r v. Brand (Ky.)
201 S. W. 331.
"Owners."-Voss v. Des Moines & Mississippi
Levee Dist. No. 1 (Mo.) 201 S. W. 538.
"Party in interest."-Frolichstein v. Cupples'
Station Light, Heat & Power Co. (Mo.) 201
S. W. 897.
"Payment."-American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Brown
(Ky.) 201 S. W. 326.

"Penal statute.”-Coryell v. Atchison, T. & S. F.
Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201 S. W. 77; Frizell Grain

& Supply Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., id. 78.

"Permissive use."-Novinger v. Shoop (Mo.) 201
S. W. 64.
"Per month."-Frazier v. Nashville Veterinary
Hospital (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 751.
"Personal representative."-Atchison, T. & S.
F. Ry. Co. v. Berkshire (Tex. Civ. App.)
201 S. W. 1093.

"Person interested."-Voss v. Des Moines &
Mississippi Levee Dist. No. 1 (Mo.) 201
S. W. 538.

"Place."-Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 201
S. W. 990.

"Privilege tax."-State v. Louisville & N. R.
Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 738.
"Privity."-Fidelity Lumber Co. v. Ewing (Tex.
Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 1163.
"Produce."-City of Higbee v. Burgin (Mo.
App.) 201 S. W. 558.
"Profert."-Waterhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furni-
ture Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 150.
"Property tax."-Massachusetts Bonding &
Ins. Co. v. Chorn (Mo.) 201 S. W. 1122.
"Proximate cause."-Loveless v. Cunard Min-
ing Co. (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 375.
"Punitive damages."-Frizell Grain & Supply
Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.)
201 S. W. 78.

"Purchaser for value."-Clark v. Ford (Ky.)
201 S. W. 344.

"Purchasers."-Kobbe v. Harriman Land Co.
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 762.
"Question of fact."-San Antonio, U. & G. R.
Co. v. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W.
247.

"Refunding bonds."-Kansas City Rys. Co. v.
Public Service Commission of Missouri (Mo.)
201 S. W. 74.

"Regulating affairs of county."-Altgelt v. Gut-
zeit (Tex.) 201 S. W. 400.
"Rent."-Young v. Home Tel. Co. (Mo. App.)
201 S. W. 635.

"Rental value."-Reeves v. Romines (Ark.) 201
S. W. 822.

"Retributive damages."-Frizell Grain & Supply
Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201
S. W. 78.

"Simple sentence."-San Antonio, U. & G. R.
Co. v. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W.
247.

"Smart money."-Frizell Grain & Supply Co. v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201 S.
W. 78.

"Subsisting liabilities and claims."-Interna-
tional & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Concrete Inv. Co.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 718.
"Tenant."-Young v. Home Tel. Co. (Mo. App.)
201 S. W. 635.

"Tenant right of renewal."-Fine v. Lawless
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 160.

"Testamentary capacity."-Robinson v. Daven-
port (Ky.) 201 S. W. 28.

"Total loss."-Springfield Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. of Springfield, Mass., v. Shapoff (Ky.)
201 S. W. 1116; Horine v. Royal Ins. Co.,
Limited, of Liverpool (Mo. App.) 201 S. W.
958.

[blocks in formation]

"Undue influence."-Robinson V. Davenport
(Ky.) 201 S. W. 28.

"Unlawful detainer."-Fine v. Lawless (Tenn.)
201 S. W. 160.

"Vagrant."-Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
201 S. W. 177.

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

"Vendor's lien note."-Bailey v. Burkitt (Tex., ed, where the owner had breached the contract,
Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 725.
"Vindictive damages."-Frizell Grain & Supply
Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.)
201 S. W. 78.

"Volunteer."-State Sav. Trust Co. v. Spencer
(Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 967.
"Wholly destroyed."-Horine V. Royal Ins.
Co., Limited, of Liverpool (Mo. App.) 201 S.
W. 958.

'Writ of error coram nobis."-Warren v. Or-
der of Railway Conductors of America (Mo.
App.) 201 S. W. 368.

WORK AND LABOR.

See Mechanics' Liens.

7(2) (Mo.App.) Plaintiff has burden of prov-
ing that medical services and miscellaneous
supplies furnished her daughter, who was de-
fendant's wife, were furnished pursuant to
agreement that defendant would pay for them;
it being presumed that they were supplied
gratuitously.-Saling v. Baxter, 201 S. W. 575.

plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of
the materials and labor, at least up to the con-
tract price.-Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas
M. Sayman Realty & Investment Co., 201 S.
W. 864.

A contractor who has voluntarily abandoned
his contract may in quantum meruit recover the
actual value of the work and materials not ex-
ceeding the contract price less damages for his
breach.-Id.

29 (3) (Mo.) In an action in quantum
meruit for labor and materials furnished, where
owner breached the contract, it was error for
the jury to add 10 per cent. builder's profit as
called for in the contract, although such might
have been recovered in action for breach.-
Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas M. Sayman
Realty & Investment Co., 201 S. W. 864.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
See Master and Servant, 372-417.

WRITING.

WRIT OF ERROR.

27(1) (Mo.) Where there were no struc-
tural defects in boilers furnished by contractor,
and they were identical boilers specified in con- See Evidence, 159, 318.
tract, in quantum meruit action, where owner
counterclaimed for damages, it was not error
to exclude owner's evidence of defects of that See Appeal and Error.
type of boiler.-Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas
M. Sayman Realty & Investment Co., 201 S.
W. 864.

29(1) (Mo.) A contractor proceeding in
quantum meruit against an owner who has
breached his contract is not concluded by what
he paid for the labor and materials furnished if
he shows their reasonable value exceeds such
sum.-Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas M. Say-
man Realty & Investment Co., 201 S. W. 864.

WRITS.

See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Gar-
nishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Judg-
ment, 334; Mandamus; Process; Quo
Warranto; Replevin; Searches and Sei-
zures; Sequestration.

29(2) (Mo.) In quantum meruit by contrac-
tor to recover for materials and labor furnish- See Fraud, 23.

X-RAY.

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

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »