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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
See Appeal and Error, 690, 994, 1048; Continuance, 26; Criminal Law, ~507; Evidence; Perjury; Trial, 140.
II. COMPETENCY. (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen-
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,
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.
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-
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.
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.
See Acknowledgment, 57; Names, 12.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.)
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó » |