페이지 이미지



[ocr errors]

ww166 (1) (Ky.) To establish undue influence, | (B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-
mere opportunity or possibility of its exercise tees and Their Respective Shares.
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
must be shown.-Robinson v. Davenport, 201 without "heirs,” remainder to go to testa-
S. W. 28.

tor's brothers and sisters, word "heirs" means

children, and is a word of purchase and not of
V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND limitation.-Walden v. Smith, 201 S. W. 302.

ww519 (Ky.) Under residuary clause providing
(H) Evidence.

“Rest of my estate I wish divided between my
w293(6) (Ky.) Under Ky. St. § 4828, that nieces Fanny Mary Ella to receive $500," and
testator's signature was subscribed in presence

to nephew $500 in trust, two pieces first named
of and at direction of testator may be shown took residuary estate. — Parrott v. Crosby, 201
by extrinsic, parol, and circumstantial evidence. S. W. 13.
--Reed v. Hendrix's Ex'r, 201 S. W. 182.

(E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre-
m302(1) (Ky.) Under evidence, held, that
testatrix did not subscribe will in presence of m590 (Ky.) Will devising, life estate
attesting witnesses, but did acknowledge it in widow, and providing that, “if my wife should
their presence within Ky, St. $ 1828, requiring marry, I give to our sons' certain stock, and
subscription or acknowledgment in presence of the rest of my property, real and personal,
witnesses.-Reed v. Hendrix's Ex’r, 201 S. W. be divided according to law,” gave to the wid-
Evidence held sufficient in absence of direct the personalty, except the stock, and a life es-

in the event of her marriage, one-half of
proof to show that testatrix's signature was
subscribed in her presence and at her direction, I to his children.-Weideman v. Weidemar, 201

tate in one-third of the realty, with remainder
as required by Ky. St. $ 4828, where name is S. W. 467.
not signed by testatrix.-Id.
Ca 303 (3) (Ky.) Witness need not testify to his property to his wife for her life created life

Cum 614(1) Tenn.) Gift by testator of use of all
express acknowledgment by testatrix; it be-

estate in all property, real and personal.-Cross
ing sufficient to show facts that imply an ac-

v. Buskirk-Rutledge Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 141.
knowledgment, such as a request that the wit: 1618 (Ky.) I'nder will providing that if dev-
ness attest the document.-Reed v. Hendrix's

isees died while their children were under age
Ex'r, 201 S. W. 482.

their children should have rents and profits un-
(1) Hearing or Trial.

til they attained majority, and if they died be.
Em 327 (Ark.) Refusing directed verdict in children held to take only rents and profits un-

fore that time estate should revert, grand-
will contest is not erroneous where there was
concededly sufficient testimony to go to jury teripinated.—Morgan v. Staton, 201 S. W. 301.

til they attained majority when their estates
regarding testator's mental incapacity.-Morris
v. Raymond, 201 S. W. 116.

(F) Vested or Contingent Estates and In.

(K) Review,

628 (Ky.) A vested remainder is an in-
364 (Ark.) Kirby's Dig. $ 8029, giving one heritable estate, but a contingent remainder is
year to appeal from probate court orders ad- lost by the failure of the contingency to occur.
mitting or denying probate of will, is unaf- - Nunnelly's Guardian v. Nunnelly, 201 S. W.
fected by Acts 1909, p. 956, amending Kirby's 976.
Dig. $ 1348, requiring heirs, etc., to appeal 634(8) (Ky.) Will giving life estate with
from probate to circuit court within six months. remainder to children, but in event of death
- Morris v. Raymond, 201 S. W. 116.

leaving no children, property to go to others,

held to give an uninheritable contingent estate

to the children. defeasible at their death.-
(A) General Rules.

Nunnelly's Guardian v. Nunnelly, 201 S. W. 976.
439 (Tex.Civ.App.) The intent of the tes-

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.
tator, as expressed in the whole instrument
when read in the light of the circumstances w693(1) (Tenn.). Where testator gave wife
surrounding the testator when the will was life estate in all his property, power of sale giv-
written, must govern.- Nations v. Neighbors, en to executors cannot be construed to deprive
201 S. W. 691.

her of her life estate, or dispose of property
467 (Kv.) In determining

without her joining in deed.-Cross v. Buskirk-

whether will
providing for reverter if devisee's children died Rutledge Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 141,
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 See Appeal and Error, cm 690, 994, 1048;
the devisees, with no provision for reverter,
held to have no weight. - Morgan v. Staton, 201

Continuance. 26; Criminal Law, m507;

Evidence; Perjury; Trial, Eww140.
S. W. 304.
C486 (Ky.) The general rule is that will is

to be construed from language used, and that (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen.
parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to
add to, vary, or contradict its terms.-Parrott 45(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether negro boy,
v. Crosby, 201 S. W. 13.

suing railroad for personal injuries, was com-
Cum 487(1) (Ky.) Where testator's intention is petent to testify as witness, in that be under-
expressed in plain and uambiguous language, stood nature and obligation of oath, was mat-
parol and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible.-

ter resting in sound discretion of trial court.
Parrott v. Crosby, 201 S. W. 13.

-Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 201 S.
488 (Ky.) Where language is doubtful or W. 674.
ambiguous, parol or extrinsic evidence is some- When child is offered as witness, it is proper
times admissible to give application to words to ascertain whether he has sufficient intelli-
of will, but not to change import of devise.- gence and knowledge of obligation of oath to
Parrott v. Crosby, 201 S. W. 13.

be prompted to tell truth, and, if he has, he
Parol evidence may be admitted for purpose should be permitted to testify.-10.
of showing and explaining latent ambiguity, but If infant witness is not familiar with such
not ordinarily for purpose of explaining patent expressions as “obligation of oath," etc., he
ambiguity apparent on face of will.-Id.

should be instructed in simple terms, and be


permitted to testify, if he understands that it tween patient and physician, in the absence
is wrong to swear falsely and that he will be of which they are admissible.-Dodd v. State,

201 S. W. 1014,
48(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) While, under Ver
non's Ànn. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 865b, and

article 865e, trial court would have no authori (A) Taking Testimony in General.
ty to suspend sentence of accused, convicted 240(5) (Tex. Civ. App.) Question whether
of felony in seven separate cases, he, not hav- plaintiff did not tell her attorney that mule was
ing been sentenced, was not disqualified as a struck just as she had told jury held leading.–
witness under article 785, as to disqualification Baker v. Thomas, 201 S. W. 215.
after conviction of felony.-Burnett v. State,
201 S. W. 409.

250 (Mo.) On pedestrian's action for in-
Cw48(5) (Mo.) Rev. $t. 1909, $ 2891, provid- after saying that he did not know how far

jury by street car, permitting witness to state,
ing that one sentenced to penitentiary for life
shall be deemed civilly dead; section 4504, at plaintiff was dragged, that it must have been
taching certain disqualifications to conviction for Harvey, 201 S. W. 535.

some 20 or 25 feet, was not error.-Hill v.
murder; section 4631, forfeiting citizenship of
persons convicted of certain offenses; section (B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina-
4673, attaching disqualifications to conviction

of other offenses; and section 4875, disfranchis-
ing certain convicts--do not render such person testifying as to the value of his grass lands

Omm 269(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff
incompetent to testify, in view of section 6383, before the grass was burned, fixed the value
making convict a competent witness.--State v.
Hill, 201 S. W. 58.

at a sum considerably higher than the amount

at which he rendered the land for taxes, de-
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In- fendant is, on cross-examination, entitled to

terested, for or against Representa- bring that matter out.-Ft. Worth' & D. C. Ry.
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title Co. v. Hapgood, 201 S. W. 1040.
or Interest of Persons Deceased or In-e270(1) (Ark.) The cross-examining party in

a criminal case is bound by an answer concern-
Om 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, CONTRADICTION, AND COR-
applies.-Houston Transfer & Carriage Co. v.

Williams, 201 S. W. 712.

(A) In General.
Om 144(13) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 3690, forbidding survivfailure to disperse a riotous assemblage, where

m319 (Ark.) In prosecution of mayor for
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- mayor was within a few feet of where the

of the assemblage, one who testified that the
dent had
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
Om 145 (Mo.App.) In replevin by administra-

to have been impeached.-Wright v. State, 201
trix and wife of deceased in whose name stock S. W. 1107.
stood, against the wife and administratrix of 328 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for mur-
deceased's father, the plaintiff was not "in-
competent under the statute for any purpose." Icused with a pistol in her hand behind her just

der, where witness testified to having seen ac-
-Jones v. Jones, 201 S. W. 557.

before she crossed the street and shot deceased,
On 159(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vernon's Sayles's others could testify that, from witness' position
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 3690, prohibiting par- he could not have seen the pistol, and others
ties to action by heir testifying to their trans- could say that, witness having pointed out the
action with deceased, held to apply to testi- positions, he could have seen what he testified to.
mony showing he had failed to deliver goods

-Williams v. State, 201 S. W. 188.
for which the note sued on was given.--Hous-
ton Transfer & Carriage Co. v. Williams, 201 (B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
S. W. 712.

Omw335 (Mo.App.) In action on notes, where
em 159(8) (Ark.) In administrator's action on defendant alleged fraud of plaintiff's agents,
chattel mortgago note, defendant cannot testify one of whom testified for defendant, his cred-
that decedent mortgagee promised to allow him ibility and general bad character and bad repu-
certain credits on note.-Kirby v. Wooten, 201 tation for fair dealing were open to inquiry.-
S. W. 115.

Pioneer Stock Powder Co. v. Goodman, 201
Cm 164 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony that de S. W. 576.
cedent was person who signed note in suit is 337(4) (Ark.) Evidence of specific acts of
not testimony as to transaction with the dece. misconduct or immorality is not admissible in
dent within Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, a criminal case to establish bad reputation of
art. 36:20.---Williams v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of the defendant who has testified as a witness.
Stephenville, 201 S. W. 1083.

-Crawford v. State, 201 S. W. 781.

C337 (5) (Ark.) Defendant may be
(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged examined as to former convictions when he

becomes witness in his own behalf.-Conner v.
Om 199(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Communications to State, 201 S. W. 285.
adviser, who is not licensed to practice law Cow 344 (2) (Ky.) The exclusion of evidence
and is not practicing attorney, are not privileg- that a woman witness was seen to go to the
ed.--McAllen v. Wood, 201 S. W. 433.

home of a woman of immoral character was
ww211 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused proper, since evidence of particular acts is not
claimed temporary insanity, his examining phy- admissible to impeach a witness' character. -
sician having testified, it was not error for the Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 318.
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

[ocr errors]

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

quarreled with her husband, was not admis-, milk to such home, but denied entrance through
sible, being merely evidence of particular acts. the alley, where such fact was wholly imma-

terial.-- Barnes v. Commonwealth, 201 S. W.
ww344(4) (Tex.Cr. App.) In prosecution for 318.
perjury, defendant was entitled to ask and ob Evidence of a clerk that she called up de-
tain from state's witness business in which he ceased by phone the day of deceased's murder
was engaged, or occupation he pursued, to af or the day previous heid not relevant to con-
fect his credibility by showing he was in em-

tradict witness who denied that deceased had
ploy of disorderly house.-Roberts v. State, 201 called up such clerk or to corroborate de-
S. W. 998.

fendant, who testified that deceased had called
Cu345(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) Evidence in a murder up such clerk.-Id.
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.

See Acknowledgment, Om57; Names, 12.
ww345(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- | “Abandonment of wife."-Williams v. Farmers'
peach any witness by proving his prosecution or

Nat. Bank of Stephenville (Tex. Civ. App.)
conviction of any other misdemeanor.-Johnson

201 S. W. 1083.
v. State, 201 S. W. 177.

"Acceptance."-Sullivan v. Sullivan (Ky.) 201 S.

W. 24.
345(2) (Tex.Cr. App.) In a murder case any “Acceptance and actually receive."-Ruediger
witness may be impeached by showing that he
has been convicted or properly indicted for a “Accomplice."--O'Brien v. State (Tex, Cr. App.)

v. Dennis (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 943.
felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpi-

201 S. W. 179.
tude, but not for a charge of aggravated assault “Accord and satisfaction.”—Murphy v. Menke
with a conviction for simple assault.-Parker y.
State, 201 S. W. 173.

Grocery Co. (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 650.

"Act of God.”—Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.

Mountain R, Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 151.
363(1) (Ark.) Pecuniary interest, personal

"Actual place of religious worship."--Trinity

Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of San
affection or hostility, sympathy or animosity,

Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 669.
quarrel or prejudice, may always be shown to “Actual possession."-Russell v. McIntosh (Ky.)
discredit a witness.-Wright v. State, 201 S.

201 S. W. 33.
W. 1107.

“Agent."-State v. Munroe (Mo.) 201 S. W.
Court cannot in its discretion deny the priv 100.
ilege of showing bias.-Id.

"Agricultural product.”-City of Higbee v. Bur-
372(1) (Ark.) In determining bias of a gin (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 558.
witness, it is important that the jury know “Any citizen."-City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz
the facts tending to show bias or not, and the (Mo.) 201 S. W. 870.
inquiry should not be limited to the witness' "Arbor."-('asey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
statement, whether he had ill feeling toward 201 S. W. 760.
accused.-Wright v. State, 201 S. W. 1107. “Assumption of risk."--Baker V. Lusk (Mo.
Omw372(2) (Ark.) A state's witness should App.) 201 S. W. 357.
have been allowed to answer the question on

"At its own expense." -Casey-Hedges Co, v.
cross-examination, whether he had been criti Southwestern Surety Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W.
cising the mayor because the mayor ordered

him to stop selling cigarettes and gambling, as

"Baggage."-Bush v. Beauchamp (Ark.) 201 S.
tending to show his bias.-Wright v. State,

W. S28.
201 S. W. 1107.

"Bystander."-Rogers v. State (Ark.) 201 S.
372(3(Ark.) The witness having stated

W. 84.3.
that he had no bias against defendant, his af- / "Cause beyond its control."--Carolina Spruce
firmative answer to the question whether he

Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201
had been criticising the defendant, who had “Citizen."--City of St. Louis v. Baskowitz

S. W. 154.
prevented him from selling cigarettes aud

(Mo.) 201 S. W. 870; Massachusetts Bond-
gambling, was not so inconsistent as that it
should have been excluded.-Wright v. State,

ing & Ins. Co. v. Chorn (Mo.) 201 S. W.

201 S. W. 1107.

"Common design."-State v. Hill (Mo.) 201 S.
Com 373 (Ark.) Before witnesses can be called

W. 58.
to show statements of others out of court as “Completed.”—Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black
tending to show bias, proper foundation as

Mountain R, Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 154.
to time, place, and the person involved should "Conjecture.”-Reynolds v. Maryland Casualty
be laid. ---Wright v. State, 201 S. W. 1107.

Co. (No.) 201 S. W. 1128.
ww374(1) Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for "Conspiracy."-State v. Hill (Mo.) 201 S. W.
giving intoxicating liquor to minor girl, it was 58.
error to exclude evidence that witness, testi- “Constructed."-Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black
fying as to giving of liquor, had reasons and Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 154.
motives for so testifying. -Earnest v. State, 201 “Convey hotel." -Crawford v. El Paso Land
S. W. 175.

Imp. Co. Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 233.

"Conviction of felony." -Burnett V. State
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness,

(Tex. Cr. App.) 201 S. W. 409.
www39311) (Ark.) What a prosecutrix had col "Cope."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
laterally said on a former trial concerning self 201 S. W. 760.
abuse of her sister was admissible to show “Core."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.)
credibility.-Crawford v. State, 201 S. W. 781. 201 S. W. 760.

"Counterclaim."-Sparr v. Fulton Nat. Bank
(E) Contradiction and Corroboration or (ky.) 201 S. W. 310.

“Deal."-Chambers V. Johnston (Ky.) 201 S.
Crow 405(1) (Ky.) Evidence that a woman wit W, 188.
ness was seen to enter the home of a woman “Deed of conveyance."-Bailey Burkitt
of immoral character by way of an alley was (Tex. (iv. App.) 201 S. W. 725.
inadmissible for purpose of contradicting such "Deeds."-Kobbe Harriman Land Co.
witness, who admitted delivering butter and I (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 702.





"Deliberating."-McGregor V. State (Tex. Cr. & Supply Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Arp.) 201 S. W. 184.

Co., id. 78.
"Delivery."-Lee Hardware Co. V. Johnson "Permissive use."-Novinger v. Shoop (Mo.) 201

(Ark.) 201 S. W. 289; Horn y. Nicholas S. W. 64.
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 756.

“Per month.”—Frazier v. Nashville Veterinary
"Drag."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tenn.) Hospital (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 751.
201 S. W. 760.

“Personal representative.”- Atchison, T. & S.
“Estate by the entireties." -Ashbaugh v. Ash F. Ry. Co. v. Berkshire (Tex. Civ. App.)
baugh (Mo.) 201 S. W. 72,

201 S. W. 1093.

-Ex parte Hill (Tex. Cr. App.) / "Person interested.”—Voss v. Des Moines &
201 S. W. 996.

Mississippi Levee Dist. No. 1 (Mo.) 201
"Exemplary damages."-Frizell Grain & Supply S. W. 538.

Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201 “Place."--Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 201
S. W. 78.

S. W. 990.
“Express warranty."-Blair v. Hall (Mo. App.) “Privilege tax."-State v. Louisville & N. R.
201 S. W. 945.

Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 738.
"Felony.”—Gans v. State (Ark.) 201 S. W. “Privity.”—Fidelity Lumber Co. v. Ewing (Tex.

Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 1163.
"Filing back.”—Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. “Produce."--City of Higbee v. Burgin (Mo.
App.) 201 S. W. 998.

App.) 201 S. W. 558.
“Good will."-Fine y. Lawless (Tenn.) 201 S. “Profert."-Waterhouse v. Sterchi Bros. Furni-
W. 100.

ture Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 150.
"Governmental power."-Behrmann v. City of “Property tax.”-Massachusetts Bonding &
St. Louis (Mo.) 201 S. W. 547.

Ins. Co. v. Chorn (Mo.) 201 S. W. 1122.
“Grant, bargain, and sell."-Talbert V. Grist “Proximate cause."--Loveless v. Cunard Min-
(Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 906.

ing.Co. (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 377.
"Hlabitual."--Cordill v. State (Tex, Cr. App.) “Punitive damages.”—Frizell Grain & Supply
201 S. W. 181,

Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.)
"Heirs."-Walden v. Smith (Ky.) 201 S. W.

201 S. W. 78.

"Purchaser for value."-Clark v. Ford (Ky.)
"Holder in due course.”—Commercial Sec. Co.

201 S. W. 344.
v. Archer (Ky.) 201 s. W. 479; Mechanics’ | "Purchasers."--Kobbe v. Harriman Land Co.
American Nat. Bank v. IIelmbacher (Mo.

(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 762.
App.) 201 S. W. 383.

“Question of fact."-San Antonio, U. & G. R.
"Income.”-Frazier Nashville Veterinary

Co. v. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W.
Hospital (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 751.

"Independent contractor.”—Postal Telegraph- “Refunding bonds.”--Kansas City Rys. Co. v.

Cable Co. v. Murrell (Ky.) 201 S. W. 462. Public Service Commission of Missouri (Mo.)
"Injured."-State ex rel. and to use of Domi 201 S. W. 74.

nick v. Farmer (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 955. “Regulating affairs of county.”-Altgelt v. Gut-
"Institution of purely public charity.”—Trinity zeit (Tex.) 201 S. W. 400.

Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of San “Rent."-Young v. Home Tel. Co. (Mo. App.)
Antonio Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 669.

201 S. W. 635.
"Interstate commerce."-Spaw v. Kansas City "Rental value."--Reeves v. Romines (Ark.) 201

Terminal Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 927; S. W. 822.
Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Morgan “Retributive damages.”-Frizell Grain & Supply
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 128.

Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201
“In the present condition thereof."-L. J. Smith S. W. 78.

Const. Co. v. Mullins (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. “Simple sentence.”—San Antonio, U. & G. R.

Co. v. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W.
"Joint employé."-Kansas City Southern Ry. 247.
Co. v. Wade (Ark.) 201 S. W. 787.

“Smart money."-Frizell Grain & Supply Co. v.
“Junk merchant."--City of St. Louis v. Basko Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201 S.
witz (Mo.) 201 S. W. 870.

W. 78.
“License.”—Novinger v. Shoop (Mo.) 201 S. W. “Subsisting liabilities and claims."-Interna-

tional & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Concrete Inv. Co.
"Loaded arbor."-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 718.
(Tenn.) 201 S. W. 760.

"Tenant.”-Young v. Home Tel. Co. (Mo. App.)
"Manslaughter.”—McCain y. State (Ark.) 201 201 S. W. 635.
S. W. 810.

"Tenant right of renewal."--Fine v. Lawless
"Material alteration." -Mechanics' American (Tenn.) 201 S. W. 160.

Nat. Bank v. Helmbacher (Mo. App.) 201 S. "Testamentary capacity."—Robinson v. Daven-
W. 383.

port (Ky.) 201 S. W. 28.
"Misdemeanor."-Gans v. State (Ark.) 201 S. “Total loss."-Springfield Fire & Marine Ins.
W. 823.

Co. of Springfield, Mass., v. Shapoff (Ky.)
"Moneys expended in defense."-Casey-Hedges

201 S. W. 1116; Horine v. Royal Ins. Co.,
Co. v. Southwestern Surety Co. (Tenn.) 201 Limited, of Liverpool (Mo. App.) 201 S. W.
S. W. 137.

"Murder."-Parker Commonwealth (Ky.) "Trade, business, or occupation injurious to
201 S. W. 175.

health of neighborhood.”--Crowder v. Gra-
“Negligence."-Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. ham (Tex, Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 1053.

Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 674. "Transaction with decedent."—Williams
"Operation."— Barrett's Adm'r V. Brand (Ky.) Farmers' Nat. Bank of Stephenville (Tex.
201 S. W. 331.

Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 1083.
"Owners."-Voss v. Des Moines & Mississippi “Unavoidably prevented.”—Carolina Spruce Co.
Levee Dist. No. 1 (Mo.) 201 S. W. 538.

v. Black Mountain R. Co. (Tenn.) 201 S. W.
"Party in interest."-Frolichstein v. Cupples' 154.

Station Light, Heat & Power Co. (Mo.) 201 “Undue influence."-Robinson Davenport
S. W. 897.

(ky.) 201 S. W. 28.
“Payment."— American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Brown “Unlawful detainer.”-Fine v. Lawless (Tenn.)
(Ky.) 201 S. W. 326.

201 S. W. 160.
"Penal statute."-Coryell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. “Vagrant.”—Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
Ry. Co. (Mo.) 201 S. W. 77; Frizell Grain 201 S. W. 177.
For cases in Dec. Dig & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Iudexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

201 S.W.-82

[ocr errors]



“Vendor's lien note.”—Bailey v. Burkitt (Tex., ed, where the owner had breached the contract,
Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 725.

plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of
"Vindictive damages.”-Frizell Grain & Supply the materials and labor, at least up to the con-

Co. v: Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Mo.) tract price.--Bradley Heating Co. y. Thomas
201 S. W. 78.

M. Sayman Realty & Investment Co., 201 S.
Volunteer."-State Say. Trust Co. v. Spencer W. 861.
(Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 967.

A contractor who has voluntarily abandoned
"Wholly destroyed."—Horine v. Royal Ins. his contract may in quantum meruit recover the

Co., Limited, of Liverpool (Mo. App.) 201 s. actual value of the work and materials not ex-
W. 958.

ceeding the contract price less damages for his
‘Writ of error coram nobis."'--Warren v. Or- | breach.--Id.

der of Railway Conductors of America (Mo. ww29 (3) (Mo.) In an action in quantum
App.) 201 S. W. 368.

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
See Mechanics' Liens.

have been recovered in action for breach.-
Cm7(2) (Mo.App.) Plaintiff has burden of prov- Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas M. Sayman
ing that medical services and miscellaneous Realty & Investment Co., 201 S. W. 864.
supplies furnished her daughter, who was de-
fendant's wife, were furnished pursuant to WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
agreement that defendant would pay for them;
it being presumed that they were supplied See Master and Servant, 372417.
gratuitously.--Saling v. Baxter, 201 S. W. 575.
m27(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.

Com 29(1) (Mo.) A contractor proceeding in See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Gar-
quantum meruit against an owner who has

nishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction ; Judg-
breached his contract is not concluded by what

ment, 334; Mandamus; Process; Quo
he paid for the labor and materials furnished if

Warranto; Replevin; Searches and Sei-
he shows their reasonable value exceeds such

zures; Sequestration.
sum.-Bradley Heating Co. v. Thomas M. Say-
man Realty & Investment Co., 201 S. W. 864.
On 29 (2) (Mo.) In quantum meruit by contrac-

tor to recover for materials and labor furnish. See Fraud, mm 23.

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

[ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »