페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

337.

sion of goods to the owner or consignee upon [T. Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., 167 S. W.
payment of the freight charges, as shown by the
bill of lading, etc., a railroad company has no
right to impose, as a condition to the delivery,
the surrender of the bill of lading, but can only
require its production for inspection. Missouri,
K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Long, 167 S. W.

769.

§ 92 (Mo.App.) In a suit against a carrier for loss of liquors unlawfully seized and destroyed by federal officers, it was no defense that the carrier acted in good faith in surrendering the liquors, or that they may have been seized by force.-Fehrenbach Wine & Liquor Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 167 S. W. 631.

A carrier was liable as an insurer for loss of liquors illegally seized by federal officers on the ground that it was intended to transport them into the Indian country.-Id.

Where an officer, without proper legal process, seized and destroyed liquors in possession of a carrier, the officer was a mere trespasser, and the carrier was liable for his act.-Id.

§ 94 (Mo.) Where a carrier returned a C. O. D. shipment and offered to deliver it to the shipper because of a statute preventing delivery without paying a heavy occupation tax, liability, if any, held to be for breach of the contract, and not for conversion.-Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Co., 167 S. W. 429; Same v. Wells Fargo & Co., Id. 433.

§ 94 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by a consignee against a carrier for conversion of a car of apples in refusing to deliver them on the production of the bill of lading, the measure of damages was the interest on the value of the property during its retention and any amount that the property depreciated in value while withheld.-Missouri. K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Long, 167 S. W. 769.

(E) Delay in Transportation or Delivery. $105 (Tex.) Where the delay of a carrier in delivering a car occurred while in transit to the consignee, who was to load it with oil and return it to consignor, but the carrier was not informed that it was to be so loaded, the value of the ordinary use of the car during the delay was the measure of the onsignor's damages.San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Houston Packing Co., 167 S. W. 228.

If the carrier's delay occurred after the car was loaded with oil by the consignee and returned to the carrier, the carrier was liable for such damages as would ordinarily result from a failure to deliver the oil for the use to which it was to be applied.-Id.

(F) Loss of or Injury to Goods.

§ 117 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a contract of carriage contained an absolute and unconditional stipulation requiring the carrier to re-ice the cars at every icing station, the carrier could not excuse noncompliance therewith because its employés in charge did not consider re-icing necessary.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., 167 S. W. 337.

§ 134 (Mo.App.) Carmack amendment to the Hepburn Act did not change the common law, and hence the liability of a railroad company which received an interstate shipment of fruit in good condition is prima facie shown upon delivery in bad condition.-Collins v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 167 S. W. 1178.

§ 134 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by a shipper against a carrier for damages to a shipment of dressed turkeys, comprising three classes, varying in value, evidence held sufficient to support the verdict, though there was no evidence as to what class the turkeys belonged, where the verdict was less than the loss, whatever class the turkeys belonged in.-Missouri, K. &

§ 135 (Mo.App.) In an action against a carrier for loss of goods, on which freight had not been paid, the consignee's measure of damages is the value of the goods at destination, less the freight.-Fehrenbach Wine & Liquor Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 167 S. W. 631.

Where, in an action against a carrier for loss of whisky, the only evidence of damage was the value of the whisky at the point of shipment, plaintiff could not recover more than nominal damages.-Id.

(H) Limitation of Liability.

§ 154 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an interstate shipment, a carrier is liable for the difference between the value of the goods in the condition in which they should have been delivered and the condition when delivered, though the bill of lading issued under the Carmack Amendment restricted its liability to the invoice price, where there was no consideration for the limitation

of liability.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Rathblath, 167 S. W. 751.

§ 163 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a carrier claims limitation of liability, it has the burden of proving that the shipper received some consideration for his consent thereto.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Rathblath, 167 S. W. 751.

(K) Discrimination and Overcharge. § 202 (Tex.Civ.App.) In a shipper's action to recover an overcharge on an interstate shipment, evidence held to raise an issue as to the correct rate.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Dickson Bros., 167 S. W. 33.

In an action to recover an overcharge on an interstate shipment, evidence that plaintiff, about three years prior to such shipment, had secured a lower rate held irrelevant to the correct rate at the time of shipment.-Id.

In an action to recover freight overcharges on an interstate shipment of live stock, evidence as to the rate on a shipment based upon two local rates and not upon a through shipment at a through rate held inadmissible.-Id.

III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK. § 218 (Tex. Civ.App.) Provision in bill of lading, requiring notice as condition precedent to an action, held not to apply to damages to live stock after they were placed in the shipping pens from failure to ship them at once, as agreed; this cause of action having accrued before the bill of lading was executed.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Boger, 167 S. W. 767.

Provision in bill of lading, requiring notice to carrier as condition precedent to action for damages to the stock, held sufficiently complied with by filing suit and serving citation 13 days after the damages accrued, though the bill of lading provided that the filing of a suit should not be a compliance therewith, and that its purpose suit was instituted.-Id. was to enable the carrier to investigate before

dence of market value, either in the injured con§ 228 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where there was no evi

dition of cattle when delivered, or in the condition in which they should have arrived, evidence that the cattle were worth $5 less per head than they would have been had they been transported without negligence held inadmissible.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Shank & Dean, 167 S. W. 1093.

In an action for damages to a shipment of cattle, in which plaintiff did not seek to recover special damages for the extra feed necessary to restore the cattle back to their former condition, evidence as to the value of such feed held inadmissible.-Id.

§ 229 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for negligent delay and rough handling of a shipment of live stock, the jury, in estimating the damages,

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER

[ocr errors]

should consider the fact of their recovery from | platform in the dark looking for the toilet room, any injury after they were put upon a pasture. was guilty of contributory negligence precluding -Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Shank & Dean, recovery for injuries caused in a fall from such 167 S. W. 1093. platform.-Hickman v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 167 S. W. 1178.

$230 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action against two connecting carriers for injuries to cattle, evidence held sufficient to take to the jury the question whether the cattle had been roughly handled while being transported over the line of the first carrier.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Hawkins & Nance, 167 S. W. 190.

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. (A) Relation Between Carrier and Passenger.

§ 247 (Ark.) The duty of a railroad company to exercise for the benefit of passengers the highest degree of care reasonably consistent with the operation of its trains, continues until the passenger has alighted from the train. Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. Thomas, 167 S. W. 486.

(D) Personal Injuries.

$280 (Tex.) A carrier's duty to exercise the high degree of diligence which would be exercised by very prudent persons under similar circumstances is not limited to the operation of its cars and trains.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gresham, 167 S. W. 724.

$280 (Tex.Civ.App.) "High degree of care" and "ordinary care," which a carrier is required to exercise toward its passengers, defined.Bryning v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 167 S. W. 826.

$ 303 (Ark.) Where a passenger slipped upon seeds upon the step of defendant's car, defendant is not liable, unless its servants knew of the presence of the seeds and negligently failed to remove them, or the seeds had been on the steps of the car for so long a time that the trainmen, with ordinary care, should have discovered them.-Prescott & N. R. Co. v. Thomas, 167 S. W. 486.

See Weapons.

CATTLE.

In an action for personal injuries to plaintiff's wife while alighting from a train, an instruction that the evidence must show that the injury was the natural and probable conse- See Animals. quence of the negligence and ought to have been foreseen as likely to occur by a person of or

CENSUS.

dinary prudence, in the light of attending cir- See Evidence, § 12; Intoxicating Liquors, § 30. cumstances, held proper.-Id.

§ 348 (Tex.) In an action for injuries to a female passenger by slipping down the steps of defendant's passenger coach, an instruction held to properly submit the issue of contributory negligence.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gresham, 167 S. W. 724.

§ 32 (Ark.) The refusal of an instruction on the duty of defendant to free the steps of its cars from seeds on which a passenger slipped held proper, where there was no evidence that the seeds had been on the steps for so short a length of time that they could not have been removed by due care.-Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. Thomas, 167 S. W. 486.

(G) Passengers' Effects.

§ 405 (Mo.App.) Under the federal statutes, the provision, in a ticket for interstate transportation, limiting the carrier's baggage liability to "$100 for a whole ticket," being in accordance with the carrier's tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, governs in case of loss, even through the carrier's negligence; the passenger not having, at time of checking her baggage, declared a greater value and offered to pay for additional service.--Wright v. Southern Pac. Co., 167 S. W. 1137.

(E) Contributory Negligence of Person Injured.

§ 408 (Mo.App.) The cause of action alleged by the petition, loss of baggage in interstate transportation, being governed by federal laws, defendant is not deprived of a defense thereunder, under its general traverse, because of pleading a special defense founded on a state law.-Wright v. Southern Pac. Co., 167 S. W. 1137.

CARRYING WEAPONS.

§ 327 (Mo.App.) A passenger who, not famil

See Supersedeas, § 2.

CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE.

$318 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence, in an action by the surviving children of a railroad mail clerk for injury from being struck by a falling letter box, resulting in his death, held to show that the defendant railroad was negligent in furnishing a defective car.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Walker, 167 S. W. 199.

of a part of a tract and had well-marked lines 87 (Ky.) Where one was in actual occupancy around the remainder, the operation of the

Evidence, in an action by the surviving chil-champerty statute reached the entire tract as to dren of a railroad mail clerk for injury from inclosed or not.-Le Moyne v. Litton, 167 S. W. a conveyance by one not in possession, whether being struck by a falling letter box, resulting 912. in his death, held to show that the defendant was negligent in failing to inspect and repair the car.-Id.

CHANCERY.

CERTIFICATE.

See Acknowledgment, § 37; Corporations, § 94; Insurance, §§ 285, 694, 705, 726, 748; Joint-Stock Companies, § 7; Notaries, § 3; Officers, 81; Schools and School Districts, $ 53.

See Equity.

CHANGE OF VENUE.

§ 320 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a passenger, occasioned by the failure of the company to keep its station open at a certain point as required by Ky. St. § 784, evidence held suf- See Venue, §§ 77, 78. ficient to require the submission to the jury of the question whether the station was a flag station or one at which the train regularly stopped. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Lauhorn, 167 See Criminal Law, §§ 369-377; Witnesses, § S. W. 132.

CHARACTER.

337-361.

CERTIORARI.

CHARGE.

To jury, see Criminal Law, §§ 770–829; Trial, §§ 191-296.

CHARITIES.

II. CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT. $45 (Tex.Civ.App.) A charitable hospital which administers to the sick of all nations and creeds, accepting pay if the patients are able

tuitously, is liable for damages to an employé for personal injuries sustained through its negligence, and its property is not exempt from execution to enforce the payment of such demand. -Hotel Dieu v. Armendariz, 167 S. W. 181.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

See Courts, §§ 169, 170; Payment, § 45.
III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA-

to

$150 (Tex.Civ.App.) The mere omission deposit and file a chattel mortgage "forthwith," as required by the statute, will not impair the effect of the record as to persons acquiring the rights in the mortgaged property at a date subsequent to the record.-Brinberry v. White, 167 S. W. 205.

ges were duly filed for record, a personal judgment against the assignee as for a conversion held erroneous except as to costs.-Marshall v. G. A. Stowers Furniture Co., 167 S. W. 230.

TION.

(D) Lien and Priority.

§ 144 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a resident of N. county purchased mules in E. county, and executed a mortgage therefor, and the mules were delivered to him there, where the seller resided, and where the purchaser represented that he resided, and were not removed to N. county on the day of the sale, a duly recorded mortgage See Judgment, § 472. in E. county held prior to mortgages subsequently executed in and recorded in N. county. -Brinberry v. White, 167 S. W. 205.

§ 290 (Tex.Civ.App.) Provisions, in chattel mortgages that if default was made in any payments and they were given to an attorney for collection, or if suit was brought thereon, an additional 10 per cent. on the principal should be added as collection fees, held to cover fees only upon the principal remaining unpaid at the time the claim for fees accrued, and not fees upon the original principal.-Marshall v. G. A. Stowers Furniture Co., 167 S. W. 230.

CHECKS.

See Bills and Notes.

See Assignments.

CITIES.

See Municipal Corporations.

CITIZENS.

See Constitutional Law, § 205; Indians.
CIVIL DAMAGE LAWS.

See Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 285-317.

CIVIL RIGHTS. See Constitutional Law, §§ 82, 205. CLAIMS.

See Insane Persons, § 70.

CLERKS OF COURTS.

§ 69 (Tex.Cr.App.) The clerk of the trial court should place, on papers filed with him, the actual date of filing.-Davis v. State, 167 S. W. 1108.

CLOUD ON TITLE.

See Quieting Title.

CLASS LEGISLATION.

IX. FORECLOSURE.

$287 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the petition in an action to foreclose chattel mortgages against the mortgagor and his assignee and for general relief contained no allegation that the mortga- See Conspiracy.

CLUBS.

See Associations; Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 50, 146.

COAL.

See Mines and Minerals, § 58.

COLLATERAL ATTACK.

COLLECTION.

See Assignments, §§ 119, 121; Banks and Banking, §§ 171, 175; Taxation, § 592.

COLLUSIVE TRIALS.

See Criminal Law, § 169.

COLOR OF TITLE.

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION. § 27 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Const. art. 10, § 1, a Texas railroad company has no powers outside of the state, and a passenger train received by it at the state line from a connecting company and hauled to other points within the state is an instrument of intrastate commerce which must be started on schedule time from its

CHILDREN.

See Adoption; Deeds, § 105; Infants; Parent point of origin at the state line under Railroad and Child.

Commission Circular 18.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
Co. of Texas v. State, 167 S. W. 822.

CHOSE IN ACTION.

[blocks in formation]

§ 64 (Mo.) State statute, imposing on parties handling liquors C. O. D. an annual occupation tax of $5,000 for each place maintained for that purpose, held valid as applied to an interstate carrier, and to excuse its failure to make delivery of a C. O. D. shipment.-Rosenberger v. Pacific Express Co., 167 S. W. 429; Same v. Wells Fargo & Co., Id. 433.

See Constitutional Law, § 205.

COMMERCIAL PAPER.

See Bills and Notes.

COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS.

See Carriers, § 26.

See Carriers.

COMMISSIONS.

See Brokers, §§ 58-82; Principal and Agent, § See Witnesses, §§ 191, 220.

89.

COMMON CARRIERS.

COMMON SCHOOLS. See Schools and School Districts.

COMMUNITY PROPERTY. See Husband and Wife, §§ 254-274. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. See Negligence, § 97.

COMPENSATION.

See Arbitration and Award, § 41; Attorney and Client, §§ 143-190; Brokers, §§ 58-82; Corporations, g 308; Eminent Domain, § 69; Guardian and Ward, §§ 151, 163; Judges, 22; Master and Servant, § 82; Principal and Agent, 84, 89; Receivers, § 194.

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.

See Damages, § 44.

COMMON LAW.

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

See Carriers, § 134; Criminal Law, § 169; 'Divorce, § 124; Evidence, § 80; Waters and See Courts, §§ 480, 488; Evidence, § 101. Water Courses, § 261.

See Indictment and Information; Pleading.
COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS.
See Compromise and Settlement.

COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. See Accord and Satisfaction; Evidence, §§ 213, 219, 427; Payment; Release.

§ 16 (Mo.) Settlement contract between the parties providing for the abrogation of pre-existing contracts held not to annul a secured note executed by plaintiff to defendant company, which the settlement provided should be paid by plaintiff's delivery of a specified quantity of lumber under a contract of settlement.-Sconce v. George Surmeyer Lumber Co., 167 S. W. 997. CONCEALED WEAPONS.

See Weapons.

CONCLUSION.

See Evidence, § 471; Pleading, § 8.
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.

See Courts, §§ 480, 488.

CONDEMNATION.

See Eminent Domain.

CONDITIONS.

See Deeds, 8 165.

CONDITIONAL SALES.

CONFESSION.

See Criminal Law, §§ 519–538.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

COMPETENCY.

See Jury, §§ 90, 103, 137; Witnesses, §§ 140- See Adverse Possession, § 10; Animals, § 50;

220.

COMPLAINT.

Commerce, §§ 27, 64; Corporations, § 636; Counties, 150; Courts, §§ 198, 231; Criminal Law, § 749; Homestead, §§ 135, 141; Intoxicating Liquors, § 259; Judges, §§ 22, 44; Jury, §§ 14, 31; Licenses. §7; Railroads, $$ 58, 259; Statutes, §§ 76, 109, 11016, 125; Taxation, §§ 113, 242.

CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS.

CONFIRMATION.

See Taxation, §§ 791-810.

CONSIDERATION.
See Contracts, §§ 54, 71.

CONSOLIDATION.
See Corporations, §§ 583, 590.
CONSPIRACY.

See Criminal Law, §§ 426, 427, 814.

II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.

(B) Prosecution and Punishment. $47 (Ky.) Conspiracy need not be proved by evidence of an express agreement, but may be inferred from circumstances.-Gabbard v. Čommonwealth, 167 S. W. 942.

§ 48 (Ky.) The existence of a conspiracy is a question of fact to be determined by the jury from all the evidence.-Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 167 S. W. 942.

III. DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERN-
MENTAL POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS.

(A) Legislative Powers and Delegation
Thereof.

$ 62 (Tex.Civ.App.) Gen. Laws (2d Extra Sess.) 31st Leg. c. 10 (Rev. St. 1911, arts. 6695, 6696), held a valid law an not a delegation of legislative power, being in effect a declaration that railroads shall, under certain conditions, construct union depots, leaving to the Railroad Commission merely the determination, in the first instance, whether those conditions exist.Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 167 S. W. 192.

Gen. Laws (2d Extra Sess.) 31st Leg. c. 10 (Rev. St. 1911, arts. 6695, 6696), authorizing the Railroad Commission to require two or more railroad companies whose lines reach the same town to construct union depots when prac ticable, held not invalid as authorizing the Commission to waive or enforce the statute at their pleasure.-Id.

IV. POLICE POWER IN GENERAL. § 81 (Tex. Civ.App.) Property which receives a right or privilege from the government and is used in dealing with the public is a legitimate subject for reasonable governmental regulations. -Lastinger v. Toyah Valley Irr. Co., 167 S. W.

V. PERSONAL, CIVIL AND POLITI-
CAL RIGHTS.

§ 82 (Tex.) Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 7805,
providing that when a foreign corporation has
forfeited its right to do business in the state,
as provided in article 7802, no corporation to
which it may transfer, or which may assume its
obligations, shall be ermitted to incorporate or
do business in the state held to involve no ques- See Trusts, §§ 91-110.
tion of the attainder of property.-Pierce Oil
Corporation v. Weinert, 167 S. W. 808.

VI. VESTED RIGHTS.

§ 107 (Ky.) The Legislature may change the period of limitations, and may give the statute a retrospective effect, provided it does not impair the obligation of a contract or a vested right, but it cannot remove a bar of limitation which has become complete.-Heath v. Hazelip, 167 S. W. 905.

[blocks in formation]

§ 297 (Tex.Civ.App.) Gen. Laws (2d Extra Sess.) 31st Leg. c. 10 (Rev. St. 1911, arts. 6695, 6696), authorizing the Railroad Commission to order two or more railroad companies in the same municipality to construct and maintain a union passenger depot, does not work a deprivation of property without due process, contrary to Const. U. S. Amend. 14, and Const. Tex. art. 1, § 19, because provision is made for notice and public hearing for the railroad companies before the order.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State, 167 S. W. 192.

§ 309 (Mo.) The Georgia statutes authorizing judgments against nonresidents by attachment without service of any notice or writ of attachment, either personally, by publication, or otherwise, are not invalid as depriving of property without due process in violation of the United States Constitution, as the legal seizure of the property is constructive notice.-Kwilecki v. Holman, 167 S. W. 989.

CONSTRUCTION.

See Contracts, §§ 147-155; Deeds, §§ 93-165;

Insurance, 88 146, 152, 726; Mortgages, § 151; Sales, 88 54-88; Statutes, §§ 206–228; Trial, 88 295, 296; Wills, §§ 439-687.

$309 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where jurisdiction, in a suit against a nonresident, is sought to be obtained by attachment, due process of law requires that the owner have an opportunity to be heard, and to that end shall be notified in some manner beyond the notice arising from the seizure of the property.-Connell v. Nickey, 167 S. W. 313.

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS.

VII. OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. (C) Contracts of Individuals and Private Corporations.

CONTINUANCE.

$171 (Ky.) The Legislature may change the See Appeal and Error, §§ 920, 1043; Criminal

Law, 8 584-603, 1086, 1151.

period of limitations, and may give the statute a retrospective effect, provided it does not impair the obligation of a contract or a vested right, but it cannot remove a bar of limitation which has become complete.-Heath v. Hazelip, 167 S. W. 905.

CONTEMPT.

See Injunction, § 231; Intoxicating Liquors, § 279; Nuisance, § 86.

CONTEST.

See Elections, §§ 278–305.

See Wills, § 634.

CONTINGENT REMAINDERS.

§ 14 (Ark.) In action for death of railway brakeman, continuance held properly denied because the allegations of the original and amended complaints, filed within 10 days before the beginning of the term, as to the failure of the air on the train to work properly, stated the same cause of action in different language.Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Leslie, 167 S. W. 83.

for the absence of a witness on the ground that § 26 (Ky.) It was error to deny a continuance the subpoena did not contain his address, where the sheriff was given his last known address with the subpoena.-Louisville Ry. Co. v. Vessels' Adm'x, 167 S. W. 924.

Where subpoena for material witness with last known address was delivered to sheriff more than five days before the trial, and his absence

was not learned until the return of the subtion, held, that there was no lack of diligence. pœna, when it was too late to take his deposi

-Id.

$30 (Mo.App.) In an action for assault, the allowance of a trial amendment which added to the petition allegations as to the injury to plaintiff's nose, to which injury testimony had been given without objection, held not to entitle defendant to a continuance under Rev. St. 1909, § 1961, on the ground of surprise.-Ellis v. Wahl, 167 S. W. 582.

CONTRACTS.

See Accord and Satisfaction; Alteration of Instruments; Appeal and Error, §§ 842, 1050; Assignments; Attorney and Client, §§ 143, 148; Bailment; Bills and Notes; Boundaries, 46; Brokers; Cancellation of Instruments; Carriers, § 94; Champerty and Maintenance; Chattel Mortgages; Compromise and Settlement; Constitutional Law, § 171; Counties, § 150; Courts, § 169; Damages, $8 78-85; Deeds; Estoppel; Evidence, $$ 80, 390-450; Exchange of Property; Frauds, Statute of; Guaranty; Husband and Wife, §§ 81, 89; Insurance, § 115; Interest; Joint Adventures; Landlord and Tenant; Maritime Liens, §§ 11, 16, 25, 59, 61, 74: Mortgages; Municipal Corporations, §§ 230-248, 330-372; Partnership; Payment; Pleading, $$ 8, 32, 174; Principal and Sure

$47 (Ky.) In an action on a guaranty in which defendant alleged payment, evidence on an application for a continuance for the absence of defendant's co-guarantor, by whom it was claimed payment was made, held to show diligence justifying a continuance.-Ford v. HouseHasson Hardware Co., 167 S. W. 879.

« 이전계속 »