ACTION.

Annotation: Deduction of period of
federal control from statutory limita-
tions upon right of action against rail-
road
..21:164-170

Annotation: Statutory and common-
law liability for death or disability due
to disease proximately caused by em-
ployment
21:200-218

Annotation: Duty and liability of
bailor as to defects in subject of bail-
ment as affecting actions between
bailor and bailee .... ...21:276-285

Annotation: Effect of provisions in
compensation acts respecting liability
of third persons for negligence caus-
ing injury to employee.....21:401-431

Annotation: Contributory negli
gence of beneficiary as affecting re-
covery in action for wrongful death
21:466-481

Annotation: Lack of legal registra-
tion of vehicle as affecting action by
driver, owner or occupant for loss or
injury, or recovery for loss or damage
to others
..21:509-517
Annotation: Injury to child en-
ventre sa mere
.21:702-704

Annotation: Common-law actions
against master for injuries by his wil-
ful, deliberate or intentional act to
employee subject to compensation acts
21:856-861

Annotation: Workmen's compensa-
tion acts as affected by admiralty jur-
isdiction
21:862-869

1. Against railroads while under fed-
eral control.

Under Federal Control Act, § 10
(Fed. Stat. Ann. Supp. 1918, p. 757 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann.
Supp. 1919, § 31154j]), all actions at
law or suits in equity can be brought
against common carriers under federal
control as theretofore provided by law,
and no defense can be made thereto
on the ground that the carrier was an
instrumentality or agency of the fed-
eral government. Georgia Southern &
F. Ry. Co. v. Smiley, Ga. - 108 S.
E. 273 (1921)

.21:164-170

4.

Operator of water-tank engine-
Applicability of Federal Employers'
Liability Act.

An employee of a railroad engaged
in both interstate and intrastate com-
merce whose duties were to attend a
signal tower and also a water-tank
which was filled by a pump run by a
gasoline engine was, while engaged in
operating the engine to pump water
to be used for both interstate and in-
trastate trains, employed in interstate
commerce, and a suit for damages re-
sulting from an explosion of gasoline
was properly brought under the Fed-
eral Employers' Liability Act. Erie
R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U. S. 77, 64 L.
Ed. 790, 40 Sup. Ct. 450, aff'g 259
Fed. 172 (1920)...
.21:1-37

ADMIRALTY.

Annotation: Workmen's compensa-
tion acts as affected by admiralty jur-
isdiction
.21:862-869

AGENCY.

Annotation: Liability of owner of
automobile for death or injury due to
negligent operation of car by member
of his family
.21:242-274

1. Affirmance upon remittitur of dam-
ages erroneously included.

111 an action for damages for in-
juries to an automobile in a collision,
where the jury were permitted to find
damages for loss of the use of the au-
tomobile upon insufficient evidence,
and the probable amount included in
the verdict for such loss may be ascer-
ta ned, the judgment will be affirmed
upon condition of the remittitur of
such sum.
Hawkins v. Garford Truck-
ing Co., Inc., Conn.,
114 Atl. 94
(1921)
21:72-102

2. Conclusiveness of verdict when sup-
ported by evidence.

The evidence examined, and held,
that it reasonably tends to support the
verdict of the jury; therefore the ver-
diet will not be disturbed on appeal.
Midland Valley Railroad Co. v. Law-
horn (Okl. Sup.) 198 Pac. 586. Tulsa
Entertainment Co. V. Greenlees,
Okla. -
205 Pac. 179 (1922)...

21:891-906

- Finding of damages.
Where there was evidence to justify
the amount awarded by the jury as
damages for the loss of goods left in
the custody of a hotel company by a
departing guest, the court, on appeal,
cannot interfere with such award
merely because of its doubts as to the
credibility of some of plaintiff's tes
timony. Norman v. Utah Hotel Co.,
Utah 206 Pac. 556' (1922)....
21:877-890

4. Cure of error by instruction given
on another branch of the case.
Where, in an action against a city
for damages, violation of an ordinance

9.

--

,

227 S. W. 883 (1921)

21:820-855

Sustaining objection to answer
given and not stricken out.

In an action to recover for personal
injuries due to an alleged sudden jerk
of the street car in which plaintiff was
a passenger, the sustaining of an ob-
jection to an answer of defendant's
witness that the jerk was not enough
to overbalance a man, was harmless
where the answer was already before
the jury, there was no motion to strike
it out and it was not stricken out. Lay-
cock v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis,
Mo.
235 S. W. 91, rev'g -Mo.
227 S. W. 883 (1921)....
21:820-855

-

App.

11.

- Testimony as to matters not re-
lied upon-Refusal to strike.

In an action for injuries received by
plaintiff in attempting to board a street
car, where the negligence counted upon
was the closing of the door and raising
of the step, the refusal to strike out
testimony by plaintiff in response to
a question as to how long she was in
the position she had described, that the
car had moved four or five feet, was
not error where plaintiff, in the pres-
ence of the court and jury, disclaimed
any intention of relying on the pre-
mature starting of the car as negli-
gence and the court instructed the
jury not to consider such starting.
Maloney v. United Rys. Co. of St.
Louis, Mo. 237 S. W. 509 (1921)
21:706-729

-

237 S. W.
..21:706-729

17. Duty to object to irrelevant
question before answer.

Where a question asked of a wit-
ness shows on its face that it is irrele-
vant and immaterial, it is the duty of
the other party to object to the ques-
tion itself, instead of waiting until an
unfavorable answer is given and then
moving to strike it out, and, if he
pursues the latter course, he has no
just ground for complaint because his
objection was not seasonably made.
Lewis v. Davis, Utah 201 Pac.
861 (1921)
21:334-370

18. Failure to point out evidence
claimed to have been improperly ad-
mitted.

Where neither the petition nor the
brief for appellant points out the evi-