For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
814(3) (Ala.) Abstract instruction not [829 (1) (Ala.App.) Refusal of charges cov-
based on evidence held properly refused.-Da-ered by given charges in liquor prosecution held
vidson v. State, 641.
not erroneous.-Simpson v. State, 82.
814(3) (Ala.App.) Charges properly re-
fused where not predicating jury's finding on
evidence. Sampson v. State, 305.
829(1) (Ala.App.) Charge held properly
refused where covered by oral charge.-Samp-
son v. State, 305.
814(3) (Ala.App.) Refusal of abstract 829(1) (Ala.App.) Refusal of abstract
charge not error.-Bush v. State, 307.
charge covered by oral charge not error.-
Brown v. State, 616.
814(3) (Ala.App.) Refusal of abstract
charge not error.-Brown v. State, 616.
829(1) (La.) Requested special charge cov-
ered by given charge properly refused.-State
v. Poole, 613.
814(5) (Ala.App.) Refused charge author-
izing finding of mere attempt to make liquor
held wholly abstract.-Chappell v. State, 75.829(2) (Miss.) Judgment not reversed for
814(8, 9) (Ala.App.) Charges held proper- refusal to give the two reasonable theories in-
ly refused as not shown to refer to same per-
struction.-Cain v. State, 578.
son as one referred to in evidence.-Wright v.
State, 458.
829(5) (Fla.) Refusal to charge on law
of self-defense when already stated, not error.
815(1) (Ala.) Refusal of requested charge-Cruce v. State. 264.
requiring acquittal, if jury reasonably recon-829(9) (Ala.App.) Refusal of requested in-
ciled innocence of defendant with any theory structions on burden of proof covered by in-
advanced by accused, held not erroneous or structions given by court not error.-Allen v.
prejudicial.-Cagle v. State, 318.
State, 618.
815(1) (Ala.) Charge on consideration of
dying declaration held properly refused as argu-
ment based on partial facts.-Husch v. State,
829(16) (Ala.) Charge that, if jury believed
that prosecutrix swore falsely, they might re-
ject testimony, properly refused in view of
charges given; "belief."-Ex parte State ex
rel. Attorney General, 312.
815(1) (Ala.App.) Charge held properly
refused as authorizing verdict based on part 829(18) (Ala.App.) Refusal of requested
of testimony.-Chappell v. State, 75.
815(1) (Ala.App.) Charge predicating jury's
conclusion on part of testimony held properly
refused. Sampson v. State, 305.
815(5) (Ala.App.) Charge omitting element
of self-defense held properly refused.-Samp-
son v. State. 305.
815(6) (Ala.App.) Instruction authorizing
jury to base reasonable doubt on part of evi-
dence held properly denied.-Tatum v. State,
569.
815(9) (Ala.) Charge not to acquit if jury
satisfied that defendant assaulted prosecutrix,
not error. Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney
General, 312.
instructions on reasonable doubt covered by
instructions given by court not error.-Allen
v. State, 618.
(I) Objections to Instructions or Refusal
Thereof, and Exceptions.
844(1) (Ala.App.) Exception merely de-
scribing subject treated by court in oral charge
is bad.-Forsythe v. State, 198.
844 (1) (Ala.App.) Exception to oral
charge should point out and specify part ex-
cepted to.-Horton v. State, 620.
875(1) (Ala.App.) Verdict of guilty as
815(9) (Ala.) Charges predicating acquit- "stated" in indictment held sufficient; "charg-
tal on reasonable doubt arising out of any parted."-Chappell v. State, 75.
of evidence held properly refused.-Cagle v. 875 (2) (Ala.App.) Verdict of guilt suffi-
State, 318.
cient without words "as charged in indictment."
815(9) (Ala.App.) Charge held faulty as-Chappell v. State, 75.
not hypothesizing probability of innocence 878(2) (Ala.App.) General verdict of guil-
founded on evidence.-Bridgeforth v. State, ty as charged not error, if sentence is no great-
er than punishment prescribed for one offense.
Myrick v. State, 455.
Charge on reasonable doubt held faulty as
pretermitting consideration of all evidence.-Id.
XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN
ARREST.
815(10) (Ala.) Requested instruction not
hypothesizing jury's belief as from evidence
properly refused.-Ex parte State ex rel. At-918(1) (Ala.App.) Overruling motion for
torney General, 312.
new trial because of trial judge's view without
notice to defendant held not error.-Summers
v. State, 456.
819 (Ala.App.) Court may withdraw er-
roneous statement of law given in oral charge.
-Forsythe v. State, 198.
822 (1) (Ala.App.) Court's oral charge tak-
en as whole.-Youngblood v. State, 87.
823(1) (Ala.App.) Erroneous instruction
cured by prompt withdrawal or instruction to
disregard.-Forsythe v. State, 198.
823(1) (Ala.App.)__Erroneous charge not
cured by correct one.-Bush v. State, 307.
823(1) (Ala.App.) Error in instruction not
cured by other charges correctly stating law.
Cobb v. State, 463.
823(17) (A!a.App.) Instruction held not
erroneous as invading jury's province.-Er-
win v. State, 79.
(H) Requests for Instructions.
824 (3) (Miss.) Failure to give unrequest-
ed instruction defining manslaughter not er-
roneous.-Stevenson v. State, 525.
829(1) Ala.) Refusal of charges covered by
charges given not error.-Husch v. State, 321.
Perry v. State, 842; Chappell v. State, 75;
Bell v. State, 196; Sampson v. State, 305;
Bush v. State, 307; Nix v. State, 918.
829(1) (Ala.) Charge substantially covered
by charges given held properly refused.-David-
son v. State, 641.
of new trials for newly discovered evidence not
938(1) (Fla.) Rules regulating granting
inflexible.-Tyson v. State, 254.
945(1) (Fla.) New trial should be granted
on discovery of new evidence which might have
produced different results.-Tyson v. State,
254.
945(1) (La.) New trial properly denied
where alleged newly discovered evidence weak
and unsatisfactory.-State v. Poole, 613.
970(5) (Fla.) Objections to indictment
based on irregularities as to form should be
made by demurrer or motion to quash and not
motion in arrest of judgment.-Capps v. State,
172.
Rule as to sufficiency of indictment on mo-
tion for arrest of judgment.—Id.
XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL
COMMITMENT.
981 (1) (La.) Effect of insanity after trial.
-State v. Brodes, 610.
982 (Ala.App.) Judgment in prosecution
for misdemeanor held insufficient.-Cook v.
State, 196.
998 (La.) Sentences not set aside because
of failure to sentence in other cases.-State v.
Sharp, 707.
XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CER-
TIORARI.
(B) Presentation and Reservation in Low-
er Court of Grounus of Review.
1036 (!) (Ala.) Appellate court could not
review evidence admitted after proper predicate
laid without objection or exception reserved be-
fore answer.-Fincher v. State, €57.
1043(2) (Ala.App.) General objection held
insufficient to authorize revision of trial court's
rulings.-Bush v. State, 307.
Formal objection to rulings sufficient to re-
quire revision of testimony patently irrelevant.
-Id.
1043(3) (Ala.App.) Objection that testi-
mony was immaterial cannot be raised first
time on appeal.-Horton v. State, 620.
1044 (Ala.) Objection to argument of coun-
sel not followed by motion to exclude not re-
viewable.-Cagle v. State, 318.
1044 (Ala.) Appellate court could not re-
view evidence admitted after proper predicate
laid without motion to exclude part of answer
excepted to.-Fincher v. State, 657.
(F) Dismissal, Hearing, and Rehearing.
1133 (Ala.App.) Application for rehearing
unaccompanied by brief and certification of
service on opposing counsel dismissed.-Gil-
bert v. State, 566.
~1134 (3) (Ala.App.) Appeal dismissed
where affidavit of clerk showed questions pre-
sented became moot.-State v. Flancher, 616.
1134(10) (La.) Decision of court as to
insanity reviewable on appeal.-State F.
Brodes, 610.
1144 (7) (La.) Presumed that denial of
continuance in capital case proper.-State v.
Brodes, 610.
1144(10) (Ala.App.) Presumed that testi-
mony justified conviction where bill of excep-
tions does not set out all the evidence.-Horton
v. State, 620.
1144(10) (La.) Ordinarily presumed that
prejudicial effect of improper argument re-
moved by instruction of court.-State v. Poole,
613.
1054(1) (Ala.). Appellate court could not 1144(14) (Ala.) Given charges not in rec-
review evidence admitted after proper predi- ord presumed to cover refused charges.-
cate laid without objection or exception reserv- Fincher v. State, 657.
ed before answer.-Fincher v. State, 657.
1056 (1) (Ala.App.) Exception is neces-
sary for review of oral charge.-Forsythe v.
State, 198.
1056(1) (Ala.App.) Instruction not re-
viewed unless exception is reserved.-Webster
v. State, 201.
10642 (La.) Nothing before reviewing
court where motion for new trial not sworn to.
-State v. Brodes, 610.
~1087(1) (Ala.App.) Circuit court held to
have acquired no jurisdiction of case originating
in county court.-Ford v. State, 917.
1144(14) (Ala.App.) Evidence presumed
to justify refusal of requested charges where
bill of exceptions does not set out all the evi-
dence. Horton v. State, 620.
1151 (Ala.App.) Granting of continuance
lies within trial court's discretion and not re-
visable.-Biddle v. State, 572.
1153(2) (Fla.) Ruling that witness of ten-
der years is unqualified not disturbed, where
fact to be shown is not disclosed.-Cruce v.
State, 264.
1153(4) (Ala.) Exclusion of question on
redirect examination held discretionary and not
reviewable.-Cagle v. State, 318.
1153(4) (Ala.App.) Sound discretion of
court as to cross-examination of witnesses
not reviewed except in extreme cases of abuse.
-Webster v. State, 201.
1153(4) (Fla.) Discretion as to leading
questions not interfered with in absence of
abuse. Cruce v. State, 264.
1156(3) (La.) Denial of new trial for
newly discovered evidence not disturbed un-
less manifestly erroneous.-State v. Poole, 613.
1158(1) (Ala.App.) Court's conclusion on
oral testimony in trial without jury not dis-
turbed, unless plainly wrong.-Summers V.
State, 456.
1087(1) (Ala.App.) Absence of sufficient 158(1) (La.) Decision of court as to in-
appeal bond, or transcript, held to require re- sanity reviewable on appeal, both on law and
versal.-Nix v. State, 918.
facts. State v. Brodes, 610.
1091 (10) (Ala.App.) Instruction not re-
viewed unless exception is reserved and ap-
pears in bill of exceptions.-Webster v. State,
1091 (10) (La.) Improper argument of
counsel not considered in absence of showing
of request for ruling by court.-State v. Poole,
1092(13) (La.) Nothing before reviewing
court where bills of exception not signed.
State v. Brodes, 610.
1111(3) (La.) Bill of exceptions to over-
ruling ground of insufficient evidence in motion
for new trial held, in view of judge's statement,
to present nothing for review.-State v. Sharp,
707.
1158(1) (La.) Facts not considered on re-
view for mere purpose of determining guilt or
innocence.-State v. Franques, 682.
Supreme Court will consider question of ap-
plicability of charge to facts.-Id.
1159(2) (Ala.App.) Verdict not disturbed,
where evidence justifies finding of guilt.-Berry
v. State, 922.
1160 (Ala.App.) Denial of motion for new
trial not reversed in absence of bias.-Rock v.
State, 455.
1160 (La.) Verdict of jury forecloses mat-
ter of sanity at time of alleged offense.-State
v. Brodes, 610.
165(1) (Ala.App.) Appellate court will
not reverse on court's ruling where no harm
1121 (1) (La.) Statement as to hostile to defendant resulted.-Erwin v. State, 79.
demonstration by deceased in per curiam to 1166(7) (Ala.) Denial of continuance to de-
bill of exceptions held conclusive.-State v.
fendant not erroneous, unless prejudicial:-
Poole, 613.
Cagle v. State, 318.
1124(1) (Ala.App.) Overruling motion for 1169(1) (Ala.) Admission of deceased's
new trial not presented where motion is not belt not penetrated by bullet held harmless.-
incorporated in bill of exceptions.-Wright v. Husch v. State, 321.
State, 458.
1124(1) (La.) In view of confused state-
ment in transcript of ground of motion for new
trial, bill of exceptions to overruling held to
present nothing for review.-State v. Sharp,
1169(1) (Ala.App.) Statement of witness in
prosecution for assault held not to require re-
versal.-Sampson v. State, 305.
1169(1) (Ala.App.) Admission of evidence
that defendant's brother killed stolen chickens
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
1169(1) (Ala.App.) Testimony as to move- 131 (3) (La.) $2,025 for broken bone of
ments of defendant's witness held not prejudi- hand, cuts and bruises, pain, and medical ex-
cial. Savage v. State, 919.
penses held excessive by $1,000 as to injuries.
1169(1) (Miss.) Testimony as to state--Brook v. Interurban Motor Transp. Co., 428.
ment by defendant's sister as to defendant's 131(6) (La.) $500 damages for injuries
statement to sister in defendant's absence held from falling awning held insufficient.-Thomp-
prejudicial.-Walker v. State, 9.
son v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 688.
~~1170(1) (Ala.App.) Sustaining of objec- 132(6) (Ala.) Verdict for $50.000 for bro-
tion to cross-examination of witness held not
reversible error.-Erwin v. State, 79.
11702(1) (Ala.App.) Error in sustaining
state's objection to question on cross-examina-
tion held cured.-Haynes v. State, 575.
11702 (2) (Ala.App.) Question to injured
party in assault with knife held not erroneous,
and in any event harmless.-Sampson v. State,
305.
11702 (5) (Ala.App.) Cross-examination
by state of codefendant held not to require. re-
versal. Haynes v. State, 575.
ken legs, with resulting operations, confine-
ment, expenses, and loss of earnings, held ex-
cessive by $20,000.--Southern Ry. Co. v. Dick-
son, 665.
132(6) (La.) $2,000 held not excessive for
broken leg.-Mercer v. Rosenblath, 414.
132(8) (Ala.) $3,000 for injuries to arm
not excessive.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Cates, 356.
VIII. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, AND AS-
1171(1) (Fla.) Expressions by attorneys
in arguments before jury stating personal opin-142 (Ala.) Matters of special damages
ions as to guilt are improper, but not neces-
must be specifically pleaded.-Tennessee Coal,
sarily reversible error.-Tyson v. State, 254.
Iron & R. Co. v. Wilhite, 135.
1171 (3) (Fla.) Statements in argument
before jury neither logical nor germane to sub-
ject not in themselves reversible error.-Tyson 163(4) (Ala.) Claimant must show injury
v. State, 254.
and its extent in money.-Tennessee Coal, Iron
1172(1) (Miss.) Lack of explicitness in & R. Co. v Wilhite, 135.
meaning of instruction not necessarily reversi-174(1) (Ala.) Matters provable on ques-
ble error; instruction as to reasonable doubt tion of damages to automobile.-Mobile Light &
hed not reversible error for lack of clearness. R. Co. v. Gadik, 837.
-Cain v. State, 578.
1178 (Fla.) Assignments of error not ar-
gued will not be considered on appeal.-Davis
v. State, 739.
(H) Determination and Disposition of
Canse.
1182 (Fla.) Judgment affirmed, where all
essential elements shown and no prejudicial
errors appear.-Kirkland v. State, 174.
1184 (Ala.App.) Judgment imposing unau-
thorized additional sentence for costs correct-
ed.-Chappell v. State, 75.
1188 (La.) No order on appeal affecting
case not appealed.-State v. Sharp, 707.
XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF
CRIME.
(C) Proceedings for Assessment.
211 (Ala.) Refusal to instruct not to find
more than nominal damages not error.-South-
ern Ry. Co. v. Cates, 356.
212 (Ala.) If trial court attempts to item-
ize elements, should include all.-Mobile Light
& R. Co. v. Gadik, 837.
217 (Ala.) Instructions that cost of repairs
to damaged automobile should be considered.
are required.-Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Gadik,
837.
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
(Ala.) Intent and acceptance necessary.
Smith v. City of Dothan, 501.
Common-law principles prevail in Alabama.
1211 (La.) Second or subsequent offense
one committed after conviction.-State v. Sharp,-Id.
707.
1213 (Fla.) Imprisonment not made cruel
or unusual punishment by nature of trial when
authorized by law.-State v. Parker, 260.
One legally sentenced has appropriate re-
dress, where there is unlawful enforcement or
execution of penalty.-Id.
Imprisonment for violation of city ordinance
similar to that imposed by statute not "cruel
or unusual punishment."-Id.
1213 (La.) Eighth federal amendment ad-
dressed to federal government only.-State v.
Sharp, 707.
(Ala.) "Dedication" defined.-Manning v.
II (Ala.) Validity not affected by fact that
part of street dedicated without city limits.-
Smith v. City of Dothan, 501.
12 (Ala.) Dedication by mortgagor does not
affect mortgagee's interest unless mortgagee as-
sents thereto.-Manning v. House, 772.
Mortgagee held to have assented to dedica-
tion of street on newly platted tract.-Id.
16(1) (Ala.) Road may be dedicated ver-
bally or by writing or by act indicating intent.—
Smith v. City of Dothan, 501.
Fine and punishment for one or more viola-16(1) (Ala.) Acts constituting dedication
tions of liquor law not excessive or cruel and stated.-Manning v. House, 772.
unusual. Id.
17 (Ala.) Where dedication not conditional,
failure to acquire title to all land did not de-
stroy dedication as to balance.-Smith v. City
of Dothan, 501.
presump-19(1) (Ala.) Owner held to intend natura
consequences of his act in placing map of rec-
ord.-Marning v. House, 772.
CUSTOMS AND USAGES.
12(2) (Ala.) Party not bound by custom
not so generally known as to justify
tion that parties knew of it.-Wye Shipping
Co. v. Hunter, Benn & Co., 475.
VII. INADEQUATE AND EXCESSIVE
~130(1) (Miss.) $2.000 verdict for severe
cold held excessive.-F. W. Woolworth Co. v.
Volking. 3.
131(1) (La.) $1,440 held proper for inju-
ries in automobile accident and loss of time and
commissions.-Wilkins v. Featherstone Trans-
fer Co.. 732.
19(5) (Ala.) Dedication of streets occurs
when owner sells lots according to plat.-Man-
ning v. House, 772.
Dedication of street not prevented because
marked by dotted line on map, and necessity of
acquiring right of way over railway.-Id.
Sale of lots with reference to street dedicated
on map held dedication of lots within its con-
fines.-Id.
23 (Ala.) Statutes must be substantially fol-
lowed and street must be so identified that sur-
veyor can lay it out.-Manning v. House, 772.
Facts held not to show statutory dedication [87 (La.) Succession; one purchasing from
of street.-Id.
1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyanc-
es in General.
~6 (La.) Sales; transaction held valid sale
under private signature.-Kinchen v. Redmond,
607.
8 (La.) Sales; first grantee entitled to re-
ceive quantity called for by deed.-Nattin v.
Glassell, 609.
apparent legal heir of de cujus in good faith
could hold as against real heir.-Succession of
Derigny, 251.
5 (Ala.App.) Buyer entitled under bill of
sale to immediate possession could bring action.
-Dicks v. McAllister, 631.
16 (Ala.) Where claimant intervenes, is-
sue is legal title and possession, and burden of
proof on plaintiff.-Gillespie v. Bartlett & By-
ers, 858.
18 (Ala.) Burden of proof in action of
detinue, stated.-May v. Middleton, 640.
DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.
See Appeal and Error, 778-797; Equity,
362-365.
56 (La.) Dismissal as to all defendants
proper, where exception to misjoinder is sus-
tained.-McGee v. Collins, 430.
22 (Ala.) Husband occasionally drinking
to excess held not addicted to habitual drunk-
enness.-Howell v. Howell, 635.
17(5) (La.) Sales; natural obligation suf-
ficient consideration although barred by pre-22 (Ala.) Words "becoming addicted" and
scription.-McCreight v. Leavel, 289.
(B) Form'and Contents of Instruments.
26 (La.) Sales; effect of sale not altered
by erroneous belief of parties as to facts nec-
essary to conveyance.-Kinchen v. Redmond,
607.
IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
207 (La.) Sales; finding that signature to
deed was in fact made by parties sustained.-
White v. White, 442.
64(3) (Ala.) Answer to question held not
objectionable as not responsive.-Farrell v. An-
derson Dulin-Varnell Co., 205.
"habitual drunkenness," as used in statute
naming ground for divorce, defined.-O'Byrne v.
O'Byrne, 781.
46 (La.) Wife's expression of indignation
at husband's conduct, indicating abandonment,
may not be assigned as excessive cruelty.—
Silva v. Miramon, 528.
IV. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS,
AND RELIEF.
(A) Jurisdiction, Venue, and Limitations.
62(2) (La.) Court of husband's domicile
held to have jurisdiction of suit against wife
for separation.-Laiche v. His Wife, 292.
110 (Ala.) Refusal of general motion to
exclude entire deposition cannot put court in
error, if partially competent.-Farrell v. An-109 (Ala.) Burden of proof that husband
derson-Dulin-Varnell Co., 205.
DEPOSITS IN COURT.
4 (Ala.) Deposit of money by register in
bank at interest is conversion.-Moody v. Ja-
cobs, 467.
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
See Executors and Administrators; Wills.
II. PERSONS ENTITLED AND THEIR RE-
SPECTIVE SHARES.
(A) Heirs and Next of Kin.
26 (Miss.) Statute as to descent of exempt
property construed as to right of great-grand-
children.-Jenkins v. Harris, 280.
(B) Surviving Husband or Wife.
63 (La.) Succession; son of first mar-
riage does not hold property bequeathed by
mother to father who remarries by inheritance,
but because of statute.-Liquidators of Pruden-
tial Savings & Homestead Soc. v. Langermann,
55.
became habitual drunkard after marriage held
to be on complainant.-Howell v. Howell, 635.
128 (Ala.) Testimony of husband's addic-
tion after marriage to habitual drunkenness
held to entitle wife to divorce with right of
remarriage.-O'Byrne v. O'Byrne, 781.
130 (La.) Evidence held insufficient to es-
tablish cruelty of wife.-Silva v. Miramon, 528.
(F) Judgment or Decree.
160 (La.) Decree for plaintiff in her ab-
sence and without her consent, error.-Miller v.
Miller, 45.
161 (La.) Counsel in divorce suit held
bound to know that wife was unrepresented,
where her counsel had withdrawn in open court.
-Miller v. Miller, 45.
167 (La.) Suit to annul divorce judgment
may be taken without appeal or after time for
appeal has expired.-Miller v. Miller, 45.
Plaintiff may prosecute or discontinue divorce
suit at will.-Id.
≈197 (Ala.) Allowance of counsel fees to
III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF HEIRS complainant reduced.-Cairnes v. Cairnes, 317.
(A) Nature and Establishment of Rights
in General.
84 (La.) Succession; conveyance, prior to
remarriage, of property inherited from spouse,
held to pass legal title as against claim by son
of first marriage.-Liquidators of Prudential
V. ALIMONY, ALLOWANCES, AND DISPOSI-
TION OF PROPERTY.
231 (Ala.) Relief consistent with case made
by bill and proof could be awarded under gen-
eral prayer.-Cairnes y Cairnes, 317.
245(1) (Ala.) Trial court may modify al-
lowance upon showing of hardship. Cairnes v.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
247 (Fla.) Divorced wife after remarriage
not entitled to alimony from divorced husband.
-Carlton v. Carlton, 745.
286 (Ala.) Trial court's conclusion as to
financial worth of husband and allowance of
aid pursuant thereto not disturbed.-Cairnes v.
Cairnes, 317.
294 (Ala.) Relief consistent with case made
by bill and proof could be awarded under gen-
eral prayer.-Cairnes v. Cairnes, 317.
306 (Ala.) Child upon attaining his major-
ity not to be considered as dependent, on ques-
tion of alimony.-Cairnes v. Cairnes, 317.
III. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
86(4) (Ala.) Proof of possession in plain-
tiff's ancestor held to make prima facie right in
his heirs at law.-Ray v. Farrow, 868.
89 (Ala.) Documents showing dower inter-
est of plaintiff's mother and character of ti-
tle of her successors in interest held admissible.
-Ray v. Farrow, 868.
testimony
90(1) (Ala.) Remainderman's
that his mother claimed land under dower held
admissible.-Ray v. Farrow, 868.
Evidence tending to show chain of title from
plaintiff's mother to defendant's grantor held
admissible.-Id.
Evidence explaining character of defendant's
title and possession held relevant.-Id.
ELECTIONS.
AND REGULA-
TION THEREOF IN GENERAL.
(Ala.) Person's "domicile" is place where I. RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
habitation is fixed.-Lucky v. Roberts, 878.
4(1) (Ala.) Person has only one domicile
for purpose of succession.-Lucky v. Roberts, (Ala.) Right to vote not property, and
exists only by Constitution and statute.-Gar-
878.
rett v. Cuninghame, 845.
5 (Ala.App.) Domicile of wife and family
fixed by husband.-Sparkman v. Sparkman,
621.
Franchise political privilege which Legisla-
ture may regulate.-Id.
V. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
III. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF WIDOW.113 (La.) Registration of voters not sub-
79(1) (Ala.) Husband presumed to have ject to collateral attack in primary election
had title to which right of dower attached.- contest.-Perez v. Cognevich, 444.
Ray v. Farrow, 868.
VI. NOMINATIONS AND PRIMARY ELEC.
TIONS.
State on ballots essential.-Perez v. Cognevich,
II. ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL TAXES. 126(5) (La.) Certificate of Secretary of
91 (La.) Drainage tax held properly re-1444.
strained as inadequate.-Bomer-Blanks Lumber
Co. v. Bouanchaud, 731.
II (Fla.) Circuit court has no jurisdiction
of prosecution for voluntary drunkenness.-
Frazier v. State, 155.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.,
See Constitutional Law, 253-292.
I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND TER-
Ballot cast with numbered slip attached in-
valid.-Id.
Pencil dot on ballot held not identification
mark.-Id.
Dots on ballots by defects in paper not iden-
tification marks.-Id.
Irregular cross-mark held not to invalidate
ballot.-Id.
Erasures on primary election ballot held to
invalidate it.—Id.
Failure of precinct register to show party
affiliations held not to invalidate ballots at pri-
mary election.-Id.
152 (Ala.) Parties submitting dispute as to
nomination to arbitration of party were bound
by finding and certificate through chairman.
17(3) (Ala.) Deed held to grant private
way in intended street. Malone v. Decatur Cot--Garrett v. Cuninghame, 845.
ton Compress Co., 807.
17(3) (Ala.) Designation of streets
boundaries of property conveyed held to estop
grantor from denying their existence. Malone
v. Jones, 831.
Electors joining in primaries subject to
party's laws.-Id.
154(92) (La.) Evidence that voters were
disqualified inadmissible where right to vote
not attacked in pleadings.-Perez v. Cognevich,
444.
22 (Ala.) Recorded deed held notice of
private way annexed to land.-Malone v. Deca-154(10) (La.) Evidence that voters had no
right to vote inadmissible in rebuttal.-Perez v.
tur Cotton Compress Co., 807.
Cognevich, 444.
22 (Ala.) Defendant held not an innocent
purchaser of property in which plaintiffs claim-
ed an easement.-Malone v. Jones, 831.
30(1) (La.) Servitude; prescriptive right
to maintain guy wires held not lost by nonuser.
-Viering v. N. K. Fairbanks Co., 729.
30(2) (Ala.) Mere nonuser of easement in
streets will not work an abandonment.-Ma-
lone v. Jones, 831.
Burden of showing that ballots have not been
tampered with in election contest stated.-Id.
186(4) (Ala.) Technical errors in marking
ballot should not cause disfranchisement.-Gar-
rett v. Cuninghame, 845.
VIII. CONDUCT OF ELECTION.
36(3) (Ala.) Grantees' attempted purchase
of part of street held not to show an abandon-227(8) (Ala.) Stamping name of nominee
ment of easement in other streets.-Malone v.
Jones, 831.
11. EXTENT OF RIGHT, USE, AND OB-
STRUCTION.
61 (2) (Ala.) Enjoyment of private way
protected by injunction.-Malone v. Decatur
Cotton Compress Co., 807.
on some ballots and requiring electors to de-
clare in public whether they wanted such bal-
lot held not to vitiate election.-Garrett v. Cun-
inghame, 845.
269 (Ala.) Right of contest given by stat-
ute.-Garrett v. Cuninghame, 845.
293(1) (Ala.) Proof that contestant quali-
fied voter properly shown by certificate of judge
of probate.-Garrett v. Cuninghame, 845.
305 (6) (Ala.) Usual presumptions obtain
27 (Ala.) Instruction on estonpels in pais in support of judgment in election contest.-
properly refused.-Earnest v. Fite, 637.
1. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
Garrett v. Cuninghame, 845.
|