$994 (Mo.App.) The appellate court will not interfere with findings by the court which depend upon the credibility of witnesses.-Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 151 S. W. 184. $999 (Mo.App.) A reviewing court is concluded by a determination of a jury upon a debatable issue of fact.-Wilhite v. City of Huntsville, 151 S. W. 232. $1001 (Tex.Civ.App.) A verdict sustained by evidence is conclusive on appeal.-Bledsoe v. Thompson Bros. Lumber Co., 151 S. W. 910. $1002. A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. -(Ark.) Doniphan Lumber Co. v. Fix, 151 S. W. 996; (Mo. App.) Gillfillan v. Schmidt, 151 S. W. 161. § 1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the evidence was conflicting, the verdict will not be disturbed as against the weight of the evidence.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Cartwright, 151 S. W. 630. $1003 (Ky.) A verdict will be disturbed only when palpably against the evidence, and not in every case where the appellate court would, on the evidence, reach a different conclusion.-Etna Life Ins. Co. v. Rustin, 151 S. W. 366. § 1003 (Ky.) A verdict will not be disturbed unless flagrantly against the evidence.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 151 S. W. 376. § 1003 (Mo.App.) That the verdict is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence is not ground for disturbing the verdict on appeal. Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 151 S. W. 184. $ 1003 (Mo.App.) A verdict for a party whose evidence is substantial and presents issues of fact will not be set aside though the court, on appeal, believes that it is against the weight of the evidence.-Madden v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 151 S. W. 489. § 1009 (Ark.) A finding of the chancellor on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed unless clearly against the weight of the evidence.Medlock v. Owen, 151 S. W. 995. considerable weight is given to the judgment 1009 (Ky.) In reviewing questions of fact, of the chancellor.-Higgins v. Shields, 151 S. W. 391. ings of fact by the chancellor on conflicting $1009 (Ky.) In a suit to quiet title, findevidence will be deferred to upon appeal.-McCain v. Joiner, 151 S. W. 406. be given to a chancellor's fact findings, his § 1009 (Ky.) While considerable weight will judgment will be reversed when not supported by the weight of the evidence, as shown by the face of the record.-Coomes Bros. v. Grigsby & Co., 151 S. W. 943. While a verdict will not be disturbed unless palpably against the evidence, a chancellor's findings have not the same weight, as he does not see and hear the witnesses.-Id. § 1009 (Mo.) While the Supreme Court is not bound by the chancellor's findings, it may properly defer in some degree to them.-Waddle v. Frazier, 151 S. W. 87. § 1010 (Mo.) A finding by the court, rendered without the giving of any declarations of law, will not be disturbed where there is any evidence to support it.-Dolphin v. Klann, 151 S. W. 956. § 1010 (Mo.) A finding sustained by testimony is conclusive on appeal.-Strother v. Barrow, 151 S. W. 960. § 1011 (Mo.) A finding on conflicting testimony will not be disturbed, though the Sufinding.-Daman v. Remme, 151 S. W. 429. preme Court doubts the correctness of the § 101 (Mo.App.) Finding of fact on conflicting testimony, is not subject to review.-Lewis v. Fisher, 151 S. W. 172. § 1011 (Mo.App.) On appeal in unlawful detainer, tried by the court without a jury, the judgment is conclusive as to a disputed issue of fact, unless not justified by the law and the facts.-Griggs v. Bridgwater, 151 S. W. 764. § 1011 (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of the court on conflicting evidence will not be reviewed, though the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion.-Polk v. State Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 151 S. W. 1126. § 1013 (Mo.) A finding of fact, based on a mere mathematical computation, is reviewable on appeal, since any incorrect finding is without evidence to support it.-State ex rel. Kimbrell v. People's Ice, Storage & Fuel Co., 151 S. W. 101. $1017 (Mo.) The appellate court may review findings of a referee and enter its own judg ment thereon.-State ex rel. Federal Lead Co. v. Reynolds, 151 S. W. 85. § 1022 (Ky.) Findings on conflicting evidence by a special commissioner, concurred in by the lower court, will not be disturbed.--Wilson v. Ward, 151 S. W. 353. § 1006 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the jury has given plaintiff a verdict three times, although the evidence is meager, the verdict will be permitted to stand; but that there have been three verdicts for plaintiff should not prevent this court from reviewing the evidence. S. W. Slay-after setting aside those made by the referee, $ 1022 (Mo.) The findings of the trial court, den & Co. v. Palmo, 151 S. W. 649. are not open for review as to the weight of evidence, since the referee's findings are not judicially made until approved; and where they are set aside the only findings are those of the Storage & Fuel Co., 151 S. W. 101. court.-State ex rel. Kimbrell v. People's Ice, § 1008 (Mo.) The rule as to the conclusiveness of the trial court's findings is not inap plicable because the testimony was wholly by deposition, or because one judge heard the evidence and another decided the case on the transcript thereof.-State ex rel. Kimbrell v. People's Ice, Storage & Fuel Co., 151 S. W. 101. § 1008 (Mo.App.) A finding that shipment was damaged before delivery to carrier held conclusive on appeal.-Bettman v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 151 S. W. 169. $ 1009 (Ark.) The chancellor's finding supported by the clear preponderance of the evidence will not be disturbed.-Henderson v. E. W. Emerson Co., 151 S. W. 251. § 1022 (Tenn.) A concurrent finding by a master and chancellor will be sustained on appeal, where there is any evidence in its behalf. Gleason v. Prudential Fire Ins. Co., 151 S. W. 1030. (H) Harmless Error. $1027 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in findings that certain votes were not fraudulent would be immaterial, where the result of the election would not be changed if such votes were of contestee, not reversible error.--Crosthwaite, thrown out.-Ralls v. Parish, 151 S. W. 1089. v. Crosthwaite, 151 S. W. 945. §1028 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the unchallenged findings attain justice, the judgment will not be reversed merely because of informality of procedure, not affecting the merits or the substantial rights of the parties.-Holloway v. Hall, 151 S. W. 895. $1029 (Tex.Civ.App.) In trespass to try title, errors of law would not justify reversal of judgment for defendant, where the evidence failed to show that plaintiff had title to the land.Lee v. Simmons, 151 S. W. 868. 81029 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where, under the facts, plaintiff could not recover, any error of procedure at the trial was not prejudicial to him. -Bledsoe v. Thompson Bros. Lumber Co., 15 S. W. 910. § 1031 (Ark.) Prejudice from introduction of incompetent evidence is presumed.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Steed, 151 S. W. 257. § 1032 (Ark.) The party introducing incompetent evidence has the burden of showing that no prejudice resulted.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Steed, 151 S. W. 257. § 1033 (Ark.) One complaining of a decree cannot take advantage of errors which are in his favor.-Reeves v. Moore, 151 S. W. 1025. § 1033 (Ky.) Where the evidence showed that the value and use of property had depreciated owing to an inadequate sewer which flooded the basement necessitating repairs at considerable cost, an instruction authorizing the assessment of such damages as will fairly and reasonably compensate for any damage done to the use of the property between specified dates, though erroneous, was not prejudicial to defendant.City of Louisville v. Kramer's Adm'x, 151 S. W. 379. §1033 (Mo.App.) Where the evidence did not show that a person suing for the purchase price of hay guaranteed it, an instruction that he did not guarantee that it was of any particular marketable grade, but only that it was of some value in some grade, was not prejudicial to defendant.-Mullinax v. Lowry, 151 S. W. 745. § 1033 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action against manufacturer of soap permitting plaintiff to test the soap, if error, held not prejudicial where the test failed to produce the expected result.Armstrong Packing Co. v. Clem, 151 S. W. 576. § 1039 (Tex.Civ.App.) A plaintiff is not entitled to a reversal for insufficiency of the answer where the petition did not state a cause of action.-Hicks v. Murphy, 151 S. W. 845. $1040 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in overruling an exception in an action on a note given for drilling water wells, to an allegation of the supplemental petition denying that plaintiff guaranteed the quality of the water, on the ground that such allegation was not responsive to any issue, was harmless.-Miller v. Layne & Bowler Co., 151 S. W. 341. § 1040 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in overruling special demurrers to those parts of plaintiff's petition relating to what insurer's agent told him about taking an inventory, and as to additional insurance, was harmless, in view of evidence showing a substantial compliance with the iron safe clause, and that the agent authorized additional insurance, or knew thereof before the loss.-American Cent. Ins. Co. V. Hardin, 151 S. W. 1152. § 1042 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in striking a part of the petition became harmless, where the trial court heard the evidence on the question raised thereby and filed findings thereon.Ralls v. Parish, 151 S. W. 1089. $1043 (Ky.) Refusal of a continuance in a will contest, on the ground that contestee was nervous and unable to testify or advise her counsel, and on the ground of the absence of a witness, held, in view of the presence and tes § 1046 (Ky.) The statement of the court that defendant resting at the close of plaintiff's ease had no evidence to introduce held not prej udicial.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Meyers, 151 S. W. 19. § 1046 (Ky.) As Civ. Code Prac. § 317, subsec. 6, accords to the party having the burden of proof the conclusion of the argument, the denial of that right is reversible error.-Shirley v. Renick, 151 S. W. 357. § 1048 (Tex.Civ.App.) The error, if any, in overruling an objection to a question, is not prejudicial where no affirmative fact was elicit ed.-First Bank of Springtown v. Hill, 151 S. W. 652. § 1050 (Ark.) Admission of incompetent evidence is prejudicial error, especially where counsel for prevailing party refers to such evidence in his argument.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Steed, 151 S. W. 257. $1050 (Ky.) Admission of evidence of employer's precaution after the injury by constructing a safe passway held harmless, where the uncontradicted evidence showed that it was negligence not to provide such passway.-Fluehart Collieries Co. v. Elam, 151 S. W. 34. § 1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in admitting evidence is harmless; other evidence to substantially the same effect having been admitted without objection.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Good, 151 S. W. 617. $1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where testimony substantially the same as some complained of was not objected to, a case will not be reversed admissible.-S. W. Slayden & Co. v. Palmo. even if the testimony complained of was not 151 S. W. 649. evidence was harmless to defendant, where a $1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in admitting witness for defendant testified to substantially the same fact.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Vance, 151 S. W. 904. § 1051 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where there was sufficient competent evidence to support a finding, that incompetent evidence was introduced is not reversible error.-McDoel v. Jordan, 151 S. W. 1178. § 1052 (Tex.) Though it appears that brokers suing for commission introduced the purchaser, testimony by one of the brokers that his firm effected the sale was harmless error, where that issue was not submitted to the jury.-Ansley Realty Co. v. Pope, 151 S. W. 525. child at a railroad crossing by a car on which § 1056 (Ky.) In an action for injuries to a there was no brakeman, it was not prejudicial to refuse to admit evidence that, even had there been a man on the car at the time of the accident, he could not have stopped the car, where the recovery was based on insufficient warning. -Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Allnutt, 151 S. W. 14. § 1056 (Mo.App.) Error in excluding evidence as to an item of property in controversy as to which judgment was rendered for appellant was harmless.-Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 151 S. W. 184. § 1058 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to allow a witness to answer a question was harmless, he having elsewhere been permitted to testify to substantially the same facts.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Good, 151 S. W. 617. § 1060 (Ky.) A remark of counsel of plaintiff in response to an objection to the admission of evidence held not prejudicial error.Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Meyers, 151 S. W. 19. an $ 1060 (Ky.) Where, in an action for assault and battery, the plaintiff's attorney, over adverse ruling, persisted in questions as to sick reversible error.-Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 151 S. W. 408. $1060 (Tex. Civ.App.) In an action for injuries to a child while crossing railroad tracks, improper remarks of counsel, embracing matters outside the record, held not reversible where called for by remarks of opposing counsel, and the verdict was not excessive.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Wininger, 151 S. W. 586. $1061 (Mo.App.) Error in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence as to matters recited in favor of appellant is not reversible error.Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 151 S. W. 184. § 1064 (Mo.App.) Error in authorizing a recovery, in an action for injuries by being struck by an automobile, if the driver did not use the highest care a careful person would exercise under like circumstances, when only specific acts of negligence were alleged, held reversible. -McDonnell v. Columbia Taxicab Co., 151 S. W. 767. 81064 (Tex.Civ.App.) An instruction that if plaintiff, after receipt of a message announcing his daughter's probable death, could, by usual means of travel, have reached her before her death, and failed to do so, he could not recover for negligent delay in the transmission and delivery of the telegram, was not affirmative error.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Vance, 151 S. W. 904. § 1064 (Tex.Civ.App.) Recital in court's charge that the case was submitted on special charges, not stating which side presented them, held not prejudicial to plaintiff, although the special charge was presented by defendant.Hengy v. Hengy, 151 S. W. 1127. re § 1066 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the evidence, in an action for injuries, did not warrant an issue of his assumption of risk, error in submitting that issue conjunctively with the inconsistent issue of contributory negligence was harmless to defendant.-Armour & Co. v. Morgan, 151 S. W. 861. § 1066 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for injuries to a servant, an instruction on an issue of negligence not presented by the proof held harmless. Continental Oil & Cotton Co. v. Gilliam, 151 S. W. 890. § 1068 (Ark.) The error in an instruction based entirely on a party's claim, and ignoring the dicial to the adverse party obtaining a verdict contention of the adverse party, is not prejuin his favor.-Johnston-Reynolds Land Co. v. Fuqua, 151 S. W. 693. § 1068 (Ky.) An instruction on contributory negligence without support in the evidence was not prejudicial, where the verdict for defendant did not rest on such instruction.-Samuels V. Louisville Ry. Co., 151 S. W. 37. $1070 (Mo.App.) In replevin, with counterclaim for damages and the surrender of notes, held, that a verdict for defendants for $735 was not determinative of the issues, and was reversible error.-Advance Thresher Co. v. Speak, 151 S. W. 235. § 1073 (Mo.) Rendering default judgment in ejectment on sustaining demurrer to part of answer claiming affirmative relief, though there was also a general denial, held not harmless error.-Montgomery v. Gahagan, 151 S. W. 453. § 1074 (Tex.Civ.App.) Although on motion to open a default judgment many errors were committed in the trial of the issues to deter § 1064 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in an instruc-mine whether defendant had a valid defense, tion, that a street railway company was quired to use that high degree of care "usually" exercised by very cautious and prudent persons under similar circumstances, held not ground for reversal.-Walker v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 151 S. W. 1142. § 1066 (Ark.) Instruction submitting issue of contributory negligence held harmless, where there was no evidence from which reasonable minds could have concluded that plaintiff was negligent.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Brogan, 151 S. W. 699. § 1066 (Mo.) An instruction which did not wholly follow the petition held harmless, if erroneous, in view of evidence clearly supplying an omitted issue and in light of Rev. St. 1909, $§ 1850, 2082.-Honea v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 151 S. W. 119. § 1066 (Mo.App.) Where there was evidence that plaintiff's horse was not frightened as alleged, an instruction to find for defendant if plaintiff was injured from any other cause held harmless, though there was no evidence of other cause.-Kiel v. Ott, 151 S. W. 182. § 1066 (Mo.App.) Where there was no evidence of contributory negligence of plaintiff, an instruction that the city was bound to use ordinary care to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition was harmless, though conveying the impression that the city was liable regard less of the negligence of plaintiff.-Ledbetter v. City of Kirksville, 151 S. W. 228. § 1066 (Mo.App.) It was not prejudicial error to charge that a fact concerning which there was no dispute was admitted by defendants, although they had not in fact admitted it.-Mullinax v. Lowry, 151 S. W. 745. § 1066 (Tex. Civ.App.) Instruction requiring notice to, or knowledge by, insured's wife, as well as himself, that the company would no longer attend to the insurance on the premis es held not prejudicial where there was no contention that either one had notice or knowledge -Commonwealth Fire Ins. Co. v. Obenchain, 151 S. W. 611. they are harmless, where no valid excuse is shown for not filing the answer in time.-Gillaspie v. City of Huntsville, 151 S. W. 1114. (I) Error Waived in Appellate Court. § 1078 (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of any ruling shown by the record upon a special exception to the answer, it will be presumed that such exception was waived.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Vance, 151 S. W. 904. (J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts. $1094 (Tex.) An application to the Supreme Court for writ of error, upon the grounds, as provided by Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, art. 941, § 8, that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals practically settled the case, admits the correctness of the facts found, and merely challenges the law.-Edwards v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, 151 S. W. 289. (K) Subsequent Appeals. $ 1096 (Mo.) In examining the trial court's conclusions on the facts, the reviewing court could consider the lapse of time, the discrepancy between the present testimony and that given on a former trial, and the fact that the changes made in the testimony conformed to the needs of the parties introducing the witnesses, as determined by the former decision.-First Nat. Bank v. Renick, 151 S. W. 421. $ 1097 (Tex.Civ.App.) The decision of the court on appeal conclusively settles the quesbe considered on a subsequent appeal.-Camptions determined thereby, and they will not bell v. Elliott, 151 S. W. 1180. XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF CAUSE. (A) Decision in General. § 1108 (Tex.) A determination in a contest of the election that local option had not been adopted in the county, pending an appeal in an action on a liquor dealer's bond, held to warrant a determination that the bond was of no force and effect, though the local option law pro- | jurisdiction to set aside the judgment at that vided that a contest of the election should not term, and grant a new trial.-Id. suspend enforcement of the law.-State v. Savage, 151 S. W. 530. $1109 (Ky.) A judgment relates to the date of submission of an appeal so that the death of either party after submission is not material.-Barger v. Barger, 151 S. W. 406. (B) Affirmance. § 1135 (Mo.) Where the only record is the record proper, which contains a good petition and a judgment responding to one count thereof, the judgment will be affirmed.-Parkyne v. Churchill, 151 S. W. 446. § 1140 (Tex.Civ.App.) The error in the amount of a judgment does not require a reversal, where it can be cured by a remittitur.Johnson v. Oswald, 151 S. W. 1164. (D) Reversal. $1170 (Ky.) In view of Civ. Code Prac. $ 756, the Court of Appeals, though doubtful as to whether the chancellor erred in not transferring issues for trial by jury, will not reverse if the findings and judgment of the chancellor are correct.-Rieger v. Schulte & Eicher, 151 S. W. 395. § 1175 (Tex.) Where the facts are undisputed, the Supreme Court on writ of error will not send the case back to the Court of Civil Appeals, failing to announce conclusions of fact as required by Rev. Civ. St. 1911, art. 1639.Foard County v. Sandifer, 151 S. W. 523. XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS. II. ARBITRATORS AND PROCEED INGS. § 27 (Mo.App.) Where one acting as an arbitrator of the amount due under a contract for services to be rendered by plaintiff, unknown to plaintiff, owned an adjoining farm and was interested in a drainage ditch on which plaintiff did part of his work, he was disqualified as an arbitrator, and the plaintiff could treat the whole proceeding as void.Stone v. Johnston, 151 S. W. 987. III. AWARD. 867 (Mo.App.) Evidence held to show that plaintiff had knowledge of defendant's fraud practiced in an arbitration proceeding when he treated a new contract arising therefrom valid, thus ratifying the award.-Stone v. Johnston, 151 S. W. 987. ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. See Criminal Law, §§ 717-730, 1037; Trial, §§ 25, 124-133. ARREST. See Evidence, § 244; False Imprisonment; II. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES. § 1234 (Ky.) Under Civ. Code Prac. § 748, the obligors in a supersedeas bond are expressly made liable for any judgment the Court of Ap--Madden v. Meehan, 151 S. W. 681. peals may order to be rendered.-White v. White, 151 S. W. 1. APPEARANCE. Under Ky. St. § 2885, and Cr. Code Prac. § 36, authorizing arrests by police officers, a policeman held not entitled to make an arrest for an offense committed out of his presence without a warrant.-Id. ARSON. See Justices of the Peace, § 84; Venue, § 32. See Easements, § 3. ARBITRATION AND AWARD. I. SUBMISSION. 88 (Tex.Civ.App.) Though Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, art. 61, permits other than statutory forms of arbitration, the court has power to set aside a verdict and judgment entered upon an agreement of the parties that a verdict of a majority of the jurors should have the force of a judgment.-Philadelphia Underwriters Agency of Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Brown, 151 S. W. 899. In the absence of clear and specific averment, it will not be assumed that an agreement that a verdict might be returned by a majority of the jurors, and that judgment might be entered ASSAULT AND BATTERY. See Abatement and Revival, § 69; Appeal and I. CIVIL LIABILITY. (A) Acts Constituting Assault or Battery and Liability Therefor. § 13 (Ky.) The mere fact that the assaulting party during the fight retreated a few steps before seizing a weapon does not amount to a withdrawal, so as to make the other party guilty of a fresh assault in following him up.Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 151 S. W. 408. (B) Actions. $34 (Ky.) Evidence of abusive language is admissible in mitigation of punitive damages for an assault.-Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 151 S. W. 408. $38 (Ky.) Plaintiff may recover for such mental or physical suffering, or both, as are the Proximate result of the injury.-Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 151 S. W. 408. $ 39 (Ky.) Where an assault and battery was malicious, plaintiff may recover punitive damages in the jury's discretion.-Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 151 S. W. 408. $40 (Ky.) Though plaintiff may recover for such mental or physical suffering, or both, as are the proximate result of the injury, and, if the tort was malicious, punitive damages in the jury's discretion he cannot recover more than the sum claimed.-Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 842 (Ky.) Evidence held to require a submission to the jury the question of punitive dam ATTACHMENT. ages.-Shields' Adm'rs v. Rowland, 151 S. W. See Garnishment; New Trial, § 89. 408. II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. (A) Offenses. § 54 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Pen. Code 1911, arts. 1008, 1009, 1011, 1022, accused held properly convicted of aggravated assault in the house of a private family.-Ward v. State, 151 S. W. 1073. § 56 (Tex.Cr.App.) An assault with an ordinary saw was not an assault with a deadly weapon, where the injuries inflicted were very slight.-Fisher v. State, 151 S. W. 544. (B) Prosecution and Punishment. § 96 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused testified that, to protect his son from violence, he struck prosecutor, the failure to submit the right of accused to defend his son was reversible error.-Coons v. State, 151 S. W. 820. ASSESSMENT. See Drains, §§ 14, 76; Municipal Corporations, $$ 450-567. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. See Appeal and Error, §§ 719-753, 757, 759; ASSIGNMENTS. See Highways, § 113; Insurance, §§ 122, 212222; Landlord and Tenant, §§ 75-79, 208; Lost Instruments; Subrogation, § 31. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (B) Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment. § 34 (Tex.Civ.App.) An oral transfer is as effective an equitable assignment as a written transfer.-A. A. Fielder Lumber Co. v. Smith, 151 S. W. 605. 1. NATURE AND GROUNDS. (A) Nature of Remedy, Causes of Action, and Parties. §13 (Tex.) An attachment was properly issued in scire facias to have a judgment entry corrected by adding an omitted part, and to revive the judgment; the proceeding to revive being merely a suit for the debt.-Coleman v. Zapp, 151 S. W. 1040. (B) Grounds of Attachment. § 32 (Mo.App.) From one's statement, when buying property, "I haven't got my checkbook here, and I can't pay you now. but I will send you a check when I get home," an implied affirmance that the money was in bank is permissible, making the debt one fraudulently contracted, as regards right to attachment; he not having the money in bank.-Matthews v. Eby, 151 S. W. 470. VII. QUASHING, VACATING, DISSO- § 233 (Mo.App.) Attachment in the circuit court held obtained through fraud, and so to give no jurisdiction.-Matthews v. Eby, 151 S. W. 470. VIII. CLAIMS BY THIRD PERSONS. § 308 (Mo.App.) Interpleader in attachment claiming as purchaser has the burden of proving that he took actual possession as required by law. Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 151 S. W. 184. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. See Appeal and Error, § 1060; Constitutional Law, $$ 306, 321; Estoppel, § 58; Executors and Administrators, §§ 485, 496; Garnishment, § 191; Partition, § 114; Stipulations; Use and Occupation, § 1; Wills, § 405. a I. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY. (C) Suspension and Disbarment. $45 (Mo.App.) An § 50 (Tex.Civ.App.) An order by a contracattorney devising tor to the supervising architect of a school scheme for the execution of false bills of sale building, on whose certificate estimates under and notes, and directing a party thereto to the contract were to be paid to pay a material- give perjured testimony and unlawfully proman and charge to the contractor's account, curing the papers of a decedent, and convertwas good as an equitable assignment of parting the same to his own use, held guilty of misconduct justifying disbarment.-In re Selleck, 151 S. W. 743. of the fund in the hands of the school trustees. A. A. Fielder Lumber Co. v. Smith, 151 S. W. 605. $ 51 (Tenn.) It is the right and duty of a trial judge to make charges against attorneys, where matters justifying such charges are within his knowledge, under Shannon's Code, §§ 5781-5784.-In re Cameron, 151 S. W. 64. bar an attorney, the evidence is conflicting, $57 (Mo.App.) Where, in proceedings to disthe court will defer to the findings of the special commissioners.-In re Selleck, 151 S. W. 743. II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY. $89 (Mo.App.) An attorney may dismiss his client's suit or stipulate that it shall abide the judgment in another suit where the facts and parties are the same, and has a wide range of action as to those things pertaining merely to the remedy.-Grant City v. Simmons, 151 S. W. 187. § 101 (Mo.App.) An attorney's general authority, as such, gives him no power to compromise his client's claim or to make any agreement, or take any action that will sacrifice his client's cause.-Grant City v. Simmons, 151 S. W. 187. Where a stipulation by an attorney to dismiss an appeal was merely an incident to an unauthorized compromise of the case by him, it |