ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
PARTIES.

Purchasers at execution sales, see Execution, 8

290.

Purchasers at sales on foreclosure of mortgages,
see Mortgages, § 372.

Purchasers at tax sales, see Taxation, § 734.
Purchasers of homesteads, see Homestead, §§
128, 129.

(C) Bona Fide Purchasers.
Of homestead, see Homestead, § 129.
Purchases from execution purchasers, see Exe-
cution, § 290.

$137. Where an option contract for sale
of land provides that title shall be approved
§ 254. A deed of trust from P. to W., being
by an attorney, an arbitrary, fraudulent, or
a valid lien on the property, became also, by
collusive refusal of the attorney to approve the subsequent deed from P. to T. and the assump
title will not deprive the other party of the tion by T. of the W. debt as part of the pur-
fruits of his contract.-Whitener-London Real-chase price, a valid vendor's lien upon the
ty Co. v. Ritter (Ark.) 856.
property.-Girardeau v. Perkins (Tex. Civ. App.)

$229. Where at the time a purchaser acquir-
ed land she had notice of a public easement in
the land, she was charged with knowledge of
the inconvenience resulting from it.-Burke v.
Trabue's Ex'x (Ky.) 125.

§ 230. Recital in deed after description of
property, "Subject to all restrictions now of
record against same," held to put the grantee
on inquiry.-King v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
(Mo.) 415.

(D) Payment of Purchase Money.

§ 169. Where a vendor took the vendee's note
for part of the purchase price, the vendee alone
could complain of her absence from the state
and failure to demand payment on the note, and the maker of certain vendor's lien notes, held
§ 258. Payment of interest by plaintiff, for
the vendor was not required to demand payment not to vest in plaintiff any interest in the notes
from any one but the vendee; he being prior right to a lien for the interest so paid.-
marily liable.-Ball v. Belden (Tex. Civ. App.) Rutherford v. Gaines (Tex.) 261.

20.

$231. Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 923, 924 (Ann.
St. 1906, pp. 845, 846), held, that a purchaser
of a lot is charged with notice of building re-
strictions thereon to which it is subjected by a
recorded deed from the same grantor of other
lots.-King v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. (Mo.)
415.

231. A recorded deed is constructive notice
of only what appears on the face thereof.-
Thompson v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.) 923.

held to show that plaintiff when he purchased
§ 244. In an action to quiet title evidence
had no actual notice of the title of one occupy-
ing the premises, and under whom defendant
claimed.-Allen v. Daniel (Ark.) 384.

8 231. To be constructive notice it would
seem that a registered grant must be sufficient
in itself to identify the thing granted.-Thomp-
son v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.) 923.

VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR.

(A) Lien and Recovery of Land.

Lien on railroad right of way, see Railroads, §

§ 231. A recorded deed held not to charge
the purchaser of adjoining land with construc-
tive notice that the land bought by him was
subject to a water right claimed under the
deed.-Thompson v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.) 923.

157.

Priority of receiver's certificate over vendor's
lien on right of way, see Receivers, § 128.
Priority over mechanic's lien, see Mechanics'
Liens, 199.

§ 251. A vendor who has parted with the
legal title has, in equity, a lien on the land for
chaser and his privies, including subsequent
unpaid purchase money as against the pur-
purchasers with notice.-Wilson v. Shocklee
(Ark.) 832.

633.

§ 258. In a suit on vendor's lien notes, plain-
tiff held entitled to recover ten per cent. attor-
ney's fees.-Rutherford v. Gaines (Tex.) 261.

§ 261. A vendor's lien may be assigned.-
Hubbell v. Texas Southern Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 313.

security for other indebtedness has no lien on
§ 261. The holder of purchase price notes as
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 621.
the land.-Hightower Bros. v. W. F. Taylor

§ 266. By agreeing to waive his lien, a ven-
dor would be estopped to assert it against a
subsequent mortgagee.-Wilson Shocklee
(Ark.) 832.

V.

§ 279. Where a vendor accepted a note as
a vendor's lien, subsequent purchasers were not
part of the purchase price, expressly reserving
necessary parties to a suit on the note and for
foreclosure of the lien.-Ball v. Belden (Tex.
Civ. App.) 20.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

§ 7. Under a contract for the sale of lumber, whether considered as executed or executory, held, that there was no obligation to be performed in H. county which was breached by the buyer's refusal to order and receive the remainder of the lumber so as to place the venue of a suit in that county under Rev. St. 1895, art. 1194, subd. 5.-Ogburn-Dalchau Lumber Co. v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.) 48.

to sue the drawer in the county of his residence and join the drawees who resided in another county in such suit.-Vaughn v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Alvord (Tex. Civ. App.) 690.

§ 22. If plaintiff bank or its officers acted in good faith in taking bills of exchange, its right to sue the drawer and drawees who resided in different counties in the county of the drawer's residence was not defeated by the fact that the drawer had an undisclosed purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the district court of his county in case a contest over the matter arose. -Vaughn v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Alvord (Tex. Civ. App.) 699.

III. CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE
OF TRIAL.

does not affect the court's jurisdiction.-Little § 71. An application for a change of venue Tarkio Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Richardson (Mo.) 1021.

§ 22. Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 1194, par. 4, the indorsee of a bill of exchange held entitled

[blocks in formation]

VILLAGES.

11. Under Civ. Code Prac. § 63, an action See Municipal Corporations. to restrain the State Auditor from issuing a patent held properly brought in the county where he had his office.-Daniel v. New Era Land Co. (Ky.) 108.

II. DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE OF

§ 18. The venue is to be determined by the facts shown by the proof as existing when the action was begun, and not solely by the allegations of the pleading.-Ogburn-Dalchau Lumber Co. v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.) 48.

VIEWERS.

In condemnation proceedings to assess compensation, see Eminent Domain, § 239.

VINDICTIVE DAMAGES.

See Damages, § 91.

VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS. See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.

VOTERS.

§ 22. The right of plaintiff bank, the indorsee of bills of exchange, to sue in the county of the drawer's residence, though the drawees resided in another county, held not defeated by the See Gaming. mere fact that on nonpayment of the bills they were charged back to the drawer on plaintiff's books.-Vaughn v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Alvord (Tex. Civ. App.) 690.

See Elections.

WAGERS.

WAGES.

Of employés in general, see Master and Servant, $ 80.

WAIVER.

See Estoppel.
Errors waived in appellate court, see Appeal
and Error, § 1078.

Of objections to particular acts, instruments,
or proceedings.
Default or delay in delivering goods sold, see
Sales, 176.

Errors on appeal or other proceeding for re-
view, see Appeal and Error, § 754.

Insurance policies, see Insurance, §§ 371-390.
Notice and proof of loss under insurance policy,
see Insurance, §§ 556, 559.
Pleadings, see Pleading, § 403.

Of rights or remedies.
Discharge of surety, see Principal and Surety,
$129.
Forfeiture of insurance policy, see Insurance,
$$ 371-390.
Lien for price of land sold, see Vendor and
Purchaser, § 266.

Lien of seller, see Sales, § 313.
Motion for new trial, see New Trial, § 10.
Requirement of notice and proof of loss under
insurance policy, see Insurance, §§ 556, 559.

WARNING.

Precautions against injuries to servants, see
Master and Servant, §§ 150-155.
Trespassers on railroad tracks, see Railroads, §
356.

WARNING ORDER.

In proceedings for sale of land for taxes, see
Taxation, § 642.

WARRANT.

Authority to rearrest without warrant, see Ar-
rest, § 72.

WARRANTY.

Covenants of, performance or breach, see Cove-

nants, 100.

In insurance policy, see Insurance, §§ 319-366,
723.

On sale of goods, see Sales, §§ 261, 270.

WATER-CLOSETS.

On trains, see Carriers, § 267.

WATERS AND WATER COURSES.

See Canals; Drains; Levees; Navigable Wa-

ters.

In cities, injuries from defects or obstructions,
see Municipal Corporations, § 835.

Liability for injuries from connection of salt
water with fresh waters, see Navigable Wa-
ters, § 39.

IX. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.

WASTE.

(A) Domestic and Municipal Purposes.
$201. A city operating a waterworks plant
Restraining waste pending action, see Injunc- tal capacity, and therefore could not be com-
under Kirby's Dig. § 5675, acts in a governmen-
tion, § 38.

pelled to extend mains by a mandatory injunc-
tion.-Browne v. City of Bentonville (Ark.) 93.

(B) Irrigation and Other Agricultural
Purposes.

II. NATURAL WATER COURSES.
(C) Pollution.

Accrual of cause of action for injuries, see
Limitation of Actions, § 55.
Of navigable waters, see Navigable Waters, §
39.

(E) Bed and Banks of Stream.

§ 93. Evidence held insufficient to show that
the land in controversy constituted accretion to
plaintiffs' land.-Withers v. Kansas City Subur-
ban Belt R. Co. (Mo.) 432.

V. SURFACE WATERS.

Instructions on weight of evidence in action
for injuries from embankment, see Trial,

194.
Liability of municipality for injuries from in-
sufficient drainage, see Municipal Corpora-
tions, § 835.

119. A railroad maintaining any part of
an embankment is responsible for damages
caused by overflows resulting therefrom.-Doke
v. Trinity & B. V. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)
1195.

§ 119. In the absence of municipal regula-
tions, a property owner who cuts his property
down to grade and erects a building thereon
has a right to protect his building from sur-
face waters by leading such waters into a
street or alley.-Bowen v. Kansas City (Mo.
App.) 790.

[blocks in formation]

VIII. ARTIFICIAL PONDS, RESER-
VOIRS, AND CHANNELS, DAMS,
AND FLOWAGE.

Injuries from connection of fresh water with
salt water, see Navigable Waters, § 39.

WAYS.

Public ways, see Highways; Municipal Corpo-
rations, §§ 670, 692.

WEAPONS.

Opinion evidence of character, see Criminal
Law, § 459.

§ 6. Under certain facts, held, there was not
an unlawful carrying of a pistol.-Fuller v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 569.

§ 17. Evidence held insufficient to warrant a
conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol.-
Foster v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1155.

WHARVES.

§ 7. Where a town used a strip of land for
uninterrupted, it acquired an easement in the
wharf purposes, which was long continued and
land for that purpose.-Burke v. Trabue's Ex'x
(Ky.) 125.

WIFE.

See Husband and Wife.

WILLS.

See Descent and Distribution; Executors and
Administrators.

Equitable conversion by directions in will, see
Conversion, § 16.

Validity, construction, and execution of trusts in general, see Trusts.

IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (F) Mistake, Undue Influence, and Fraud. § 159. The undue influence which avoids a will must be its procuring cause and directly connected with its execution.-Miller v. Carr (Ark.) 1068.

§ 163. The burden is upon contestants to prove that the will was procured by undue influence.-Miller v. Carr (Ark.) 1068.

§ 166. In an action to set aside a will as procured by the undue influence of testator's son, evidence held not to show any undue influence connected with its execution.-Miller v. Carr (Ark.) 1068.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT,
AND ANNULMENT.

(F) Parties and Process or Notice. Necessity of joinder of husband in contest of probate by wife, see Husband and Wife, § 207.

(K) Review.

§ 386. Where the evidence was conflicting, a verdict will not be set aside. Gilbert v. Griffith (Ky.) 1104.

VI. CONSTRUCTION. Right to curtesy, see Curtesy, § 9.

(A) General Rules.

8441. The intent of testator should govern, and, in arriving at such intent, the language of the will must be construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.-Reuling's Ex'x V. Reuling (Ky.) 151.

§ 449. A presumption that testator intends not to die intestate held not to authorize the inclusion of other property that could not be brought within the terms of the will as made by testator.-Coleman v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 1178.

$450. The intention of a testator must be ascertained from the whole will.-Armor V. Frey (Mo.) 483; Same v. Holly (Mo.) 495.

§ 470. Effect should be given to all the clauses of a will if possible.-Armor v. Frey (Mo.) 483; Same v. Holly (Mo.) 495.

-Armor v. Frey (Mo.) 483; Same v. Holly (Mo.) 495.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.

Creation, existence, and validity of trusts in general, see Trusts, § 38. Management and disposal of trust property in general, see Trusts, §§ 172, 191.

§ 686. Where testator gave a life estate to his wife, devising the remainder to a daughter in trust for his son, providing that on the death of the latter without issue his share should revert to his brothers, and the wife died before testator, the son held to take an absolute estate. Reuling's Ex'x v. Reuling (Ky.) 151.

VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVISEES AND LEGATEES. Payment of legacies and distribution of estate, see Executors and Administrators, § 314. (C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfaction, and Lapse.

775. A will held not to express intent to prevent lapse of a devise and bequest.-Coleman v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 1178.

$775. To prevent lapse of a devise from the death of the devisee before testator, there must be an unequivocal designation as to what person testator wishes to take the devise.-Coleman v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 1178.

§ 775. Where a devisee or legatee dies before testator, the devise or legacy lapses.-Coleman v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.) 1178.

(F) Legacies Charged on Property, Estate, or Interest.

§ 820. Will held to charge payment of legacies on the realty if the personalty was insufficient after the payment of debts.-Haldeman v. Openheimer (Tex.) 566.

(H) Void, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises and Bequests, and Property and Interests Undisposed of.

§ 858. When a devise of land fails because of lapse or because it is void ab initio, the property devolves on the heir as intestate real property.-Coleman v. Jackson (Tex. Civ. App.)

1178.

WIRES.

§ 481. Ky. St. § 4839 (Russell's St. § 3962), Of electric light or power companies, see Elec

held enacted for the purpose of making wills effective as to after-acquired property, and to have no bearing on the character of estate devised.-Reuling's Ex'x v. Reuling (Ky.) 151.

(C) Survivorship, Representation, and

Substitution.

[blocks in formation]

tricity.

WITHDRAWAL.

Of instructions, see Trial, § 296. Of testimony erroneously admitted, see Criminal Law, 1169,

WITNESSES.

See Depositions; Evidence; Perjury. Comments of trial judge on evidence or witnesses, see Criminal Law, § 656. Experts, see Evidence, §§ 505-528, 536-5432, 558, 570.

Opinions, see Criminal Law, §§ 448-459; EvPresumptions from failure to testify or call idence, $$ 471-570. witness, see Evidence, § 77.

I. ATTENDANCE, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND COM

PENSATION.

Absence of witness, ground for continuance, see Continuance, §§ 22, 26; Criminal Law, §§ 595-598.

II. COMPETENCY.

§ 616. It is not necessary in this state that a life estate should be created by express words. Of expert witnesses, see Evidence, §§ 536-5431⁄2.

(A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen- | claimed.-First Nat. Bank v. Pearce (Tex. Civ.
App.) 285.

eral.

§ 65. In an action on an accident policy, in-
sured's widow held entitled to testify concern-
ing insured's condition and suffering subsequent
to the accident.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. of
New York v. Cooper (Ky.) 111.

(B) Parties and Persons Interested in
Event.

§ 88. A person is not disqualified to testify
as a witness for defendant by his being under
charge for a similar offense.-Coleman v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 573.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

ROBORATION.

Continuance to secure impeaching evidence, see
Criminal Law, § 596.

Instructions as to credibility, see Criminal Law,
$$ 785, 786; Trial, § 210.

(A) In General.

§ 319. Where a person was a party defend-
ant and also a witness, he as a party defendant
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
had the same right to complain of an assault
terested, for or against Representa- upon his credibility as witness as his codefendant.
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-Texarkana Gas & Electric Co. v. Lanier (Tex.
tle or Interest of Persons Deceased
Civ. App.) 67.
or Incompetent.

§ 139. Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 2302, a
beneficiary in a benefit certificate held not en-
titled to testify as to statements made by the
deceased.-Royal Fraternal Union V. Stahl
(Tex. Civ. App.) 920.

(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged
Communications.

§ 198. Certain testimony of an attorney held
not inadmissible, as involving a confidential
communication from his client.-Sarro v. Bell
(Tex. Civ. App.) 24.

$ 330. In a prosecution for assault, evidence
as to the character of the prosecuting witness
held admissible.-Simmons v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 1157.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
$337. As a means of attacking his credibil-
ity, it is legitimate to show by accused on cross-
examination that he has been indicted for fel-
onies in other cases.-Doyle v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 1131.

§ 345. A witness held not to be impeached
by showing that he was indicted for gambling.
Goodwin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 582.

202. The rule that conversations between
attorney and client are privileged held not to
apply to conversations between a testator and
his attorney as to the disposition of his propamination of prosecutrix to show that she had
erty.-Pierce v. Farrar (Tex. Civ. App.) 932.

III. EXAMINATION.

Of expert witnesses, see Evidence, § 558.
Of nonexpert witnesses as to opinions, see
idence, 501.

Review of rulings, see Appeal and Error,
1048; Criminal Law, § 11701⁄2.

346. In a prosecution for rape, cross-ex-
had intercourse with other men held proper.-
Shoemaker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 887.

§ 346. A witness in a prosecution for murder
Ev-held not to be impeached by showing that he
did not report what he knew to the police.-
§ Ripley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 586.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.
$236. An objection to an erroneous question
to a witness held not sustainable where the an-
swer of the witness given was not an answer
to the erroneous portion of the question.-
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v.
Abeles (Ark.) 724.

§ 237. In an action by a mother for delay in
the shipment of the corpse of her son, a ques-
tion as to the effect on the mother of the news
that the body would not be shipped by defend-
ant held not objectionable as assuming that the
news had some effect.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
Co. of Texas v. Linton (Tex. Civ. App.) 678.
$240. Permitting leading questions is large-
ly within the discretion of the court.-State v.
Steele (Mo.) 406.

§ 240. A question asked of a witness held not
objectionable as leading.-First Nat. Bank v.
Pearce (Tex. Civ. App.) 285.

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.
§ 367. Sustaining objection to a question as
to the amount of a witness' commission in a
prosecution for keeping a disorderly house held
not error.-Tacchini v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
1139.

$372. Great latitude should be allowed in
the cross-examination of witnesses who have
an interest in the prosecution or by testifying
are to receive some immunity from criminal
charges.-State v. Steele (Mo.) 406.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

§ 382. In an action on a note, evidence of
an inconsistent statement made by defendant
R. held admissible to contradict R. on a ma-
terial issue. First Nat. Bank v. Pearce (Tex.
Civ. App.) 285.

$ 383. Variant statements cannot be used to
impeach a witness, unless they refer to material
issues involved in the case on trial.-Texarkana
Gas & Electric Co. v. Lanier (Tex. Civ. App.)

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina- 67.

tion.

Of expert witnesses, see Evidence, § 558.

§ 275. In an action by an owner of property
abutting on a street for damages caused by op-
eration of trains in the street, plaintiff may, on
cross-examination, be asked as to what he would
take for the property at the time of the trial.
Trinity & B. V. Ry. Co. v. Jobe (Tex. Civ.
App.) 32.

§ 275. In an action on a note, it was error
to exclude questions asked on cross-examina-
tion of defendant R., to show that he knew the
note was executed for the beneft of his co-mak-
er, and not for the accommodation of plaintiff as

$387. Great latitude is allowed in the cross-
examination of a witness whose testimony varies
from that on the former trial.-State v. Steele
(Mo.) 406.

§ 388. In order to impeach a witness by
statements at another time different from those
made upon the trial, a predicate must first be
laid by calling his attention to the former state-
ments, and if he then admits having made them,
the party attacking him has no occasion to offer
in evidence the testimony by which he expects
to prove the inconsistent statements.-Texar-
kana Gas & Electric Co. v. Lanier (Tex. Civ.
App.) 67.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Amer. Digs. 1907 to date & Indexes see same topic & section (§) NUMBER

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »