« 이전계속 »
ant after killing held admissible.—Bennett v. m 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to susState, 790.
tain conviction of murder.-Reeves v. State, Om 171 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.). Physical conditions | 781. of scene of homicide detailed by sheriff proper-w253(1) (Mo.) Conviction of first degree ly received.-Bennett v. State, 790.
murder held supported by evidence.-State v. Cw171(3) (Ark.) Admission of testimony that Johnson, 623. defendant was violating liquor laws not error em 255(2) (Ark.) Evidence held to sustain con. where merely cumulative of other testimony viction for voluntary manslaughter.-Wood v. admitted without objection.-Owens v. State, State, 897. 25.
VIII. TRIAL. em 171(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where double mur.
(A) Conduct in General. der was one transaction evidence as to each successive step therein held admissible.-Gunn am 262 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exhibition of deceased's v. State, 172.
overcoat with hole in side held not available Om 174(4) (Ky.) Reference by witness to at- error, in absence of showing that it did not tempt to kill him because of his testimony held illustrate controverted issue.-Hughes v. State, incompetent.-Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139.
774. Om 174(8) (Mo.) Statements after crime ad
(B) Questions for Jury, missible, if connected by subject-matter.-State Em 269 (Tex.Cr.App.) Whether deceased dev. Johnson, 623.
signed to kill not determinable, as matter of Om 174(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Letter by accused to law, from character of weapon used by deceaswitness held admissible.-Blackmon v. State, ed.--Gunn v. State, 172. 803.
em 271 (Mo.) Passion held for jury.-State v. Own 174(9) (Ky.) Statements by witness to of- Connor, 713. ficer that defendant killed deceased held in- em 281(Ark.) Question whether witnesses competent and prejudicial.-Shepherd v. Com- were accomplices properly submitted to jury.monwealth, 139.
Owens v. State, 25. Om 193 (Tex.Cr.App.) Proof that deceased on 282 (Ky.) Evidence held to warrant subwas unarmed held competent.--Blackmon v. mission of murder to jury.-Jones v. ComState, 803.
monwealth, 130. Om 194 (Tex,Cr.App.) Evidence of wife's statement concerning husband held admissible to
(C) Instructions. show his state of mind in prosecution for kill- Em 294(1) (Mo.) Instruction defining partial ing another.-Johnson v. State, 554.
insanity held not misleading.-State v. Liolios,
621. (C) Dying Declarations.
294(2) (Ky.) Requested instruction on ef:
fect of intoxication preventing intention held em 215(4) (Mo.) Admission of alleged dying erroneous.--Graham v. Commonwealth, 1012. declarations held error.-State V. Jamerson, Evidence of drunkenness preventing intent 682.
authorizes instruction on manslaughter in ab218 (Tex.Cr.App.) Issue to whether sence of proof of express malice.--Id, proper predicate made for dying declaration om 295(2) (Mo.) Instruction that jealousy should be submitted to jury.-Yarbrough v. was not sufficient provocation to justify killState, 1069.
ing held not unsupported by testimony.-State Issue as to proper predicate for dying decla- v. Liolios, 621. ration properly submitted when evidence con- m 295(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction held not flicting.-Id.
to have limited jury's consideration in deter: Issue of proper predicate for dying decla-mining cause of killing.-Gunn v. State, 172. ration need not be submitted when testimony 300(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge held not is conclusive.-Id.
open to objection that it limited right of selfImmaterial how issue as to sufficiency of defense to existence of actual danger.-Gunn V. predicate for dying declaration arises.-Id. State, 172.
Evidence held to make issue for jury as to Accused's right to act upon theory of threatmental status when dying declaration made. ened attack held guarded by charge as given. -Id.
-Id. (E) Weight and Sufficiency.
Omo 300(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instructions on sell
defense not erroneous.--Hays v. State, 521. 229 (Mo.) Evidence of identification of 300(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge held not obbody of deceased held sufficient.-State v. Good-jectionable as requiring deceased to have done son, 389.
some act or spoken words threatening accused. On 231 (Ky.) Malice may be presumed from Blackmon v. State, 803. circumstances.-Jones y Commonwealth, 130. mm 300(4) (Ark.) Instruction held properly Cm 234(1) (Ky.) Evidence held sufficient to denied, being argumentative.- Woody. sustain conviction notwithstanding conflict as State, 897. to which of two persons did the shooting.- 300(5) (Mo.) Instructions relating to law Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139.
of self-defense held ambiguous and improperly en235 (Mo.) Conviction for death by abortion given.-State v. Creed, 678. cannot stand in absence of testimony that dem 300(7) (Ky.) Self-defense instruction re ceased was in good health before operation quiring belief of necessity to shoot and wound, and that an abortion was not necessary.-State or kill, held not erroneous.--Jones v. Conv. Goodson, 389.
monwealth, 130. 0237 (Tex.Cr.App.) Finding against insanity (m300(7): (Mo.) Instructions on self-defense held warranted.--Galloway v. State, 516.
may be given where facts justify.--State v. Bur. w238 (Ky.) Evidence held to warrant con- rell, 709. viction of murder and infliction of death pen
Sm 300 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Submission of acalty.--Graham v. Commonwealth, 1012.
cused's guilt in killing wife in attempt to shoot m249 (Ark.) Finding that witnesses
were stepson predicated on offense had he killed not accomplices supported by evidence.-Owens stepson not error.-Gunn v. State, 172. V. State, 25.
Only that law of self-defense giving parties 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient their rights should be given.-Id. to support verdict of guilty.–Brent v. State, C30017) (Tex.Cr.App.) Law of provoking 500.
difficulty properly submitted. --Bennett v. State, mm 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient 790. to warrant conviction for murder.-Hays v.1.300(7), (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge on relative State, 521.
strength of parties uncalled for, defense being 250 (Tex.Cr.App.) Conviction of murder based on theory that deceased' was armed.“ held sustained.-Wade v. State, 770.
Blackmon v. State, 803.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER 300(8) (Mo.) Denying instruction on right w348 (Tex.Cr.App.) Unless giving charge, of imperfect self-defense and subject of nicely regarding presumption of intent to kill would gauging force to be used in self-defense held er- produce different verdict, refusal to give harmror.--State v. Creed, 678.
less.-Gunn v. State, 172. m300(9). (Tex.Cr.App.) Act of deceased in drawing pistol held not ground for basing le
HOSPITALS. gal presumption of intent to kill accused, and m8 (Ky.) Petition held not to show city refusal to instruct not error.-Gunn v. State, was acting under invalid portion of act.-Hunt172.
er v. City of Louisville, 119. m300(12) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction on selfdefense, singling out portion of facts, properly
HUSBAND AND WIFE. refused.-Hays v. State, 521. Om 300(14) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction hela See Curtesy; Divorce; Dower; Marriage. not to limit jury's consideration to threats
I. MUTT'AL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIAcommunicated to accused by third parties.
4 (Tex.Civ.App.) Husband must support defense held not defective as failing to state
wife without resorting to her separate propthat appearances must be viewed from defend- erty if possible.-Allen v. Frank, 347. ant's standpoint.--Blackmon v. State, 803.
Om 15(5) (Ky.) Wife's separate estate not Cw301 (Tex.Cr.App.) Instructions on defense conveyed by her joining in deed of husband of another not erroneous.-Hays v. State, 521.
conveying property.-Big Sandy Co. v. Abshire,
108. Instruction as to accused's right to kill in defense of brother not objectionable, as errone
II. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS. ously placing burden of proof.-Id.
Instruction as to defendant's knowledge that en 34. (Mo.) Evidence held not to show an anhis brother provoked difficulty with deceased tenuptial contract.-Hafner v. Miller, 722. held not erroneous.-Id.
Proof of antenuptial contract must be con305 (Ky.) Instruction on aiding and abet
VI. ACTIONS. ting need not require finding crime was induced thereby.--Jones V. Commonwealth, 130. Re210 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Directing verdict
305 (ky.) Witness jointly indicted with for plaintiff husband held not error, though accused held not accomplice under evidence. money sought to be recovered was paid by wife -Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 139.
out of her separate property.- Estes v. Rutem 308(3) (Mo.) Denial of charge on second ledge, 224. degree murder held error under the evidence. Oma 239 (Tex.Civ.App.). Wife not discharged in -State v. Jamerson, 682.
suit on note because no personal judgment www309(2) (Mo.) Accused's testimony as to against her.-Daggett v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, deceased's attacks and threats on her imme- 344. diately before shooting held sufficient to require
VII. COMMUNITY PROPERTY. instruction on manslaughter.-State y. Burrell, m264 (Tex.civ.App.) Evidence held to sus709.
tain jury's finding deposit in wife's name was 309 (6) (Ky.) Evidence held to warrant community property.-Armingen v. Martin, instruction on manslaughter by reckless shoot- 1109. ing.-Jones v. Commonwealth, 130. Cum 309 (6) (Mo.) Instructions on manslaugh- VIII. SEPARATION AND SEPARATE MAIN
TENANCE. ter may be given where facts justify.-State v. Burrell, 709.
278(1) (Ark.) Separation agreement set309(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Instruction on man- tling property rights binding on parties, until slaughter properly refused, where defendant avoided by their own conduct.-Sherman v. denied facts on which it might have been given. Sherman, 27. -Hays v. State, 521.
ww279(3) (Ark.) Separation agreement anem310(4) (Tex.Cr.App:) Refusing to submit nulled by parties continuing to live together.law of simple assault held not error.-Stegall v. Sherman v. Sherman, 27. State, 513. IX. NEW TRIAL.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. @319 (Tex.Cr.App.) Newly discovered evi- See Bastards. dence sufficient where witness had previously told defendant he knew nothing about homicide.
See Municipal Corporations, Ow407-570.
INDEMNITY. em336 (Tex.Cr.App.) Showing witness de- See Guaranty. ceased's overcoat and asking him as to bullet hole therein held not reversible error.-Hughes INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. v. State, 774.
em338 (I) (Ky.) Statements by witness to of- See Homicide, Cw130–138. ficer that defendant killed deceased held incom
V. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY OF petent and prejudicial.-Shepherd v. Common
ACCUSATION. wealth, 139. 338 (1). (Tex.Cr.App.) Error, if any, in adw59 (ky:) Erroneously naming offense does
not invalidate.-Merdith v. Commonwealth, 894. mitting evidence of statement by defendant's em71 (Ky.) Technical common-law rules no wife, held harmless.-Johnson v. State, 554.
longer prevail.–Merdith v. Commonwealth, 894. em 340(2) (Ky.) Instruction on killing in
Omw1 10(31) (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment need heat of passion unsupported by evidence held not follow exact statutory description of liquor. not prejudicial.-Jones v. Commonwealth, 130.
-Nowells v. State, 550. 340 (2) (Mo.) Erroneous instruction concili() (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment need not lesser degree not reversible.--State v. Cole, 698, negative exceptions to statute defining offense 340 (3) (Ky.) Instruction accidental
which was subject of conspiracy.-Buckhannan killing not authorized by evidence is favorable
v. State, 509. to accused.-Graham v. Commonwealth, 1012. E341 (Tex.Cr.App.) Act of deceased in vi. JOINDER OF PARTIES, OFFENSES, drawing pistol held not ground for basing legal AND COUNTS, DUPLICITY, AND
ELECTION. presumption of intent to kill accused, and refusal to instruct if error was not ground form 125(29) (Ark.) Separate counts may charge reversal.-Gunn v. State, 172.
different means of killing.-Owens v. State, 25.
125(31) (Tex.Cr.App.) Count charging, IV. PRELIMINARY AND INTERLOCUTORT
150 (Tex.Civ.App.) Temporary restraining
order until date of hearing and further order
Restraining order against establishment of
130 (Mo.) Each act held separate and dis VII. VIOLATION AND PUNISHMENT.
230(1) (Mo.App.) Citation for contempt in
violating strike injunction held insufficient.-
defective.-Sands v. Richardson, 990.
held "local law."-State v. Castleberry, 221.
III, JNSURANCE AGENTS AND BROKERS,
(A) Agency for Insurer.
ed to cancel policy until after termination of
V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL.
(A) Nature, Requisites, and Validity.
Om 143(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Policy may be re-
formed for mistake. Automobile Ins. Co. of
Hartford, Conn., v. Buie, 295.
(B) Construction and Operation,
Life Ins. Co., 652.
VIII. CANCELLATION, SURRENDER,
ABANDONMENT, OR RESCISSION
em 238(1) (M0.App.) Insurer held entitled to
recover on premium note.-Home Ins. Co. T.
OF PROMISSORY WARRANTY, COVE-
NANT, OR CONDITION SUBSEQUENT.
- Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., V.
(E) Nonpayment of Premiam, or Assess
ue or paid-up insurance not unconditional, if
Provision for paid-up policy which will pre-
vent extended insurance must operate auto-
matically and be unaffected by conditions sub-
sequent or precedent.-Id.
XI. ESTOPPEL, WAIVER,
MENTS AFFECTING RIGHT TO
AVOID OR FORFEIT POLICY.
by agent after termination of agency does not
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig, Key-No.Series & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER bind insurer.-Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart. 1 w222 (Tex.Cr.App.). Unnecessary to negaford, Conn., v. Buie, 295.
tive exceptions in indictment. Thomas 378(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Condition as to sole State, 507. ownership held waived by agent's knowledge of 222 (Tox.Cr.App.) Indictment need not facts,--Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. negative exceptions.-Whitten v. State, 526. Davis. 862.
Ow222 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exceptions to prohibi. 378(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Insurance broker tion law need not be negatived in indictment. held agent of insured. - Automobile Ins, Co., of - Eads v, State, 531. Hartford, Conn., v. Buie, 295.
ww224 (Tex.Cr. App.) Defendant must prove 392(9) (Mo.App.) Acceptance and reten- case within exceptions to statute.--Whitten v. tion of premiums while awaiting health cer- State, 526. tificate preliminary to reinstatement held not om 227 (Tex.Cr.App.) Reputation of accused waiver of forfeiture.-Willis v. New York Life for committing the offense for which he is on Ins. Co., 995.
trial held not admissible.-Gothard v. State, Delay in acting upon application for rein- 508; Burns v. State, 508. statement held not to waive forfeiture.--Id. en 227 (Tex.Cr.App.). Proof of discharge from
army held not admissible to prove good charXII. RISKS AND CAUSES OF LOSS. acter at time of trial.-Whitten v, State, 526. (E) Accident and Health Insurance,
Curs 231 (Tex.Cr.App.) Permitting witness to
testify that what was in fruit jar sold by ac. w 451(1) (Mo.App.) Death of insured while cused looked like whisky held not error.passenger for hire in airplane is within ex-Whitten v. State, 526. ception of "participating in aeronautics."-232 (Tex.Cr.Ápp.) Conduct of party after Meredith v. Business Men's Acc. Ass'n of receiving whisky held admissible.-Mince v. America, 976.
State, 564. XVII. PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE, CONTRI- gallon bottle of whisky held admissible in prose
m233(2), (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of finding BUTION, AND SUBROGATION.
cution for unlawful sale.—Moore v. State, 168. in 598
(Tex.Civ.App.) Interest computed 233(2) (Tex.Cr. App.) Result of search on from sixtieth day after loss.-Automobile Ins. day succeeding. alleged sale admissible.-Lamm Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Buie. 295.
v. State, 535. Omw 602 (Tex.Com.App.) Necessity of demand om 233(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence that fruit to collect damages and attorney's fees for non- jars containing whisky were found at accused's payment stated.-National Life Ins. Co. V. Mou- home held admissible.-Mince v. State, 564. ton, 1040.
cm233(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Possession of appaDemanding more than due under policy held ratus for manufacturing is admissible to show not to defeat right of beneficiary to damages possession of liquor for sale.-Kelly v. State, and attorney's fees for refusal to pay.--Id. 1065.
Cm 236(7), (Tex.Cr. App.) Evidence supported XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES. conviction for possession of liquors for sale.-Em 665(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding that insur-Forrester v. State, 785. ance agent knew that another than insured on 236(7) (Tex.Cr. App.) Evidence held suffiowned interest in insured goods and was a
cient to sustain conviction for possession for partner in business held justified. --Springfield sale -Kelly y: State, 1065. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Davis, 862.
m236(11) (Tex.Cr. App.) Evidence held to Ou 666 (Tex.Civ.App.) Full
sustain conviction for selling intoxicating liq
recoverywhere part of property not destroyed, is error.-Auto- uor. -Harris v. State, 549. mobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Buie, 295. Em 236(11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to
support conviction of sale of liquor.--Mince v. XX, MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE.
On 236(13) (Tex.Cr. App.) Evidence held to (F) Actions for Benefits.
support conviction that liquor sold was whisky. 814 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statutory mode of -Mince v. State, 564. service upon fraternal society held exclusive.- 236(19) (Ark.) Conviction for keeping unMosaic Templars of America v. Briscoe, 846. registered still sustained by evidence. --Bullard Om817(2) (Ark.) Presumption of continued v. State, 584. good standing stated.-Knights and Ladies of 236(19) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufSecurity v. Lewellen, 585.
ficient to sustain conviction for unlawful manu819(2) (Ark.) Testimony held to support facture.-Eads v. State, 531; Benson v. State, finding of payment of dues.-Knights and Ladies 533. of Security v. Lewellen, 585.
Omw238(2) (Ky.) Evidence held to take issue
of unlawful possession to jury.-English v. INTEREST.
Commonwealth, 121. See Usury.
IX, SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FOR
Om 246 (Ky.) Property not subject to forfei-
ture' unless offense has been committed therein. 138 (Ark.) Transportation of liquor from -Commonwealth v. Brown, 104. unknown point to home is illegal; from one w 248 (Ky.) Affidavit based on information place to another in this state." -Allen v. State, from named person held sufficient.-Goode v. 899.
Om 249 (Tønn.) General description held suffiVIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
cient in warrant authorizing search for intoxmw209 (Ky.) Accusation of operating illicit icating liquors.-Hampton v. State, 1007. still sufficiently charges illicit manufacture.
Search warrant held insufficiently to describe Merdith v. Commonwealth, 894.
articles sought to be found.-Id. w209 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment for unlawful Information presented in affidavit for search manufacture need not allege that liquor man warrant not part of warrant.-10. ufactured for purposes of sale.- Eads v. State, em 250 (Ky.) Petition to forfeit premises for 531.
liquor nuisance held insufficient.-CommonCw210 (Tex.Cr.App.) Unnecessary to allege wealth v. Brown, 104. that transportation was for purpose of sale. Thomas v. State, 507.
XII. RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND Paw 216 (Tex.Cr.App.) No averment of per
CONTRACTS. centage of alcohol required.-Sanchez v. State, cm327 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.). Notes given for 548.
stock in Mexican corporation engaged in liq
uor business held illegal.-Ayub v. Automobile | vent bank held erroneous as based on inconsist. Mortg. Co., 287.
ent pleadings.--Hall v. First Nat. Bank, 828.
On 253(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Recovery of inJEOPARDY.
terest held not warranted by the prayer.-West See Criminal Law, w 200.
Lumber Co. v. Henderson, 1044.
Prayer for general relief held not to warrant
recovery of interest.-Id. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES AND BUSINESS TRUSTS.
IX. OPENING OR VACATING. Oml (Ark.) Joint-stock companies and other em 341 (Ark.) Have inherent power to annul associations operate under general law, not judgments during term rendered. --Dawson . statutes.-Betts v. Hackathorn, 602.
Mays. 33. Whether trust is created by indenture de-366 (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling motion for pends on language.-Id.
new trial because of illness of one of defendOn8 (Tex.Civ.App) Contracts of guaranty of ants' attorneys held not abuse of discretionstock construed strictly in favor of guarantor. Mays & Mays v. Flattery, 860. -Britton y. Baxley, 880. em 15(1) (Ark.) Shareholders not individually
X. EQUITABLE RELIEF. liable to creditors.-Betts v. Hackathorn, 602. Om 17 (Ark.) Trustees personally responsible
(A) Nature of Remedy and Grounds. to creditors.-Betts v. Hackathorn, 602.
cm 416 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment of partition "Joint-stock company" and "business trust" held res adjudicata in suit by heirs attacking distinguished as respects managers' status.-Id. the partition and to recover possession of the
(Tex.Civ.App.) Recovery on contract partitioned land. -Ward v. Hinkle, 236. guaranteeing value of stock limited to actual 423 (Ark.) Errors affecting judgment not damages sustained.-Britton v. Baxley, 880. reviewable in equity suit to set it aside for
fraud.-Matkin v. Cramer Cotton Co., 596. JOINT TENANCY.
m432 (Ark.) To enjoin enforcement of judg.
ment, diligence in defending, and lack of neg. See Tenancy in Common.
ligence and inattention, must be shown.--Mat
kin v. Cramer Cotton Co., 596. JUDGES.
m452 (Tex.Com.App.) Heirs can have re
viewed judgment rendered against ancestor aftSee Justices of the Peace.
er his death.-Jackson v. Wallace, 745. JUDGMENT.
(B) Jurisdiction and Proceedings. See Execution.
O 455 For judgments in particular actions or proceed only in forum in which rendered.-Borders v.
(Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment canceled ings, see also the various specific topics.
Highsmith, 270. For review of judgments, see Appeal and Error. C 460(6)' (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition for bill of
review of foreclosure judgment held insufficientIV. BY DEFAULT.
ly, specific.-Bergeron v. Security Nat. Bank, (B) Opening or Setting Aside Default. 856. 0139 (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion for new trial have acquired jurisdiction over defendants be
Cmi 461(1). (Tex.Com.App.) Court presumed to after default judgment addressed to court's fore rendering judgment.-Jackson v. Wallace, sound discretion.--Allen y. Frank, 347.
745. em 144 (Tex.Civ.App.) Default judgment set aside, where court did not file statement of the defendant by publication presumed in view of
ww461(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Legal service on evidence.-Daniel Miller Co. v. Puett, 333.
ww! 45(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Movant must show lapse of time and recital of judgment, notwithmeritorious defense to have default judgment standing, allegation in petition that he was resiset aside.-Allen v. Frank, 347.
dent of Texas.- Ward v. Hinkle, 236. ww 145(4). (Tex.Civ.App.)' Husband's expendi- m461 (5) (Ark.) Evidence held not to show ture of wife's separate funds for her support agreement of parties, not to take judgment on
bond.-Childs v. Linton, 21. not a defense which will support motion for new trial after default judgment for amount
XI. COLLATERAL ATTACK, thereof.-Allen v. Frank, 347. Ono 151 (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion held insufficient
(B) Grounds. as being mere statements of pleader's conclu- m486(2) (Ky.) Rendition after death of par. sions as to diligence.-Allen v. Frank, 347. ty makes it voidable only.-Mosely v. Morgan,
Motion for new trial after default judgment 117. held not to show reasonable diligence-Id. Om 497 (1) (Tex.Com.App.) Recitals in judgCam 163 (Tex.Civ.App.) Merits of original case ment in collateral attack not contradicted by not considered on motion for new trial after other portions of record.-Chapman v. Kellogg, default judgment.-Allen v. Frank, 347.
ww497 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Not collaterally imVI. ON TRIAL OF ISSUES.
peached by proof of lack of services where (A) Rendition, Form, and Requisites in judgment recites due service.-Borders v. HighGeneral.
smith, 270. em 199 (1) (Tex.civ.App.). Doctrine of judg
(C) Proceedings. ment non obstante veredicto does not obtain am 521 (Ark.) Suit to enjoin enforcement of in Texas.-Thornton v. Athens Nat. Bank, 278.judgment is collateral attack.-Childs v. Lin
ton, 21. (B) Parties. 235 (Tex.Civ.App.) Award of damages to XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES OF coplaintiff for proportionate interest, in action
ACTION AND DEFENSES. for breach of contract, held error, where such (B) Causes of Action and Defeuses Merge owner did not execute the contract sued on.
ed, Barred, or Concluded, Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co, v. Barker, 809.
Ow584 (Tex.civ.App.) Bars another suit by (C) Conformity to Process, Pleadings,
same parties concerning same matter.-Allen Proofs, and Verdict or Findings.
v. Frank, 347.
C585(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Conditions neces. w 248 (Tex.civ.App.) Allowing claim against sary to render matter "res adjudicata" stated.state guaranty fund and general assets of insol- | Allen v. Frank, 347.