« 이전계속 »
KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
. Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
Disobedience, etc., not "good cause" for an-
nulment, unless parent blameless and child re-
to be responsible for crime.--Id.
Buttrey v. West, 102 So. 456.
state as parens patriæ.-Id.
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
Ow8(3) (La.) Prescription; title to lands for-
merly held by educational institution whose
charter has expired cannot be acquired by ad-
subject to acquisition by possession adverse to
(B) Actual Possession.
27 (Ala.) Evidence in action against hus-
band and wife held to support finding wife in
possession of strip of land in controversy.--
Dansby v. Middlebrooks, 102 So. 446.
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
(B) Title or Right Acquired.
verse possession against former owners as well
as strangers.-R. E, L. McCaskill Co. v. Dekle,
102 So. 252.
al (Fla.) “Affray” at common law defined.
-Carnley v. State, 102 So. 333.
CW4 (Fia.) Indictment for affray is in effect
merely for the several included assaults and
batteries.-Carnley v. State, 102 So. 333.
See Principal and Agent.
when received admissible to prove lack of tags
on delivery to carrier.-Decatur Fertilizer Co.
v. Walls, 102 So. 32.
Testimony fertilizer sold by defendant was
not tagged admissible to prove lack of tags
Admitting testimony, fertilizer bought from
held prejudicial error.-Id,
Alteration of Instruments
102 SOUTHERN REPORTER
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
212 (Ala.) On failure to request affirm.
ative charge, question whether party was en-
were not sufficient in detail not considered,
where not raised below.-Shaw v. Knight, 102
230 (Ala.) Rules for
court's action as to objectionable argument
Om242(3) (Ala.) Appellate court cannot re.
On 261 (Ala.) Rules for reviewing trial court's
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 102 So.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
Oma 301 (Ala.) Use by jury of statement of
harmless.-Stinson v. M. F. Patterson & Son,
meal” held not good objection.-Shaw v. Knight,
102 So. 701.
302 (5) (Ala.) Ground of motion too gen-
GROUNDS APPEL-em324 (Fla.) Defendants not appealing from
judgment, who appear and join in appeal by co-
defendant in appellate court become parties
Appellants declining to participate in appeal
Appellate court having jurisdiction of cause
may grant summons and severance as to par-
ties appellant declining to come in.-Id.
request.-JicJunkins v. Stevens, 102 So, 756.
Parties who should have been made appel-
lants or plaintiffs in error may appear and par-
Appellate court may refuse to proceed, in
them brought in.-Id.
Court having jurisdiction of appeal may per-
mit absent parties to appear and participate.
include all appellees or defendants in error
to give isdiction of their persons.-UcJunk-
ins v. Stevens, 102 So. 756.
cm336(1) (Fla.) When appeal or writ of er-
ror not including all necessary parties will not
102 So. 756.
pellate proceedings will be dismissed, unless
ties directly affected by judgment appealed from
judgment taken by less than all parties against
included in appeal or writ of error as recorded
appear in cause.-Id.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
v. Burnett, 102 So. 214.
502 (7) (Ala.) Recital in bill of exception
to judgment denying motion for new trial held
(B) Scope and Contents of Record.
review of judgment on motion for new trial.-
Cooper v. Martin, 102 So. 851.
Case or Statement of Facts.
of evidence, properly certified by stenographer
on appeal, regardless of failure to give stenog-
rapher notice to transcribe, in view of agree-
Service of Copies.
Om627(1) (La.) Appellant not filing transcript
v. Phillips, 102 So. 519.
Judgment creditor's remedies on appellant's
failure to file transcript stated.-Id.
Seizure and sale under execution issued be-
Express or implied appearance of no avail on peal held not vitiated.-Id.
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
Om692(1) (Ala.) Error not to be predicated
to use of questions, by examining board, in
record.--Williams v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.,
(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record.
Defendant taking devolutive appeal only can- | general.-J. E. Pinkham Lumber Co. v. C. W.
C-736 (Ala.) If any one of assignments of
error treated in bulk without merit, considera-
rer, 102 So. 629.
737 (Fla.) Single assignment of error in
sustaining demurrer to defendant's pleas, some
of which were defective, is unavailing.–Reli-
ance Life Ins. Co. v. Gray, 102 So. 764.
Om792 (Ala.) Appeal from decree overruling
City of 102 So. 620.
court ex mero motu.-Worthington v. Morris,
On motion to increase supersedeas bond, XV. HEARING AND REHEARING,
m831 (Miss.) After sustaining or overruling
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
Om837 (11) (Ala.) Supreme Court need con-
sider only relevant, material, and competent
Court need indicate what testimony should be
Om 843(2) (Ala.) Improper argument present. I swearing not disturbed on appeal.-Strauss v.
case without jury, based on testimony taken in
Ca 1009(1) (Ala.) Chancellor's findings of
disturbed unless clearly erroneous.-Norton v.
ported by legal evidence not reversed unless
is sufficient to support it.-Lampkin v. Heard,
in equity not disturbed unless plainly contrary
to great weight of evidence.-D. & S. Motor
Cw1010(1) (Fla.) Finding, sustained by evi-
prise, not disturbed.-City of Bradentown v.
disturbed, unless latter's error in conclusion
clearly shown.-Phillips v. Howell, 102 So. 157.
(H) Harmless Error.
not harmful error.-Reliance Life Ins. Co. v.
where case tried without jury, and defendant's
Om 1040(8) (Ala.App.) Appellant not injured
by sustaining of demurrers to replication mere-
ly denying plea.-Southern Cotton Oil Co. v.
and instructions.- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
authorizing recovery of damages claimed in
demurrer to defendant's plea of contributory
102 So. 903.
immaterial where new
Drummond y. Drummond. 102 So. 112.
pleas rather than sustaining demurrer to
question not reversible error, where question
was corrected and answer did not invade prov-
Cw1048(5) (Ala.) Error in overruling objec-
tion to improper question not rendered barm-
less by witness' denial in view of testimony re-
ey Produce Co., 102 So. 006.
Co 1048 (6) (Ala.) Exclusion of cross-exam,
ww1048(6) (Ala.) Plaintiff should have been
allowed to ask expert witnesses for defendant
as to best material to use in safety lamps in