72 (Ark.) Contract for purchase of land
does not constitute color of title.-Willm v. Ded-
man, 290 S. W. 361.

II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
(A) Extent of Possession.

Form of ballot used for stock law election
held not to invalidate election (Rev. St. 1919,
§ 4284).-Id.

Statute providing form of ballot for stock
law election is directory (Rev. St. 1919, §
4284).-Id.

ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

100(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Actual occupation
is required to oust owner from constructive
seizin of unoccupied portion of land, where he See Monopolies, 17-21.
occupies part thereof.-Cook v. Easterling, 290
S. W. 731.

102 (Tex.Com.App.) Constructive posses-
sion of unoccupied land by adverse claimant
held not precluded by owner's lease by metes
and bounds.-Cook v. Easterling, 290 S. W. 731.
Landowner, contracting to allow another to
take sand from sand pit, had constructive pos-
session of entire tract requiring actual occupa-
tion by adverse claimant to oust it.-Id.

Owner's actual possession taken by leasing
part of the land to another without restriction

as to remainder extends to whole tract.-Id.

103 (Ky.) Defined boundaries of land,
claimed under color of title, failed against su-
perior title, where there had been no entry and
possession on interference.-Pendergrass
Swiss Oil Corporation, 290 S. W. 713.
III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND

REVIEW.

V.

4 (Tex.Cr.App.) Arrest of Italian citizen
by deputy sheriff at custom house, to which sent
from Italian vessel by arrangement with dep-
uty, held not to violate treaty with Italy.-Ex
parte Ponzi, 290 S. W. 170.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

8 (Mo.App.) Procuring another to write his
name, whether as maker or indorser, on face of
note after due date without indorser's consent,
is material alteration discharging makers (Rev.
St. 1919, §§ 804, 849, 910, 911, subd. 4).-
Farmers' Bank v. Lambert, 290 S. W. 635.

18 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where one of triplicate
original copies of lease was altered by lessee,
alteration though fraudulent held insufficient
ground for cancellation.-Stine v. Oasis Oil Co.,
290 S. W. 302.

22 (Mo.App.) Vendors, delivering deed in
escrow to brokers and seeking to recover bro-
kers' profit on resale, at direction of original
purchasers, held not entitled to complain of al-
terations made by brokers in deed.-Bales v.
Hendrickson, 290 S. W. 638.

30 (Mo.App.) Whether additional name was
written on face of note after due date without
indorser's consent held for court sitting as jury
(Rev. St. 1919, §§ 910, 911, subd. 4).-Farmers'
Bank v. Lambert, 290 S. W. 635.

ANIMALS.

See Carriers, 230; Railroads, 443.

50 (2) (Mo.App.) County court, submitting
proposition restraining animals from running at
large, held not required to prescribe form of
ballot (Rev. St. 1919, §§ 4283, 4857-4895).-
Yowell v. Mace, 290 S. W. 96.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See Certiorari; Courts,
Law, 1020-1202.

209-231; Criminal

For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-
ics.

I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.

(Tex.Civ.App.) Right to appeal must
found in legislative grant.-Lambert v.
Gant, 290 S. W. 548.

be

2 (Tenn.) Doubt arising as to meaning of
statute relating to appeals, should be resolved
in favor of right of appeal.-Bozeman v. Naff,

290 S. W. 981.

Statutes relating to appeal are remedial in
their nature and should receive liberal con-
struction (Shannon's Code, §§ 4891, 4909).-Id.
14(4) (Ky.) Cross-appeal cannot be taken
by request that latter portion of brief be taken
as such (Civ. Code Prac. § 755[1]).-Cyphers
v. Runyon, 290 S. W. 671.

III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(C) Amount or Value in Controversy.
50(1) (Ky.) Court of Appeals has no juris-
diction over appeal from order, in suit to settle
estate, allowing fee of $125 to guardian for
services. Hart v. Hardin, 290 S. W. 475.

61 (Ky.) Judgments cannot be added to
give Court of Appeals jurisdiction.-Hart v.
Hardin, 290 S. W. 475.

61 (Ky.) Coal mine employees, asserting
joint claims against employer, held to have no
fit of any one employee.-Wallins Creek Col-
interest in separate judgment entered for bene-
lieries Co. v. Marshall, 290 S. W. 519.

one defendant cannot be added together to give
Separate claims of different parties against
Court of Appeals jurisdiction, under Ky. St. §
950-1, requiring $500 controverted amount.
-Id.

(D) Finality of Determination.
76(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) To constitute final
appealable judgment, court must finally adjudi-
cate parties' rights at time and as part of or-
der; "final judgment."-Foster v. Little Motor
Kar Co., 290 S. W. 228.

78(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Orders setting in-
terventions for trial after termination of re-
ceivership held not "final judgments."-Foster
v. Little Motor Kar Co., 290 S. W. 228.

one or

in statute relating to appeals, means final as to
79 (1) (Tenn.) Term "final judgment," used
4909).-Bozeman v. Naff, 290 S. W. 981.
more of parties (Shannon's Code, §
Where liability of certain defendant had not
been adjudged, defendants against whom judg-
ment was rendered were entitled to appeal
(Shannon's Code, $$ 4891, 4909).-Id.

82(3) (Ark.) Order vacating default judg-
ments at same term rendered is not appealable;
"final judgment."-Nichol v. Schnyder, 290 S.
W. 365.

(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of De-
cision.

tion of appeal involving costs only (Ky. St. §
119 (Ky.) Court of Appeals has no jurisdic-
950-1).—Siddens v. Ennis, 290 S. W. 669.

Sheriff's return as to posting notices of stock
law election, though in general terms, held
sufficient (Rev. St. 1919, §§ 4283, 4287).—Id. of

IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW.

(A) Persons Entitled.

145 (Tenn.) Statute, providing that any one
parties to judgment may appeal, applies

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
principally to judgments at law and decrees ap-218(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to special
proximating judgments in their nature (Shan- issues on account of their form may not be
non's Code, § 4891).-Bozeman v. Naff, 290 S. raised on appeal for first time.-Northern Texas
W. 981.
Traction Co. v. Armour & Co., 290 S. W. 544.
219(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Unchallenged fact
findings are binding on appeal.-Queen Ins. Co.
v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 290 S. W.
286.

Statute, providing that one may "pray and
obtain an appeal" from judgment or decree,
applies to any process by which case may be
brought into appellate court (Shannon's. Code,
§ 4891).-Id.

Under statutes, any one or more of parties
to action at law in circuit court may, at term in
which final judgment is rendered, pray appeal
in nature of writ of error (Shannon's Code, §§
4891, 4909).—Id.

151 (5) (Ky.) Successful litigant cannot ap-
peal from judgment giving him all relief sought.
-Gentry v. Gentry, 290 S. W. 665.

Plaintiff, recovering judgment for all relief
sought, could not file record in Court of Ap-
peals, where defendant had not appealed (Civ.
Code Prac. § 741).-Id.

Court will not consider appeal, where prevail-
ing party filing record was not appellee (Civ.
Code Prac. § 741).-Id..

V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVATION
IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
OF REVIEW.

(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.

172 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff on
appeal did not complain of refusal to decree
foreclosure of deed of trust, reviewing court
cannot render such relief.-Sewell v. Wilcox,

290 S. W. 264.

172(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Insurer not having
claimed as purchaser or assignee of insured's
rights against railroad, trial court cannot claim
as such on appeal.-Queen Ins. Co. v. Galves-
ton, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 290 S. W. 286.

230 (Ark.) Judge's disqualification cannot
be considered, where not questioned until after
decree, and ignorance of fact before trial was
not alleged.—Barnett v. Bank of Malvern, 290
S. W. 939.

231 (9) (Ark.) Giving and refusing instruc-
tions held not reviewable, where objections were
general.-Knight v. Wolpert, 290 Š. W. 933.
238 (6) (Ky.) Before erroneous judgment
can be reviewed on appeal, motion should be
made in trial court to set it aside (Civ. Code
Prac. § 763).-Rex Red Ash Coal Co. v. Pow-
ers, 290 S. W. 1061.

(C) Exceptions.

275 (Ky.) Exceptions to depositions, which
were never acted on, were waived.-Rex Red
Ash Coal Co. v. Powers, 290 S. W. 1061.

(D) Motions for New Trial.
281(1) (Tenn.) In absence of motion for
new trial, Supreme Court considers only errors
on face of record proper, on appeal in nature
of writ of error.-Mullins v. Tennessee Stave
& Lumber Co., 290 S. W. 975.

282 (Tenn.) Motion for new trial is re-
quired to review action at law.-Watkins v. Sed-
berry, 290 S. W. 970.

283 (Tenn.) Broad appeal could be taken
from decree of chancery court without motion
for new trial, though oral testimony was in-
173(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Issue of exemp-
troduced at hearing by written consent (Shan-
tion of husband's separate property from pay-non's Code, § 4887; Acts 1917, c. 119).-Wat-
ment of damages of wife's tort cannot be first kins v. Sedberry, 290 S. W. 970.
raised on appeal.-Campbell v. Johnson, 290301 (Ark.) Where refusal of instruction is
S. W. 526.
not made ground for new trial, appellate court
will treat objection as abandoned.-Green v.
Hollingshead, 290 S. W. 51.

179(4) (Mo.) Constitutional question must
be raised at first opportunity to be available on
appeal.-Gould v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 290301 (Mo.App.) Instructions claimed to be
S. W. 135.
erroneous cannot be considered, where not com-
plained of in motion for new trial.-Bodam v.
City of New Hampton, 290 S. W. 621.
301 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to suffi-
ciency of evidence to support verdict, not raised
in motion for new trial, are waived.-U. S. Fi-
delity & Guaranty Co. v. Cicero Smith Lumber
Co., 290 S. W. 307.

Constitutionality of act, pleaded by defendant
in answer, raised for first time on motion for
new trial, is too late (U. S. Comp. St. § 514tttt).
-Id.

(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings

Thereon.

181 (Tenn.) Trial court will not be put in
error for matters not called to his attention.-
Mullins v. Tennessee Stave & Lumber Co., 290
S. W. 975.

193(9) (Mo.App.) Failure of petition to
state cause of action may be raised at any time.
-Garbee v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.,
290 S. W. 655.

205 (Mo.App.) Exclusion of answer to
question, objected to as irrelevant and imma-
terial, will not be reviewed, in absence of offer
of proof.-Messer v. Gentry, 290 S. W. 1014.

VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR
TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
(B) Petition or Prayer, Allowance, and
Certificate or Affidavit.

358 (Ky.) Plaintiffs, suing together for
excess compensation from coal company for
amounts under $500, held not entitled to ap-
peal right (Ky. St. § 950-1).-Wallins Creek
Collieries Co. v. Marshall, 290 S. W. 519.

Defendant in action by coal mine employees
suing together for excess compensation held
not entitled to appeal, plaintiffs not having such
right (Ky. St. § 950 -1).-Id.

207 (Ark.) Alleged prejudicial remarks of
attorney will not be considered, in absence of
objections and exceptions thereto.-Woodley Pe-359 (Tenn.) Granting of appeal from de-
troleum Co. v. Willis, 290 S. W. 953.

215(1) (Ark.) Failure to object to instruc-
tion waives any errors therein.-Brown v.
Dean, 290 S. W. 590.

215(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Whether measure
of damages submitted was proper could not be
considered on appeal, in absence of filing ob-
jections to charge (Rev. St. 1925, art. 6857).-
Williams v. Walker, 290 S. W. 299.

215(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Objections to
court's charge cannot be made for first time on
appeal (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2185).-Gulf, C. &
S. F. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 290 S. W. 846.

216(1) (Mo.App.) Defendant cannot urge
necessity for specific instruction on measure of
damages for first time on appeal.-Crivello v.
Kline, 290 S. W. 86.

cree overruling demurrer interposed for claimed
lack of jurisdiction held not abuse of chancel-
lor's discretion (Shannon's Code, § 4889).-
Cory v. Olmstead, 290 S. W. 31.

(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice.

397 (Tex.Civ.App.) To perfect appeal from
district court in county having two or more
such courts, notice of appeal in open court is
necessary (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2092, subd. 31;
arts. 2093, 2253).-Southwest Nat. Bank v.
Austin, 290 S. W. 186.

(E) Entry, Docketing, and Appearance.

435 (Ky.) Appearance in Court of Appeals
of unauthorized guardian ad litem for infant
defendant could not make plaintiff who pre-

(A) Matters to be Shown by Record.
499 (3) (Ky.) Reading portion of deposition
only held not error, where record did not show
objection or request that entire deposition be
read. Kimmel v. Williams, 290 S. W. 483.

signment by paper injected into transcript, but
executed five months after trial court's final ac-
tion. Queen Ins. Co. v. Galveston, H. & S. A.
Ry. Co., 290 S. W. 286.

XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

725 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of er-
ror in sustaining special exception, without
designating which of several it was, need not
be considered.-Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania
v. Couch, 290 S. W. 274.

com-

750 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignment
plaining of overruling general demurrer held
to question overruling three general demurrers
to three separate defenses.-Austin v. Fleming,
290 S. W. 835.

499 (3) (Mo.App.) In view of abstract's fail-
ure of showing as to objection, held there was 753(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Only errors appar-
nothing to review as to admission or rejection ent of record can be considered, on appeal
of testimony.-Green v. Page, 290 S. W. 451. from judgment granting new trial, in absence
501 (3) (Mo.App.) In view of abstract's from transcript of assignment of error (Ver-
failure of showing as to exception, held there non's Ann. Civ. St. 1925, arts. 1844, 2249,
was nothing to review as to admission or re- 2281).-Hutchinson v. Barnum, 290 S. W. 809;
jection of testimony.-Green v. Page, 290 S. W. Hutchinson v. Barnum Oil Corporation, 290 S.
451.
W. 810.

502(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Only errors appar-753 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Reviewing court
ent of record can be considered, on appeal from may only consider fundamental error when
judgment granting new trial, in absence from transcript does not contain assignments of
transcript of motion for new trial (Vernon's error (Rev. St. 1925, arts. 1837, 1844, 2281).—
Ann. Civ. St. 1925, arts. 1844, 2249, 2281).-J. G. Smith Grain Co. v. Payne, 200 S. W. 841.
Hutchinson v. Barnum, 290 S. W. 809; Hutch-
inson v. Barnum Oil Corporation, 290 S. W.
810.

502(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Reviewing court
may only consider fundamental error when
transcript does not contain motion for new
trial (Rev. St. 1925, arts. 1837, 1844, 2281).
J. G. Smith Grain Co. v. Payne, 290 S. W. 841.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,

or Statement of Facts.

XII. BRIEFS.

as-

759 (Mo.) Separate assignments of error
in points and authorities is substantial compli-
ance with rule, thougn brief contains no
signments (Supreme Court rule 15).-State ex
inf. Mansur ex rel. Fowler v. McKown, 290 S.
W. 123.

759 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error
not copied into brief cannot be considered.—
Hamilton v. Express Pub. Co., 290 S. W. 808.
544 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statement and find-767(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion to strike out
ing of facts and bill of exceptions are not re-appellant's brief was sustained when brief filed
quired on appeal from dismissal of motion to late, leaving appellees only four days to reply.
set aside orders setting receivership interven--Jacobs v. Stewart. 290 S. W. 783.
tions for trial.-Foster v. Little Motor Kar Co., 770 (1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Where only one par-
290 S. W. 228.
ty to appeal furnishes brief, his statement of
case may be accepted without examination of
record (rule 39 of Rules for Courts of Civil
Appeals).-City of Navasota v. Gudger, 290 S.
W. 900.

(J)

Conclusiveness and Effect. Impeach-
ing and Contradicting.

662 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment recitals of
evidence do not preclude presumption that
court had all necessary supporting facts before
it when judgment was rendered.-J. G. Smith
Co. v. Payne, 290 S. W. 841.

(K) Questions Presented for Review.

672 (Tex.Civ.App.) There is no error ap-
parent of record, where court must examine
whole record for fundamental error.-Hutchin-
son v. Barnum, 290 S. W. 809; Hutchinson v.
Barnum Oil Corporation, 290 S. W. 810.

672 (Tex. Civ.App.) Reviewing court need
not search statement of facts for fundamental
error.-J. G. Smith Grain Co. v. Payne, 290
S. W. 841.

773(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to file prop-
er brief within required time is ground for dis-
missal, in absence of fundamental error disclos-
ed by record.-Hamilton v. Express Pub. Co.,
290 S. W. 808.

XV. HEARING AND REHEARING.

833 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Losing party in
Court of Civil Appeals may not as matter of
course file amended motion for rehearing.-
Haverbekken v. Coryell County, 290 S. W. 573.
Court of Civil Appeals may permit amended

688(2) (Mo.App.) Statement of counsel
held reviewable, though not quoted in record
as of time it was made, where otherwise prop-motion for rehearing on sufficient showing.-Id.
erly preserved.-Johnson v. Atchison, T. & S.
F. Ry. Co., 290 S. W. 462.

692(1) (Mo.App.) Alleged error in rejecting
testimony could not be considered, where testi-
mony was not set out or designated by ref-
erence to record.-Bodam v. City of New Hamp-
ton, 290 S. W. 621.

707(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Where no copy of
judgment enjoined is in record, reviewing court
cannot say it was valid.-D. F. Connolly
Agency, Inc., v. Popejoy, 290 S. W. 831.

(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record.
712 (Tex.Civ.App.) Issues on appeal can-
not be enlarged by citation of matters outside
record. Queen Ins. Co. v. Galveston, H. & S.
A. Ry. Co., 290 S. W. 286.

713(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Insurer claiming as
insured's assignee on appeal cannot show as-

835 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court of Civil Ap-
peals must consider jurisdictional question,
though raised on motion for rehearing.-Sibley
v. Continental Supply Co., 290 S. W. 769.

1125

INDEX-DIGEST

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
proper reason is given for decision.-Benavides | brought in record by bill of exceptions.-Cole-
man v. Mitchell, 290 S. W. 64.
v. Garcia, 290 S. W. 739.
858 (Tenn.) Appeal in actions at law reach-909(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of proof
es only error apparent on face of record.-Wat- of contents of petition, allegations thereof must
be presumed by reviewing court to support
kins v. Sedberry, 290 S. W. 970.
Statute providing for introduction of oral judgment.-Jackson v. First Nat. Bank, 290 S.
evidence in chancery causes does not destroy W. 276.
distinction between appeals at law and in chan-927 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Allegations of mov-
cery (Acts 1917, c. 119; Shannon's Code, §§
4887, 6272).-Id.'

(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
877(3) (Ky.), Appellant cannot predicate
error on summary order to one not party, not
affecting his rights.-Charles v. Hopkins, 290
S. W. 720.

877(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff in trespass
to try title cannot complain that third person
may have some interest in land awarded to de-
fendant, where he recovered his entire interest.
-Jordan v. Grandfield Bridge Co., 290 S. W.
866.

ant's plea of intervention must be accepted as
truc, on appeal from order dismissing motion
to set aside orders setting receivership inter-
ventions for trial.-Foster v. Little Motor Kar
Co., 290 S. W. 228.

927(5) (Mo.) In passing on defendant's de-
murrer to evidence, plaintiff's testimony must
be accorded by reviewing court every reason-
able intendment drawn from facts.-Block v.
U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore,
Md., 290 S. W. 429.

927 (7) (Ark.) Facts must be viewed in
most favorable light to appellee, in determining
whether refusal to direct verdict was erroneous.

953.

927(7) (Ark.) After directed verdict, evi-
dence must be viewed favorably to unsuccess-
ful party. Shaul v. Katzenstein, 290 S. W. 966.

877 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff, in action-Woodley Petroleum Co. v. Willis, 290 S. W.
of trespass to try title, cannot complain that
intervener was given right to maintain road on
strip to which he failed to establish title.-Jor-
dan v. Grandfield Bridge Co., 290 S. W. 866.
878(6) (Ark.) One not appealing cannot
complain that judgment is excessive.-Spriggs
v. American Ins. Union, 290 S. W. 587.

878(6) (Mo.App.) Insufficiency of amount
of verdict for party not appealing cannot be
considered.-Holden v. Wells, 290 S. W. 83.

880(2) (Ky.) Erroneous instruction relat-
ing to one defendant held not prejudicial to co-
defendant in death action.-Louisville & N. R.
Co. v. Slusher's Adm'r, 290 S. W. 677.

927 (7) (Ky.) In reviewing directed verdict,
evidence unfavorable to plaintiff may be elimi-
nated.-South v. Philadelphia Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 290 S. W. 493.

V.

927 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Only evidence in
favor of party, against whom peremptory in-
thereof.-Bounds
struction was asked, should be considered in
propriety
determining
Home Mut. Life & Accident Ass'n No. 1, 290
S. W. 552.
de-930(1) (Ark.) Evidence must be given
strongest probative force in favor of verdict
in determining its sufficiency.-Missouri Pac.
Ry. Co. v. Barry, 290 S. W. 942.

880 (2) (Ky.) Directing verdict for one
fendant does not prejudice codefendant, where
jury found in her favor.-Goff v. Hubbard, 290
S. W. 696.

Question arising on judgment, from which no
appeal was taken, is not before reviewing court.
-Id.

880(3) (Mo.App.) Where judgment for in-
juries resulting from collision of bus and train
went against railroad and in favor of bus own-
èr. error as to bus owner held not available to
railroad (Rev. St. 1919. § 4223).-Flenner v.
Southwest Missouri R. Co., 290 S. W. 78.

882 (9) (Ark.) Any prejudice of testimony
is waived by eliciting same testimony subse-
quently on cross-examination.-Woodley Pe-
troleum Co. v. Willis, 290 S. W. 953.

882(12) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant cannot
object that court charged jury in language al-
most identical with that requested by it.-Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 290 S. W. 846.
(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and
Trial of Cause Anew.

893 (2) (Ark.) On appeal in chancery cases,
Supreme Court tries issues de novo.-Ward v.
Mcllroy, 290 S. W. 46.

893(2) (Ark.) Supreme Court tries equity
case de novo on appeal.-Sullivan v. Wilson
Mercantile Co., 290 S. W. 938.

893 (2) (Mo.App.) Equity case is tried de
novo on appeal.-Smith v. Myers, 290 S. W. 459.
895(2) (Ark.) Chancellor's findings, on tri-
al de novo, are reversed only where clearly
against preponderance of evidence.-Ward v.
McIlroy, 290 S. W. 46.

895(2) (Tenn.) Statute permitting party
dissatisfied with chancery court decree to have
re-examination of law and fact on appeal re-
quires reviewing court to try questions of fact
de novo (Shannon's Code, § 4887).-Watkins
v. Sedberry, 290 S. W. 970.

(E) Presumptions.

930 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of evi-
dence disproving allegation that defendants
signing contract as contractors were estopped
to claim they were sureties, there could be no
presumed finding denying effect of plea.-U. S.
Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Cicero Smith Lum-
ber Co.. 290 S. W. 307.

930 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding of agency to
reach accord and satisfaction will be presumed
in support of judgment, where submission of is-
sue was not requested.-Ferguson v. Lewis, 290
S. W. 858.

931(1) (Ark.) Facts revealed by record are
treated as undisputed, where appellee introduc-
ed no testimony.-Rose v. Bray, 290 S. W. 601.
931 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Reviewing court is
bound to support judgment appealed from by
stating case most favorably to appellee.-Tala-
mantes v. Flores. 290 S. W. 791.

931 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Presumptions are in
favor of judgment.-D. F. Connolly Agency,
Inc., v. Popejoy, 290 S. W. 831.

931 (3) (Tex.Com.App.) Finding for pre-
vailing party will be implied when necessary
to support judgment.-Graham Nat. Bank v.
Beavers, 290 S. W. 529.

Inference that case was decided on single is-
sue will not be indulged to destroy general
inference of implied finding on every material

issue. Id.

931 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding from con-
flicting evidence is presumed in support of judg-
ment on review.-Talamantes v. Flores, 290 S.
W. 791.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court.

965 (Ky.) Reviewing court cannot disturb
ruling on motion for change of venue, in ab-
sence of showing of abuse of discretion.-Dyer
v. Staggs. 290 S. W. 494.

90! (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant has burden of 975 (Mc.App.) Refusal to permit interro-
error.-D. F.
showing reversible
Connollygation of jury as to whether they had read news-
paper articles held not available on appeal.--
Hill v. Jackson, 290 S. W. 1012.

Agency, Inc., v. Popejoy, 290 S. W. 831.

907(3) (Ark.) Supreme Court must pre-
sume that decree of dismissal was supported by 977(1) (Ky.) Circuit court's action in pass-
sufficient evidence, where oral evidence was not ing on motion for new trial will not be disturb-

ed, in absence of abuse of discretion.-Goff v.
Hubbard, 290 S. W. 696.

977 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Setting aside ver-
dict and granting new trial will be upheld, un-
less court abused discretion.-Lambert v. Gant,
290 S. W. 548.

1009 (1) (Ky.) Judgment in action for de-
struction of telephone line, heard in equity
by consent, will not be disturbed, if there is
doubt as to truth of facts.-Eastern Kentucky
Home Telephone Co. v. Dempster Const. Co.,
290 S. W. 684.

979 (5) (Tenn.) In absence of abuse of dis-1009 (1) (Ky.) Where on all evidence mind
cretion, remittitur required by trial court will is left in doubt, decision of chancellor on facts
not be restored.-Pryor Brown Transfer Co. v. will not be disturbed.-Sturgill's Adm'r v. How-
Gibson, 290 S. W. 33.
ard, 290 S. W. 1048.

(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-
ings.

989 (Mo.App.) In considering demurrer to
plaintiff's evidence, appellate court disregards
defendant's evidence, unless it strengthens
plaintiff's case.-Watson v. Carthage Marble &
White Lime Co., 290 S. W. 649.

994 (3) (Ky.) Court of Appeals will not
disturb chancellor's finding on credibility of wit-
nesses. Amick v. Huffman, 290 S. W. 506.

1009 (4) (Ky.) Court of Appeals must re-
verse chancellor's fact findings, where evidence
preponderates in favor of losing party.-Sid-
dens v. Ennis, 290 S. W. 669.

1010(1) (Ark.) Fact findings of court, sup-
ported by evidence, are not reviewable.-Shack-
leford v. Ford, 290 S. W. 43.

1010(1) (Ark.) Judgment of court sitting
without jury will not be disturbed for insuffi
ciency of evidence, if supported by any substan-
tial testimony.-Blazer v. Anderson, 290 S. W.
53.

995 (Mo.App.) Reviewing court cannot
weigh evidence to determine what is circum-1010(1) (Mo.App.) Trial court's finding,
stantial evidence.-Markowitz v. Markowitz, 290 supported by evidence, is binding on Court of
S. W. 119.
Appeals.-Young v. Thompson, 250 S. W. 85.
995 (Mo.App.) Reviewing court may not 1010(1) (Mo.App.) Trial court's ruling,
weigh evidence.-Johnson v. Atchison, T. & S. supported by evidence, on fact question, will
F. Ry. Co., 290 S. W. 462.
not be disturbed.-Farmers' Bank v. Lambert,
290 S. W. 635.

995 (Mo.App.) Weight of evidence is mat-
ter for trier of facts, and not appellate court.-1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court's find-
Hill v. Jackson, 290 S. W. 1012.
ing, sustained by evidence, against presumption
of validity of second marriage while former
spouse is living, must be upheld.-Fowler v.
Texas Exploration Co., 290 S. W. 818.

997 (3) (Ark.) Judgment by court, taking
case from jury on request, must stand on ap-
peal, if supported by substantial evidence.-
General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Sal-1011(1) (Mo.App.) Finding on conflicting
ter, 290 S. W. 584.
evidence as to branch referred to by indefinite
description in deed held binding on appeal.-
Green v. Page, 290 S. W. 451.

999 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding of jury on
question of negligence is binding upon Court of
Civil Appeals.-Veazey v. Galveston, H. & S.
A. Ry. Co., 290 S. W. 283.

1001 (1) (Ark.) Verdict, if sustained by any
substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on
appeal.-Fentress v. City Nat. Bank, 290 S. W.

58.

1011(1) (Mo.App.) Appellate court will de-
fer to trial judge's finding on merely conflicting
evidence.-Kelley v. Kelley, 290 S. W. 624.

1011(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings by trial
court on conflicting evidence are conclusive on
review.-Talamantes v. Flores, 290 S. W. 791.
1001 (1) (Ark.) Findings of jury that trans-1013 (Ky.) In suit for destruction of tel-
actions were based on wagering contracts, sup-
ported by sufficient evidence, are conclusive.-
William W. Cohen & Co. v. Austin, 290 S. W.
579.

(H) Harmless Error.

ephone line, award for unnecessary damage by
blasting will not be disturbed, on conflicting
evidence.-Eastern Kentucky Home Telephone
Co. v. Dempster Const. Co., 290 S. W. 684.
1001(1) (Ark.) Verdict sustained by sub-1024 (4) (Mo.App.) Appellate court may
stantial evidence cannot be disturbed.-V. G. weigh evidence, on appeal from judgment over-
Bloede Co. v. Mae Veneer Products Co., 290 ruling motion to set aside satisfaction of ali-
S. W. 603; Knight v. Wolpert, 290 S. W. 933; mony judgment.-Kelley v. Kelley, 290 S. W.
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Barry, 290 S. W. 942. 624.
1001 (1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Jury's verdict sup-
ported by some competent evidence will not be
disturbed.-Eastland County v. Davisson, 2901031(5) (Ky.) Appellate court will assume
S. W. 196.
that argument in reply to remarks of opposing
counsel, not shown in record, was not prej-
udicial, where court declined to rule that re-
marks were objectionable.-Hart Dry Cleaning
Co. v. Grizzel, 290 S. W. 1057.
ver-1033 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Question answered
favorably to party complaining of prejudicial
effect on jury is not ground for appeal.-Vea-
zey v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 290 S. W.
283.

1002 (Ky.) Jury's conclusions on conflict-
ing evidence are conclusive.-Georgetown Const.
Co. v. Moss & Donovan, 290 S. W. 1070.

1003 (Mo.App.) Evidence will not be weigh-
ed on appeal from judgment based on jury
dict.-Runnels v. Lasswell, 290 S. W. 644.

1004 (1) (Ky.) New trial is granted for
excessiveness of verdict only when it appears
to be result of passion or prejudice.-Chesa-
peake & O. Ry. Co. v. Dixon, 230 S. W. 1964. 1033 (8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignee of mort-
1005 (3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Appellate court gage, sued for value of property sequestered by
cannot disturb trial court's findings on motion him, could not complain that interest on note
for new trial on conflicting evidence.-Amarillo was allowed him to date beyond execution of
Traction Co. v. Russell, 290 S. W. 905.
replevy bond.-Williams v. Walker, 290 S. W.
299.

1008(1) (Ky.) Finding of circuit court will
not be reversed, where evidence raises doubt
as to truth.-Turner v. Kelly, 290 S. W. 711.

-

1008(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Sufficiency of evi-
dence cannot be attacked in Supreme Court.
Graham Nat. Bank v. Beavers, 290 S. W. 529.
~~~1008 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant held
bound by court's finding locating boundary con-
veyed by sheriff's deed, where field notes were
ambiguous.-Texas Co. v. Van Deventer, 290
S. W. 560.

1008 (2) (Tenn.) Chancellor's findings.after
waiver of jury are equivalent to jury's verdict,
when reviewed on appeal.-Boshears v. Foster,
290 S. W. 387.

Holder of mortgage sequestering property
whose claim was set off could not object to
judgment against him for conversion on ground
that mortgage allowed him to take possession.
-Id.

1035 (Ky.) Transfer of law cause to equity
docket held not prejudicial, where appellee was
entitled to judgment on pleadings as they stood
and appellants' proof of subsequently pleaded
defenses made no jury issue.-Charles v. Hop-
kins, 290 S. W. 720.

1042 (2) (Ky.) Striking allegation in an-
swer as to right of way in automobile colli-
sion action held not prejudicial, where no