Smith v. Smith (Ark.) 439 State, Garner v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 98 Smith v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) Smith v. Wofford (Tex. Civ. App.) Sneed v. McFatridge (Tex. Civ. App.) Somerset, Thomas v. (Ky.). South, Aikman v. (Ky.) Southern R. Co. v. Goddard (Ky.). 392 Southern R. Co. V. Hamblen County (Tenn.) 455 499 State, Gibson v. (Tex. Cr. App.) 143 State, Gilbert v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 113 State, Gonzales v. (Tex. Cr. App.) 420 State, Grabill v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 4 State, Grant v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Harrall v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Harris v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State v. Harroun (Mo. Sup.). 468 693 487 .1046 .1134 .1057 704 866 Southern Salt Co. v. Roberson (Tex. Civ. South Omaha Nat. Bank v. Boyd (Ark.).. 288 Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World v. Boehme (Tex. Civ. App.).. 847 .1105 11 Spaugh, State v. (Mo. Sup.). Spaulding v. Edina (Mo. App.). State, Henderson v. (Tex. Cr. App.)......1134 State, Hernandez v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Herrin v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State v. Herron (Mo. Sup.). State, Higgins v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Horn v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 901 State, Jackson v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 545 State, Jones v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 228 State v. Kearney (Mo. Sup.). 469 State, Kilpatrick v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 511 State, King v. (Tex. Cr. App.).. 92 88 878 .1054 822 312 89 894 .1044 488 Spratt v. Early (Mo. Sup.).. 925 Springfield Traction Co., Cramer v. App.) (Mo. 969 Stacy v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 39 State, Lewis v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State v. Looney (Mo. Sup.). 481 934 Staff v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.)..1089 State, Luck v. (Tex. Or. App.). .1049 970 State, Mabry v. (Ark.). 285 812 Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., John State, McNamee v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Mays v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 96 703 State, Menach v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 503 Standley v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. State, Menefee v. (Tex. Cr. App.).. 486 (Mo. App.). 244 Stanley v. Greenberg (Ark.). .1133 State, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 720 Stapleton v. State (Ark.).. 296 Starr-Hardnett & Edmiston Co. v. Mis State, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas, v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 724 .... souri. K. & T. R. Co. (Mo. App.). State, Abbott v. (Tex. Cr. App.) State, Bisby v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, Cordova v. (Tex. Cr. App.). State, De Armon v. (Tex. Cr. App.) State v. Mitchell (Mo. Sup.) 488 State, Money v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1055 State v. Mulhall (Mo. Sup.). .1044 State, Mundine v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1134 State, Neely v. (Tex. Cr. App.).. 694 State, Nixon v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 81 State v. O'Connor (Mo. Sup.). .1058 State, Oxford v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 94 State v. Palmberg (Mo. Sup.) .1130 State v. Penland (Mo. Sup.). 667 State, Perkins v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1036 State, Peters v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 578 State v. Phillips (Mo. Sup.). 315 State, Phillips v. (Ark.). 86 State, Pipkin v. (Ark.). 89 State, Polk v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 698 State, Potts v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1134 State, Powers v. (Tenn.).. .1134 State, Purdy v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 91 State, Reese v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 706 State, Riggs v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 467 State, Sanders v. (Tex. Cr. App.) 705 State v. Scott (Mo. Sup.).. 100 State v. Seigenthaler (Mo. App.). 496 State, Sharp v. (Tenn.). 573 State, Simmons v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 472 State, Smith v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 236 State v. Spaugh (Mo. Sup.). 694 State, Speer v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 574 State, Stapleton v. (Ark.) 683 State v. Stephens (Mo. Sup.).. 87 State, Stephens v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 485 State, Stovall v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 449 State, Taft v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 592 State, Taggart v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 54 State, Taylor v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 479 State, Taylor v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 894 State, Taylor v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 692 State v. Teasdale (Mo. App.)... 959 561 90 583 490 .1134 703 .1133 484 566 561 .1047 498 947 .1132 61 467 477 815 480 697 482 .1046 .1134 271 812 .1052 499 901 469 296 860 483 92 494 95 94 473 474 995 State v. Vaughan (Mo. Sup.). ..... State, Walker v. (Tex. Cr. App.). Texas & P. R. Co. v. Beal & Self (Tex. Civ. App.).. 329 509 506 366 420 297 State, Wright v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 699 Thompson, Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 106 698 State ex inf. Hadley v. Kirkwood Social Athletic Club (Mo. App.).. 980 State ex inf. Hadley v. Rose Hill Pastime Athletic Club (Mo. App.)... State ex rel. Democrat Printing Co. v. Wilder (Mo. Sup.).. (Ark.). .1133 940 Tillar v. Wilson (Ark.). .1133 State ex rel. Morgan County v. Wilder (Mo. Sup.). Tims, Morgan v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 832 864 State ex rel. Paulette v. Bandel (Mo. App.) 222 650 State ex rel. Sale v. McElhinney (Mo. Steideman, Red Diamond Clothing Co. v. (Mo. App.)... Sup.) 159 220 Stein, Camden Interstate R. Co. v. (Ky.).. Stelsly, McBurnie v. (Ky.). 394 Tinch, Pipkin v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .1077 413 413 147 164 42 Stephens v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Stephens, State v. (Mo. Sup.).. 483 Troll v. United Rys. Co. (Mo. App.) Troutman, State v. (Mo. Sup.).. 234 873 860 Stephens v. Texas & P. R. Co. (Tex. Sup.) 309 Trump, International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex. Sup.). 464 1075 Story, City of Tyler v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. Stout's Adm'r, Woodland Cemetery Co. v. (Ky.) 856 Turner, Cane Belt R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) .1066 Stovall v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) Strickland v. Strickland (Ark.). ... 92 Turner v. Terrill (Ky.). 396 659 Turner, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. .... Sumpter v. Duffie (Ark.). 435 Tuttle v. Robert Moody & Son (Tex. 707 359 Supreme Commandery Golden Cross, Conner v. (Tenn.)... Swango, Rittenhouse v. (Ky.).. Taft v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). .1007 Tyler v. Coleman (Ky.).......... .1027 Ulrich, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Mo. Sup.) .1037 373 Union Casualty & Surety Co., Graham v. (Mo. App.). 614 Taylor v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 473 474 441 United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Troll v. (Mo. App.) 234 995 United States v. Buckles (Ind. T.).. 1022 United States, Ellis v. (Ind. T.). .1013 Teasdale & Co. v. American Fruit Product Co. (Mo. App.). 655 Templeton, Fussell v. (Ark.). .1131 United States, Leftridge v. (Ind. T.)....1018 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Brock & Co. (Ark.). .1133 Tennessee Cent. R. Co. v. Brasher's Guard Tennis Coal Co., Brock v. (Ky.) 46 Terrell, Welhausen v. (Tex. Sup.). 79 Terrill, Turner v. (Ky.).... Terrio, State v. (Mo. Sup.). 893 Utsey, Harper v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 508 WRITS OF ERROR WERE DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES IN THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS PRIOR TO JANUARY 2, 1907. [Cases in which writs of error have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this reporter.] SECOND DISTRICT. Choctaw, O. & T. Ry. Co. v. McLaughlin, 96 S. W. 1091. THIRD DISTRICT. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Parrott, 96 S. W. 950. FOURTH DISTRICT. McAllen v. Raphael, 96 S. W. 760. See End of Index for Tables of Southwestern Cases in State Reports. THE SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER. VOLUME 97. LINDSEY v. BRAWNER. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Nov. 2, 1906.) 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS STREET IMPROVEMENTS-CONSTRUCTION-RECONSTRUC TION. Where the street in front of plaintiff's property had been temporarily repaired from time to time by the laying of macadam, and the owners had never been called on to pay for the paving of the street, a paving with brick, laid under an ordinance for part of which the abutting property owners were taxed, constituted original construction, and not reconstruction. [Ed. Note. For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 1017.] 2. SAME-CONTRACT-PERFORMANCE-PENALTY. Where a city did not insist on a penalty for delay included in a contract for street improvement, an abutting property owner taxed for the improvement is not entitled to credit for any part of such penalty. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 1102.] 3. SAME-DELAY-PREJUDICE. Where certain street improvement work was completed in front of defendant's property and for at least a square and a half beyond within the time specified in the contract, defendant was not prejudiced by the contractor's failure to do the remainder of the work in time. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, §§ 1066, 894.] 4. SAME-RELEASE OF PENALTY. A city, being required to provide for street improvements, to contract therefor, and regulate the time within which the work should be completed, had power to relieve the contractor from liability for a penalty incurred for failure to perform the work within the time specified. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 894.] 5. SAME-CONTRACT-EXECUTION. Where a contract for a street between "W. S. Dehoney, mayor of the city of Frankfort, party of the first part, and W. F. Brawner, party of the second part," was signed, "City of Frankfort. by W. S. Dehoney, Mayor," it was the contract of the city with statutes (Ky. St. 1903, § 3450), requiring the mayor to enter into a contract for street improvements with the contractor. [Ed. Note. For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 867.] 6. SAME-PERFORMANCE OF WORK-CONTRACT -VARIANCE. Ky. St. 1903, §§ 3451, 3452, 3453, 3458, require that street improvement work must be performed under the supervision of the mayor and engineer of the city, and be subject to the acceptance of the council; that when the coun97 S. W.-1 cil shall have passed an ordinance and made a contract pursuant thereto, and shall have received the work as done according to contract, then all liability of the owners of the property chargeable with the cost shall be fixed, and in such cases defendant shall not defend on the ground that the work was not done according to contract, but the court shall have power to correct any mistake or error of the engineer or city council so as to do complete justice to all parties. Held, that where, after the execution of a contract for the paving of a street with brick, it was determined by the city to change the material from brick to macadam in so far as it applied to certain street car tracks along the center of the street, which change was beneficial to the property owner, it did not exempt him from liability to pay a special assessment for the improvement. 7. SAME-GUARANTY OF WORK AND STIPULATION FOR REPAIRS. By a street improvement contract, the contractor guarantied that the material and workmanship should be first-class in every particular. He further guarantied that he would keep the street in good repair for five years and restore and repair at his expense any defects appearing in said street within said time. Held, that such clauses should be read together and only obligated the contractor for such repairs as were made necessary by the defectiveness of the work and materials, and not from unexpected causes. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 901.] 8. APPEAL-PREJUDICE. In an action on an assessment for street improvement, a property owner was not prejudiced by the fact that the judgment covered only a part of his lot, and that no personal judgment was rendered against him. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 4060, 4061.] 9. JUDGMENT CLERICAL ERRORS TION. - CORREC Where, in an action on an assessment for street improvement, it appeared on the face of the papers that the city engineer's estimate was erroneous, and that the assessment should have been for a smaller amount than that adjudged against him, the error could have been corrected as a clerical misprision by motion in the circuit court. [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 30, Cent. Dig. Judgment, § 598.] Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County. "Not to be officially reported." Action by W. F. Brawner against D. W. Lindsey. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. |