« AnteriorContinuar »
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
thereon.-Cresson v. Wortham-Carter Pub.
must show evidence excluded to review ruling 302(5) (Ky.) Statement in motion for new thereon.--Cresson v. Wortham-Carter Pub. Co., trial that "judgment is against or contrary to 1077. law" is too general.-City Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 203.
(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record. VI. PARTJES.
Cum 714(6) (Mo.App.) Statement of court not
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
cepted to, not reviewable, where no error is (A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
assigned thereon.--Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302. Pue 344 (Ark.) Decree enjoining interference C719(4), (Tex.Civ.App.) Error held' fundawith grand officers of fraternal society held ww719(6) (Tex.civ.App.)' Direction of verdict final.-Blakely v. Newton, 907.
reviewable, regardless of sufficiency of assign(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds
ment of error.-Business Men's Oil Co. or Other Securities.
Priddy, 408. m392 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to jurisdic- ror after general demurrer and special excep
ww725(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Assignment of ertion of Court of Civil Appeals for insufficiency tions sustained held sufficient.-Kelly v. Southof appeal bond held too late on motion for re
western Bell Telephone Co., 658. hearing.-Drake v. Yawn, 726.
Cm731(5) (Tex.Com.App.) Assignment of er
ror that verdict is not supported by sufficient X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS
NOT IN evidence is too general to be considered.RECORD.
Thompson v. Smith, 1070. (A) Matters to be shown by Record.
Omw 733 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assigninents of error m499(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections not in held too indefinite to be considered on appeal.record not available.-Lancaster v. Faskin, 754. Hunt v. Dunlap, 760. Quro 499(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to evi- C 742(!) (Tex.civ.App.) Unintelligible assigndence must be reserved by bill of exception.- ments of error not considered on review.-Bell Werth v. Tevis, 767.
v. Mulkey, 784. 499(4) (Tex.Com.App:) Record must show Em742(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court need not reobjections to general charge, made before gard propositions in absence of proper statecharge_ read to jury.-Lamar v. Panhandle & ment.-Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Neubert, S. F. Ry. Co., 34.
139. Objections to main charge inserted in special Em742(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Proposition multicharges held timely.-Id.
farious, and not entitled to consideration.www502(7), (Mo.) Bill of exceptions not show- Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ruston, 143. ing exceptions to overruling of motion for new Sww743(1) (Tex.civ.App.) Propositions lacking trial presents nothing for review.-Newton v.
reference to record not considered on review.Olson-Schmidt Const. Co., 929.
Bell v. Mulkey, 781.
spite noncompliance with rules, where court
committed fundamental error:-Dickerson v. (C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case, McConnon & Co., 1084. or Statement of Facts,
771 (Tex.Com.App.) Dismissal by Court of Em544(2) (Ky.) Sufficiency of pleadings to Civil Appeals of appeal for failure of appellant sustain judgment only question reviewable in to seasonably file brief held not abuse of discreabsence of bill of exceptions.-Commercial Auto tion.-Rowntree v. Peck Furniture Co., 26. Co. v. Brandeis Machinery & Supply Co., 233.773(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant's failure 548(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether verdict is to file brief until two days before submission excessive cannot be determined without state ground for dismissal.—Mandry v. Brown Crackment of facts.-Mach v. Halve, 95.
er & Candy Co., 1095. Cm 553(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Statute as to re: 773(3) (Tex.Com.App.). Appellees held not viewing refusal of charge without formal bill prejudiced by failure to file briefs in time.of exceptions held applicable to cases submitted Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Cave, 23. on general charge or special issues.-Lamar v. Com 773(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Where Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.
apparent of record, requiring Court of Civil
Appeals to keep case on docket for considera(I) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and tion, no fundamental error shown.--Rowntree v. Correction,
Peck Furniture Co., 26. w 640 (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion to dismiss for 773(4), (Tex.civ.App.) Where no brief is failure to include caption in transcript, of which filed, and fundamental error does not appear of motion appellant had no notice, overruled.- record. judgment afirmed.--Tanner v. TanBowen, 63.
Cm773(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court will not re(J) Conclnsiveness and Effect, Impeach- view statement of facts to determine sufficiening and Contradicting.
cy of evidence when no briefs filed.--Eastham 3662(3) (Ky.) Omissions from bill of excep
v. Smither, 1099.
XIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR 664 (4) (Tex.civ.App.) Statement of facts
ABANDONMENT. controls, if bill of exceptions conflicts.-Bell v. 781(5) (Ark.) Question as to interference Mulkey, 784.
with officers of fraternal society held moot aft
er final decree not appealed froin.-Blakely v. (K) Questions Presented for Review,
Newton, 907. Paw 690(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bill of exceptions Cm790(3) (Ky.) Only moot question is premust show evidence admitted to review ruling I sented after owner bad been put in possession
by forcible detainer proceedings.-Roebuck v. sence of abuse of discretion.-Mahaney v. City Brown, 171.
of Cisco, 420. m797(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Failure of appel-Om.971 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Ruling on qualifilant to seasonably file brief not waired by ap: cation of witness testifying as to market value pellee failing to file motion to dismiss appeal of property not disturbed unless clearly wrong. within 30 days from filing of transcript.-Rown- -Rogers & Adams v. Lancaster, 660. tree v. Peck Furniture Co., 26.
Om971 (3) (Tex. Civ. App.) Ruling of trial XVI. REVIEW.
judge on cross-examination not disturbed if not
arbitrary and unreasonable.-Cresson y. Wor(A) Scope and Extent in General.
tham-Carter Pub. Co., 1077. ww837(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts in unverified Cw979(5) (Mo.) Discretion in setting aside motion to set aside judgment and for new trial verdicts because excessive or inadequate will not supported by evidence may be considered as not be disturbed, in absence of abuse. --Kelly v. admissions only.--Shear Co. v. Stuth, 158. Columbia Box Co., 589. E7837(10) (Ark.) Evidence not appearing in Em981 (Tex.Civ.Ápp.) Granting a new trial record not considered on appeal.---Belford v. for newly discovered evidence not reversible Abstor Wynne & Co., 265.
except for abuse of discretion of trial court.Cim843(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Merely academic is- Ferguson v. Jackson, 66. sue as respects appellant should not be decided, where case is afirmed.-Wunsch v. Burlington State Bank, 135.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and
Findings. Om 843(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether interest purchased at execution sale was contingent or 995 (Mo.App.) Not province of appellate vested remainder not considered on appeal by court to determine issue of fact.-Noland v. other than owner thereof.-Wunsch v. Burling. Morris & Co.,. 627. ton State Bank, 135.
em 1001(I) (Ky.) Court cannot reverse jury's
verdict on evidence sufficient to go to jury and (C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
properly submitted.—Jackson v. Dixon, i90. Om878(1) (Mo.) Only errors preserved by ap-1001 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) If evidence suffipellant considered in absence of cross-appeal. cient, verdict will not be set aside because evi-Turner v. Hine, 933.
dence not entirely satisfactory.-Jacobsen v. Cins878(7) (Ky.) Cross-appeal is necessary to Van Syckel, 124. entitle appellee to complain of provision in judg. Em 1001(I) (Tex.Civ.App.) Fact found by jury ment favoring coappellee.-Morganfield Nat.
on sufficient evidence considered established.Bank v. Union County Bank & Trust Co., 846. Merchants’ Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810. Few 882(9). (Tex.civ.App.) No reversal for tes-C002 (Tex.Civ.App.) Verdict on conflicting timony elícited by appellants' counsel on cross-cantile Co., 79; Booth v. Crosby, 417.
evidence not disturbed.-Payne v. Texas Merexamination.-Lancaster v. Faskin, 754. Cm883 (Ky.) Defendant refusing offered con- Cw1003 (Tex.Civ,App.) Appellate court will tinuance cannot complain of surprise by amend- reverse, when verdict is based on surmise, sus
picion, or conjecture, or is against preponderment.-Stephenson & Co. v. Bradbury, 1055.
ance of evidence.-Lowry v. Gill, 1096. (E) Presumptions.
Om 1009(4) (Ky.) Finding of chancellor not On907 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of
disturbed, unless against weight of evidence.showing to contrary, presumed that there was
Enfield v. Woods, 812. evidence supporting finding.-Morris v. Hall, C 1009 (4) (Ky.) Judgment of chancellor not 1100.
set aside unless against weight of evidence.Com 907(5). (Ky.) In absence of evidence, it is Mustain v: Vincent, 867. presumed it was sufficient to sustain findings. Om 1010(1) (Ark.) Findings of trial court ac---Lewis, v. Creasey Corporation, 1046.
cepted on appeal if supported by testimony.-Om917 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Trial court presum-Webb v. Spann, 285. ed to have proceeded regularly.-Kelly v. South-w1012(1) (Ky.) In absence of exceptions to western Bell Telephone Co., 658.
conclusions of law, court's findiugs of fact E926(5) (Mo.App.) Sustaining objection to treated as verdict of properly instructed jury. testimony recognition that not made too late.- 1-City Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 203. Noland v. Morris & Co., 627. w930 (1) (Ark.) On assignment of
(H) Harmless Error, that judgments
excessive, testimony viewed favorably to plaintiffs.-Chicago, R. I. Om 1030 (Ky.) Plaintiff not prejudiced because & P. Ry. Co. v. Comer, 268.
defendant's attorney filed demurrer before they ww930 (2) (Mo.) That jury followed instruc
were summoned.--Cooper v. Williamson, 245. tions presumed.-Kelly v. Columbia Box Co., Cm 1031(1). (Tex.Com.App.) Doubt as to prej. 589.
udice resolved in appellant's favor.--Lamar v. Paw 930 (2) (Tex.Civ. App.) Jury instructed to Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34. find value of plaintiff's property assumed not should clearly appear to be nonprejudicial.
Cow 1032(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Erroneous charge to have included property she did not own.- Lamar v. Pavhandle & S. F. Ry: Co., 34. Two States Telephone Co. v. Hurley, 424. 930(3) (Tex.civ.App.) No presumption as able error-Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.
Cam 1033(5) (Mo.App.) No complaint of favorto finding in absence of pleading.-M_Crea v.1033(8) (Ky.) Appellant cannot complain Spruill, 114. Cw931(1) (Mo.App.) Every reasonable pre-Steele. 191.
of alleged errors beneficial to him.-Dotson v. sumption indulged in to uphold judgment.King v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. of Detroit, one-half the value of wheat during years be
cm 1033(8) (Ky.) Allowance to defendant of Mich., 984. (ww933(4) (Mo.) Characterization by trial fore and after held favorable to plaintiff.-court of recovery as indicating passion and 1035 (Tex.civ.App.) Denial of jury held prejudice presumed correct.-Kelly v. Columbia not prejudicial. – Tucker v. Lingo, 1097. Box Co., 580. Cm934 (2) (Tex.Civ. App.). Presumptions in fa- days between alleged date of contract and ac
(1039(13) (Tex.civ.App.). Variance of two vor of right action of trial court, in absence tual date lield harmless.-Farmers' Mill & Eleof specific findings.-Terrell v. Otis Elevator vator. Co. v. Ilodges, 72. Co., 467.
Cw1041 (2) (Tex.civ.App.) Allowance of trial (F) Discretion of Lower Conrt. amendment of petition not prejudicial where no
showing by adverse party of inability to avoid w954(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court will surprise.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane,
SITION OF CAUSE.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Serles & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
1041 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to permit (I) Error Waived in Appellate Court. filing of amended pleading held not reversible 1078(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to brief error.-Farquharson r. Fresno Oil Co., 481. assignment waiver thereof.-Payne v Richards, C1042 (4) (Tex.Civ. App.) Failure to strike. 771. improper allegations hela not reversible error. -St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. (J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts. Culberson. 111.
1082(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Action of Court Om 1047(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Testimony as to of Civil Appeals not reviewed unless raised in injuries to trainmen held admissible, and an in application for writ of error.-City of Waco v. struction excluding it from consideration of jury Amicable Life Ins. Co., 332. harmful error.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. m1091(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Remanding of Ry. Co., 34.
case by Court of Civil Appeals for insufficiency em 1048(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in not per- of evidence binding on Supreme Court.-Rogers mitting more than one attorney to participate & Adams v. Lancaster, 660. in cross-examination not available where no injury shown.--St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v.
(K) Subsequent Appeals. Lane, 59.
Com 1096(1) (Ark.) Opinion on former appeal 1050(1) (Ky.) Evidence not confining dam- of same case must be construed in light of ages to appurtenant land held incompetent and facts there stated.--Atkinson Improvement Co. prejudicial.-Harp v. Brookshire, 177.
v. Nakdimen, 561. Om 1050(1) (Mo.) Admission of evidence of 1097(1) (Ark.) Opinion on former appeal habitual disregard of railroad's rule against is law of case, binding on appellate court on employees boarding moving engines while in subsequent appeal.-Atkinson Improvement Co. middle of track not prejudicial, where employee v. Nakdimen, 561. forced to act to save himself.-Laughlin v. Mis- 1097 (8) (Ky.) Opinion on motion to dissouri Pac. R. Co., 949.
solve temporary injunction is not binding on Om 1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.). Evidence as to con- appeal on the merits.-Lewis v. Creasey Corversation and transaction immaterial and not poration, 1046. bearing on alleged contract between broker and 1099 (7) (Ky.) Holding on former appeal purchaser held prejudicial.-Smith v. Tucker, as to sufficiency of evidence conclusive when 125.
materially different.-Benge's C1050(1) (Tex.civ.App.) Admission of Adm'r v. Garrison. 1050. • hearsay evidence held harmless error.–Baker www 1099 (8) (Mo.App.) Issue on former appeal v. Pierce, 439.
not adjudicata.--Hollis v. Kansas City C1050(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence in form Light & Power Co., 634. of conclusions of law upon 'undisputed facts held harmless.-Lancaster v.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO
Faskin, 754. C1051(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of letter, though erroneous, held not reversible error,
(C) Modification, where it could not affect findings on controlling Om 1152 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court canissues.-Jacobsen v. Van Syckel, 124.
not reform judgment of trial court and make Suas 1056(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Exclusion of_ma-temporary restraining order out of permanent terial evidence held prejudicial.-Lamar v. Pan- injunction.--Fort Worth Acid Works v. City handle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.
of Fort Worth, 822. m1056(4). (Tex.civ.App.) Exclusion of testimony held harmless error, where court's ad
(D) Reversal. verge finding unquestioned.--Farquharson w1170(1) (Ky.) Technical error will not be Fresno Oil Co., 481.
allowed to defeat policy to bring litigation to 1056(5) (Tex.civ.App.) Failure to strike early close.-Cooper v. Williamson, 245. improper allegations and exclude testimony om i 171(1) (Tex.civ.App.) No reversal for thereunder held not reversible error.–St. Louis failure to award nominal damages.-Cresson v. Southwestern Ry, Co. of Texas v. Culberson. Wortham-Carter Pub. Co., 1077. 111.
Om 1172(1) (Ky.) Lessee wrongfully disposOm 1057(2) (Ky.) Exclusion of evidence driver sessed held entitled to amounts expended by did not signal held prejudicial.-Robson v. Zum- him though cause otherwise reversed.-Hogg v. stein Taxicab Co., 872.
Forsythe, 1008. C1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Question whether am 1173(I) (Ky.) Judgment against Director party testifying was willing for jury to inspectGeneral need not be reversed because also renfarms and court's remark that they could do so dered against company.-Payne v. Raymond's if counsel agreed held not reversible error.-Adm'r, 224. Mach v. Halve, 95.
Eww1177(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Case not remandCw1062(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to submited to give jury trial, where appellee made no special issue as to whether there was market request for submission of issues found by court value for cattle at destination not prejudicial in its favor.-Grice v. American Ry. Express error.--Payne v. Richards, 771.
Co., 82. Om 1064(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Charge erroneous-m1177(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment may be ly excluding evidence held improper and preju- rendered on appeal on evidence improperly exdicial in stating evidence was "highly improp- cluded.-Starks v. Loftus, 1090. er."-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.C 1177 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Case need not be Ca 1068(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to instruct remanded. where appellee cannot disprove fact on contributory negligence not error in view of showing liability.-Grice v. American Ry. Exverdict.--Davis v. Christmas, 126.
press Co., 82. 1068(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) When refusal to 1177 (7) (Tex.Civ. App.)Chattel mortgage charge on proximate cause held not error. foreclosure suit remanded despite want of Middleton v. Moore, 768.
proof of purchasers' lack of knowledge of mortWhen refusal to submit special issue defining gage. where not apparent that case was fully negligence held not error.-Id.
developed.-East Texas Motor Co. v. Baugh1068 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of instruc- man. 802. tion as to extra feed bill and cost of gathering Cal 177(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where evidence in cattle harmless in view of verdict.-Payne v. support of controverting affidavit not offered Richards, 771.
through mistake, cause should be remanded w 1071 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to file find- with opportunity to offer.-Allen v. Williams, ings and conclusions within time required not 1116. reversible error in absence of prejudice, where 1180(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment on apfull statement of facts is filed.-Evans v. peal held to affect parties not appealing where Smoot, 742.
single question involved.-Drake v. Yawn, 726.
(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. Court,
(B) Prosecution and Punishment. 1195(1) (Ark.) Opinion on former appeal om92 (Mo.) Conviction held supported by eviis law of case, binding on parties on retrial.-dence.-State v. Walker, 947. Atkinson Improvement Co. v. Nakdimen, 561. 1208(5) (Ky.) No liability for acts per: serious held warranted.-Windham v. State, 51.
On 92 (Tex.Cr.App.) Conclusion that injury was formed in obedience to judgment subsequently reversed.--Harp v. Brookshire, 177.
ASSESSMENT. Denial of injunction against obstruction, subsequently reversed, does not prevent liability See Drains, m88; Highways, 148; Mufor intervening damages.-Id.
nicipal Corporations, m412-552; Taxation, Om 1208(5) (Ky.) Lessee wrongfully dispos
m304470. sessed held entitled to either unexpired portion of term or to recovery of damages.-Hogg v.
ASSIGNMENTS. Forsythe, 1008.
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. Om 1215 (Ky.) Instructions approved on prior
(A) Property, Estates, and Rights Asappeal held law of case.-Green River Light &
signable. Water Co. v. Beeler, 201.
Instructions in personal injury action relative m8 (Ky.) Conveyance of mere expectancy to proximate cause of injury held not contrary Coal Co. v. Riddle, 530.
from person then living is void.-Consolidation to law of case.-Id.
w 129 (Ark.) Insured assignor of claim under 18 (Ark.) Special appearance and motion insurance policy necessary party in insurer of defendant to quash service of summons gave assignee's action thereon.-National Fire Ins. court jurisdiction to determine such issue.- Co. v. Pettit-Galloway Co., 262. Brown & Hackney v. Stephenson, 556.
ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF APPRENTICES.
CREDITORS. Om 8 (Ky.) Contract not complying with stat
V. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF ute is valid in so far as executed.-Brooks V.
CREDITORS. Madden, 503.
(C) Claims and Liens Prior or Superior to
Smo 333 (Mo.App.) Trustee for creditors not See Criminal Law, Ow711-730; Trial, Pue liable to debtor's assignee in absence of notice 120-133.
of assignment.-Moskovitz v. Reynolds, 618. ARREST.
(D) Setting Aside Assignment. I. IN CIVIL ACTIONS,
Om 348 (Mo.App.) Debtor necessary party em 4 (Ky.) Attachment and imprisonment for to creditor's action against trustee for insurenforcement of decree still exists.-Napier v.
ance money collected by him.-Moskovitz v. Napier, 529.
See Insurance, Om723-825.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK, Partin v. Commonwealth, 489. Cu 68 (ky) Officers substantially comply with See Master and Servant, em 204-217. law by stating offense and demanding arrest, if no further opportunity is given.-Cornett v.
ATTACHMENT. Commonwealth, 540.
See Garnishment. Officer can use apparently necessary force if person committing misdemeanor fires at him. V. LEVY, LIEN, AND CUSTODY AND DIS--Id.
POSITION ON PROPERTY. 69 (Ky.) Any member of posse may de-a 201 (Tex.civ.App.) Attaching creditor not mand surrender of culprit; "aid."--Cornett v. advancing new consideration held not "bona Commonwealth, 540.
fide purchaser."-Shear Co. v. Stuth, 158.
One purchasing with notice of outstanding ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
claim of third party not bona fide purchaser.
-Id. See Criminal Law, ww970–974.
Notice informing purchaser of interest of
third parties depends on facts of each case. ARSON.
-Id. 31 (Ky.) Evidence held incompetent to
XI. WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT, show motive.--Springs v. Commonwealth. 535.
37(1) (Ky.) Evidence held insuficient to Ow366 (Ark.). Compensatory damages for sustain a conviction.-Springs v. Common- wrongful attachment recoverable only in action wealth, 535.
to dissolve.-Sonsee v. Jones & Green, 289.
Damages for injury to credit recoverable in ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
separate action.--Id. See Homicide.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
See Criminal Law, C711-730; District and 1. CIVIL LIABILITY.
Prosecuting Attorneys; Trial, Em120-133. (B) Actions. Cm 28 (Tex.Civ.App.) Permitting evidence that
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN OF
ATTORNEY. defendant was road overseer acting under orders at time of alleged assault not error.-Hay.
(A) Fees and Other Remuneration. erbekken v. Johnson, 102.
m 134(2) (Tex. Com. App.) Attorney wrongww39 (Tex.Civ.App.) Mistake is defense to fully discharged held entitled to recover punitory damages.-Haverbekken v. Johnson, quantum meruit.-Thompson v. Sinith, 1070. 102.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in suit by attorney on quantum meruit for against public policy.-Fidelity & Deposit Co. breach of contract to recover real estate.-Id. of Maryland v. Risien, 1105. BAIL.
II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. II. IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
w 129(2)(Mo.App.) Failure to pay install.
ments due held not to make remainder of note +49 (Tex.Cr.App.) Court may allow with- due without exercise of option of holder.out habeas corpus.-Ex parte Meador, 348. Putthoff v. Walker, 619. Om70 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bail bond given by appellant after adjournment of trial court, ap- | V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON INDORSE. proved only by sheriff, insufficient.--Livingston
MENT OR TRANSFER. v. State, 363.
(C) Assignment or Sale. BAILMENT.
313 (Tex.Com.App.) Registration act not See Pledges.
applicable to assignment of notes as such.
Adams v. Williams, 673.
(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.
330 (Tex.Com.App.) Parol transfer held III. ASSIGNMENT, ADMINISTRATION, AND sufficient to entitle transferee to protection as DISTRIBUTION OF BANKRUPT'S
innocent holder.--Adams v. Williams, 673. ESTATE. (F) Claims Against and Distribution of transferee in due course of defenses to note
Pro 339 (Tex.civ.App.) Rule as to notice to Estate.
stated.-Smith v. Word, 734. Caos 363 (Tenn.) Filing claim in bankruptcy Om 343 (Tex.civ.App.). Knowledge that note against consignee for freight does not waive was given in consideration of unperformed conright against consignor.-Cleveland, C., C. & tract by payee does not affect indorsee's rights, St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., unless he had notice of breach.-Merchants' 297.
Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810.
359 (Tex.Com.App.) Taking note in payV. RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND DISCHARGE 'ment of pre-existing debt is taking in due OF BANKRUPT.
course.-Adams v. Williams, 673. Cm 390 (Tex.Civ.App.) Bankrupt held to have interest in exempt property authorizing pros
VII. PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE. ecution of suit, notwithstanding bankruptcy. ww435 (Tex.Civ.App.) Indorsee's promise to Chaffin v. Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co., 715. cancel notes, if it could not induce payee to Ow434 (Mo.App.) Moral consideration suffi- remedy defects in articles for which given, sup. cient to support new promise after commence-ported by valuable consideration.-Merchants' ment of proceedings.--Boone County Milling & | Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810. Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623. 436(2) (Mo.App.) Any testimony to prove
VIII. ACTIOTS. new promise is admissible.-Boone. County Millow444 (Tex.Civ.App.) Creditor need not reing & Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623.
sort to collateral security before recovery Omw436(3) (Mo.App.) Finding of new promise after filing of petition sustained.-Boone Coun- against surety, in absence of express contract. ty Milling & Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623.
-Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McGhee, 155.
Om452(4) (Ky.) Breach of contract for which BASTARDS.
note given held not to sustain defense of fraud.
-Pratt v. York, 492. II. CUSTODY, SUPPORT, AND PROTECTION. 497(5) (Tex.civ.App.) Placing burden of
w 17 (Ky.) Father's promise to provide for proof on transferee of note to show good bastard children valid, if supported by consid-faith and purchase for value held proper.eration.-Steele v. Crawford, 197.
Smith v. Word, 734.
501 (Tex.civ.App.) Bank statement for pe: IV. PROPERTY.
riod subsequent to term of office of official www.102 (Mo.App.) Statutory intestacy statute held not admissible as against him.---Booth v. held to preserve right of inheritance to legiti- Crosby, 417, mate "children" only.-Baker v. Stucker, 1003.
Exclusion of evidence that defendant in suit Statute giving bastards inheritable blood as
on notes had left town, leaving unpaid debts, to their mothers liberally construed.-Id.
not erroneous.-Id. Bastards "quasi legitimate" under inheritance in 518(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held not to statute; "quasi.”—Id.
show payee's agreement to secure mortgage to
protect indorser.--Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McBENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS. Ghee, 155.
ww519 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence in action See Insurance, C723-825.
against indorser held to show that vendor's BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
lien on maker's property had ceased to be avail
able for security.-Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McSee Exceptions, Bill of.
Omw 520 (Ky.) Evidence held to sustain judg. BILLS AND NOTES.
ment for defendant on grounds of fraud and I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. conditional delivery.-City Nat. Bank v. Wal(E) Consideration,
en 525 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held suffi92(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Note executed by cient to impeach good faith of purchaser of guardian and others to replace money convert note before maturity.-Smith v. Word, 734. ed is supported by valid consideration.-Fidelity Own 537(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issue of good faith & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Risien, 1105. and purchase for value held properly submitOm92 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Note for excess ted to jury.-Smith v. Word, 731. acreage held supported by consideration. Lone C5384) (Tex.civ.App.) Burden of showing Star Immigration Co. v. Schadwinkel, 1115, lack of knowledge of fraud in inception of note
improperly placed on transferee.--Smith (F) Validity.
Word, 734. Om 103(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Note for excess
BONDS, acreage not fraudulently procured.-Lone Star Immigration Co. v. Schadwinkel, 1115.
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. Emay 106 (Tex.Civ.App.) Execution of note to 32 (Tex.Civ.App.) If bond contains subreplace money converted by guardian not stantial requirements of statute, it is valid.-