For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

(D) Motions for New Trial.

thereon.-Cresson V. Wortham-Carter Pub.

301 (Ky.) Error in instruction, not made Co., 1077. ground for new trial, cannot be considered.-692(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bill of exceptions Patton v. Woodrow, 226. must show evidence excluded to review ruling thereon.-Cresson v. Wortham-Carter Pub. Co.,

302(5) (Ky.) Statement in motion for new trial that "judgment is against or contrary to law" is too general.-City Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 203.

VI. PARTIES.

335 (Ky.) Statement naming only nominal party as appellee held insufficient.-Caudill Coal Co. v. Solner Mining Co., 533.

VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS
FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE.

(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
344 (Ark.) Decree enjoining interference
with grand officers of fraternal society held
final.-Blakely v. Newton, 907.

(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds or Other Securities.

392 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to jurisdiction of Court of Civil Appeals for insufficiency of appeal bond held too late on motion for rehearing. Drake v. Yawn, 726.

1077.

(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record. 714(6) (Mo.App.) Statement of court not to be considered on appeal.-Franklin v. Kansas City, 616.

XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

719(1) (Tenn.) Court's ruling, though excepted to, not reviewable, where no error is assigned thereon.-Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302. mental.-McCrea v. Spruill, 114. 719(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error held funda

719(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Direction of verdict reviewable, regardless of sufficiency of assignment of error.-Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy, 408.

725(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Assignment of error after general demurrer and special exceptions sustained held sufficient.-Kelly v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 658.

731(5) (Tex.Com.App.) Assignment of error that verdict is not supported by sufficient X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN evidence is too general to be considered.Thompson v. Smith, 1070.

RECORD.

733 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error held too indefinite to be considered on appeal.Hunt v. Dunlap, 760.

(A) Matters to be Shown by Record. 499(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections not in record not available.-Lancaster v. Faskin, 754. 499 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to evi-742(1) (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 742 (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.

Objections to main charge inserted in special charges held timely.-Id.

502(7) (Mo.) Bill of exceptions not showing exceptions to overruling of motion for new trial presents nothing for review.-Newton v. Olson-Schmidt Const. Co., 929.

509 (Tex.Civ.App.) Jurisdiction of Court of Civil Appeals depends on notice of appeal being given, not on the record of such fact.-Drake v Yawn, 726.

(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case, or Statement of Facts.

139.

742 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Proposition multifarious, and not entitled to consideration.Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ruston, 143.

743(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Propositions lacking reference to record not considered on review.— Bell v. Mulkey, 784.

XII. BRIEFS.

755 (Tex.Civ.App.) Brief considered, despite noncompliance with rules, where court committed fundamental error.-Dickerson v. McConnon & Co., 1084.

771 (Tex.Com.App.) Dismissal by Court of 544(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.

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. 773(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Where Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

(I) Defects, Objections. Amendment, and Correction,

no error

apparent of record, requiring Court of Civil Appeals to keep case on docket for consideration, no fundamental error shown.-Rowntree v. Peck Furniture Co., 26.

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 motion appellant had no notice, overruled.Davis v. Bowen, 63.

(J) Conclusiveness and Effect, Impeaching and Contradicting.

662(3) (Ky.) Omissions from bill of exceptions must be saved by plaintiff's bills.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wood, 871.

filed, and fundamental error does not appear of record. judgment affirmed.-Tanner v. Tanner, 64.

773(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court will not review statement of facts to determine sufficiency of evidence when no briefs filed.-Eastham v. Smither, 1099.

XIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR

ABANDONMENT.

664(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statement of facts controls, if bill of exceptions conflicts.-Bell v.781 (5) (Ark.) Question as to interference Mulkey, 784.

(K) Questions Presented for Review. 690 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bill of exceptions must show evidence admitted to review ruling

with officers of fraternal society held moot after final decree not appealed from.-Blakely v. Newton, 907.

790(3) (Ky.) Only moot question is presented after owner had been put in possession

by forcible detainer proceedings.-Roebuck v. sence of abuse of discretion.-Mahaney v. City Brown, 171. of Cisco, 420.

797 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Failure of appel-971 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Ruling on qualifilant to seasonably file brief not waived 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.

XVI. REVIEW.

971 (3) (Tex. Civ. App:) Ruling of trial judge on cross-examination not disturbed if not arbitrary and unreasonable.-Cresson v. Wortham-Carter Pub. Co., 1077.

979 (5) (Mo.) Discretion in setting aside verdicts because excessive or inadequate will not be disturbed, in absence of abuse.-Kelly v. Columbia Box Co., 589.

(A) Scope and Extent in General. 837(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts in unverified motion to set aside judgment and for new trial not supported by evidence may be considered as admissions only.-Shear Co. v. Stuth, 158. 837(10) (Ark.) Evidence not appearing in 981 (Tex.Civ.App.) 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.Ferguson v. Jackson, 66.

843(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Merely academic issue as respects appellant should not be decided, where case is affirmed.-Wunsch v. Burlington State Bank, 135.

843 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether interest purchased at execution sale was contingent or vested remainder not considered on appeal by other than owner thereof.-Wunsch v. Burlington State Bank, 135.

(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings.

995 (Mo.App.) Not province of appellate court to determine issue of fact.-Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

1001 (1) (Ky.) Court cannot reverse jury's verdict on evidence sufficient to go to jury and properly submitted.-Jackson v. Dixon, 190.

(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error. €878(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.

878 (7) (Ky.) Cross-appeal is necessary to Van Syckel, 124. entitle appellee to complain of provision in judg-1001(1) (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.

882(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) No reversal for tes-1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) Verdict on conflicting timony elicited by appellants' counsel on cross-cantile Co., 79; Booth v. Crosby, 417. evidence not disturbed.-Payne v. Texas Merexamination.-Lancaster v. Faskin, 754.

883 (Ky.) Defendant refusing offered con- 1003 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court will tinuance cannot complain of surprise by amend-reverse, when verdict is based on surmise, susment.-Stephenson & Co. v. Bradbury, 1055.

picion, or conjecture, or is against preponderance of evidence.-Lowry v. Gill, 1096.

1009 (4) (Ky.) Finding of chancellor not disturbed, unless against weight of evidence.Enfield v. Woods, 842.

1009 (4) (Ky.) Judgment of chancellor not set aside unless against weight of evidence.Mustain v. Vincent, 867.

907(5) (Ky.) In absence of evidence, it is presumed it was sufficient to sustain findings. 1010(1) (Ark.) Findings of trial court ac-Lewis, v. Creasey Corporation, 1046. cepted on appeal if supported by testimony.

917(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Trial court presum-Webb v. Spann, 285. ed to have proceeded regularly.-Kelly v. South-1012(1) (Ky.) In absence of exceptions to western Bell Telephone Co., 658. conclusions of law, court's findings of fact 926 (5) (Mo.App.) Sustaining objection to treated as verdict of properly instructed jury. testimony recognition that not made too late.--City Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 203.

Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

930(1) (Ark.) On assignment of error that judgments were excessive, testimony viewed favorably to plaintiffs.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Comer, 268.

930(2) (Mo.) That jury followed instructions presumed.-Kelly v. Columbia Box Co.,

589.

930 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Jury instructed to find value of plaintiff's property assumed not to have included property she did not own. Two States Telephone Co. v. Hurley, 424.

930 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) No presumption as to finding in absence of pleading.-McCrea v. Spruill, 114.

931(1) (Mo.App.) Every reasonable presumption indulged in to uphold judgment. King v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 984.

933(4) (Mo.) Characterization by trial court of recovery as indicating passion and prejudice presumed correct.-Kelly v. Columbia Box Co., 589.

934 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Presumptions in favor of right action of trial court, in absence of specific findings.-Terrell v. Otis Elevator Co., 467.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court. 954(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court will not reverse order refusing injunction, in ab

(H) Harmless Error.

~1030 (Ky.) Plaintiff not prejudiced because defendant's attorney filed demurrer before they were summoned.-Cooper v. Williamson, 245. 1031(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Doubt as to prejudice resolved in appellant's favor.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

should clearly appear to be nonprejudicial.-
1032(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Erroneous charge
Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

able error.-Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.
1033(5) (Mo.App.) No complaint of favor-

1033 (8) (Ky.) Appellant cannot complain
Steele, 191.
of alleged errors beneficial to him.-Dotson v.

1033 (8) (Ky.) Allowance to defendant of one-half the value of wheat during years before and after held favorable to plaintiff.

1035 (Tex.Civ.App.) Denial of jury held not prejudicial.-Tucker v. Lingo, 1097. days between alleged date of contract and ac1039(13) (Tex.Civ.App.) Variance of two tual date held harmless.-Farmers' Mill & Elevator. Co. v. Hodges, 72.

Duncan's Ex'rs v. Porch, 526.

1041 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Allowance of trial amendment of petition not prejudicial where no showing by adverse party of inability to avoid surprise.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

1125

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER (I) Error Waived in Appellate Court. 1041(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to permit filing of amended pleading held not reversible 1078(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to brief assignment waiver thereof.-Payne v Richards, error.-Farquharson v. Fresno Oil Co., 481. 771.

1042(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to strike improper allegations held not reversible error. -St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Culberson. 111.

1047(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Testimony as to injuries to trainmen held admissible, and an instruction excluding it from consideration of jury harmful error.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

1048 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in not permitting more than one attorney to participate in cross-examination not available where no injury shown.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.

1082 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Action of Court of Civil Appeals not reviewed unless raised in application for writ of error.-City of Waco v. Amicable Life Ins. Co., 332. Remanding case by Court of Civil Appeals for insufficiency of evidence binding on Supreme Court.-Rogers & Adams v. Lancaster, 660.

1091(1) (Tex.Com.App.)

(K) Subsequent Appeals.

of

1096(1) (Ark.) Opinion on former appeal of same case must be construed in light of facts there stated.-Atkinson Improvement Co. v. Nakdimen, 561.

1050(1) (Ky.) Evidence not confining damages to appurtenant land held incompetent and prejudicial.-Harp v. Brookshire, 177. 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 dissolve temporary injunction is not binding on souri Pac. R. Co., 949. appeal on the merits.-Lewis v. Creasey Corporation, 1046.

1050(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Evidence as to conversation and transaction immaterial and not 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 evidence not materially different.-Benge's 125. Adm'r v. Garrison, 1050.

(Tex.Civ.App.) Admission 1050(1) of hearsay evidence held harmless error.-Baker v. Pierce, 439.

1050(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence in form of conclusions of law upon undisputed facts held harmless.-Lancaster v. Faskin, 754.

1051(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of letter, though erroneous, held not reversible error, where it could not affect findings on controlling issues. Jacobsen v. Van Syckel, 124.

1056(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Exclusion of material evidence held prejudicial.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

1056(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Exclusion of testimony held harmless error, where court's adverse finding unquestioned.-Farquharson Fresno Oil Co., 481.

1099 (8) (Mo.App.) Issue on former appeal not res adjudicata.-Hollis v. Kansas City Light & Power Co., 634.

XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
SITION OF CAUSE.

(D) Reversal. V.1170(1) (Ky.) Technical error will not be 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 1171(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) No thereunder held not reversible error.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Culberson,

111.

1057(2) (Ky.) Exclusion of evidence driver did not signal held prejudicial.-Robson v. Zumstein Taxicab Co., 872.

1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Question whether party testifying was willing for jury to inspect farms and court's remark that they could do so if counsel agreed held not reversible error.Mach v. Halve, 95.

reversal for failure to award nominal damages.-Cresson v. Wortham-Carter Pub. Co., 1077.

1172(1) (Ky.) Lessee wrongfully dispossessed held entitled to amounts expended by him though cause otherwise reversed.-Hogg v. Forsythe, 1008.

1173(1) (Ky.) Judgment against Director General need not be reversed because also rendered against company.-Payne v. Raymond's Adm'r, 224.

1177(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Case not remand1062(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to submit ed 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.

1064(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Charge erroneous-1177(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., 34.1177(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Case need not be 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. Express Co., 82. verdict.-Davis v. Christmas, 126.

1068 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) When refusal to charge on proximate cause held not error.Middleton v. Moore, 768.

When refusal to submit special issue defining negligence held not error.-Id.

1068(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of instruction as to extra feed bill and cost of gathering cattle harmless in view of verdict.-Payne v. Richards, 771.

1071(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to file findings and conclusions within time required not reversible error in absence of prejudice, where full statement of facts is filed.-Evans v. Smoot, 742.

1177(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Chattel mortgage foreclosure suit remanded despite want of proof of purchasers' lack of knowledge of mortgage, where not apparent that case was fully developed.-East Texas Motor Co. v. Baughman. 802.

1177(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where evidence in support of controverting affidavit not offered through mistake, cause should be remanded with opportunity to offer.-Allen v. Williams, 1116.

1180(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment on appeal held to affect parties not appealing where I single question involved.-Drake v. Yawn, 726.

Instructions in personal injury action relative8 (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.

68 (Ky.) Officers substantially comply with See Master and Servant, law by stating offense and demanding arrest, if no further opportunity is given.-Cornett v. Commonwealth, 540.

Officer can use apparently necessary force if person committing misdemeanor fires at him. V. LEVY, LIEN, AND CUSTODY AND DIS-Id. POSITION OF PROPERTY. 69 (Ky.) Any member of posse may de-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.

1127

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.

390 (Tex.Civ.App.) Bankrupt held to have interest in exempt property authorizing prosecution of suit, notwithstanding bankruptcy.Chaffin v. Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co., 715.

434 (Mo.App.) Moral consideration sufficient to support new promise after commencement of proceedings.-Boone County Milling & Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
129(2) (Mo.App.) Failure to pay install-
ments due held not to make remainder of note
due without exercise of option of holder.-
Putthoff v. Walker, 619.

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON INDORSE-
MENT OR TRANSFER.

(C) Assignment or Sale.

313 (Tex.Com.App.) Registration act not applicable to assignment of notes as such.Adams v. Williams, 673.

(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.

330 (Tex.Com.App.) Parol transfer held sufficient to entitle transferee to protection as innocent holder.-Adams v. Williams, 673.

339 (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule as to notice to transferee in due course of defenses to note stated.-Smith v. Word, 734.

343 (Tex.Civ.App.) Knowledge that note was given in consideration of unperformed contract by payee does not affect indorsee's rights, unless he had notice of breach.-Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810.

359 (Tex.Com.App.) Taking note in payment of pre-existing debt is taking in due course.-Adams v. Williams, 673.

VII. PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE. 435 (Tex.Civ.App.) Indorsee's promise to cancel notes, if it could not induce payee to remedy defects in articles for which given, supported by valuable consideration.-Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810.

VIII. ACTIONS.

436(2) (Mo.App.) Any testimony to prove new promise is admissible.-Boone County Mill-444 (Tex.Civ.App.) Creditor need not reing & Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623. sort to collateral security before recovery 436 (3) (Mo.App.) Finding of new promise against surety, in absence of express contract. after filing of petition sustained.-Boone Coun--Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McGhee, 155. ty Milling & Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623.

BASTARDS.

II. CUSTODY, SUPPORT, AND PROTECTION. 17 (Ky.) Father's promise to provide for bastard children valid, if supported by consideration.-Steele v. Crawford, 197.

IV. PROPERTY.

452(4) (Ky.) Breach of contract for which note given held not to sustain defense of fraud. -Pratt v. York. 492.

497 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Placing burden of proof on transferee of note to show good faith and purchase for value held proper.Smith v. Word, 734.

501 (Tex.Civ.App.) Bank statement for period subsequent to term of office of official held not admissible as against him.-Booth v. Exclusion of evidence that defendant in suit on notes had left town, leaving unpaid debts, not erroneous.-Id.

102 (Mo.App.) Statutory intestacy statute held to preserve right of inheritance to legiti-Crosby, 417. mate "children" only.-Baker v. Stucker, 1003. Statute giving bastards inheritable blood as to their mothers liberally construed.-Id. Bastards "quasi legitimate" under inheritance statute; "quasi."-Id.

BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS.

See Insurance, 723-825.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

See Exceptions, Bill of.

BILLS AND NOTES.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(E) Consideration.

92(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Note executed by guardian and others to replace money converted is supported by valid consideration.-Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Risien, 1105.

518(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held not to show payee's agreement to secure mortgage to protect indorser.-Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McGhee, 155.

action

519 (Tex. Civ.App.) Evidence in against indorser held to show that vendor's lien on maker's property had ceased to be available for security.-Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McGhee, 155.

520 (Ky.) Evidence held to sustain judgment for defendant on grounds of fraud and conditional delivery.-City Nat. Bank v. Wallace, 203.

525 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held sufficient to impeach good faith of purchaser of note before maturity.-Smith v. Word, 734.

537 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issue of good faith and purchase for value held properly submitted to jury.-Smith v. Word, 734.

92 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Note for excess acreage held supported by consideration.-Lone 538 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden of showing Star Immigration Co. v. Schadwinkel, 1115. lack of knowledge of fraud in inception of note transferee.-Smith improperly placed on (F) Validity.

103(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Note for excess acreage not fraudulently procured.-Lone Star Immigration Co. v. Schadwinkel, 1115.

106 (Tex.Civ.App.) Execution of note to replace money converted by guardian not

Word, 734.

BONDS.

V.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. 32 (Tex.Civ.App.) If bond contains substantial requirements of statute, it is valid.