Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

American Surety Co. of New York v. Tarbut V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION. ton, 435.

w85(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence as to conBOUNDARIES.

versation and transaction immaterial and not I. DESCRIPTION,

bearing on alleged contract between broker and em 3 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Natural objects con- purchaser held inadmissible.-Smith v. Tucker,

125. trol when discoverable.-Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. Stanburg, 108.

C-86(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to warCu 3(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Courses and distances rant finding that owner increased price after ordinarily control over distances from corners

broker procured purchasers.-Priddy v. Chilto creeks or roads.-Southwestern Settlement

ders, 144. & Development Co v. Stanburg, 108.

Om 86(1)(Tex.civ.App.). Brokers held to have ww8 (Ky.) “Down the same side to the upper was defective, preventing consummation of con.

sustained burden of showing that vendor's title end of the long field" construed, as used in de tract.-Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797. scription of line separating adjoining devises.

~86(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to Runyon v. Pond Creek Coal Co., 188.

show broker procured purchaser for oil lande.

-South Dakota-Texas Oil Co. v. Hackworth, II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND

813. ESTABLISHMENT. C32 (Ky.) Location of boundary line in de mission whether a realty company with which

Cm88(1) (Mo.App.) Evidence in suit for comfendant's deed held properly in issue.-Dotson broker negotiated was the actual purchaser v. Steele, 191.

of property which it resold in a deal directly C. 37 (3) (Ky.) Evidence held to sustain find- with defendant held for the jury.-Tosh v. ing as to location of true boundary line.--Dot Kirshner, 994. son v. Steele, 191.

mm 88(3) (Mo.App.) Whether broker was pro37(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held insuf- curing cause of sale held for jury.–Tosh v. ficient to sustain verdict in boundary line suit. Kirshner, 994. -Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. -88(10) (Ark.) Instruction ignoring claim v. Stanburg, 108.

of plaintiff for commissions if sale made Om 37(5) (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to through subagent properly refused.--Gillette & establish' title under conditional line by agree-Enlish v. Carroll & Hogan, 900. ment separating patents.---Hoskins v. Morgan, 210.


AS TO THIRD PERSONS, Om46(1) (Ky.) Agreements locating line must be supported by consideration.-Hoskins v. Om 102 (Tex.Civ.App.) Seller of lease to comMorgan, 210.

mon-law trust held not bound by representa

tions of member inducing purchase without eviBREACH OF MARRIAGE PROMISE. dence that seller delegated him to sell or paid

him commission.-Business Men's Oil Co. v. Cm3 (Tex.Civ.App.) Action maintainable on promise while plaintiff was wife of another re

Priddy, 408. newed after divorce.-Ferguson v. Jackson, 66.

BURGLARY. 31 (Tex.Civ.App.)_$7,500 damages not ex II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. cessive.--Ferguson v. Jackson, 66. 34 (Tex.civ.App.) Measure of damages for in not alleging felonious and burglarious enter

On 18 (Mo.) Indictment held fatally defective jury.-Ferguson v. Jackson, 66.

ing.--State v. Whalen, 931.

Cmw 41(1) (Tex.Cr.App:). Evidence held insufBRIEFS.

ficient to sustain conviction.-Wilson v. State, See Appeal and Error, 755-773.




35(3) (Tex.civ.App.) Holders of subscripPRINCIPAL.

tion note necessary parties to suit by maker to

cancel it.-Mitchell v. Bowles, 459. C 29 (Ky.) Liable for breach of contract to resell whereby they induced purchaser to buy.

CARRIERS. -Oliver v. Morgan, 1020.


MON CARRIERS. mo44 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner cannot withdraw

(A) In General. listing after broker has procured purchaser.- Em 13(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts held not to Priddy v. Childers, 144.

show unjust discrimination in rates charged.49(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) When broker enti- Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106. tled to commissions for finding purchaser stat-Cw20(11), (Tex.civ.App.) Shipper must show ed.-Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797. established rate in suit for penalties and con

55(1) (Ark.) Refusal of instruction that tracts were not evidence thereof, but showed broker could not be considered procuring cause intention to charge established rate.-Panhanof exchange negotiated by another held error. dle & S. F. Ry, Co. v. Guthrie, 106. -Gillette & English v. Carroll & Hogan, 900.

One entitled to know who his agent is and (B) Interstate and International Transwho is procuring cause in sale or exchange.

portation. -Id.

Cw23(Tex.Civ.App.) Liability of carrier for Em 61(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Broker's commis- goods irrespective of stipulations in bill of sions not defeated by claim of failure to pro- lading held not changed by amendment to statcure enforceable contract.--South Dakota-Tex- ute.--Lancaster v. McCarty, 816. as Oil Co. v. Hackworth, 813.

ww35 (Tenn.) Must collect correct interstate Cm65(4) (Ark.). One entitled to know, in case freight notwithstanding error in quoting rate. of divided allegiance, which principal agent -Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southprofesses to represent.-Gillette & English v. ern Coal & Coke Co., 297. Carroll & Hogan, 300. Agent representing two principals compen

II. CARRIAGE OF Goods. sated only after full disclosure to each.-Id. (B) Bills of Lading, Shipping Receipts, Cm74 (Tex.Civ. App.) Employer of broker lia

and Special Contracts. ble for compensation regardless of his interest Cw52(1) (Tex.Com.App.) "Bill of lading" is a

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER according to terms expressed therein.-Hines v. vested does not affect consignor's liability for Scott, 663.

freight.--Id. m58 (Tenn.) Funds paid for shipments made m 196 (Tenn.) Laches does not bar collecunder draft and bill of lading subsequently sold tion of freight from consignor.--Cleveland, C., to bank held not subject to garnishment.-C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal & Coke Lookout Knitting Mills v. Reid, 306.

Co., 297. (C) Custody and Control of Goods.

III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOOK. Om76 (Tex.Civ.App.) Seller of oil held not entitled to sue railroad for losses occasioned 207(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Two contracts on by failure to notify of arrival of tank cars. same shipment issued same day held to be conDavis v. Guitar, 759.

strued together.-Panhandle & $. F. Ry. Co. v.

Guthrie, 106. (D) Transportation and Delivery by Car-W211 (Tex.civ.App.) Shipper, relying on conrier,

tract and not treating holding of shipment for Om83 (Tex.Com.App.) Carrier not liable for overcharge as conversion, held bound to coninspection of shipment by purchaser without tinue to feed and water stock.-Panhandle & S. presenting bill of lading, where pot resulting F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106. in loss or injury.-Hines v. Scott, 663. w215(1) (Ark.) Carrier liable for negligence Om86 ( Provision in bill of lad- of servants in course of employment and for ing held not to limit purchaser's right of in- delay caused by their going on a strike.-Jonesspection.-Hines v. Scott, 663.

boro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911. Provision in bill of lading as to inspection 6m215(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Carrier held liable held subject to waiver by carrier.-Id.

for full amount of negligent injury to cattle, Om88 (řex.Com.App.). Permission by carrier though concurring cause was act of God or conof inspection by purchaser of goods shipped tract limited liability.-St. Louis Southwestern held not delivery.-Hines v. Scott, 663.

Ry. Co. of Texas v. Culberson, 111. Cm93 (Tex.Com.App.) Permission by carrier am 217(2) (Tex.civ.App.) Shippers' fault and of inspection by purchaser of goods shipped not fault of carrier as to defective stock pen held not conversion.-Hines v. Scott, 663.

held proximate cause of loss of hogs so that

they could not recover.- St. Louis Southwest(F) Lors of or Injury to Goods.

ern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Brown & Co., 97. 0132 (Tex.Civ.App.) The presumption is om 218(1) (Ark.) Rule as to when carrier can that goods lost or damaged in intrastate com- restrict liability for losses resulting from merce was through carrier's negligence.--Lan- strikes on its road stated.-Jonesboro, L. C. & caster v. McCarty, 816.

E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911. 134 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to fix li Carrier cannot exempt itself from liability for ability of carrier for damage to cotton.-Payne its own negligence.--Id. v. Texas Mercantile Co., 79.

Com 218(6) (Ärk.) Duty to use reasonable diliOm 135 (Ky.) Notice mine could not operate gence to find open route for delayed shipments, until machine parts received warrants recovery though contract exempts from liability.-Chiagainst express company for lost profits during cago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Dawson, 558. delay.-Moss Jellico Coal Co. v. American Ry. Em 218(10) (Ark.) Provision in contract reExpress Co., 508.

quiring notice of claim for loss or injury held Notice of special damages must bring peculiar inapplicable to shipment never delivered or carfacts to knowledge of other person.-Id. ried to destination.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. C135 (Tex.civ.App.). Measure of damages | Co. v. Maddy. 911. against carrier for delivery in damaged condi- w219(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Oral contract valid tion of goods sold under contract made prior and binding on "connecting carrier."-St. Louis, to shipment stated.-Coulter v. Gulf, C. & S. B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59. F. Ry. Co., 788.

Connecting carrier bound by oral contract 136 (Tex.civ.App.) Issue of actual dam- where it accepted shipment without writing. ages sustained under contract of shipment held-Id. for jury.---Coulter v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 219 (4) (Ark.) Initial carrier held liable for 788.

failure of connecting carrier to forward delay(I) Connecting Carriers.

ed shipment.-Chicago, R. 1. & P. R. Co. v. w 177(1). (Tex.Civ. App.) Statute allowing suit Dawson, 558. against either or all connecting carriers held on 219(5) (Tex.civ.App.) Liability of initial constitutional.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. and connecting carriers begins on delivery to Morris, 57.

carrier.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co, v. Lane.

59. (J) Charges and Liens.

Liability of connecting carrier commenced 194 (Ark.) Buyer of materials consigned when cattle were placed in cattle pens for by sellers under contract to one to whom buy shipment.-Id. er resold held not liable for freight not collect Ownership of stock pens where carrier reed from consignee.-Davis v. City Fuel Co., ceived cattle held immaterial in action aguinst 572.

initial carrier for damage to shipment.-Id. Buyer to whom material consigned but divert-219(6). (Ark.) Rule as to when carrier can ed with carrier's consent while in transit to a restrict liability for losses resulting from subsequent purchaser or another destination strikes on road of connecting carrier stated. held not liable for freight.-Id.

Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co: v. Maddy, 911. Om 194 (Tenn.) Shipper's liability for freight Cw219 (8) (Ark.) Limiting initial carrier's excannot be released by contract. --Cleveland, C., emption from liability to finding delay in interC. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal & Coke state shipment was occasioned by strike of Co., 297.

terminal carrier's employés was error.-JonesConsignor is primarily liable for freight.--Id. boro. L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy. 911.

Provision for delivery to consignee on pay-w223 (Tex.civ.App.) Availability of other ment of freight does not relieve consignor's lia- route no defense in action for negligent dambility.-Id.

age to shipment.--St. Louis, B. & M. Ry, Co. Provision consignee shall pay

v. Lane, 59. freight does not relieve consignor.-Id. 226 (Tex.civ.App.) Initial and connecting

Consignee is not liable for freight on goods carriers properly joined in suit for damages. delivered to his assignee.-Id.

-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59. Carrier need not notify consignor of failure C227(1). (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition sufficiently to collect freight.-Id.

alleging through stock shipment.--St. Louis, B. Assignment by consignee in whom title was I & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.



227(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Incompleted written, appeal, not by certiorari, unless judgment void contract properly excluded in action for damag-on face. -Patterson v. Adcock, 904. es to shipment under oral contract.-St. Louis, mm 6 (Ark.) Will not lie where there has been B, & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

right of appeal, unless right lost without fault w227 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment against of petitioner.-Brown & Hackney v. Stephencarrier for loss of hogs must be reversed in son, 556. absence of evidence to support a finding as to ww24 (Ark.). County judge in ordering elec. their value.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry, Co. of tion to restrain running of stock and entering Texas v. Brown & Co., 97.

order declaring law in effect acts in ministerial ww228(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence as to num- capacity.-Patterson v. Adcock, 904. ber of calves lost the next spring from cows Certiorari will not lie to correct ministerial held relevant to issue of damage to cows.- act though performance of act involves discrePayne v. Richards, 771.

tion.-Id. m228(5) (Ark.) Evidence held to 'show de-C 28 (2) (Ark.) Will not lie where there has mand to divert delayed shipment to another been right of appeal, unless court acted withroute, and that, if granted, injury would not out or in excess of its jurisdiction.--Brown & have resulted.-Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hackney v. Stephenson, 556. Dawson, 558. ww229 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Not liable for sta II. PROCEEDINGS AND DETERMINATION. tion agent's failure to notify train dispatcher Ow70(9) (Ark.) When judgment will not be of possibility of special damage from contem- affirmed, though writ of certiorari quashed.plated shipment.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Patterson v. Adcock, 904. Co. of Texas v. Culberson, 111. Notice to station agent that cattle delayed

CHANCERY. in transit had been dipped in arsenical solution See Equity. held notice to carrier.-Id.

CHARITIES. Carrier charged with notice of dipping of cattle shipped, and effect thereof.-Id.


(Ky.) Statute relating to charitable IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

trusts is substantially same as English statute (A) Relation Between Carrier and Pas- forming part of common law.-State Bank & senger.

Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056. mm 248 (Ky.) Invalid received for transporta- Cr21(3), (Ky.) Devise for trust fund for aged tion, notwithstanding violation of rule, is a unmarried women is valid trust.--State Bank & passenger.-Arnett v. Chesapeake & 0. Ry. Co., Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056. 1040.

ww22(1). (Ky.) Devise to charitable society Rule requiring invalid passenger to be trans. held not invalid for uncertainty:-Goldberg v. ported on cot is reasonable.-Id.

Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in

the U. S., 219. (B) Fares, Tickets, and Special Contracts. On 261 (Tex.Civ.App.) No redemption of un


AND ENFORCEMENT. used ticket at common law.-Neubert v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 141.

37 (Ky.) Statute regulating charitable Petition held not to show equitable right to trusts is construed so not to adopt cy pres docrecovery for unused ticket.-Id.

trine.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Patridge,

1056. (D) Personal Injuries.

Om 43 (Ky.) Statute regulating charitable w283(3) (Mo.App.) Liable for conductor's trusts is liberally construed so trust will not assault on passenger unless in self-defense.- | fail for want of trustee.-State Bank & Trust

Co. v. Patridge, 1056.
Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.
Cam 303(8) (Ky.) Employees need not offer as-Cew

48 (2). (Ky.) Will construed to contain powsistance to invalid passenger accompanied by er of sale of trust real estate; "fund.”—Goldmale relatives.-Arnett v. Chesapeake & 0. Ry. I berg v. Home Missions of the Presbyterian

Church in the U. S., 219.
Co., 1040.
Om 316(4) (Tex.Com.App.) Rule as to burden
of proof in case of wreck stated.-Lamar v.

Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. C317(9) (Tex.Com.App.) Testimony as to

(D) Lien and Priority. injuries to trainmen held admissible.--Lamar

Om 150(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Filing copy of mortv. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34. ww319 (3) (Mo.App.) $2,500 punitive damages gage not duly acknowledged ar witnessed not for assault by conductor on passenger held ex- constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.

cessive.--Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998. East Texas Motor Co. v. Baughman, 802. C320 (32) (Mo.App.) Instruction eliminating Om 157(2) (Tex. Civ. App.) Purchasers must punitire damages properly refused.-Ilunter v.

show want of actual knowledge of unrecorded Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.

mortgage.-East Texas Motor Co. v. BaughC321 (14) (Ky.) Instructions submitting is- man, 802. sues as to whether brakeman assisted in re

IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF inoving invalid passenger was negligent held

PARTIES. correct.-Arnett v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 1040.

Om 170(1) (Tex. Civ. App.) Commission firm (G) Passengers' Effects.

selling cattle not relieved from “conversion" 391 (Ark.) Jewelry held “baggage," mean by remitting proceeds. - Border Nat. Bank of ing of which cannot be limited by rules and El Paso v. Campbell & Rosson Live Stock Comregulations filed with Interstate Commerce mission Co., 780. Commission.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Pugh,

Payment to mortgagee of proceeds from sale 897.

of mortgaged cattle held to relie commission CERTIORARI.

firm from conversion pro tanto.-Id. I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

CHILDREN. m5(1) (Ark.) Will not lie where there has See Infants; Parent and Child. been right of appeal.-Brown & Hackney v. Stephenson, 556.

CITIES. ww5(1) (Ark.) Review of county court's judg

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

48 (Ky.) Accused held not entitled to in

struction on assault and battery.-Slaven v. See Constitutional Law, 209-249.


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Cam 4 (Ky.) Statute held not to authorize pay. See Statutes. Om 35%-123. ment of debts from appropriation for maintenance.-Davis y, Steward, 531.

For validity of statutes relating to particular

subjects, see also the various specific topics. COMMERCE.



TIONAL PROVISIONS. On7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Intrastate shipments governed by state rate and regulations, where em 20 (Tex.) Executive and judicial construcnot discriminatory against interstate commerce, tion of doubtful act is persuasive.-Harris and limitations of liability in bill of lading in- County v. Crooker, 652. valid.-Lancaster_v. McCarty, 816.

Om42 (Mo.) That the Income Tax Act was Om8(1) (Ark.) Interstate shipments governed discriminatory does not give right to attack by acts of Congress.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. constitutionality to one not affected.-Stouffer Co. v. Maddy, 911.

v. Crawford, 581. 8(1). (Tex.Civ.App.) Acts of Congress reg- m42 (Tenn.) Person not affected by statute ulating interstate commerce paramount to state cannot raise question of validity,- Baker v. laws. --Neubert v. Chicago, R, I. & G. Ry. Co., State, 548. 141.

One cannot complain as to validity of portion 8(13) (Tex. Civ. App.) State statute con- of act not affecting him.-Id. cerning redemption of unused tickets inapplic- m48 (Mo.) Income Tax Act upheld, where able to interstate commerce.-Neubert v. Chi- susceptible of constitutional construction.cago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 141.

Stouffer v. Crawford. 581.

Om 48 (Tex.Com.App.) Duty of court to conII. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION.

strue taxation statute to avoid conflict with 016 (Ky.) Sale and organization of popu- federal Constitution. City of Waco v. Texas larity contest held interstate transaction not Life Ins. Co., 315. subject to state regulatory statute.-Pratt v. Duty of court to construe statute to preserve York, 492.

it as a whole.-Ia. Em27 (7) (Mo.) Movements of switchman im

OF GOVERNMENTAL mediately after handling interstate car held III. DISTRIBUTION

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, necessarily incident thereto.-Laughlin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 949.

(A) Legislative Powers and Delegation Ow40(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Voluntary mingling

Thereof. of legal and unlawful transactions held to 62 (Tex.Cr.App.) Highway law amendment render commerce, interstate in part, subject delegates power of suspension.--Es parte to state law.-W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Marshall, Faison, 343. 153. Cam47 (Tex. Civ. App.) Interstate transporta (B) Judicial Powers and Fanctions. tion of passengers a part of interstate com-ww70(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Unwise act of Legmerce. - Neubert v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., islature no justification to read nonexisting ex141.

ception into law.-Bryan v. Texas Life Ins. Co., III. MEANS AND METHODS OF REGULA-163. TION.

w70(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Injustice of exemptOm57 (Ky.) Regulatory state statutes as to ing street railway company from fair assessuse of names inapplicable to nurely interstatement for storm sewer by reason of charter

provision question for Legislature.-Texas Bittransactions.-Pratt v. York, 492.

inlithic Co. v. Dallas Consol. Electric St. Ry.

Co., 746.
See Bills and Notes.


(B) Contracts of States and Municipalities. COMMON LAW.

Em 143 (Ark.) Statute dismembering road im12 (Tex.Com.App.) Common law abolished. provement district after bond obligations in-Fowler Commission Co. v. Charles Land & curred held invalid as impairing obligation of Co., 314.

contract.-Bacon v. Road Improvement Dist.

No. 1 of Howard County, 267.
See Husband and Wife, On 262–276.

(C) Contracts of Individuals and Private

Corporations. COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. cm 154(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute authorizing

co-operative marketing contracts does not valSee Accord and Satisfaction.

idate contracts devoid of mutuality in violation

of constitutional inhibition against impairing CONDEMNATION.

obligations of contracts.--Texas Farm Bureau See Eminent Domain.

Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall, 1109.

166 (Ky.) Statute requiring payment of CONSPIRACY.

tax on note before suit thereon held not inII. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY,

valid as impairing obligation of contracts.

Kennedy v. Kennedy, 182. (A) offenses. 229 (Ky.) Instruction need not require jury

VIII. RETROSPECTIVE AND EX POST to believe conspiracy was unlawful.-Slaven v.

FACTO LAWS. Commonwealth, 214.

Com 190 (Mo.) Statute carrying forward pro

visions of prior statutes not invalid as retro(B) Prosecution and Punishment.

spective.-Stouffer v. Crawford, 581. Om47 (Ky.) May be shown by circumstances. Statute basing rate for income tax on valua-Slaven v. Commonwealth, 214.

tion on a date prior to passage, the rates not Evidence held sufficient to go to jury and sus- being increased till after passage, held not intain conviction.-Id.

valid as retrospective.--Id.



(D) Consideration. CLASS LEGISLATION,

Omw 50 (Tex.Civ.App.) "Consideration" defined. C208(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Highway law amend-1-Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, $10. ment excepting farmers' trucks class legisla Consideration may be benefit to promiso; or tion.-Ex parte Faison, 343.

detriment to promisee.-Id.

Cm75(1) (Tex.civ.App.) No consideratica for X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. promise to do what promisor is already beund Om 229(2) (Mo.) Exempting insurance com

to do.-Merchants' Nat. Bank V. Voudouris, panies paying gross income taxes in lieu of all

$10. other taxes from provisions of the income tax m88 (Tex.Civ.App.) Written contract im. held not unconstitutional discrimination.-Stouf- ports consideration.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784. fer v. Crawford, 581.

(F) Legality of Object and of Consid229(3) (Mo.) Basing valuation for corpo

eration. rations on date different than date, used for in.112 (Ky.) Promise to provide for bastard dividuals held not an "inequality” under the child in consideration of illicit intercourse void. Fourteenth Amendment.--Stouffer v. Crawford, -Steele v. Crawford, 197. 581. Separate classification of resident and non: for bastard children in consideration of moth

em 128(1) (Ky.) Father's promise to provide resident corporations held reasonable and noter's promise not to prosecute for seduction an "unegual application of the laws."-Id. 249 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute allowing suit

void. --Steele v. Crawford, 197. against either or all connecting carriers held II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. not a denial of equal protection of laws.-St.

(A) General Rules of Construction. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 57.

Om 175(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of unXI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

derstanding of contract made through broker m257 (Mo.) Giving accused 12 hours from Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' &

held admissible to establish terms thereof.4:45 p. m. tó consult with counsel held not a Planters' Oil Co., 116. denial of due process of law.--State v. Roderem 175(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held suffi. man, 964. em 258 (Tenn.) Intoxicating liquor storage act well having outside diameter of 8 inches with

cient to show party to contract agreed to drill does not deprive of liberty and property, with casing set.--Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. out due process of law; "consent." —Baker v.

McSpadden, 454. State, 548. Cw305 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute allowing suit tion where contract not clear stated.-Silvers

Om 176(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule of construcagainst either or all connecting, carriers held Box Corporation v. J. E. Stone & Co., 1104. not a denial of due process.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 57.

(C) Subject-Matter.

Cum 198(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Contract to drill CONTINUANCE.

8-inch well and set casing held ambiguous.See Criminal Law, 589-614.

Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. McSpadden,

454. C26(1) (Tex.civ.App.) In absence of diligence to secure evidence, continuance discre. III. MODIFICATION AND MERGER, tionary.-Tucker v. Lingo, 1097. m44 (Mo.App.) Refusal of motion for con-240 (Ark.) Evidence showed modification of tinuance for absent witness for surprise in his contract for school desks, but not complete deposition cannot be relied on, where po affida- v. Calico Rock Special School Dist., 565.

novation thereof.--Columbia School Supply Co. vit of surprise filed.--Noland v. Norris & Co., 627.

V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. C45 (Ky.) Affidavit held insufficient.-Ram

318 (Ky.) Forfeitures" not favored either ey v. Shortridge, 1013.

at law or in equity.-Hogg v. Forsythe, 1008. CONTRACTS.

Provisions strictly construed against party

claiming forfeiture.-Id. See Assignments; Bills and Notes; Breach of

VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH. Marriage Promise; Covenants; Exchange of Property: Frauds. Statute of: Guaranty; No-346(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under plea of genvation; Release; Sales: Specific Performance; eral denial, defense that contract was not bindVendor and Purchaser.

ing till put in writing is available.-Rosebud

Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' & Planters' 1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. Oil Co., 116. (A) Nature and Essentials in General.

346(12) (Tex.Civ.App.) No recovery

implied contract in suit on express contract. Emo 10(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Director General's

-Scott v. Murphree, 468. agreement to allow lumber company to on-W349(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Broker's. letter to erate trains on road held unenforceable as uni- purchaser of cotton seed oil narrating his unlateral.-Davis v. Phillips A. Ryan Lumber Co. Kderstanding of the deal held inadmissible.-418.

Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' & C10(4) (Tex.civ.App.) Agreement between Planters' Oil Co., 116. cotton grower and co-operative marketing association for sale of cotton unenforceable for Sams350 (2), (ky.) Evidence held to establish want of mutuality and consideration.--Texas, that plumbers constructing hemp dryer were

subcontractors working under designing engiFarm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall, 1109.

neer.--Hudson, House & Cogar v. Clarke Parties, Proposals, and Acceptance.

Plumbing Co.. 206.

C353(8) (Ark.) Instruction permitting de15 (Tex.civ.App.) Tripartite contract_not | fendant to recover for breach of contract rebinding until all have accepted it.-Davis v. gardless of whether he had also breached it Phillips A. Ryan Lumber Co., 448.

held error.-Thompson v. Short, 263. (C) Formal Requisites.

CONVERSION. Ca 46 (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether contract was See Trover and Conversion. intended to be binding before reduced to writing ! (Mo.) “Equitable conversion" defined.held for jury.-Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Turner v. Hine, 933.


« AnteriorContinuar »