Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

3(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Natural objects control when discoverable.-Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. Stanburg, 108.

3(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Courses and distances ordinarily control over distances from corners to creeks or roads.-Southwestern Settlement & Development Co v. Stanburg, 108.

[blocks in formation]

86(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to warrant finding that owner increased price after broker procured purchasers.-Priddy v. Childers, 144.

86(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Brokers held to have 8 (Ky.) "Down the same side to the upper was defective, preventing consummation of consustained 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 Runyon v. Pond Creek Coal Co., 188.

II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND

ESTABLISHMENT.

32 (Ky.) Location of boundary line in defendant's deed held properly in issue.-Dotson v. Steele, 191.

37(3) (Ky.) Evidence held to sustain finding as to location of true boundary line.-Dotson v. Steele, 191.

37(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held insufficient to sustain verdict in boundary line suit. -Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. Stanburg, 108.

37(5) (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to establish title under conditional line by agreement separating patents.-Hoskins v. Morgan, 210.

46(1) (Ky.) Agreements locating line must be supported by consideration.-Hoskins Morgan, 210.

[ocr errors]

to

show broker procured purchaser for oil lands. -South Dakota-Texas Oil Co. v. Hackworth, 813.

mission whether a realty company with which 88(1) (Mo.App.) Evidence in suit for combroker negotiated was the actual purchaser with defendant held for the jury.-Tosh v. of property which it resold in a deal directly Kirshner, 994.

curing cause of sale held for jury.-Tosh v. 88(3) (Mo.App.) Whether broker was proKirshner, 994.

88(10) (Ark.) Instruction ignoring claim of plaintiff for commissions if sale made through subagent properly refused.-Gillette & Enlish v. Carroll & Hogan, 900.

VI. RIGHTS, POWERS, AND LIABILITIES AS TO THIRD PERSONS. V.102 (Tex.Civ.App.) Seller of lease to common-law trust held not bound by representations of member inducing purchase without evidence that seller delegated him to sell or paid him commission.-Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy, 408.

on

BREACH OF MARRIAGE PROMISE. 3 (Tex.Civ.App.) Action maintainable promise while plaintiff was wife of another renewed after divorce.-Ferguson v. Jackson, 66. 31 (Tex.Civ.App.) $7,500 damages not excessive. Ferguson v. Jackson, 66.

34 (Tex.Civ.App.) Measure of damages for jury. Ferguson v. Jackson, 66.

[blocks in formation]

BURGLARY.

II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. in not alleging felonious and burglarious enter18 (Mo.) Indictment held fatally defective ing.-State v. Whalen, 931.

41(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction.-Wilson v. State, 687.

CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. 35(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Holders of subscription note necessary parties to suit by maker to cancel it.-Mitchell v. Bowles, 459.

CARRIERS.

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF COM-
MON CARRIERS.
(A) In General.

44 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner cannot withdraw listing after broker has procured purchaser.-13(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts held not to Priddy v. Childers, 144.

show unjust discrimination in rates charged.Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106.

20(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Shipper must show established rate in suit for penalties and contracts were not evidence thereof, but_showed intention_to_charge established rate.-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106.

49(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) When broker entitled to commissions for finding purchaser stated.-Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797. 55(1) (Ark.) Refusal of instruction that broker could not be considered procuring cause of exchange negotiated by another held error. -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. -Id.

61(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Broker's commissions not defeated by claim of failure to procure enforceable contract.-South Dakota-Texas Oil Co. v. Hackworth, 813.

portation.

23 (Tex.Civ.App.) Liability of carrier for goods irrespective of stipulations in bill of lading held not changed by amendment to statute.-Lancaster v. McCarty, 816.

35 (Tenn.) Must collect correct interstate 65(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, 900.

Agent representing two principals compensated only after full disclosure to each.-Id.

74 (Tex.Civ.App.) Employer of broker liable for compensation regardless of his interest in property.-Priddy v. Childers, 144.

II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. (B) Bills of Lading, Shipping Receipts, and Special Contracts.

52(1) (Tex.Com.App.) "Bill of lading" is a receipt coupled with an agreement for carriage

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.

58 (Tenn.) Funds paid for shipments made 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.

III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK.

(C) Custody and Control of Goods. 76 (Tex.Civ.App.) Seller of oil held not entitled to sue railroad for losses occasioned by failure to notify of arrival of tank cars.Davis v. Guitar, 759. (D) Transportation and Delivery by Car-211 (Tex.Civ.App.) Shipper, relying on con

rier.

83 (Tex.Com.App.) Carrier not liable for inspection of shipment by purchaser without presenting bill of lading, where not resulting in loss or injury.-Hines v. Scott, 663.

86 (Tex.Com.App.) Provision in bill of lading held not to limit purchaser's right of inspection.-Hines v. Scott, 663. Provision in bill of lading as to inspection held subject to waiver by carrier.-Id.

88 (Tex.Com.App.) Permission by carrier of inspection by purchaser of goods shipped held not delivery.-Hines v. Scott, 663.

93 (Tex.Com.App.) Permission by carrier of inspection by purchaser of goods shipped held not conversion.-Hines v. Scott, 663.

(F) Loss of or Injury to Goods. 132 (Tex.Civ.App.) The presumption is that goods lost or damaged in intrastate commerce was through carrier's negligence.-Lancaster v. McCarty, 816.

134 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to fix liability of carrier for damage to cotton.-Payne v. Texas Mercantile Co., 79.

135 (Ky.) Notice mine could not operate until machine parts received warrants recovery against express company for lost profits during delay.-Moss Jellico Coal Co. v. American Ry. Express Co., 508.

Notice of special damages must bring peculiar facts to knowledge of other person.-Id.

207(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Two contracts on same shipment issued same day held to be construed together.-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106.

tract and not treating holding of shipment for overcharge as conversion, held bound to continue to feed and water stock.-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106.

215(1) (Ark.) Carrier liable for negligence of servants in course of employment and for delay caused by their going on a strike.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911.

215(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Carrier held liable for full amount of negligent injury to cattle, though concurring cause was act of God or contract limited liability.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Culberson, 111. 217(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Shippers' fault and not fault of carrier as to defective stock pen held proximate cause of loss of hogs so that they could not recover.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Brown & Co., 97. 218(1) (Ark.) Rule as to when carrier can restrict liability for losses resulting from strikes on its road stated.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911.

Carrier cannot exempt itself from liability for its own negligence.-Id.

218(6) (Ark.) Duty to use reasonable diligence to find open route for delayed shipments, though contract exempts from liability.-Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Dawson, 558.

re

218(10) (Ark.) Provision in contract quiring notice of claim for loss or injury held inapplicable to shipment never delivered or carried to destination.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy. 911.

135 (Tex.Civ.App.). Measure of damages against carrier for delivery in damaged condi-219(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.

136 (Tex.Civ.App.) Issue of actual damages sustained under contract of shipment held for jury.-Coulter v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 788.

(I) Connecting Carriers. 177(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute allowing suit against either or all connecting carriers held constitutional.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 57.

(J) Charges and Liens.

194 (Ark.) Buyer of materials consigned by sellers under contract to one to whom buyer resold held not liable for freight not collected from consignee.-Davis v. City Fuel Co., 572.

Connecting carrier bound by oral contract where it accepted shipment without writing. Id.

219(4) (Ark.) Initial carrier held liable for failure of connecting carrier to forward delayed shipment.-Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Dawson, 558.

219(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Liability of initial and connecting carriers begins on delivery to carrier.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

Liability of connecting carrier commenced when cattle were placed in cattle pens for shipment.-Id.

Ownership of stock pens where carrier received cattle held immaterial in action against 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 subsequent purchaser or another destination held not liable for freight.-Id.

194 (Tenn.) Shipper's liability for freight cannot be released by contract.-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 297.

restrict liability for losses resulting from strikes on road of connecting carrier stated.Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911.

219(8) (Ark.) Limiting initial carrier's exemption from liability to finding delay in interstate shipment was occasioned by strike of 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-223 (Tex.Civ.App.) Availability of other ment of freight does not relieve consignor's liability.-Id.

Provision owner or consignee shall pay freight does not relieve consignor.-Id. Consignee is not liable for freight on goods delivered to his assignee.-Id.

Carrier need not notify consignor of failure to collect freight.-Id.

Assignment by consignee in whom title was

route no defense in action for negligent damage to shipment.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

226 (Tex.Civ.App.) Initial and connecting carriers properly joined in suit for damages. -St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

227(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition sufficiently alleging through stock shipment.-St. Louis, B. & 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, 6 (Ark.) Will not lie where there has been B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59. right of appeal, unless right lost without fault of petitioner.-Brown & Hackney v. Stephenson, 556.

227 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment against carrier for loss of hogs must be reversed in absence of evidence to support a finding as to their value.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Brown & Co., 97.

228 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence as to number of calves lost the next spring from cows held relevant to issue of damage to cows.Payne v. Richards, 771.

24 (Ark.) County judge in ordering elec tion to restrain running of stock and entering order declaring law in effect acts in ministerial capacity.-Patterson v. Adcock, 904.

Certiorari will not lie to correct ministerial act though performance of act involves discretion.-Id.

228(5) (Ark.) Evidence held to show de-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.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND DETERMINATION.

229(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Not liable for station agent's failure to notify train dispatcher 70 (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

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

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

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

(A) Relation Between Carrier and

senger.

CHANCERY.

CHARITIES.

1. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VALIDITY. (Ky.) Statute relating to charitable trusts is substantially same as English_statute Pas-forming part of common law.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056.

248 (Ky.) Invalid received for transporta-21(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 & O. Ry. Co., Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056. 1040.

Rule requiring invalid passenger to be trans-held not invalid for uncertainty.-Goldberg v. ported on cot is reasonable.-Id.

(B) Fares, Tickets, and Special Contracts.

261 (Tex.Civ.App.) No redemption of unused ticket at common law.-Neubert v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 141.

22(1), (Ky.) Devise to charitable society Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., 219.

II. CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION,
AND ENFORCEMENT.

Petition held not to show equitable right to trusts is construed so not to adopt cy pres docrecovery for unused ticket.-Id.

(D) Personal Injuries.

283 (3) (Mo.App.) Liable for conductor's assault on passenger unless in self-defense. Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.

37 (Ky.) Statute regulating charitable trine.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056.

43 (Ky.) Statute regulating charitable trusts is liberally construed so trust will not fail for want of trustee.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056.

303 (8) (Ky.) Employees need not offer as-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 & O. Ry. Church in the U. S., 219. berg v. Home Missions of the Presbyterian Co., 1040.

316(4) (Tex.Com.App.) Rule as to burden of proof in case of wreck stated.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

317(9) (Tex.Com.App.) Testimony as to injuries to trainmen held admissible.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

319(3) (Mo.App.) $2,500 punitive damages for assault by conductor on passenger held excessive. Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998. 320 (32) (Mo.App.) Instruction eliminating punitive damages properly refused.-Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co.. 998.

321 (14) (Ky.) Instructions submitting issues as to whether brakeman assisted in removing invalid passenger was negligent held correct.-Arnett v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.,

1040.

(G) Passengers' Effects.

391 (Ark.) Jewelry held "baggage," meaning of which cannot be limited by rules and regulations filed with Interstate Commerce Commission.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Pugh,

897.

CERTIORARI.

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (D) Lien and Priority. 150(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Filing copy of mortgage not duly acknowledged or witnessed not constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.East Texas Motor Co. v. Baughman, 802.

157(2) (Tex. Civ. App.) Purchasers must show want of actual knowledge of unrecorded mortgage.-East Texas Motor Co. v. Baughman, 802.

IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
PARTIES.

170(1) (Tex. Civ. App.) Commission firm selling cattle not relieved from "conversion" by remitting proceeds.-Border Nat. Bank of El Paso v. Campbell & Rosson Live Stock Commission Co., 780.

Payment to mortgagee of proceeds from sale of mortgaged cattle held to relieve commission firm from conversion pro tanto.-Id.

CHILDREN.

5(1) (Ark.) Will not lie where there has See Infants; Parent and Child. been right of appeal.-Brown & Hackney v. Stephenson, 556.

5(1) (Ark.) Review of county court's judg

CITIES.

ment in stock law election contest must be by See Municipal Corporations.

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

CLASS LEGISLATION.

See Constitutional Law, 209-249.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

4 (Ky.) Statute held not to authorize payment of debts from appropriation for maintenance.-Davis v. Steward, 531.

COMMERCE.

I. POWER TO REGULATE IN GENERAL.

7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Intrastate shipments governed by state rate and regulations, where not discriminatory against interstate commerce, and limitations of liability in bill of lading invalid.-Lancaster v. McCarty, 816.

8(1) (Ark.) Interstate shipments governed by acts of Congress.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

8(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Acts of Congress reg-42 (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 of act not affecting him.-Id.

8(13) (Tex. Civ. App.) State statute concerning redemption of unused tickets inapplic-48 (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.

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION. 16 (Ky.) Sale and organization of popularity contest held interstate transaction not subject to state regulatory statute.-Pratt v. York, 492.

27(7) (Mo.) Movements of switchman immediately after handling interstate car held necessarily incident thereto.-Laughlin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 949.

48 (Tex.Com.App.) Duty of court to construe taxation statute to avoid conflict with federal Constitution.-City of Waco v. Texas Life Ins. Co., 315.

Duty of court to construe statute to preserve it as a whole.-Id.

III. DISTRIBUTION OF

GOVERNMENTAL

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. (A) Legislative Powers and Delegation Thereof.

40(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Voluntary mingling of legal and unlawful transactions held to 62 (Tex.Cr.App.) Highway law amendment render commerce, interstate in part, subject delegates power of suspension.-Ex parte to state law.-W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Marshall, Faison, 343. 153.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
(A) Offenses.

29 (Ky.) Instruction need not require jury to believe conspiracy was unlawful.-Slaven v. Commonwealth, 214.

(B) Prosecution and Punishment. 47 (Ky.) May be shown by circumstances. -Slaven v. Commonwealth, 214.

[blocks in formation]

(C) Contracts of Individuals and Private Corporations.

154(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute authorizing co-operative marketing contracts does not validate contracts devoid of mutuality in violation of constitutional inhibition against impairing obligations of contracts.-Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall, 1109.

166 (Ky.) Statute requiring payment of tax on note before suit thereon held not invalid as impairing obligation of contracts.-Kennedy v. Kennedy, 182.

VIII. RETROSPECTIVE AND EX POST
FACTO LAWS.

190 (Mo.) Statute carrying forward provisions of prior statutes not invalid as retrospective.-Stouffer v. Crawford, 581.

Statute basing rate for income tax on valuation 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.

IX.

OR IMMUNITIES, AND

(D) Consideration.

FRIVILEGES

CLASS LEGISLATION.

1132

208 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Highway law amend--Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810. ment excepting farmers' trucks class legislation.-Ex parte Faison, 343.

50 (Tex.Civ.App.) "Consideration" defined. Consideration may be benefit to promisor or detriment to promisee.-Id.

com

75(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) No consideration for promise to do what promisor is already bound to do.-Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, 810.

X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. 229 (2) (Mo.) Exempting insurance panies paying gross income taxes in lieu of all other taxes from provisions of the income tax 88 (Tex.Civ.App.) Written contract imheld not unconstitutional discrimination.-Stouf- ports consideration.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784. fer v. Crawford, 581. 229 (3) (Mo.) Basing valuation for corpo(F) Legality of Object and of Considrations on date different than date used for in-12 (Ky.) Promise to provide for bastard eration. 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 moth128(1) (Ky.) Father's promise to provide resident corporations held reasonable and noter's promise not to prosecute for seduction an "unequal application of the laws."--Id. void.-Steele v. Crawford, 197.

249 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute allowing suit against either or all connecting carriers held not a denial of equal protection of laws.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 57.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

man, 964.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (A) General Rules of Construction. 175(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of understanding of contract made through broker Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' & held admissible to establish terms thereof.Planters' Oil Co., 116.

257 (Mo.) Giving accused 12 hours from 4:45 p. m. to consult with counsel held not a denial of due process of law.-State v. Roder-175 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held suffi258 (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. State, 548. McSpadden, 454.

305 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statute allowing suit against either or all connecting carriers held not a denial of due process.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 57.

CONTINUANCE.

See Criminal Law, 589-614.

26(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of diligence to secure evidence, continuance discretionary.-Tucker v. Lingo, 1097.

tion where contract not clear stated.-Silvers 176(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule of construcBox Corporation v. J. E. Stone & Co., 1104.

[blocks in formation]

III. MODIFICATION AND MERGER. 44 (Mo.App.) Refusal of motion for con240 (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 no affida-novation thereof.-Columbia School Supply Co. vit of surprise filed.-Noland v. Norris & Co., V. Calico Rock Special School Dist., 565.

627.

45 (Ky.) Affidavit held insufficient.-Ramey v. Shortridge, 1013.

CONTRACTS.

V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. 318 (Ky.) "Forfeitures" not favored either at law or in equity.-Hogg v. Forsythe, 1008. Provisions strictly construed against party claiming forfeiture.-Id.

VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH.

See Assignments; Bills and Notes; Breach of
Marriage Promise; Covenants; Exchange of
Property: Frauds, Statute of: Guaranty; No-346 (9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under plea of gen-
vation; Release; Sales; Specific Performance:
Vendor and Purchaser.

[blocks in formation]

1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials in General. 10(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Director agreement to allow lumber company to op-349(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Broker's letter to erate trains on road held unenforceable as unilateral.-Davis v. Phillips A. Ryan Lumber Co.,

[blocks in formation]

was

purchaser of cotton seed oil narrating his un-
derstanding of the deal held inadmissible.-
Planters' Oil Co., 116.
Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' &

350 (2) (Ky.) Evidence held to establish that plumbers constructing hemp dryer were subcontractors working under designing engineer.-Hudson, House & Cogar v. Clarke Plumbing Co.. 206.

fendant to recover for breach of contract re353 (8) (Ark.) Instruction permitting degardless of whether he had also breached it held error.-Thompson v. Short, 263. CONVERSION.

See Trover and Conversion.

46 (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether contract intended to be binding before reduced to writing! (Mo.) "Equitable conversion" defined.— held for jury-Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Turner v. Hine, 933. Merchants' & Planters' Oil Co., 116.

Doctrine founded on principle that equity

« AnteriorContinuar »