on

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
42 (Mo.) Effect of dismissal, in prosecu-1936(3) (Ky.) Evidence held to show pass-
tion of similar suit, stated.--State ex rel. Burns way through uninclosed woodland was used as a
v. Shain, 591.

matter of right.-Starks v. Hobdy, 867.
II. INVOLUNTARY.

II. EXTENT OF RIGHT, USE, AND OB-

STRUCTION.
Om60(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Dismissal for want
against defendants remaining after death of one 44(2) (Ky.) Adverse possession of fenced
of prosecution proper on refusal to proceedom44(1) (Ky.) Title by adverse use is good

for all purposes.-Haffner v. Bittell, 223.
of them.-Chaffin v. Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co., lane is not limited to wagon tracks.-Haffner
715.
Om 60(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Dismissal of inter-

v. Bittell, 223.
vention proper, where intervener failed to ap- Em 61 (8) (Ky.) Uncontroverted allegation de-
pear on date set for trial.-Chaffin v. Wm. 3. fendant's title was champertous does not en-
Lemp Brewing Co., 715.

title plaintiff to injunction.-Mustain v. Vin.
cent, 367.

Cm69 (Ky.) Evidence not confining damages
DISTRICT AND PROSECUTING

to appurtenant land held incompetent.--Harp v.
ATTORNEYS.

Brookshire, 177.
ml (Tex.) “Organization" of criminal dis-

EJECTMENT.
trict court includes district attorney.--Harris
County v. Crooker, 652.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
Om5(1) (Tex.) District attorney of Harris w9(3) (Ky.) Plaintiff's must recover
county not limited to fees earned in criminal strength of their own title.- Baker v. Camp-
district court.-Harris County v. Crooker, 652. bell, 1028.

Title bond from one without title cannot au-
DIVORCE.

thorize recovery from persons having similar

claim.-Id.
V. ALIMONY, ALLOWANCES, AND DISPO-Om9 (4) (Ark.) Plaintiff in possession of land
SITION OF PROPERTY.

under color of title can maintain ejectment
Cm 240(4) (Ky.) Allowance of $50 per month against mere trespassers.-Webb y. Spann, 285.
to wife, in addition to other property, held suffi-
cient.-Duke v. Duke, 500.

III. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
Om 240 (5) (Ky.) Allowance of $50 per month 95(1) (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to
as alimony held not too much.-Duke v. Duke, show title of party under whom plaintiffs
500.

claimed.-Baker v. Campbell, 1028.
249(3) (Tex.) Real estate of parties may
be divided in the discretion of the court as

ELECTRICITY.
seems equitable.-Hedtke v. Hedtke, 21.

O4 (Ark.) Railroad Commission cannot
Court may adjudicate property rights in grant certificate of convenience and necessity
whatever manner necessary to do equity.-Id. to public service electric company operating in
C249(4) (Ky.) Home purchased with hus-city.

-De Queen Light & Power Co. v. Curtis, 5.
band's earnings properly awarded to him.- 1617) (Ky.) Interurban company furnish-
Duke v. Duke, 500.

ing electric power to move coal car injuring
249 (6) (Tex.) Adjudication of husband's plaintiff on private tracks of hospital held not
homestead to wife proper.--Hedtke v. Hedtke, liable.-Dunn v. Central State Hospital, 216.
21.

Om 19(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding that fire was
Em 253 (Tex.) Adjudication of husband's home-caused by contact between telephone and elec-
stead to wife not a jury question.-Hedtke v. tric light wires sustained.-Two States Tele-
Hedtke, 21.

phone Co. v. Hurley, 424.
DRAINS.

EMBEZZLEMENT.
I. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE.

Om 10 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bank cashier receiving,
Om 14(3) (Ky.) Appeal by railroads from receipting for, and appropriating to his own use
overruling of demurrers to petition for district money deposited to be held in escrow by bank
held taken in time.--Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. held guilty of embezzlement.-Connelly v. State,
McAdoo, 520.

340.
ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL TAXES. 26 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment embracing

statutory ingredients sufficient.--Connelly v.
88 (Ky.) Sheriff is entitled to commissions State, 340.
for collecting drainage assessments.-Board of low 30 (Tex.Cr. App.) Indictment held sufficient
Drainage Com’rs of McCracken County v. Al to show ownership of money.-Connelly v.
liston, 850.

State, 340.
Request by proper authority not to collect mw31 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment held sufficient
estops subsequent claim for failure to collect. to show receipt of money.---Connelly v. State,
-Id.

340.
Board has authority to direct sheriff not to cm 32 (Tex.Cr. App.) Indictment held sufficient
collect penalties.-Id.

to show agencr.-Connelly v. State. 310.
Sheriff is not chargeable with interest on ma35 (Ark.) Indictment and proof held not
drainage assessment collections.-Id.

at variance.-Gurley v. State, 902.

Cun36 (Ark.) Intent may be inferred from
DRAMSHOPS.

wrongful conversion-Gurley v. State, 902.

44(2) (Ark.) Evidence held sufficient to
See Intoxicating Liquors.

establish felonious intent.-Gurley v. State,

902.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Showing of an effort at concealment not nec-
See Constitutional Law, 258-305.

essary to establish intent.-Id.

- 44(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held suffi-

cient to show owner's want of consent to mis-
EASEMENTS.

appropriation of funds.-Connelly v. State, 342.
1. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND TER-
MINATION.

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Cmw5 (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden of proof

II. COMPENSATION.
claimant.-Smith v. Lancaster, 472.

(C) Measure and Amount.
ww18(1) (Ky.) Necessity is not "ground for cm 150 (Ky.) Award of $525 for passway 1.-
creation or protection by injunction.-Haffner 925 feet long held not inadequate.-Moore v.
v. Bittell, 208?

Bentley, 890.

II.

on

more

ney, 290.

III. PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PROPERTY

1. JUDICIAL NOTICE.
AND ASSESS COMPENSATION.

m5(2) (Tex. Civ. App.) Common knowledge
w 195 (Ky.) Evidence of convenient that market prices of grain and other products
way is admissible only if issue is raised.-Moore are published daily.-Farmers' Mill & Elevator
v. Bentley, 890.

Co. v. Hodges, 72.
221 (Ky.) Question of whether fencing of 13 (Tex.civ.App.) Common knowledge of
passway was necessary properly submitted to effect of exposing cattle to heat immediately
jury.-Moore v. Bentley, 890.

after dipping:-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.

of Texas v. Culberson, 111.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. Cow 14 (Tex.Civ.App.) Common knowledge that

one must use both eyes.-Davis v. Christmas,
See Constitutional Law, 229-249.

126.

20(2) (Ky.) Court will take judicial notice
EQUITY.

of transportation conditions in 1919.-Hogg v.
See Cancellation of Instruments; Conversion;

Forsythe, 1008.
Injunction; Partition; Quieting Title: Ref: w20 (2) (Mo.App.) Common knowledge that
ormation of Instruments; Specific Perform coupling of cars is done in railroad yards.--

King v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. of Detroit,
ance; Subrogation; Trusts.

Mich., 984.

Emo22(3). (Tex.Civ.App.) Courts will take ju-
I. JURISDICTION, PRINCIPLES, AND

dicial notice of connecting lines of carriers.-St.
MAXINS.

Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.
(A), Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Er-45 (Ark.) Supreme Court cannot take judi-
tent of Jurisdiction in General.

cial knowledge of time when elections are held
mw34 (Mo.) Where recovery of stockholders under special acts.-Gaster v. Dermott-Collins
in suit for accounting trifling, it should be dis- Road Improvement Dist., 2.
missed.-Collins v. Martin, 941.

II. PRESUMPTIONS.
IV. PLEADING.

Pm58 (Ky.) There is conclusive presumption
(C) Cross-Bill and Plea and Answer men and women can have children so long as
Thereto.

they live.-Brown v. Owsley, 889.
195 (Ark.) Cross-bill to make vendor par: erly stamped and addressed raises presumption

Om7l (Ky.) Proof of mailing of notice prop-
denied, where expense of suit was not in issue. that notice was given.-Benge’s Adm'r v. Gar-
---Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Bri: rison, 1050.

On83(2) (Ky.) Rate fixed by municipal body
m204 (Ark.) Held not error to dismiss cross- presumed just.-Johnson County Gas Co. v.
bill, where no showing that party had interest Stafford, 515.
in litigation.--Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. contract making body in absence of fraud. -Id.

Question of consideration for franchise is for
Co. v. Briney, 290.

IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND
ERROR, WRIT OF.

COMPETENCY IN GENERAL.
See Appeal and Error.

(B) Res Gesta,

C 121(1) (Mo.App.) Contemporaneous un.
ESTATES.

premeditated explanation of main fact admissi-
See Descent and Distribution; Executors and ble as part of res gestæ.- Noland v. Morris &

Co., 627.
Administrators; Life Estates; Remainders:

www122(6) (Mo.App.) Statement of foreman to
Tenancy in Common; Wills.

employee, acting within scope of employment,
Can I (Ky.) Law favors vested estates.-Well- held admissible.--Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.
er v. Dinwiddie, 874. .

Om 123(11) (Mo.App.) Statement of foreman

regretting order to employee, made immediate-
ESTOPPEL.

ly after assault by employee upon another,

held admissible as part of res gestæ.-Noland v.
II. BY DEED.

Morris & Co., 627.
(A) Creation and Operation in General.

(E) Competency.
mwa 19 (Ky.) Execution of deed cannot estop
heirs from attacking conveyance of expectancy.

5154 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of search and
-Consolidation Coal Co. v. Riddle, 530. recovery of property stolen admissible, where

made with permission notwithstanding absence
III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.

of search warrant.-Allison v. American Sure.

ty Co. of New York, 829.
(A) Nature and Essentials in General.

Admission of evidence wrongfully obtained
Como 62(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) No estoppel against not erroneous, where fault not that of party
questioning valid consolidation of school dis- introducing it.-Id.
tricts.-Drake v. Yawn, 726.

That method of obtaining pertinent evidence

is wrongful does not make such evidence inad-
(E) Pleading, Evidence, Trial, and Re- missible.-Id.

Cw155(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where part of in-
Co 118 (Ky.) Finding landowner was not es- strument introduced and relied upon by com-
topped to enforce time limit for removal of plaining party, whole instrument admissible by
trees held sustained by evidence.-Maynard y. opposing party.-Booth v. Crosby, 417.
Farley, 1022.

155(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of vile

epithets in discussing differences held admissi-
EVIDENCE.

ble where punitive damages sought.-Booth v.

Crosby, 417.
See Criminal Law, Om304-570; Depositions;

Testimony of vile epithets used between par:
Witnesses.

ties to action admissible where plaintiff testified
For evidence as to particular facts or issues or to bad feeling between parties.-Id.
in particular actions or proceedings, see also
the various specific topics.

V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.
For review of rulings relating to evidence, seem158(27) (Tex.Civ.App.) Exclusion of evi-
Appeal and Error.

dence of provisions of declaration of trust held
Reception at trial, see Criminal Law, Om665– not error, where declaration was obtainable
696; Trial, w34-105.

and not produced.--Dow v. Leecraft, 1088.

1

view.

mas, 126.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
VI. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE. 1 (C) Separate or Subsequent Oral Agree-

ment.
Em 192 (Tex.Civ.App.) Permitting plaintiff in
personal injury action to remove artificial eye om 441(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Oral agreements
and exhibit socket not error.-Davis v. Christ- will not be permitted to contradictor vary

terms of written instrument, in absence of
VII. ADMISSIONS.

fraud, accident, or mistake.--White, Ward &

Erwin v. Hager, 319.
(A) Natare, Form, and Incidents in Gen- 441 (1) (Tex. civ. App.) Law cannot be
eral.

evaded by proof of prior or contemporaneous
em210 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition in federal oral agreements made in regard thereto.--
court containing itemized statement held ad- Sandoval v. Eagle Pass Lumber Co., 132.
missible as declaration against interest.-Lan-em 441(6) (Mo.App.) Contract of hiring, can-
caster y. Faskin, 754.

not be varied by parol.-Ogden v. Atlas Brew-

ing Co., 644.
(C) By Grantors, Former Owners, or

441(9) (Ky.) Parol evidence admissible to
Privies.

show sale was made orally, and that written

order was
m235 (Tex.Civ.App.) Payee's statements at

never recognized as contract.-
time of execution of note admissible to show Stephenson & Co. v. Bradbury, 1055.
fraud in inception.-Smith v. Word, 734.

Om441 (9) (Tex.Com.App.) Written contract

'for sale of automobile could not be varied by
(D) By Agents or Other Representatives. Erwin v. Hager, 319.

evidence of parol warranties.-White, Ward &
On 246 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statement of defend- 441 (11) (Tex.civ.App.) Evidence of payee's
ants counsel held admissible as declaration agreement to procure mortgage securing notes
against interest.-Lancaster v. Faskin, 754. sued on inadmissible in action against indorser.

-Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McGhee, 155.
(E) Proof and Effect.

Cam 442(6) (Ky.) Long contract prepared by
Emo265(3) (Ky.) Admissions as to indebted by parol.-Commercial Auto Co. v. Brandeis

distributor held not memorandum explainable
ness of tenant held not conclusive against him Machinery & Supply Co., 233.
on accounting:-Duncan's Ex’rs v. Porch, 526. 443(0) (Ky.). Parol evidence is admissible

265(12) Ky.) Admissions as to conduct of to explain reference in instrument to collateral
tenant held not conclusive against him. on ac- transaction.--Kirchdorfer v. Watkins, 251.
counting.--Duncan's Ex’rs v. Porch, 526.

Statement in note proceeds of sale of stock

were to be credit renders parol proof of col-
IX. HEARSAY.

lateral contract admissible.--Id.
w314(2) (Tex.Civ,App.) Evidence of doc-mw445(1) (Ark.) Parol evidence of subse-
tor's statement while sewing up plaintiff's quent agreement admissible.--Thompson
wounds hearsay.-Haverbekken v. Johnson, 102. Short, 263.

317(1) (Mo.App.) Testimony of maker's
witness of conversation latter bad with un- (D) Construction or Application of Lan-
known person held inadmissible as being hear-

guage of Written Instrument.
say.-American Trust Co. v. Moore, 983.
Pows 317(I) (Tex.civ.App.) Testimony of third 450(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Parol proof held
party, out of hearing and presence of party af- admissible to explain intention of party to am-
fected, not shown to be authorized, inadmissi- biguous contract.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry.
ble.-Booth v. Crosby, 417.

Co. v. McSpadden, 454.
317(4) (Tex.Ciy. App.) Evidence to
statement of third person held subject to ob-

XII. OPINION EVIDENCE.
jection as hearsay.- Baker v. Pierce, 439,
317 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of con-

(A) Conclusions

Wit-
and Opinions of

nesses in General.
versation regarding value of grain held inadmis-
sible hearsay.-Farmers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. 471 (24) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of ship-
Hodges, 72.

per as to effect of loading on cows not objec-
Omo 323(4). (Tex.Civ.App.) Market reports at tionable as conclusions.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry.
distant points not admissible to show value of Co. v. Lane, 59.
shipment.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 47! (30)' (Mo.App.) Conclusion of witness
59.

that his agency to sell land did not depend up-

on unsuccessful deal held admissible. -Tosh v.
XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AF-

Kirshner, 994.
FECTING WRITINGS.

471 (30) (Tex. Civ. App.) Testimony that
(A) Contradicting, Varying, or Adding to

one executed contract for himself and others is
Terms of Written Instrument.

testimony of fact, not opinion.-Farmers' Mill

& Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72.
Om385 (Ky.) Writing cannot be contradicted 489 (Tex.Com.App.) Witness to the
or varied by parol.- Kirchdorfer v. Watkins, Value of mules held competent.--Rogers &
251.

Adams v. Lancaster, 660.
w397(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Written contract
conclusively presumed to comprehend entire
undertaking.-White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager, (B) Subjects of Expert Testimony.
319.
Eww423(6), (Ky.) Parol proof is competent to Ow513(1) (Tex.civ.App:) Testimony of oth-
show absolute note was executed as collateral er purchaser of silo held admissible, as to de-
security.--Kirchdorfer v. Watkins, 251.

fecțive erection of silo.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784.

as

as

(B) Invalidating Written Instrument.

(C) Competency of Experts.
Od428 (Tex.civ.App.) To show that written 543(4). (Tex.Civ.App.) Qualification of wit-
instrument was not agreement held admissible. ness testifying to market value stated.--Farm-
-Bell v. Mulkey, 784.

ers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72.
Em429 (Tex.Civ.App.) Parol evidence held Cw545 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held insuffi-
admissible to show that written instrument was cient to qualify witness to testify of the mar-
not agreement.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784.

ket value of grain.-Farmers' Mill & Elevator
432 (Ark.) Parol evidence that agreement Co. v. Hodges, 72.
not to compete against buyer was independent 545 (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of other
of contract for sale of stock, and without con- purchaser of silo held" to qualify him as
sideration, held competent.--0. K. Transfer & pert as to defective erection of silo and value
Storage Co. v. Crabtree, 271.

of ensilage.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784.

ex-

(F) Effect of Opinion Evidence.

X. ACTIONS. Om568(4) (Tex.Com.App.) Weight of opinion mw431(2) (Ky.) Filing of claim for services evidence as to the value of personal property held condition precedent to suing administrator for jury.-Rogers & Adams v. Lancaster, 660. to recover portion of land therefor.-Crain v. Om568(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment for ship-Crain, 176. per for damages to goods in shipment sustain-On451(3) (Ky.) Instruction to find for claimed.-Coulter v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 788. ant if services were rendered under circum

stances raising, presumption of expectation to XIV. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY. pay therefor, is erroneous.-Lucius' Adm'r y. Paw 589 (Ky.) Uncontradicted evidence of hus. Owen, 495. band and wife establishing resulting trust can

EXEMPTIONS. not be disregarded.-Deboe v. Brown, 855. Emas 589 (Tex.civ.App.) Party's own testimony See Homestead; Taxation, 194. sufficient.-Davis v. Christmas, 126. ww595 (Ark.) Inference of writing not dispos

FACTORS. itive instrument, offered to show intrinsic fact, See Brokers. is for jury.-Wynne, Love & Co. v. Bunch, 286, all (Ark.) Duty of factor to exercise good Cm598(1) (Mo.App.) Weight not determined faith, diligence, and ordinary discretion in sale by number of witnesses.—Hastings v. Scott, of consigned goods.-Wynne, Love & Co. v. 973.

Bunch, 286.
EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF..

C30 (Ark.) Guaranty that cotton be sold for See Appeal and Error, Cw544-553.

sum equaling advance enforceable.-Wynne,

Lore & Co. v. Bunch, 286. II. SETTLEMENT, SIGNING, AND FILING.

Factor held not liable for guaranty in sale of

cotton unless authorized to sell in good faith em 43(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bills of exception, at best price obtainable.-Id. filed after expiration of extension of time, will Material alteration in obligation assumed not be considered.--Lowry v. Gill, 1096. without assent of guarantor factor discharged

59(4) (Mo.App.). Court held entitled to him.-Id.
change bill before filing.-Franklin v. Kansas
City, 616.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY.

1. CIVIL LIABILITY. Oml. (Tex.Civ.App.) “Exchange of land" dif- (A) Acts Constituting False Imprisonment fers from "sale."- Liberto v. Sanders, 120.

and Liability Therefor. On8 (2) (Tex.civ.App.) Remedy for loss in Om2 (Ky.) Master not liable for false imexchange of land is to recover value of loss for prisonment because apprenticeship contract which an equitable lien arises.-Liberto v. San was invalid.-Brooks v. Madden, 503. ders, 120. Cm 8(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Remedy for loss in

(B) Aetions. exchange of land is to recover value of loss.- ww20(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition should alLiberto v. Sanders, 120.

lege damages resulting.-Neubert v. Chicago,

R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 141.
EXECUTION.
Com 34 (Tex.civ.App.) Mental suffering

ele. V. STAY, QUASHING, VACATING, AND RE

inent of damages.-Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. LIEF AGAINST EXECUTION.

v. Neubert, 139.

Omw36 (Tex.Civ.App.) $750 excessive damage Em 171(3) (Tex.civ.App.) Court of Civil Ap; for mental suffering.–Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. neals and Supreme Court cannot be challenged Co. v. Neubert, 139. for want of jurisdiction by suit to restrain sale 39 (Ky.) Directed verdict justified.of property under execution thereon.--Ware v. Brooks v. Madden, 503. Jones, 429.

Co 39 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence sufficient to go

to jury.-Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. NeuEXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. bert, 139. See Descent and Distribution; Wills.

FALSE PRETENSES. III. ASSETS, APPRAIS IL, AND INVEN 4 (Tex.Cr.App.) Elements of offense of TORY.

"swindling” stated.-Cochrain v. State, 43. m41 (Ky.) General clause as to handling of

Corporation's property is protected by statmoney by executor does not apply to royalties

ute.--Id. belonging to life tenant.--Goosling v. Pinson, ww26 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment charging of248.

fense of obtaining insurance money by false

pretense of death held sufficient.-Cochrain v. IV. COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF State, 43. ESTATE,

Cow 28 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment may allege (B) Real Property and Interests Therein. representations to corporation, if facts justify

it.-Cochrain v. State, 43. Com 147 (Mo.) Proceeds of sale of land by ex

False representation as to death of insured ecutor held trust fund for payment of legatees' may be charged as made to corporation.-Id. interests.--Turner v. Hine, 933.

29 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment must set out

written instrument which is basis of swindle. VI. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF --Cochrain v. State, 43. CLAJMS.

Indictment need not incorporate proof of (A) Liabilities of Estate.

death not basis of swindle by false pretense in221(2) (Ky.) No presumption son-in-law cm 38 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment peed not in

sured was dead.-Id. is to receive payment for services to father-in-corporate proof of death not basis of swindle law living with family.-Lucius' Adm'r v. Owen, by false pretense insured was dead, and proof 495.

of death was adniissible in evidence.-Cochrain O221 (5) (Ky.) Express promise to pay for

v. State, 43. care by relative must be proved by clear and 47 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence as to, circumconvincing evidence.-Lucius' Adm'r v. Owen, stances of obtaining money and indorsing draft 495.

for proceeds is competent.-Cochrain v. State, Testimony decedent stated he was going to 43. pay for services is insufficient to show express 49(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficontract.-Id.

cient to sustain conviction for obtaining life

1

ror cases in Dee.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
insurance money by false pretense of death.-

(D) Damages.
Cochrain v. State, 43.

ww59(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Measure of damages

stated.-McCren v. Spruill, 114.
FELLOW SERVANTS.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.
Sec Master and Servant, 180–185.

III. PROMISES TO ANSWER FOR DEBT,

DEFAULT OR MISCARRIAGE
FIXTURES.

OF ANOTHER.
15 (Tex.Civ. App.) Casings and machinery w 18(4). (Tex.Civ.App.) Assumption of debts
held trade fixtures.-Moore v. Carey Bros, Oil in consideration of transfer of interest in
Co., 470.

partnership is not promise to pay debt of anC33 (Ky.) Fixtures and machinery left on other.--Dickerson v. Strauss, 833. lease more than reasonable time after termina

V. AGREEMENTS NOT TO BE PERtion belong to lessor.-Patton v. Woodrow, 226.

FORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR
35(3) (Ky.) What is reasonable time with-

OR DURING LIFETIME.
in which to remove machinery from oil lease is
jury question.- Patton v. Woodrow, 226.

Om 44(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) .Parol obligation of www 35(4), (Ky.) Instruction allowing recovery grantee to pay incumbrance not in violation of for deterioration of machinery left on lease held statute as to agreements pot to be performed erroneous under pleadings and evidence. -Pat- within one year.-Holland v. W. C. Belcher ton v. Woodrow, 226.

Land Mortg. Co., 803.

Cum 53 (Tex.Civ.App.) A verbal contract of FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

employment for one year to begin in the future

held not to be performed within a year from See Corporations, Om 668, 669.

the making of it as required by the statute.

Rease v. Clarksville Cotton Oil Co., 434. FORGERY.

VI. REAL PROPERTY AND ESTATES AND
Omn 4 (Mo.) Essentials of forgery enumerated.

INTERESTS THEREIN.
-State v. Andrews, 967.

Em74(1) (Ky.) Contract of agency to sell land 26 (Mo.) Information held sufficient.- need not be in writing; "contract for sale of State v. Todd, 939.

real estate."--Oliver v. Morgan, 1020. C34(1) (Mo.) Charge of forging entire in-m76 (Tex.Civ.App.) Oral transfer of interstrument sustained by proof of forgery of any est in partnership not shown to own real esmaterial part.--State v. Andrews, 967.

tate is valid.--Dickerson v. Strauss, 833. Specific allegation and proof of forgery of indorsement necessary only where bill of ex IX. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF

STATUTE. change bearing it is genuine.--Id.

Evidence of forged indorsement admissible to em 125(1) (Ky.) Equitable rights cannot be prove forgery of instrument, although not al. relied on to enforce oral contract.-Pullum v. leged in the indictment.-Id.

Rhea, 858. Omw 34 (7) (Mo.) No variance between proof ow 129(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule where one side and information setting out forged note ac- of contract to be performed within one year is cording to "tenor” and also unnecessarily al- performed stated.-Holland v. W. C. Belcher leging its "purport."-State v. Collins, 599. Land Mortg. Co., 803. ww44 (1/2) (Mo.) Possession of forged instrum 129 (4) (Ky.) Possession under oral lease ment and attempt to sell it not evidence that cannot be relied on to defeat recovery by ownpossessor forged it.-State v. Andrews, 967. er.-Pullum v. Rhea, 858. Cm47 (Mo.) Submission to jury of charge of Em 131(1) (Mo.App.) Oral modification of passing, uttering, and publishing forged check written contract for sale of real estate, void. with intent to defraud held justified by evi- | Roburt v. Holmes, 646. dence.-State v. Andrews, 967.

Oral agreement held modification within statOm48 (Mo.) Instruction as to evidence of for- ute.--Id. gery held not responsive to charge of passing, 138(5) (Ky.) Grantor cannot recover land uttering, and publishing forged check with in- transferred under verbal contract without paytent to defraud.-State v. Andrews, 967.

ing for grantee's improvements.-Crain ww49 (Mo.). Verdict finding defendant guilty Crain, 176. as charged in first count in information held

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. sufficient.--State v. Todd, 939.

I. TRANSFERS AND TRANSACTIONS

INVALID.
FRAUD.

(E) Consideration.
See Frauds, Statute of: Fraudulent Convey.

87(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Surrender of unseances.

cured note in consideration of transfer of ven

dor's lien notes constituted “consideration I. DECEPTION CONSTITUTING FRAUD,

deemed valuable" within statute.--Adams v. AND LIABILITY THEREFOR.

Williams, 673.
213(2) (Mo.App.) Knowledge of fraud by
defendant
unnecessary.-Jourdan Sheets,

(H) Preferences to Creditors.
641.

Om 121 (Tex.Com.App.) Creditor, though On 23 (Mo.App.) Representation as to value

knowing of intent to prefer him, may receive may be fraudulent.-Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.

payment of debt.-Adams v. Williams, 673. II. ACTIONS.

GAMING. (B) Parties and Pleading.

I. GAMBLING CONTRACTS AND TRANS

ACTIONS.
41 (Mo.App.) Petition held to show deceit.
Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.

(A) Nature and Validity.
44 (Mo.App.) Petition held based on fraud, 12 (Tex.Civ.App.) Contract to deliver at
and not on guaranty.-Jourdan v, Sheets, 641.

future date not invalid.-Kennedy v. McCauley, m. 49 (Tex.Civ.App.) Proof of valuc not ad

423. missible in absence of allegation.-McCrea v. Spruill, 114.

(B) Rights and Remedies of Parties. (C) Evidence.

49(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Contract for future O 52 (Mo.App.) Evidence held admissible.- delivery not presumed gambling transaction.Jourdan v. Sheets, 641,

Kennedy V. McCauley, 423.

V.