« AnteriorContinuar »
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
matter of right.-Starks v. Hobdy, 867.
II. EXTENT OF RIGHT, USE, AND OB-
for all purposes.-Haffner v. Bittell, 223.
v. Bittell, 223.
title plaintiff to injunction.-Mustain v. Vin.
Cm69 (Ky.) Evidence not confining damages
to appurtenant land held incompetent.--Harp v.
I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
Title bond from one without title cannot au-
thorize recovery from persons having similar
under color of title can maintain ejectment
III. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
claimed.-Baker v. Campbell, 1028.
O4 (Ark.) Railroad Commission cannot
-De Queen Light & Power Co. v. Curtis, 5.
ing electric power to move coal car injuring
Om 19(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding that fire was
phone Co. v. Hurley, 424.
Om 10 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bank cashier receiving,
statutory ingredients sufficient.--Connelly v.
to show agencr.-Connelly v. State. 310.
at variance.-Gurley v. State, 902.
Cun36 (Ark.) Intent may be inferred from
wrongful conversion-Gurley v. State, 902.
44(2) (Ark.) Evidence held sufficient to
establish felonious intent.-Gurley v. State,
Showing of an effort at concealment not nec-
essary to establish intent.-Id.
- 44(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held suffi-
cient to show owner's want of consent to mis-
appropriation of funds.-Connelly v. State, 342.
(C) Measure and Amount.
III. PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PROPERTY
1. JUDICIAL NOTICE.
m5(2) (Tex. Civ. App.) Common knowledge
Co. v. Hodges, 72.
after dipping:-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.
of Texas v. Culberson, 111.
one must use both eyes.-Davis v. Christmas,
20(2) (Ky.) Court will take judicial notice
of transportation conditions in 1919.-Hogg v.
King v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. of Detroit,
Emo22(3). (Tex.Civ.App.) Courts will take ju-
dicial notice of connecting lines of carriers.-St.
Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.
cial knowledge of time when elections are held
Pm58 (Ky.) There is conclusive presumption
they live.-Brown v. Owsley, 889.
Om7l (Ky.) Proof of mailing of notice prop-
On83(2) (Ky.) Rate fixed by municipal body
Question of consideration for franchise is for
IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND
COMPETENCY IN GENERAL.
(B) Res Gesta,
C 121(1) (Mo.App.) Contemporaneous un.
premeditated explanation of main fact admissi-
www122(6) (Mo.App.) Statement of foreman to
employee, acting within scope of employment,
Om 123(11) (Mo.App.) Statement of foreman
regretting order to employee, made immediate-
ly after assault by employee upon another,
held admissible as part of res gestæ.-Noland v.
Morris & Co., 627.
5154 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of search and
made with permission notwithstanding absence
of search warrant.-Allison v. American Sure.
ty Co. of New York, 829.
Admission of evidence wrongfully obtained
That method of obtaining pertinent evidence
is wrongful does not make such evidence inad-
Cw155(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where part of in-
155(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of vile
epithets in discussing differences held admissi-
ble where punitive damages sought.-Booth v.
Testimony of vile epithets used between par:
ties to action admissible where plaintiff testified
V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.
dence of provisions of declaration of trust held
and not produced.--Dow v. Leecraft, 1088.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
terms of written instrument, in absence of
fraud, accident, or mistake.--White, Ward &
Erwin v. Hager, 319.
evaded by proof of prior or contemporaneous
not be varied by parol.-Ogden v. Atlas Brew-
ing Co., 644.
441(9) (Ky.) Parol evidence admissible to
show sale was made orally, and that written
never recognized as contract.-
Om441 (9) (Tex.Com.App.) Written contract
'for sale of automobile could not be varied by
evidence of parol warranties.-White, Ward &
-Polk-Genung-Polk Co. v. McGhee, 155.
Cam 442(6) (Ky.) Long contract prepared by
distributor held not memorandum explainable
265(12) Ky.) Admissions as to conduct of to explain reference in instrument to collateral
Statement in note proceeds of sale of stock
were to be credit renders parol proof of col-
lateral contract admissible.--Id.
317(1) (Mo.App.) Testimony of maker's
guage of Written Instrument.
Co. v. McSpadden, 454.
XII. OPINION EVIDENCE.
nesses in General.
per as to effect of loading on cows not objec-
that his agency to sell land did not depend up-
on unsuccessful deal held admissible. -Tosh v.
471 (30) (Tex. Civ. App.) Testimony that
one executed contract for himself and others is
testimony of fact, not opinion.-Farmers' Mill
& Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72.
Adams v. Lancaster, 660.
fecțive erection of silo.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784.
(B) Invalidating Written Instrument.
(C) Competency of Experts.
ers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72.
ket value of grain.-Farmers' Mill & Elevator
of ensilage.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784.
(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.
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.
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.
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
ror cases in Dee.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
ww59(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Measure of damages
stated.-McCren v. Spruill, 114.
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.
III. PROMISES TO ANSWER FOR DEBT,
DEFAULT OR MISCARRIAGE
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
OR DURING LIFETIME.
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
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
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.
(H) Preferences to Creditors.
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
(A) Nature and Validity.
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.