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

15(10) (Tex.Com.App.) Recitals in deeds admissible to define extent of claim at time of execution.-Stephens v. House, 30.

16 (Tex.Com.App.) Possession as tenants in common held not basis for such adverse possession as would raise presumption of deed from one tenant to another.-Stephens V. House, 30.

Knowledge imputed to co-owner to establish acquiescence.-Id.

III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF COTEN-
ANTS AS TO THIRD PERSONS.

54 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner of undivided interest in property leased by co-owner held estopped to assert that payments of rent to co-owner were unauthorized.-Werner v. May field Co., 766.

THREATS.

5 (Tex.Cr.App.) Indictment for obtaining money by threats held sufficient.-Simmons v. State, 392.

7 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of obtaining money by threats to injure character.-Simmons v. State, 392.

Prosecuting witness' testimony that he knew defendant had been drinking held admissible. -Id.

TORTS.

II. DOCKETS, LISTS, AND CALENDARS.

11(2) (Ark.) Action held one to surcharge account and within equity jurisdiction.-Haw kins Bros. v. Lesser-Goldman Cotton Co., 275. III. COURSE AND CONDUCT OF TRIAL IN

GENERAL.

25(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court without discretion to refuse defendant's right to open and conclude evidence and argument after compliance with rule as to filing admissions.-Baker v. Pierce, 439.

25(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule that defendant, filing admissions after issues of fact settled and before trial commences, entitled as of right to open and conclude evidence and argument, available under pleas of fraud, mistake, and like pleas of confession and avoidance.-Baker v. Pierce, 439.

25(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant filing admissions before pleadings read to jury or any evidence offered, not entirely without rule entitling him to open and close evidence and argument.-Baker v. Pierce, 439.

"Issues of fact are settled," when issues of law arising on pleadings and pleas in abatement determined.-Id.

Term "before the trial commences" means when case is ready to open on merits.-Id.

25(14) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule that defendant, filing admissions after issues of fact settled and before trial commences, entitled as of

See Assault and Battery, 28-39; False Im-right to open and conclude evidence and arguprisonment, 2-39; Fraud, 13-59; Li- ment, not available to defendant in action on bel and Slander, 5-127; Malicious Prose- note who pleads alleged payment.-Baker v. cution, 49-67; Municipal Corporations, Pierce, 439. 762-843; Negligence, 1-139; Nuisance, 77; Trespass, 48; Trover and Conversion.

IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. (A) Introduction, Offer, and Admission of Evidence in General.

3 (Tex.Civ.App.) Person incapable of making contract cannot be bound on tort dependent 34 (Ky.) Tax receipt must be placed in thereon.-Sandoval v. Eagle Pass Lumber Co., evidence, not merely filed as part of pleading. 132. -Kennedy v. Kennedy, 182. 22 (Ky.) Parties not acting together are not jointly liable for damages resulting from separate torts.-Watson v. Pyramid Oil Co., 227.

4 (Ky.) Agreement to abide by rules does not require submission of controversy involving personal rights.-Piercy v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., 1042.

4 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of mandatory injunction to restore member of labor union to seniority rights held not error.-Hunt v. Dunlap, 760.

35 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of default at time of trial does not preclude evidence as to when it occurred.-Farquharson v. Fresno Oil Co., 481.

36 (Tex.Com.App.) Held not necessary un der pleadings to prove transfer of notes.Adams v. Williams, 673.

(B) Order of Proof, Rebuttal, and Reopening Case.

62(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence offered in rebuttal of testimony of opposing party admissible.-Booth v. Crosby, 417.

63(2) (Ky.) Permitting leading of deposition after testimony in chief taken held not error.-Gray v. Gray, 172.

(C) Objections, Motions to Strike Out, and

Exceptions.

8 (Ky.) Officers are not agents of members with respect to individual rights.-Piercy 75 (Ky.) Admission of evidence is cured by v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., 1042. subsequent introduction of similar evidence by Cannot deprive members of individual rights opposite party.-Payne v. Raymond's Adm'r, under agreements secured by it.-Id.

TRESPASS.

n. ACTIONS.

(D) Damages.

48 (Ky.) Damages for personal injury received while pursuing trespassers held not recoverable.-Clifford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180.

TRIAL.

See Continuance; Costs; Criminal Law,
641-885; Jury; New Trial; Venue.

For trial of particular actions or proceedings,
see also the various specific topies.
For review of rulings at trial, see Appeal and
Error.

224.

75 (Tex.Civ.App.) Case not reversed for evidence to which objection waived.-Booth v. Crosby, 417.

76 (Mo.App) Where no objection or motion to strike made when evidence given, objection thereafter too late.-Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

Objection to evidence already in record without objection properly overruled.-Id.

83 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection that hearsay evidence was "incompetent" held sufficient. -Farmers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72. 85 (Mo.App.) Overruling objection directed to whole statement not error, if first part thereof admissible in evidence.-Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

89 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court erred in not withdrawing testimony in view of cross-examination. McCrea v. Spruill, 114.

to sell was not entitled to commission held not erroneous.-Tosh v. Kirshner, 994.

105(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of attorney examining title held competent, in absence of objection, to show defects therein.- 215 (Tex.Civ.App) Special issue statute Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797.

V. ARGUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF
COUNSEL.

120(2) (Mo.App.) Comment on matter in deposition not read to jury improper.-Franklin v. Kansas City, 616.

authorizes submission of explanations and definitions of legal terms so jury may render verdict on issue.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. McSpadden, 454.

(C) Form, Requisites, and Sufficiency. 228 (1) (Mo.App.) Instruction for plaintiff 120(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Statement, in argu- broker held not erroneous as not including dement, of self-evident proposition, not error.-fense.-Tosh v. Kirshner, 994. Davis v. Christmas, 126.

133(6) (Mo.App.) Comment on matter in deposition not read to jury improper, and not cured by action of court.-Franklin v. Kansas City, 616.

133 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Remarks as to effect of contributory negligence, though improper, held not to require reversal.-Davis v. Christmas, 126.

233 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Reference to pleadings in charge where no issue presented not contained therein or without evidence to support it held not error.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Meyers, 444.

dence.

(D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evi248 (Mo.App.) Abstract instruction not ap133 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Remarks of coun- plied to facts erroneous.-Jones v. Norman, sel, where court promptly admonished iury to 621. disregard them, held not prejudicial.-Booth v. 252(10) (Mo. App.) Instruction properly Crosby, 417. refused as not warranted by evidence.-Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.

VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION FROM 252(12) (Mo.App.) Instruction as to now

JURY.

(A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen

eral.

promise to pay discharged account held er roneous as not supported by evidence.-Boone County Milling & Elevator Co. v. Lowery, 623. 139(1) (Ky.) Testimony contrary to physi-252(13) (Mo.App.) Instruction submitting cal laws is not scintilla of evidence.-Webb v. issue not in dispute improper.-Jones v. NorElkhorn Mining Corporation, 844. man, 621.

139(1) (Ky.) If any evidence sufficient to go to jury, directed verdict must be denied. Slusher v. Lawson, 888.

140(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Inconsistencies in testimony do not take from jury right to determine credibility of witness.-Dickerson v. Strauss, 833.

(D) Direction of Verdict.

253 (5) (Mo.App.) Instruction_ignoring defense of waiver held erroneous.-Jones v. Norman, 621. Instruction disregarding elements of recovery held erroneous.-Id.

253 (9) (Mo.App.) Instruction on liability of master for assault by servant held not erroneous. Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

253(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of rein-quested charge restricting issue as to cause of accident held not erroneous.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Meyers, 444.

178 (Ky.) On motion for peremptory struction, evidence for opposite party must be taken as true.-Slusher v. Lawson, 888.

VII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. (A) Province of Court and Jury in General.

186 (Mo.App.) Instruction held not comment on evidence.-Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.

186 (Tex.Com.App.) Charge erroneously excluding evidence held improper in stating evidence was "highly improper."-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

191(9) (Mo.App.) Instruction properly refused as assuming disputed facts.-Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.

(E) Requests or Prayers.

260(1) (Mo.App.) Refusal of instruction, properly covered and submitted in given instruction, not error.-Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

260(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of charges not error where matters covered.-Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Neubert, 139; Worley v. Morgan, 1101.

260(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Special charge given in substance in general charge properly refused.-Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ruston,

143.

192 (Ark.) Assumption of court in charge260 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to instruct as to fact not disputed in evidence warranted. jury on good faith of plaintiff in withholding -Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Brady, bank stock held not erroneous.-Booth v. Cros278. by, 417.

192 (Mo.App.) Court may assume conceded facts.-Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.

(G) Construction and Operation.

194(12) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction that indorsee must show performance of conditions296(2) (Mo.App.) Instruction for plaintiff in mortgage and sale contract held on weight omitting defense cured by defendant's instrucof evidence.-Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Vou- tion.-Tosh v. Kirshner, 994. douris, 810.

VIII. CUSTODY, CONDUCT, AND DELIBER-
ATIONS OF JURY.

194(15) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction in aetion for killing bull, permitting jury to disregard engineer's failure to ring bell and blow 308 (Tex.Civ.App.) Reading portions of whistle held error.-Puckett v. Davis, 65. testimony to jury at its request after retirement not improper.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

194 (18) (Tex.Com.App.) Instruction on burden of proof held on the weight of the evidence.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

IX. VERDICT.

(B) Necessity and Sabject-Matter. (B) Special Interrogatories and Findings. 203(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Submitting as is-350(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issue of ownership sues whether there was a wreck and whether of land where difficulty arose should be subinjured person was a passenger, held error, mitted.-Haverbekken v. Johnson, 102. where such facts admitted.-Lamar v. Pan-350 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Submitting sole handle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34. special issue to jury whether contract was for one or two tanks of cotton seed oil held not error.-Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' & Planters' Oil Co., 116.

207 (Mo.App.) Ruling that check paid by owner to realty company as commission was not evidence that broker originally authorized

1175

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

(B) Resulting Trusts.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.

350(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of special issue on uncontrolling issue held not error.89 (5) (Ky.) Evidence to establish resultDale v. Simon, 703. ing trust must be clear and convincing.-Deboe Where each lessor signed lease for himself, v. Brown, 855. held not error to refuse submission of issue of agency existing between lessors.-Id. 350(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Nonessential issues not submitted.-Middleton v. Moore, 768. 350(8) should not be submitted.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

(Tex.Com.App.)

(A) In Generál.

Admitted facts 124 (Ky.) Trust deed for benefit of life tenant and "issue" held to contemplate children and not grandchildren.-Newcomb v. Newcomb, 198.

352(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Question submitting defendant's alleged assault on plaintiff misleading.-Haverbekken v. Johnson, 102.

(B) Estate or Interest of Trustee and of

Cestui Que Trust.

352(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to submit special issue as to whether damage occurred 135 (Ky.) Gift to hold in trust for wife and children is active trust.-Brown v. Owsley, from inherent vice in stock shipped not error. 889. -Payne v. Richards, 771.

Refusal of special issue as to whether shipper was contributorily negligent in fastening gates of cattle pens not error.-Id.

Refusal to submit speculative issue not er

ror.-Id.

X. TRIAL BY COURT.

(A) Hearing and Determination of Cause.

367 (Ky.) Court can determine value of wheat from general knowledge.-Duncan's Ex'rs v. Porch, 526.

1362 (Tex.Com.App.) Property of trust estate in trustee's hands not subject to trustee's debts.-Adams v. Williams, 673.

"issue"

means

de

140(3) (Ky.) Where
scendants, they take per stirpes and not per
capita.-Newcomb v. Newcomb, 198.

IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF
TRUST PROPERTY.

191 (2) (Ky.) Power of sale in trustee need not be conferred by express words.-Goldberg v. Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., 219.

(B) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 191(3) (Ky.) Sale of trust property need

Law.

403 (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings and conclusions filed more than 10 days after adjournment for term not considered.-Terrell v. Otis Elevator Co., 467.

TROVER AND CONVERSION.

I. ACTS CONSTITUTING CONVERSION AND ~358(1) (Tenn.) Proceeds of trust not trac-
ed as necessary for preferential payment.-
LIABILITY THEREFOR.
Bragg v. Osborn, 19.

35(1) (Ark.) Accumulated fund in hands of purchaser of lumber under agreement with 125 (Tex.Civ.App.) Suit cannot be mainowner to hold stipulated sum for 1,000 feet tained against federal government except by in lieu of lien on timber for performance of special congressional authority.-Davis v. Young, stumpage contract held trust fund for benefit of owner.-Ellis v. Baker-Matthews Lumber Co., 7.

409.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

56 (Ky.) Injustice to after-born child of See Sales. settlor held not to entitle her to set trust aside.-Burton v. Burton's Trustee, 1031.

Petition of settlor held not to allege facts entitling her to set it aside.-Id.

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON-
TRACT.

3(4) (Tex. Civ.App.) Contract for sale of realty held option merely.-Tate v. Morris, Gra

Execution of trust without legal advice, which could have been obtained, does not en-ham & Morris. 797. title settlor to set it aside.-Id.

Beneficiary held not entitled to set aside trust deed on ground she was equitable owner of property conveyed.-Id.

Heirs of grantor are necessary parties to suit to set aside trust deed.-Id.

59(1) (Ky.) Trust containing no power of revocation cannot be revoked by settlor.Burton v. Burton's Trustee, 1031.

61(3) (Ky.) Trustee and beneficiaries of active trust cannot terminate by conveying property.-Brown v. Owsley, 889.

representations of 35 (Ky.) Erroneous good title to land honestly made not fraud.Goatley v. Harmon, 212.

III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION OF
CONTRACT.

(C) Rescission by Purchaser.
112(1) (Ky.) Purchaser under warranty
deed held not entitled to rescind, in absence of
actual fraud, where vendor is within state and
solvent.-Goatley v. Harmon, 212.

126 (Tex. Civ. App.) Purchaser, defaulting in obligation of executory contract, liable for use and occupation.-Bailey v. Mann, 469.

IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

III. CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF

TRIAL.

77 (Mo.) Withdrawal of motion for change of venue held abandonment thereof.-State ex rel. Burns v. Shain, 591.

VERDICT.

(D) Payment of Purchase Money. 170 (Mo.App.) Tender on one contract could not apply to another contract.-Roburt See Criminal Law, 878-885; Trial, 329v. Holmes, 646.

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PAR

TIES.

(C) Bona Fide Purchasers. 233 (Tex.Civ.App.) Law, making conveyances of land void as to subsequent bona fide purchasers without notice unless recorded, includes such instruments made to or for benefit of minors.-Bryan v. Texas Life Ins. Co., 163.

VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR.

352.

WATERS AND WATER COURSES.
See Drains.

VIII. ARTIFICIAL PONDS, RESERVOIRS,
AND CHANNELS, DÁMS, AND
FLOWAGE.

179(6) (Ky.) Evidence held not to show flood was too remote consequence from leaving ties on right of way.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wood, 871.

WEAPONS.

(A) Lien and Recovery of Land. 254 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendor has implied lien on land till purchase money is paid.-Liber-7 (Mo.) Motive for carrying concealed pisto v. Sanders, 120. tol held immaterial.-State v. Whitman, 937. 261 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to record 17(1) (Mo.) Information charging carryportion of conveyance of purchase-money note, ing concealed deadly weapon held sufficient.stating that it was first lien on land, held to de- State v. Whitman, 937. stroy its effect as notice of its priority.-Sang-17 (4) (Mo.) Intent inferable where evier Bros. v. Hammonds, 477. dence consists of carrying concealed deadly weapon.-State v. Whitman, 937.

265 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendor has implied lien on land till purchase money is paid but 17 (4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence showed unlien does not run with land.-Liberto v. San- lawful carrying of pistol.-Walker v. State, ders, 120. 1014. 265 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) One relying on 17(5) (Mo.) Whether on evidence accused record notice of release from lien is protected guilty held for jury.-State v. Whitman, 937. thereby.-Adams v. Williams. 673. 17(6) (Mo.) Instruction in prosecution for carrying concealed deadly weapon held sufficient.-State v. Whitman, 937.

280(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Count for rescission of conveyance held subject to demurrer as to recovery of rents or damages.-Bailey v. Mann, 469.

(B) Actions for Purchase Money. 315(3) (Ky.) Finding that purchaser knew lands overflowed sustained.-Rowlett v. Downs, 192.

317 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on purchasemoney note, court's finding held not to show that land was public free school land.-Morris v. Hall, 1100.

VENUE.

See Criminal Law, 108-142.

Where evidence tended to show accused was carrying automatic pistol concealed, request to instruct to acquit properly overruled.-Id.

WILLS.

See Descent and Distribution; Executors and
Administrators.

IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY, (A) Nature and Essentials of Testamentary Dispositions.

73 (Tex. Civ. App.) Invalid unless estate thereby vests in some one at testator's death. -McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND

ANNULMENT.

I. NATURE OR SUBJECT OF ACTION. 5(5) (Ky.) Suit for damages for obstruction of passway must be brought in county where passway is situated; "real property;" "hereditament."-Harp v. Brookshire, 177. 7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Suit properly brought in (B) Actions to Establish or Determine Vacounty where sales contract made.-Silvers Box Corporation v. J. E. Stone & Co., 1104. Action based on contract arises in county

162 (Tex.Civ.App.) Plea of privilege cannot be defeated because venue is properly laid302(1) (Tex. Com. App.) Statutes in county of codefendant's residence, where proof of execution of will construed.-Massey there is misjoinder of parties defendant and 304 (Tex.Com.App.) Proof of signature of v. Allen, 1067. causes of action.-Hart Shoe Co. v. Adams, 475. deceased witness and of witness with dead memory held to establish will.-Massey v. Allen, 1067.

II. DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE OF PAR

TIES.

(1) Hearing or Trial.

C22(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Resident defendant does not defeat nonresident's plea of privilege, 324(2) (Tenn.) Where there is evidence of where cause of action is separate.-Gladish v. testator's unsoundness of mind, issue must go Neeley, 751. to jury.-Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302.

Resident defendant guaranteeing contract is not jointly liable with nonresident.-Id. Plaintiff held to have no cause of action against resident defendant.-Id.

Good faith in seeking recovery on unenforceable guaranty is immaterial.-Id.

(K) Review.

401 (Tenn.) Administrator's defense not raised till second trial in circuit court held still available.-Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302.

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

(M) Operation and Effect. 434 (Tenn.) Foreign probate conclusive as to personalty and as to realty within state of testator's domicile.-Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302. Testamentary capacity and formal requisites as relating to immovable property ultimately determined by courts of state where property located. Id.

Foreign judgments admitting to probate may be made conclusive by statute.-Id.

Full faith and credit clause inapplicable to probate of will affecting realty in another state. -Id.

Though probate proceedings are in rem, they are not conclusive as to realty without state. -Id.

Provision devisee in fee should not sell or dispose to other persons is void.-Id.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.

671 (Tex.Com.App.) Not necessary to declare trust in express terms.-Adams v. Williams, 673. ~672 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Devise in trust implied where executors are given powers of trustees.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103.

674 (Tex.Com.App.) Purpose of spendthrift trust not defeated by permission to apply corpus to cestui que trust's benefit.-Adams v. Williams, 673.

Instrument creating spendthrift trust need not assign reason therefor. Id.

681 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Property held devised to executors as trustees.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103. 682(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Testatrix's purpose held to provide for sister's welfare, but to deprive her of right to dispose of property.Adams v. Williams, 673.

687(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Vesting legal title during life of first taker in trustee does not affect devise over.-Adams v. Williams, 673.

692, 693(1) (Ky.) Power to sell son's interest held merely to make wife trustee with unlimited powers to sell for son's benefit.Wilkinson v. May, 887.

VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVI(A) Nature of Title and Rights in General. 722 (Tex.Civ.App.) Title of devisee not dependent upon probating of will.-Smith v. Lancaster, 472.

SEES AND LEGATEES.

(H) Void, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises and Bequests, and Property and Interests Undisposed of.

(D) Description of Property. 564(1) (Ky.) Clause disposing of royalties under mining leases made by executors does not apply to royalties under existing leases by testator.-Goosling v. Pinson, 248. 564(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Gift of entire in-866 (Ky.) Devise to charity not designatcome is not gift of corpus, if_contrary inten-ed with reasonable certainty is treated as intion is manifest.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's testate property.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Estate, 103. Patridge, 1056.

564 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Devisee of income held not to have interest which she could devise.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103.

(E) Nature of Estates and Interests Created.

598 (Ky.) Gift with unlimited power of dis position passes the fee.-Weller v. Dinwiddie,

874.

600(4) (Ky.) Clause making gift over of property not disposed of by original devisee passes the fee.-Weller v. Dinwiddie, 874.

601 (1) (Ky.) Contrary intention controls apparent gift of fee.-Weller v. Dinwiddie, 874.

601(1) (Ky.) Codicil in favor of children of deceased daughter held to give them a fee. Pringle v. Adams, 885.

601 (2) (Ky.) Left-over after intended gift of fee is invalid.-Weller v. Dinwiddie, 874. 602, 603 (1) (Ky.) Devise held to give sou defeasible fee in half of the estate.-Wilkinson v. Mav. 887.

608(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule in Shelley's Case not applicable where will gives no immediate estate.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Es tate, 103.

Rule in Shelley's Case yields to testator's in tention.-Id.

608 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) "Rule in Shelley's Case" stated.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103.

622 (Ky.) "Remainder" in left-over held not used in technical sense.-Weller v. Dinwiddie, 874.

(G) Conditions and Restrictions. 649 (Ky.) Restraint on sale to any except other devisees is void.-Carpenter v. Allen, 523. Limitation over for violation of void restraint of alienation is void.-Id.

(A) Taking Testimony in General. 227 (Ky.) Notary public may administer oath to witnesses under direction of court.Bush v. Commonwealth, 522.

Oath neeed not be administered by legally appointed officer of the court.-Id.

240 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Question held improper as leading witness.-El Paso Electric Ry. Co. v. Cowan, 442.

248 (2) (Mo.) Evidence as to identification of defendant held not responsive to question.State v. Dengel, 603.

258 (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony from records personally kept by witness who had no present recollection is admissible.-Payne v. Texas Mercantile Co., 79.

Testimony from records kept under supervision of witness, and believed to be correct, is admissible.-Id.

Testimony as to damage to cotton from records made by witness held admissible.-Id. Witness can testify from proper records as to matters of which he has no recollection.-Id.

264 (Tex.Civ.App.) Permitting defendant to return to stand to testify as to plaintiff's agreement to look to third party for payment of notes sued on held within sound discretion of