Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER Om 15(10) (Tex.Com.App.) Recitals in deeds II. DOCKETS, LISTS, AND CALENDARS. admissible to define extent of claim at time of my 11 (2) (Ark.) Action held one to surcharge execution.-Stephens v. House, 30. Om 16 (Tex.Com.App.) Possession as tenants kins Bros. v. Lesser-Goldman Cotton Co., 275.

account and within equity jurisdiction.-Haw in common held not basis for such adverse possession as would raise presumption of deed 11. COURSE AND CONDUCT OF TRIAL IN from one tenant to another.-Stephens

GENERAL. House, 30.

Knowledge imputed to co-owner to establish a 25(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court without disacquiescence.-Id.

cretion to refuse defendant's right to open and

conclude evidence and argument after compliIII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF COTEN

ance with rule as to filing admissions.- Baker ANTS' AS TO THIRD PERSONS,

v. Pierce, 439.

m25(7) (Tex.Civ. App.) Rule that defendant, 54 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner of undivided in- filing admissions after issues of fact settled and terest in property leased by co-owner held before trial commences, entitled as of right to estopped to assert that payments of rent to co-owner were unauthorized.-Werner v. May-1 available under pleas of fraud, mistake, and like

open and conclude evidence and argument, field Co., 766.

pleas of confession and avoidance.- Baker v. THREATS.

Pierce, 139.
m25(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant

filing w 5 (Tex.Cr. App.) Indictment for obtaining admissions before pleadings read to jury or any money by threats held sufficient.-Simmons v. evidence offered, not entirely without rule enState, 392.

titling him to open and close evidence and ar7 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to gument.--Baker v. Pierce, 439. sustain conviction of obtaining money by "Issues of fact are settled," when issues of threats to injure character.-Simmons v. State, law arising on pleadings and pleas in abatement 392.

determined.-Id. Prosecuting witness' testimony that he knew Term "before the trial commences" means defendant had been drinking held admissible. when case is ready to open on merits.-Id. -Id.

Cum 25 (14) (Tex.civ.App.) Rule that defend

ant, filing admissions after issues of fact setTORTS.

tled and before trial commences, entitled as of See Assault and Battery, w28-39; False Im- right to open and conclude evidence and argu

prisonment, Om2-39; Fraud, 13-59; Li- ment, not available to defendant in action on bel and Slander, Omw 5-127; Malicious Prose- note who pleads alleged payment.-Baker v. cution, w49-67; Municipal Corporations, Pierce, 439.

w762-843; Negligence, mol-139; Nui-
sance, Om77; Trespass, 48; Trover and IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.
Conversion.

(A) Introduction, Offer, and Admission of cm3 (Tex.Civ.App.) Person incapable of mak

Evidence in General. ing contract cannot be bound on tort dependent Cm 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. Own 22 (Ky.) Parties not acting together are 35 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of default at not jointly liable for damages resulting from time of trial does not preclude evidence as to separate torts.-Watson v. Pyramid Oil Co., when it occurred.--Farquharson v. Fresno Oil 227.

Co., 481. Cam 27 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of evidence C36 (Tex.Com.App.) Held not ecessary un as to financial condition of defendant, charged der pleadings to prove transfer of notes.-with withdrawing funds from bank, held ad- | Adams v. Williams, 673. missible.---Booth v. Crosby, 417.

(B) Order of Proof, Rebuttal, and Reopen

ing Case. TRADE UNIONS.

Om62(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence offered in G4 (Ky.) Agreement to abide by rules does rebuttal of testimony of opposing party adnot require submission of controversy involv- missible.-Booth v. Crosby, 417, ing personal rights.--Piercy v. Louisville & N. 6m 63(2) (Ky.) Permitting leading of deposiRy. Co., 1042.

tion after testimony in chief taken held not ercm 4 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of mandatory in- ror.-Gray v. Gray, 172. junction to restore member of labor union to seniority rights held not error.-Hunt v. Dun- (C) Objections, Motions to Strike Out, and lap, 760.

Exceptions. Omw 8 (Ky.) Officers are not agents of members with respect to individual rights. --Piercy C75 (Ky.) Admission of evidence is cured by v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., 1012.

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.

224.
Ow75 (Tex.Civ.App.) Case not reversed for

evidence to which objection waived.-Booth v. TRESPASS.

Crosby, 417.
II. ACTIONS.

Omw76 (Mo.App) Where no objection or mo

tion to strike made when evidence given, ob(D) Damages.

jection thereafter too late.- Noland v. Morris 48 (Ky.) Damages for personal injury re- & Co., 627. ceived while pursuing trespassers held not re

Objection to evidence already in record withcoverable.-Clifford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. out objection properly overruled.--Id. Co., 180.

ww83(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection that hear

say evidence was "incompetent" held sufficient. TRIAL.

Farmers' Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hodges, 72.

ww85 (Mo.App.) Overruling objection directed See Continuance; Costs; Criminal Law, to whole statement not error, if first part 641-835; Jury; New Trial; Venue.

thereof admissible in evidence.-Noland v. MorFor trial of particular actions or proceedings, ris & Co., 627. see also the various specific topies.

ww89 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court erred in not withFor review of rulings at trial, see Appeal and drawing testimony in view of cross-examinaError.

tion.-McCrea v. Spruill, 114.

AND

OF

eral,

(D) Direction of Verdict.

re

105(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of at-, to sell was not entitled to commission held not torney examining title held competent, in ab- erroneous.—Tosh v. Kirshner, 994. sence of objection, to show defects therein.- 215 (Tex.civ.App) Special issue statute Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797.

authorizes submission of explanations and defi

nitions of legal terms so jury may render verV. ARGUMENTS

CONDUCT

dict on issue.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. COUNSEL.

v. McSpadden, 454. Cu 120(2) (Mo.App.) Comment on matter in deposition not read to jury improper.-Frank

(C) Form, Requisites, and Sufticiency. lin v. Kansas City, 616.

em228(1) (Mo.App.) Instruction for plaintiff Omw 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.

Em 233(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Reference to pleadw 133(6) (Mo.App.) Comment on matter in ings in charge where no issue presented not deposition not read to jury improper, and not contained therein or without evidence to supcured by action of court.-Franklin v. Kansas port it held not error.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. City, 616.

v. Meyers, 444. 133(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Remarks as to effect of contributory negligence, though im- (D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evi. proper, held not to require reversal.-Davis y.

dence. Christmas, 126.

Om 248 (Mo.App.) Abstract instruction not apCam 133(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.

promise to pay discharged account held er. (A) Questions of Law or of Fact in Gen roneous as not supported by evidence.-Boone

County Milling & Elevator Co. v. Lowery. 623. 139(1) (Ky.) Testimony contrary to physi-C252(13) (Mo.App.) Instruction submitting cal laws is not scintilla of evidence.-Webb v. issue not in dispute improper.-Jones v. NorElkhorn Mining Corporation, 814.

man, 621. En 139.(1) (ky.) If any evidence sufficient to Om253(5) (Mo.App.) Instruction ignoring dego to jury, directed verdict must be denied.- fense of waiver held erroneous.-Jones v. NorSlusher v. Lawson, 888.

man, 621. Om 140(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Inconsistencies in

Instruction disregarding elements of recovery testimony do not take from jury right to de- i held erroneous.-I.. termine credibility of witness.-Dickerson v. 253(9) (Mo.App.) Instruction on liability Strauss, 833.

of master for assault by servant held not erroneous.-Noland v. Morris & Co., 627.

Cam 253(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of Curs 178 (Ky.). On motion for peremptory in- accident held not erroneous.-Wichita Valley

quested charge restricting issue as to cause of struction, evidence for opposite party must be Ry. Co. v. Meyers. 444. taken as true.-Slusher v. Lawson, 888. VII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.

(E) Requests or Prayers. (A) Province of Court and Jury in Gen.

w 260(1) (Mo.App.). Refusal of instruction, properly covered and submitted in given in

struction, not error.--Noland v. Morris & Co., 186 (Mo.App.) Instruction held not com- 627. ment on evidence-Jourdan v. Sheets, 641.

260(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of charges w 186 (Tex.Com.App.) Charge erroneously not error where matters covered.–Chicago, excluding evidence held improper in stating evi- R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Neubert, 139; Worley v. dence was “highly improper."--Lamar v. Pan- Morgan. 1101. handle & S. F. Ky. Co., 34. C 191 (9) (Mo.App.) Instruction properly re

On 260(!) (Tex.Civ.App.) Special charge givfused as assuming disputed facts.--Hunter v. fused. --Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Ruston,

en in substance in general charge properly reKansas City Rys. Co., 998.

143. 192 (Ark.) Assumption of court in charge 260(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. C 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 conditions Em 296(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, $10. 194(15) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction in ac

VIII. CUSTODY, CONDUCT, AND DELIBER

ATIONS OF JURY. tion 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 retireOm 194 (18) (Tex.Com.App.) Instruction on inent not improper.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. burden of proof held on the weight of the evi- Co. v. Lane, 59. dence.-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

IX. VERDICT. (B) Necessity and Sabject-Matter.

(B) Special Interrogatories and Findings. Cars 203(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Submitting as is-C350(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-E350 (4) (Tex.civ.App.) Submitting sole handle & S. F. Ky. Co., 34.

special issue to jury whether contract was for 207 (Mo.App.) Ruling that check paid by one or two tanks of cotton seed oil held not owner to realty company as commission was error.-Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Mer

eral.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Cw350 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal of special

(B) Resulting Trusts. issue on uncontrolling issue held not error.- 89(5) (Ky.) Evidence to establish resultDale v. Simon, 703. Where each 'lessor signed lease for himself, v. Brown, 855.

ing

trust must be clear and convincing.-Deboe held not error to refuse submission of issue of agency existing between lessors.-Id.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. 350(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Nonessential issues

(A) In General. not submitted.--Middleton v. Moore, 768.

350(8) (Tex.Com.App.) Admitted facts 124 (Ky.) Trust deed for benefit of life should not be submitted.-Lamar v. Panhandle tenant and “issue" held to contemplate children & S. F. Ry. Co., 34.

and not grandchildren.-Newcomb v. Newcomb, Em 352(1) (Tex.civ.App.) Question submitting

198. defendant's alleged assault on plaintiff mislead. (B) Estate or Interest of Trustee and of ing.-Haverbekken v. Johnson, 102.

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 from inherent vice in stock shipped not error. and children is active trust.-Brown v. Owsley, -Payne v. Richards, 771.

889. Refusal of special issue as to whether shipper Om 1364/2 (Tex.Com.App.) Property of trust was contributorily negligent in fastening gates estate in trustee's hands not subject to trusof cattle pens not error.--Id.

tee's debts.--Adams v. Williams, 673.

means deRefusal to submit speculative issue not er- Cm140(3) (Ky.) Where “issue" ror.-Id.

scendants, they take per stirpes and not per

capita.-Newcomb v. Newcomb, 198. X. TRIAL BY COURT. (A) Hearing and Determination of Cause.

IV. MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF

TRUST PROPERTY. C 367 (Ky.) Court can determine value of wheat from general knowledge.-Duncan's Cm 191(2) (Ky.) Power of sale in trustee need Ex'rs v. Porch, 526.

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

not be effected under statute if trustee has 403 (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings and conclu- power of sale:--Goldberg v. Home Missions of sions filed more than 10 days after adjournment the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., 219. for term not considered.-Terrell v. Otis Eleva

AND
VII. ESTABLISHMENT

ENFORCEtor Co., 467.

MENT OF TRUST.
TROVER AND CONVERSION.

(B) Right to Follow Trust Property or

Proceeds Thereof. I. ACTS CONSTITUTING CONVERSION AND 358(1) (Tenn.) Proceeds of trust not tracLIABILITY THEREFOR.

ed as necessary for preferential payment.-en 10 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appropriation of pro

Bragg v. Osborn, 19. ceeds of property received under promise to sell and account for value held not a conversion.

(C) Actions. -Sandoval v. Eagle Pass Lumber Co., 132. ww371 (2) (Ky.) Petition failing to allege con

tingeney upon which trust took effect held deTRUST DEEDS.

murrable.--Steele v. Crawford, 197. See Mortgages.

UNIONS.
TRUSTS.

See Trade Unions.
See Monopolies, Om 17-21.

UNITED STATES. I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VA

I. GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS. LIDITY.

Cum 47 (Tex.civ.App.) Officer of United States (A) Express Trusts.

government not individually liable for acts Can 13 (Ky.) Benefit to settlor of trust for her within authority.-Davis v. Young, 409. Jife with remainder to children is legal consideration.-Burton v. Burton's Trustee, 1031.

V. ACTIONS. Cam 35(!) (Ark.) Accumulated fund in hands 125 (Tex.Civ.App.) Suit cannot be main. of purchaser of lumber under agr owner to hold stipulated sum for 1,000 feet tained against federal government except by in lieu of lien on timber for perforinance of special congressional authority.-Davis v. Young,

409. stumpage contract held trust fund for benefit of owner.-Ellis V. Baker-Matthews Lumber Co., 7.

VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Om56 (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.

1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON

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

Om3 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Contract for sale of Execution of trust without legal advice, realty held option merely.-Tate v. Morris, Grawhich could have been obtained, does not ens han & Morris. 797. title settlor to set it aside.--Id.

Cmw35 (Ky.) Erroneous representations of Beneficiary held not entitled to set aside good title to land honestly made not fraud. trust deed on ground she was equitable owner Goatley v. Harmon, 212. of property conveyed.-Id.

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

III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION OF

CONTRACT. Cw59(1) (Ky.) Trust containing no power of

(C) Rescission by Purchaser. revocation cannot be revoked by settlor.Burton v. Burton's Trustee, 1031,

Cal 12(1) (Ky.) Purchaser under warranty cm 61(3) (Ky.) Trustee and beneficiaries of deed held not entitled to rescind, in absence of active trust cannot terminate by conveying actual fraud, where vendor is within state and property.-Brown v. Owsley, 889.

solvent.-Goatley v. Harmon, 212.

one

126 (Tex. Civ. App.) Purchaser, defaulting!

III. CHANGE OF VENTE OR PLACE OF in obligation of executory contract, liable for

TRIAL. use and occupation.-Bailey v. Mann, 469. 77 (Mo.) Withdrawal of motion for change

of venue held abandonment thereof.-State ex IV. PERFORMANCE OF COXTRACT.

rel. Burns v. Shain, 591. (D) Payment of Purchase Money. C 170 (Mo.App.) Tender on

contract

VERDICT. could not apply to another contract.-Roburt See Criminal Law, fm878–885; Trial, 6-329v. Hoimes, 616.

352. V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PARTIES.

WATERS AND WATER COURSES. (C) Bona Fide Purchasers.

See Drains. 233 (Tex.Civ.App.) Law, making, conveyances of land void as to subsequent bona fide VIII. ARTIFICIAL POXDS, RESERVOIRS, purchasers without notice unless recorded, in

AND CHANNELS, DÁMS, AND cludes such instruments made to or for ben

FLOWAGE. efit of minors.-Bryan y. Texas Life Ins. Co., C179(6) (Ky.) Evidence held not to show 163.

flood was too remote consequence from leaving VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR.

ties on right of way.--Louisville & N. R. Co. (A) Lien and Recovery of Land.

v. Wood, 871. 254(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendor has implied

WEAPONS. lien on land till purchase money is paid.--Liber-em? (Mo.) Motive for carrying concealed pisto v. Sanders, 120.

tol held immaterial.-State v. Whitman, 931. em 261(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to record 17(1) (Mo.) Information charging carry. portion of conveyance of purchase-money note, ing concealed deadly weapon held sufficientstating 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. Cm 265(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendor has implied weapon.-State v. Whitman, 937.

dence consists of carrying concealed deadly lien on land till purchase money is paid but C17 (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 Om 17 (5) (Mo.) Whether on evidence accused record notice of release from lien is protected guilty held for jury.--State v. Whitman, $37. thereby.--Adams v. Williams. 673.

17(6) (Mo.) Instruction in prosecution for 280(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Count for rescis- carrying concealed deadly weapon held suffision of conveyance held subject to demurrer as cient.-State v. Whitman, 937. to recovery of rents or damages.-Bailey y. Where evidence tended to show accused was Mann, 469.

carrying automatic pistol concealed, request

to instruct to acquit properly overruled.-Id. (B) Actions for Purchase Money. 315(3) (Ky.) Finding that purchaser knew

WILLS. lands overflowed sustained.-Rowlett v. Downs, 192.

See Descent and Distribution; Executors and 317 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on purchase Administrators. money note, court's finding held not to show that land was public free school land.-Morris

IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. v. Hall, 1100.

(A) Nature and Essentials of TestamentaVENUE.

ry Dispositions. See Criminal Law, 108-142.

73 (Tex. Civ. App.) Invalid unless estate

thereby vests in some one at testator's death. I. NATURE OR SUBJECT OF ACTION.

-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103. Om 5(5) (Ky.) Suit for damages for obstruction of passway must be brought in county V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND where passway is situated; "real property;"

ANNULMENT. "hereditament."-Harp v. Brookshire, 177. Ew(Tex.civ.App.) Suit properly brought in (B) Actions to Establish or Determine Va

lidity in General. county where sales contract made.-Silvers Box Corporation v. J. E. Stone & Co., 1104.

ww230 (Ky.) Receipt of benefits under will Action based on contract arises in county estops contest, thereof.--Erdman v. Louisville where contract made.-Id.

Trust Co., 1030. Cows 15 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judge of one district

Widow is estopped to contest will, if husheld to have authority to enjoin trespasses in band. through whom she claimed, was estopanother district.--Chas. F. Noble Oil & Gas Co.

ped.-Id. v. American Refining Co., 451.

(H) Evidence. Caw16/2 (Tex.Civ.App.) Plea of privilege can

0302(1) (Tex. Com. App.) Statutes to not be defeated because venue is properly laid proof of execution of will construed.- Massey in county of codefendant's residence, where

V. Allen, 1067. there is misjoinder of parties defendant and 304 (Tex.com.App.) Proof of signature of causes of action. --Hart Shoe Co. v. Adams, 475. deceased' witness and of witness with dead

memory_held to establish will.-Massey v. AlII. DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE OF PAR

len, 1067. TIES. Ca 22(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Resident defendant

(1) Hearing or Trial. 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. Resident defendant guaranteeing contract is

to jury.-Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302. not jointly liable with nonresident.-Id. Plaintiff held to have no cause of action

(K) Review. agamst resident defendant.-Id.

C401 (Tenn.) Administrator's defense not Good faith in seeking recovery on unenforcea- raised till second trial in circuit court held still

as

For cases in Dec.I)ig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER (M) Operation and Elect,

Provision devisee in fee should not sell or Cw434 (Tenn.) Foreign probate conclusive as dispose to other persons is void.—Id. to personalty and as to realty within state of testator's domicile.-Kirkland v. Calhoun, 302.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers. Testamentary capacity and formal requisites cm 671 (Tex.Com.App.) Not necessary to deas relating to immovable property ultimately clare trust in express terms.--Adams v. Wil. determined by courts of state where property liams, 673. located.---Id.

ww672(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Devise in trust imForeign judgments admitting to probate may plied where executors are given powers of trusbe made conclusive by statute.-Id.

tees.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103. Full faith and credit clause inapplicable to m674 (Tex.Com.App.) Purpose of spend. probate of will affecting realty in another state. thrift trust not defeated by permission to apply -Id.

corpus to cestui que trust's benefit.--Adams v. Though probate proceedings are in rem, they Williams, 673. are not conclusive as to realty without state Instrument creating spendthrift trust need -Id.

not assign reason therefor.-Id. VI. CONSTRUCTION.

681(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Property held de

vised to executors as trustees.-McHatton's (A) General Rules.

Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103. 439 (Ky.) Intention of testator controls.-C682(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Testatrix's pur. Goosling v. Pinson, 248.

pose held to provide for sister's welfare, but to m456°(Ky.) Words are given ordinary mean-deprive ber of right to dispose of property.ing unless contrary intention appears.--Goos. Adams v. Williams, 673. ling v. Pinson, 248.

-687(0) (Tex.Com.App.) Vesting legal title 0470(4), (Ky.) Intention of testator controls during life of first taker in trustee does not afas ascertained from entire instrument.-Goos- fect devise over.--Adams v. Williams, 673. ling v. Pinson, 248.

692, 693(1) (Ky.) Power to sell son's inCm476 (Ky.) Whole instrument looked to to terest held merely to make wife trustee with construe ambiguous codicil.---Pringle v. Adams, unlimited powers to sell for son's benefit.-S85.

Wilkinson v. May, 887. mw479 (Ky.) Devisee, in leaving state and not making claim for land for more than 15 years, ( VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVIheld to have construed will adversely to his

SEES AND LEGATEES. claim as to a boundary line.-Runyon v. Pond (A) Nature of Title and Rights in General. Creek Coal Co., 188.

0722 (Tex.Civ.App.) Title of devisee not de(D) Description of Property.

pendent upon probating of will.-Smith y. Lan

caster, 472. 564(!) (Ky.) Clause disposing of royalties under mining leases made by executors does (H) Void, Lapsed, and Forfelter Devises not apply to royalties under existing leases and Beqnests, and Property and by testator.--Goosling v. Pinson, 248.

Interests Undisposed of. 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. m564(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Devisee of income held not to have interest which she could de

WITNESSES. vise.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Estate, 103. See. Depositions; Evidence. (E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre

II. COMPETENCY,

(A) Capacity and Qualifications in Genww598 (Ky.) Gift with unlimited power of dis position passes the fee.-Weller v. Dinwiddie, cm77 (Tex.Cr.App.) Allowing 10 year old ne874. Om600(4) (Ky.) Clause making gift over of grobor to testify held not abuse of discretion.

- White v. State, 690. property not disposed of by original devisee passes the fee.-Weller v. Dinwiddie. 874.

JII. EXAMINATION. Om 601 (1) (Ky.) Contrary intention controls

(A) Taking Testimony in General. apparent gift of fee.--Weller v. Dinwiddie, 874. Om601(1) (Ky.) Codicil in favor of children om 227 (Ky.) Notary public may administer of deceased daughter held to give them a fee.-- oath to witnesses under direction of court.Pringle v. Adams, 885.

Bush v. Commonwealth, 522. Com 601(2) (Ky.) Left-over after intended gift Oath neeed not be administered by legally of fee is invalid.--Weller v. Dinwiddie, 874. appointed officer of the court.-Id. C-602, 603(1) (Ky.) Devise held to 'gire sous 240(4) (Tex.civ.App.) Question held imdefeasible fee in half of the estate.-Wilkinson proper as leading witness.-El Paso Electric v. Mav, 887.

Ry. Co. v. Cowan, 442. Cm 608 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule in Shelley'n am 248 (2) (Mo.) Evidence as to identification Case not applicable where will gives no imme- of defendant held not responsive to question. diate estate.-McHatton's Estate v. Peale's Es. State v. Dengel. 603. tate. 103.

Em 258 (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony from Rule in Shelley's Case yields to testator's in ords personally kept by witness who had no tention.-Id.

present recollection is admissible.-Payne v. C 608(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) "Rule in Shelley's Texas Mercantile Co., 79. Case" stated.-McIlatton's Estate v. Peale's Testimony from records kept under superviEstate, 103.

sion of witness, and believed to be correct, is Om622 (Ky.) "Remainder" in left-over held admissible.--Id. not used in technical sense.-Weller v. Dinwid Testimony as to damage to cotton from recdie, 874.

ords made by witness held admissible.-Id. (G) Conditions and Restrictions.

Witness can testify from proper records as

to matters of which he has no recollection.-Id. Om649 (Ky.) Restraint on sale to any except C264 (Tex.Civ.App.) Permitting defendant other devisees is yoid.--Carpenter v. Allen, 523. to return to stand to testify as to plaintiff's

Limitation over for violation of void restraint agreement to look to third party for payment of alienation is void.-Id.

1 of notes sued on held within sound discretion of

ated.

eral.

rec

« AnteriorContinuar »