Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

American Surety Co. of New York v. Tarbutton, 435.

BOUNDARIES.

I. DESCRIPTION,

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

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

8 (Ky.) "Down the same side to the upper end of the long field" construed, as used in description of line separating adjoining devises.— Runyon v. Pond Creek Coal Co., 188.

II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND

ESTABLISHMENT.

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

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

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

[ocr errors]

V. ACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION. 85(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence as to conversation and transaction immaterial and not bearing on alleged contract between broker and purchaser held inadmissible.-Smith v. Tucker, 125.

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

86(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Brokers held to have sustained burden of showing that vendor's title tract.-Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797. was defective, preventing consummation of con

86(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to show broker procured purchaser for oil lands. -South Dakota-Texas Oil Co. v. Hackworth, 813.

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

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

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

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

See Factors.

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

BREACH OF MARRIAGE PROMISE.

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

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

BRIEFS.

See Appeal and Error, 755–773.

BROKERS.

III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES TO
PRINCIPAL.

29 (Ky.) Liable for breach of contract to resell whereby they induced purchaser to buy. -Oliver v. Morgan, 1020.

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

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

him commission.-Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy, 408.

BURGLARY.

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

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

CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.

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

CARRIERS.

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

IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN.

44 (Tex.Civ.App.) Owner cannot withdraw listing after broker has procured purchaser.-13 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts held not to Priddy v. Childers, 144. show unjust discrimination in rates charged.49(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) When broker enti- Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106. tled to commissions for finding purchaser stat-20(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Shipper must show ed. Tate v. Morris, Graham & Morris, 797. established rate in suit for penalties and con55(1) (Ark.) Refusal of instruction that tracts were not evidence thereof, but_showed broker could not be considered procuring cause intention_to_charge established rate.-Panhanof exchange negotiated by another held error. dle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106. -Gillette & English v. Carroll & Hogan, 900. One entitled to know who his agent is and who is procuring cause in sale or exchange. -Id. 61(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Broker's commissions not defeated by claim of failure to procure enforceable contract.-South Dakota-Texas Oil Co. v. Hackworth, 813.

(B) Interstate and International

portation.

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

35 (Tenn.) Must collect correct interstate freight notwithstanding error in quoting rate.

65(4) (Ark.) One entitled to know, in case of divided allegiance, which principal agent-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southprofesses to represent.-Gillette & English v. ern Coal & Coke Co., 297. Carroll & Hogan, 900.

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

Trans

II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

(B) Bills of Lading, Shipping Receipts, and Special Contracts.

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

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER according to terms expressed therein.-Hines v. | vested does not affect consignor's liability for Scott, 663. freight.-Id.

58 (Tenn.) Funds paid for shipments made 196 (Tenn.) Laches does not bar collecunder draft and bill of lading subsequently sold tion of freight from consignor.-Cleveland. C., to bank held not subject to garnishment.-C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal & Coke Lookout Knitting Mills v. Reid, 306. Co., 297.

(C) Custody and Control of Goods.

76 (Tex.Civ.App.) Seller of oil held not entitled to sue railroad for losses occasioned by failure to notify of arrival of tank cars.Davis v. Guitar, 759.

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

86 (Tex.Com.App.) Provision in bill of lading held not to limit purchaser's right of inspection.-Hines v. Scott. 663.

rier.

(D) Transportation and Delivery by Car-211 (Tex.Civ.App.) Shipper, relying on contract and not treating holding of shipment for overcharge as conversion, held bound to continue to feed and water stock.-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 106.

Provision in bill of lading as to inspection held subject to waiver by carrier.-Id.

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

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

(F) Loss of or Injury to Goods.

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

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

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

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

III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK.

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

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

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

135 (Tex.Civ.App.) Measure of damages against carrier for delivery in damaged condi-219(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Oral contract_valid tion of goods sold under contract made prior and binding on "connecting carrier."-St. Louis, to shipment stated.-Coulter v. Gulf, C. & S. B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59. F. Ry. Co., 788.

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

1

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

215(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Carrier held liable for full amount of negligent injury to cattle, though concurring cause was act of God or contract limited liability.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Culberson, 111.

217(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Shippers' fault and not fault of carrier as to defective stock pen held proximate cause of loss of hogs so that they could not recover.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Brown & Co., 97.

218 (1) (Ark.) Rule as to when carrier can restrict liability for losses resulting from strikes on its road stated.-Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911.

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

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

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

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

(J) Charges and Liens.

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

572.

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

Carrier need not notify consignor of failure to collect freight.-Id. Assignment by consignee in whom title was

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

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

Ownership of stock pens where carrier received cattle held immaterial in action against initial carrier for damage to shipment.-Id.

Buyer to whom material consigned but divert-219(6) (Ark.) Rule as to when carrier can ed with carrier's consent while in transit to a restrict liability for losses resulting from subsequent purchaser or another destination strikes on road of connecting carrier stated.held not liable for freight.-Id. Jonesboro, L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy, 911.

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

219(8) (Ark.) Limiting initial carrier's exemption from liability to finding delay in interstate shipment was occasioned by strike of terminal carrier's employés was error.-Jonesboro. L. C. & E. R. Co. v. Maddy. 911.

Consignor is primarily liable for freight.-Id. Provision for delivery to consignee on pay-223 (Tex.Civ.App.) Availability of other ment of freight does not relieve consignor's lia- route no defense in action for negligent dambility.-Id. age to shipment.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

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

227 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition sufficiently alleging through stock shipment.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

227 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Incompleted written contract properly excluded in action for damages to shipment under oral contract.-St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 59.

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

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

228(5) (Ark.) Evidence held to show mand to divert delayed shipment to another route, and that, if granted, injury would not have resulted.-Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Dawson, 558.

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

IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

(A) Relation Between Carrier and Pas

senger.

de-28 (2) (Ark.) Will not lie where there has been right of appeal, unless court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.-Brown & Hackney v. Stephenson, 556.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND DETERMINATION.

229(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Not liable for station agent's failure to notify train dispatcher 70 (9) (Ark.) When judgment will not be of possibility of special damage from contem- affirmed, though writ of certiorari quashed.— plated shipment.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Patterson v. Adcock, 904. Co. of Texas v. Culberson, 111.

CHANCERY.

Notice to station agent that cattle delayed in transit had been dipped in arsenical solution See Equity. held notice to carrier.-Id.

appeal, not by certiorari, unless judgment void on face.-Patterson v. Adcock, 904.

CHARITIES.

I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VALIDITY.

mm 3 (Ky.) Statute relating to charitable trusts is substantially same as English statute forming part of common law.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056.

248 (Ky.) Invalid received for transporta-21(3), (Ky.) Devise for trust fund for aged tion, notwithstanding violation of rule, is a unmarried women is valid trust.-State Bank & passenger. Arnett v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056. 1040.

22(1). (Ky.) Devise to charitable society Rule requiring invalid passenger to be trans-held not invalid for uncertainty.-Goldberg v. ported on cot is reasonable.-Id. Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S., 219.

6 (Ark.) Will not lie where there has been right of appeal, unless right lost without fault of petitioner.-Brown & Hackney v. Stephenson, 556.

(D) Personal Injuries.

283 (3) (Mo.App.) Liable for conductor's assault on passenger unless in self-defense.Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998. 303(8) (Ky.) Employees need not offer sistance to invalid passenger accompanied by male relatives.-Arnett v. Chesapeake & O. Ry.

897.

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

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

(B) Fares, Tickets, and Special Contracts.

261 (Tex.Civ.App.) No redemption of unused ticket at common law.-Neubert v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 141. ~~~37 (Ky.) Statute regulating charitable Petition held not to show equitable right to trusts is construed so not to adopt cy pres docrecovery for unused ticket.-Id. trine.-State Bank & Trust Co. v. Patridge, 1056.

Co., 1040.

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

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

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

320 (32) (Mo.App.) Instruction eliminating punitive damages properly refused.-Hunter v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 998.

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

1040.

(G) Passengers' Effects.

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

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

as-48 (2) (Ky.) Will construed to contain powberg v. Home Missions of the Presbyterian er of sale of trust real estate; "fund."-GoldChurch in the U. S., 219.

II. CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION,
AND ENFORCEMENT.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

10 III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (D) Lien and Priority.

150(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Filing copy of mortgage not duly acknowledged or witnessed not constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.East Texas Motor Co. v. Baughman, 802.

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

IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
PARTIES.

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

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

CERTIORARI.

1. NATURE AND GROUNDS.

CHILDREN.

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

CITIES.

5(1) (Ark.) Review of county court's judgment in stock law election contest must be by See Municipal Corporations.

1131

INDEX-DIGEST

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
CLASS LEGISLATION.
See Constitutional Law, 209-249.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

4 (Ky.) Statute held not to authorize payment of debts from appropriation for main

tenance.-Davis v. Steward, 531.

COMMERCE.

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

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

II. SUBJECTS OF REGULATION.

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

20 (Tex.) Executive and judicial construcof doubtful act is persuasive.-Harris tion County v. Crooker, 652.

42 (Mo.) That the Income Tax Act was discriminatory does not give right to attack constitutionality to one not affected.-Stouffer v. Crawford, 581.

8(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Acts of Congress reg-42 (Tenn.) Person not affected by statute ulating interstate commerce paramount to state cannot raise question of validity, Baker v. laws. Neubert v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., State, 548. 141.

One cannot complain as to validity of portion 8(13) (Tex. Civ. App.) State statute con- of act not affecting him.-Id. construction.— cerning redemption of unused tickets inapplic-48 (Mo.) Income Tax Act upheld, where able to interstate commerce.-Neubert v. Chi- susceptible of constitutional Stouffer v. Crawford, 581. cago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 141.

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

1

48 (Ky.) Accused held not entitled to instruction on assault and battery.-Slaven v. Commonwealth, 214.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
See Statutes. —351⁄2-123.
For validity of statutes relating to particular
subjects, see also the various specific topics.

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

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

153.

141.
III. MEANS AND METHODS OF REGULA-163.
TION.

See Eminent Domain.

(B) Judicial Powers and Functions. 47 (Tex. Civ. App.) Interstate transportation of passengers a part of interstate com-70(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Unwise act of Legmerce.-Neubert v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., islature no justification to read nonexisting exception into law.-Bryan v. Texas Life Ins. Co.,

CONSPIRACY.

II. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND
ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITU-
TIONAL PROVISIONS.

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

COMMON LAW.

12 (Tex.Com.App.) Common law abolished. -Fowler Commission Co. v. Charles Land & Co., 314.

COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.
See Accord and Satisfaction.

CONDEMNATION.

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

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. III. DISTRIBUTION OF and Delegation

(A) Legislative Powers
Thereof.

GOVERNMENTAL

70(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Injustice of exempting street railway company from fair assessment for storm sewer by reason of charter provision question for Legislature.-Texas Bitulithic Co. v. Dallas Consol. Electric St. Ry. Co., 746.

VII. OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. (B) Contracts of States and Municipalities.

143 (Ark.) Statute dismembering road improvement district after bond obligations incurred held invalid as impairing obligation of contract.-Bacon v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 1 of Howard County, 267.

(C) Contracts of Individuals and Private Corporations.

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

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

[ocr errors]

II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. (A) Offenses.

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

(B) Prosecution and Punishment.

47 (Ky.) May be shown by circumstances.
-Slaven v. Commonwealth, 214.
Evidence held sufficient to go to jury and sus-
tain conviction.-Id.

VIII. RETROSPECTIVE AND EX POST
FACTO LAWS.

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

Statute basing rate for income tax on valuation on a date prior to passage, the rates not being increased till after passage, held not invalid as retrospective.-Id.

IX.

(D) Consideration.

50 (Tex.Civ.App.) "Consideration" defined. 208(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Highway law amend--Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Voudouris, $10. ment excepting farmers' trucks class legisla- Consideration may be benefit to promisor or tion.-Ex parte Faison, 343. detriment to promisee.-Id.

FRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES, AND
CLASS LEGISLATION.

com

X. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. 229 (2) (Mo.) Exempting insurance panies paying gross income taxes in lieu of all other taxes from provisions of the income tax 88 (Tex.Civ.App.) Written contract imheld not unconstitutional discrimination.-Stouf- ports consideration.-Bell v. Mulkey, 784. fer v. Crawford, 581. (F) Legality of Object and of Consideration.

229 (3) (Mo.) Basing valuation for corporations on date different than date used for in-12 (Ky.) Promise to provide for bastard dividuals held not an "inequality" under the child in consideration of illicit intercourse void. Fourteenth Amendment.-Stouffer v. Crawford, Steele v. Crawford, 197.

581.

Separate classification of resident and non-128(1) (Ky.) Father's promise to provide resident corporations held reasonable and not er's promise not to prosecute for seduction for bastard children in consideration of mothan "unequal application of the laws."-Id. void. Steele v. Crawford, 197.

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

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

CONTINUANCE.

See Criminal Law, 589-614.

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

44 (Mo.App.) Refusal of motion for continuance for absent witness for surprise in his deposition cannot be relied on, where no affidavit of surprise filed.-Noland v. Norris & Co.,

627.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

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

man, 964.

257 (Mo.) Giving accused 12 hours from 4:45 p. m. to consult with counsel held not a denial of due process of law.-State v. Roder-175(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held suffi258 (Tenn.) Intoxicating liquor storage act well having outside diameter of 8 inches with cient to show party to contract agreed to drill does not deprive of liberty and property with-casing set.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. out due process of law; "consent."-Baker v. State, 548.

McSpadden, 454.

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

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

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

448.
10(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Agreement between
cotton grower and co-operative marketing as-
sociation for sale of cotton unenforceable for
want of mutuality and consideration.-Texas
Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall, 1109.
(B) Parties, Proposals, and Acceptance.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (A) General Rules of Construction.

15 (Tex.Civ.App.) Tripartite contract not binding until all have accepted it.-Davis v. Phillips A. Ryan Lumber Co., 448.

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

(C) Subject-Matter.

198(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Contract to drill 8-inch well and set casing held ambiguous.Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. McSpadden, 454.

CONTRACTS.

VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH.

See Assignments; Bills and Notes; Breach of
Marriage Promise; Covenants; Exchange of
Property: Frauds. Statute of: Guaranty; No-346 (9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under plea of gen-
vation; Release; Sales: Specific Performance; eral denial, defense that contract was not bind-
Vendor and Purchaser.
ing till put in writing is available.-Rosebud
Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' & Planters'
Oil Co., 116.

III. MODIFICATION AND MERGER. 240 (Ark.) Evidence showed modification of contract for school desks, but not complete novation thereof.-Columbia School Supply Co. V. Calico Rock Special School Dist., 565.

V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH.

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

346(12) (Tex.Civ.App.) No. recovery on implied contract in suit on express contract. Scott v. Murphree, 468. op-349(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Broker's letter to purchaser of cotton seed oil narrating his understanding of the deal held inadmissible.Planters' Oil Co., 116. Rosebud Oil & Cotton Co. v. Merchants' &

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

353 (8) (Ark.) Instruction permitting defendant to recover for breach of contract regardless of whether he had also breached it held error.-Thompson v. Short, 263.

(C) Formal Requisites.

CONVERSION.

See Trover and Conversion.

was

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

Doctrine founded on principle that equity

« AnteriorContinuar »