1150

Payment of unindorsed note to one in pos-
session thereof held good.-Higley v. Dennis
(Tex. Civ. App.) 400.

6. Actions.

In an action on a note by an indorsee against
the maker, a certain instruction held erroneous.
-N. Nigro & Co. v. Security Bank of Minne-
sota (Tex. Civ. App.) 375.

In an action on a note, where the defense
was payments to one other than the plaintiffs,
who held the note, the burden was on defend-
ant to show that the one to whom payments
were made had authority to collect it.-Higley
v. Dennis (Tex. Civ. App.) 400.

BONA FIDE PURCHASERS.

Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see
"Bills and Notes," § 3.

Of goods, see "Sales," § 4.

BONDS.

Following proceeds of sale of invalid bonds, see
"Trusts," § 3.

Laws impairing obligation, see "Constitutional
Law," § 2.

Municipal bonds, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," $9.

School district bonds, see "Schools and School
Districts," § 1.

See "Bail."

Bonds in legal proceedings.

Appeal from justice's court, see "Justices of the
Peace," § 2.

Appeal in criminal prosecution, see "Criminal
Law," § 23.

On lost instrument, see "Lost Instruments.
§ 1. Actions.

Under Rev. St. 1889, c. 6, art. 1, § 473, held
that a judgment in an action on a bond should
provide that it shall stand as security for fur-
ther breaches, and not that it shall be satis-
fied by the payment of the damages already
accrued.-Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
v. Schuchman (Mo. Sup.) 626.

BONUS.

See "Railroads," § 2.

BOOK ACCOUNT.

See "Account, Action On."

BOUNDARIES.

See "Municipal Corporations," § 1

BOYCOTT.

Action for conspiracy to, see "Conspiracy,"

BREACH.

BRIEFS.

On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and
Error," 15.

BROKERS.

See "Principal and Agent."

1. Employment and authority.

The employment of a real estate broker to
procure a purchaser for a farm held to continue
up to the time he procured a purchaser.-Sal-
lee v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

In determining what constitutes a reasonable
time within which a real estate broker employed
to procure a purchaser for a farm must pro-
cure a purchaser in order to be entitled to his
commissions, the circumstances must be con-
sidered. Sallee v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

A broker, employed to procure a purchaser for
a farm, has, in the absence of any provisions
in the contract of employment, a reasonable
time in which to procure a purchaser, unless
his authority is in the meantime revoked.-
Sallee v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

The right of a real estate broker to procure
a purchaser for a farm held not revoked.—Sal-
lee v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

§ 2. Duties and liabilities to principal.
In an action to recover from brokers a por-
tion of the purchase price retained by them
after effecting a sale of plaintiff's land, an in-
struction held not erroneous because it assumed
that defendants had received money from the
purchaser.-Harrison v. Lakenan (Mo. Sup)

53.

In an action to recover from brokers a por-
tion of the purchase money retained by them
after effecting a sale of plaintiff's land, an in-
struction held not erroneous as covering mat-
ter without the issues.-Harrison v. Lakenan
(Mo. Sup.) 53.

In an action against brokers to recover a por-
tion of the purchase price of plaintiff's land
retained by them, an instruction that authority
to sell at a specified price did not excuse de-
fendants from selling at the best obtainable
price held not erroneous.-Harrison v. Lakenan
(Mo. Sup.) 53.

In an action against brokers who had sold
plaintiff's land to recover moneys received from
the purchaser and retained by defendants, the
petition held not insufficient for failing to allege
that defendants were granted authority to col-
lect the money.- Harrison v. Lakenan (Mo.
Sup.) 53.

An owner employing a broker to sell his land
held entitled to sue the broker for the forfeit
money paid by an intending purchaser, though
the time for completing the purchase has not
expired.-M. L. Chambers & Co. v. Herring
1. (Tex. Civ. App.) 371.

The right of an owner employing a broker
to sell his land to recover the forfeit money
paid by an intended purchaser held not affected
by a custom.-M. L. Chambers & Co. v. Her-

Of contract, see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 2. ring (Tex. Civ. App.) 371.
Of warranty, see "Sales," §§ 5, 7.

BREACH OF THE PEACE.

A village marshal held not a person whose
peace could be disturbed by loud and offensive
talking, within a village ordinance providing
that, if any person disturbs the peace of anoth-
er, etc., he shall be adjudged guilty of a misde-
meanor.-Village of Salem v. Coffey (Mo. App.)
772.

In an action by an owner of land to recover
the forfeit money paid to his real estate broker
by an intended purchaser who failed to com-
plete the purchase, the purchaser is not a prop
er party.-M. L. Chambers & Co. v. Herring
(Tex. Civ. App.) 371.

§ 3. Compensation and lien.

*A broker held not entitled to recover com-
missions for selling goods.-Taylor v. Godbold
(Ark.) 959.

Point annotated. See syllabus.

*Real estate agent held to have been the pro-
curing cause of a sale made by the owner, and
to be entitled to commission.-Hunton v. Mar-
shall (Ark.) 963.

A real estate broker earns his commission on
producing a buyer able, ready, and willing to
buy on the terms fixed by the owner.-Sallee v.
McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

A real estate broker employed to sell land
held entitled to his commissions, though the
owner did not carry out his agreement to sell.
-Sallee v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

A real estate broker is entitled to his com-

mission on a sale of land where he is the pro-
curing cause of the negotiations resulting in a
sale. Sallee v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

A broker employed to sell land on commission
has a right to give a part of his commissions to
the purchaser. Stephens v. Tomlinson, Hender-
son & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 304.

A real estate agent who renders services held
entitled to recover the reasonable value thereof.
-Stephens v. Tomlinson, Henderson & Co.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 304.

§ 4. Actions for compensation.

In an action to cancel a deed given defend-
ant by plaintiff in payment for defendant's sup-
posed interest in property which the parties
to require submission to the jury of the ques-
had agreed to purchase jointly, evidence held
tion whether the parties in fact purchased joint-
ly.-Paddock v. Bray (Tex. Civ. App.) 419.

CANVASS OF VOTES.

An instruction in an action to recover com-
missions earned on procuring a purchaser for a See "Elections," § 2.
farm held erroneous, as suggesting a conspiracy
between the broker and the purchaser.-Sallee
v. McMurry (Mo. App.) 157.

BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.

See "Shipping."

CARGO.

Effect of subsequent written contract on liabil-
ity for breach of oral contract, see "Con-
tracts," § 2.

Evidence as to authority of agent, see "Corpo-
rations," § 4.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," Harmless error in action for injuries to pas-
§ 6.

BURGLARY.

senger, see "Appeal and Error," §§ 22, 23,

25.
Hearsay testimony as to damages from delay of
live stock in transit, see "Evidence," § 6.
Arguments of counsel, see "Criminal Law," Instructions in general in action for death of
§ 16.

§ 1. Prosecution and punishment.

Where an indictment for burglary charges
the entry without consent of the "occupant" of
the house, occupancy is equivalent to possession
and embraced a chicken house on the premises of
the prosecutor.-Moore v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
230.

In a prosecution for burglary, an instruction
held not erroneous as authorizing conviction re-
gardless of whether accused had prosecutor's
consent to enter the house.-Moore v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 230.

In a prosecution for burglary, certain evi-
dence held not a variance from the indictment.
-Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 813.

In a prosecution for burglary, certain testi-
mony held admissible to identify defendant as
the burglar, and to show the intent with which

passenger, see "Trial," § 11.
Instructions in general in action for injuries to
live stock in transit, see "Trial," § 5.
Jurisdiction of particular courts of actions for
injuries to animals in transit, see "Courts,"
Jurisdiction of particular courts of action to en-
§ 2.
force carrier's lien, see "Courts," § 3.
New trial in action for injuries to live stock in
transit, see "New Trial," § 1.
Opinion evidence in action for injuries to live
stock in transit, see "Evidence," § 9.
Opinion evidence in action for injuries to pas-
senger, see "Evidence," § 9.

Res gestæ in action for injuries to passenger,
see "Evidence," § 2.

Trespassers on trains, see "Railroads," § 5.
§ 1. Carriage of goods.

shipper cannot recover special damages
arising from a railroad company's failure to
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

furnish cars, unless the facts leading to the
special damages are made known to the com-
pany. Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Rolfe
(Ark.) 870.

A shipper held entitled to recover the expense
in keeping teams necessary in loading logs on
cars while waiting for a railroad company to
furnish cars.-Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v.
Rolfe (Ark.) 870.

A complaint in an action against a railway

company for failure to furnish cars held to show
the tender of goods for shipment made to the
company's agents.-Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co.
v. Rolfe (Ark.) 870.

A complaint in an action against a railway
company for failure to furnish cars held suffi-
ciently definite as to time when cars were de-
manded. Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Rolfe
(Ark.) 870.

Allegation in an action against a railway com-
pany for failure to furnish cars held to show a
demand on proper authority.-Choctaw, O. &
G. Ry. Co. v. Rolfe (Ark.) 870.

An unsigned bill of lading delivered by the
carrier's agent held ineffective to limit the car-
rier's common-law liability.-Patrick v. Mis-
souri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Ind. T.) 330.

In order to render a carrier liable for the con-
sequence of the conjunction of its negligence
with an act of God, such injury must have
been a probable consequence of the negligence.
-Moffatt Commission Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.
(Mo. App.) 117.

A carrier is not liable as for a breach of con-
tract for the destruction by an unprecedented
flood of goods which it delayed to transport.
Moffatt Commission Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.
(Mo. App.) 117.

Unexplained delay in transportation by a con-
necting carrier held concurring negligence, ren-
dering such carrier liable for damages result-
ing therefrom.-Butterick Pub. Co. v. Gulf, C.
& S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 299.

Where cattle were shipped over the lines of
several connecting carriers under a several con-
tract, plaintiff held not entitled to sue one of
them for a separate default in a county through
which its railroad did not run, and in which
it had no place of business.-Atchison, T. & S.
F. Ry. Co. v. Waddell Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.)
390.

An initial carrier was not negligent in de-
livering freight to a connecting carrier for
transportation to a station on the line of the
connecting carrier which that carrier had offi-
cially stated to be open for business, but
which was not so open in fact.-Texas & N. O.
Ry. Co. v. E. R. & D. C. Kolp, Jr. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 417.

In an action against a carrier for delay in
the shipment of freight, an instruction relative
to the estimation of reasonable time for the
shipment held sufficiently favorable to defend-
ant.-Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. E. R. & D. C.
Kolp, Jr. (Tex. Civ. App.) 417.

In an action against carrier for damages
caused by unreasonable delay in delivering
freight, plaintiff held entitled to recover certain
demurrage paid defendant as a result of the
delay. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. E. R. & D.
C. Kolp, Jr. (Tex. Civ. App.) 417.

Where freight is accepted by a carrier with-
out notice to the shipper that its delivery will
be delayed, any delay occasioned by an unusual
rush of business or large accumulation of
freight is no defense to an action for delaying
the shipment-Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. E. R.
& D. C. Kolp, Jr. (Tex. Civ. App.) 417.

In an action against a railroad for failure to
furnish cars for shipment of cattle, there can
be no recovery for an item of damages which
is not pleaded.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Arnett
(Tex. Civ. App.) 448.

Where a petition counted on a breach of
contract to furnish cars on a specific date,
the submission to the jury of negligent_delay
in furnishing cars was error.-Texas & P. Ry.
Co. v. Arnett (Tex. Civ. App.) 448.

Evidence held insufficient to establish a con-
tract on the part of a railroad to furnish cars on
a day certain.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Arnett
(Tex. Civ. App.) 448.

§ 2. Carriage of live stock.

Written contract between shipper and car-
rier held to preclude shipper from recovering
damages for breach of prior verbal contract.-
Hoover v. St. Louis & Š. F. R. Co. (Mo. App.)
769.

An instruction in an action against a carrier
for delay in transportation of cattle held to cor-
rectly fix the measure of damages.-Gulf, C. &
S. F. Ry. Co. v. Beattie (Tex. Civ. App.) 367.

An instruction in an action against a carrier
for delay in transportation of cattle held cor-
rectly refused because eliminating a period the
cattle were detained in considering the reason-
ableness of the time taken in making the trip.-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Beattie (Tex. Civ.
App.) 367.

It is the duty of a common carrier receiving
live stock for transportation to use reasonable
diligence to transport the same within a rea-
sonable time.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Beattie (Tex. Civ. App.) 367.

In an action for injuries to cattle in transit,
evidence held to support a verdict finding de-
fendant carrier guilty of negligence.-Missouri,
K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Russell (Tex. Civ.
App.) 379.

In an action for injuries to cattle shipped, a
requested instruction held properly refused as
misleading.-Pecos River R. Co. v. Latham
(Tex. Civ. App.) 392.

In an action for breach of a carrier's con-
tract to ship certain cattle, evidence held not
to constitute a fatal variance.-Pecos River R.
Co. v. Latham (Tex. Civ. App.) 392.

Where plaintiff's cattle were injured by the
concurring negligence of defendants and certain
other railroads, defendants were liable therefor.
Pecos River R. Co. v. Latham (Tex. Civ.
App.) 392.

to a shipment of cattle caused by delay, it was
In an action against a carrier for damages
not necessary for the court to define negligence.
-Texas Cent. R. Co. v. West (Tex. Civ. App.)
426.

In an action against a carrier for damages
submission to the jury of the question whether
to a shipment of cattle, evidence held to justify
any of the damage occurred on defendant's line.
Texas Cent. R. Co. v. West (Tex. Civ. App.)
426.

ment of cattle at a place designated within a
A carrier, contracting to deliver a ship-
certain time, is liable to the shipper for damages
Cent. Ry. Co. v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 499.
on its own or connecting carrier's lines.-Texas

An instruction in an action against a carrier
for damages to a shipment of cattle held cor-
rect as far as it went, and any omission must
be supplied by a requested instruction.-Texas
Cent. Ry. Co. v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 499.

A carrier, failing to deliver a shipment of cat-
tle within the time agreed on, is liable to the
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

of himself.-Price v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry.
Co. (Ark.) 575.

In an action against a street railroad com-
pany held not error to instruct a finding for
plaintiff if the jury found, among other facts,
that defendant received plaintiff as a passen-
ger to be carried for hire, though there was no
evidence that plaintiff paid his fare or that fare
was demanded.-Reynolds v. St. Louis Transit
Co. (Mo. Sup.) 50.

Carrier's acceptance of a person to become
a passenger held implied from act of motorman
of street car.-Lewis v. Houston Electric Co.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 489.

Fares, tickets, and special con-

Carriage of passengers-Relation
between carrier and passenger.
A railroad company is not required to accept In an action against a street railway for in-
as a passenger without an attendant one who juries to a passenger while alighting from a
from intoxication is incapable of taking care car, evidence held to authorize submission of
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

the case to the jury. McHugh v. St. Louis | the acts of negligence specified and the injuries
Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 853.
complained of.-Alexander v. McGaffey (Tex.
Civ. App.) 462.

In an action against a street railway for in-
juries to a passenger, an instruction as to care
required of defendant held not error.-McHugh
v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 853.

An instruction that defendants were liable
for plaintiff's injury if caused by any failure on
their part to exercise care and precaution held
error. Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

In an action for injuries to a passenger in
an elevator, the court should have charged that
defendants were liable for slight negligence on
the part of their employé in charge of the ele-
vator.-Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

In an action for injuries to an elevator pas-
senger, a motion by defendants for a directed
verdict, in that there was a total failure of
proof of negligence alleged, held properly de-
nied. Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

The derailment of a passenger train at a
time when the track and train are under the
control of the carrier raises a presumption of
Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Harkey
negligence on the part of the carrier.—St.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 506.

In action by passenger for injury in wreck
by derailment of train, burden held to be on de-
fendant to show that the accident could not
have been avoided by exercise of utmost care
and foresight reasonably compatible with the
prosecution of its business.-St. Louis South-
western Ry. Co. of Texas v. Harkey (Tex. Civ.
App.) 506.

Contributory

person injured.

In an action for the death of a drunken pas-
senger, evidence held to justify submission to
In an action for injuries to an elevator pas- the jury of the issues of the contributory negli
senger, whether the elevator operator was negligence of deceased.-Price v. St. Louis, I. M. &
gent after he discovered plaintiff's peril held for
the jury-Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

In an action for injuries to an elevator pas-
senger, the act of the operator in suddenly mov-
ing the elevator upwards after he discovered
plaintiff's peril held not the proximate cause of
plaintiff's injury as a matter of law.-Hensler
v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

Persons operating elevators in stores are com-
mon carriers of passengers and bound to exer-
cise the highest practicable care to prevent inju-
ries to them.-Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

In an action for injuries sustained by alight-
ing from a street car, instructions considered,
and held misleading because mingling causes of
liability under certain states of evidence and
pleading not found in case.-Corum v. Metro-
politan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 143.

In an action against a carrier for injuries,
evidence held insufficient to warrant the sub-
mission of the question to the jury whether
plaintiff's injuries were due to the accident or
to an antecedent rupture.-Young v. Missouri
Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 767.

Carrier held liable for injuries to passenger
from act of its servants in suddenly moving
train. Young v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.) 767.

*Street railways are common carriers, and
must employ the highest degree of care to avoid
injury to their passengers.-Nelson v. Metro-
politan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1119.

*The relation of passenger and carrier con-
tinues until the time the latter leaves the train.
-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.) 1119.

*A street car conductor is required, in the
exercise of due care, to look to see if passengers
are in the act of alighting before he starts his
car.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.) 1119.

In an action against a street railway com-
pany for personal injuries, an instruction held
not objectionable as authorizing a recovery,
though plaintiff did not attempt to dismount
until the car had started.-Nelson v. Metro-
politan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1119.

A carrier held liable for injuries to a pas-
senger who was accidentally shot by one of sev-
eral other passengers, carousing in the train.
-Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Flake
(Tenn.) 326.

In an action for injuries to a passenger by
fall of an elevator, allegations of petition held
sufficient to charge a causal connection between

S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 575.

Where a railroad company accepts an unat-
tended passenger who is so drunk as to be un-
able to take care of himself, the question of con-
tributory negligence cannot arise when he is in-
jured.-Price v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.
(Ark.) 575.

*In an action for the death of one killed by
being struck by a locomotive while crossing a
railroad track, held a question for the jury
whether he had exercised ordinary care and
prudence under the circumstances.-St. Louis,
I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.

In action for the death of one struck by a lo-
comotive, an instruction on contributory negli
gence held not erroneous.-St. Louis, I. M. &
S. Ry. Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.

*One assisting an embarking passenger held
to have had a right to assume that the railroad
tracks at that point were clear.-St. Louis, I.
M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.

An instruction, in an action against a rail-
way company for the death of a passenger
while in the act of boarding a train, as to the
company's duty of discovering decedent's dan-
gerous position, held erroneous.-Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co. v. McGinty (Ark.) 1001.

In an action for injuries to an elevator pas-
senger, an instruction on contributory negli-
gence held erroneous as misleading, and as re-
quiring of the elevator operator only ordinary
care after discovering plaintiff's peril.-Hensler
v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

In an action for injuries to an elevator pas-
senger, an instruction held erroneous as elimi-
nating defendants' liability for negligence of the
operator in failing to sooner discover plaintiff's
peril.-Hensler v. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

Defendants held liable for injuries to an eleva-
tor passenger, regardless of her negligence, if
the operator by the exercise of a high degree of
care could have prevented the injury.-Hensler
V. Stix (Mo. App.) 108.

In an action for injuries to a passenger, re-
fusal of special charge on contributory negli
gence held error.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.
of Texas v. Criswell (Tex. Civ. App.) 373.

In action for injuries to passenger, burden
held on defendant to establish plea of contribu-
tory negligence.-Lewis v. Houston Electric Co.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 489.

The attempt of a passenger to board a street
car while it is in motion is not contributory
negligence as matter of law.-Lewis v. Houston
Electric Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 489.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.