« AnteriorContinuar »
$ 20. Judgment, sentence, and final p. 291, c. 124), an appeal bond in criminal case
held sufficient.--Holland V. State (Tex. Cr.
The overruling of a motion for a new trial
filing the same.-State v, Miller (Mo. Sup.)
davits filed subsequent to the trial cannot be
looked to.-State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
An unsigned bill of exceptions cannot be con-
bill of exceptions.-Upton v. State (Tex. Cr.
in lower court of grounds of A bill of exceptions held too indefinite to be
considered, because it was difficult to deter-
An exception to the admission of evidence on Where the court adjourned on April 30th,
absence of any reason assigned for the delay.
-Hall v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 244.
A bill of exceptions held to raise no question
Where the district judge appends a qualifving
cannot accept the bill with the explanation and
The sufficiency of the evidence to support
Under Code Cr. Proc. $ 1895, art. 723, a rec-
filed, not filed until submission of the case on
8 26. Review.
Under the record on appeal in a prosecution
for murder, held, that it was presumable that a
sworn in chief.--Daniels v. State (Ark.) 844.
All presumptions are in favor of the trial
court's rulings and to call for reversal an af-
firmative showing of error is required, not a mere
Proceedings for transfer of showing that under some circumstances there
might have been error.—Johnson v. State (Ark.)
• Point annotated. See syllabus.
In a prosecution for larceny, error in admit- On a prosecution for the murder of defendant's
business in which deceased was engaged at the
time witness first knew him, and the character
was not reversible error.-State v. Cummings
On a prosecution for arson, held, that there
was no prejudicial error in an instruction call-
when the amended information was filed.-
State v. Hunt (Mo. Sup.) 719.
In homicide, the admission in evidence of a
deceased belonged, was not ground for reversal.
Under Code Cr. Proc. arts. 817, 821, instruc-
not prejudicial to defendant.-Long v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
made in the jury room as to how a former jury
had stood. —Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
versible error.--Tones y. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
testify ?” held not misconduct of the jury.-
Where the record raises a presumption of (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 361.
out the knowledge of the person held, if erro-
harmless as to defendant.
Admission of testimony, afterwards with-
drawn, that in the opinion of witnesses defend-
ant had sufficient mental capacity to know it
As subject to levy on execution, see "Execu-
tion," $ 1.
"Damages," $ 4.
Injuries to, caused by fowage, see “Waters
Accidents at railroad crossing, see "Railroads,"
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
*In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff
may recover damages for pain which will
be suffered in the future as a result of the in-
jury. - Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Io.
A carrier having failed to perform a contract
to furnish certain cars for the shipment of cat-
tance over such carrier's line in order to re-
duce the damages.- Pecos River R. Co. v.
Latham (Tex, Civ, App.) 392.
*Evidence held to present issue of future
& T. Ry. Co. of Texas V. Nesbit (Tex. Civ.
negligence of building contractor, see “Build- & 3. Measure of damages.
In an action for personal injuries, damages
tion. -Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co.
(Mo. App.) 147.
Measure of damages for personal injuries as
son v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 781.
Under Rev. St. 1899, c. 51, a married woman
profits thereof and to damages resulting from
her vocation.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry.
Wittmann (Mo. App.) 791.
8 4. Inadequate and excessive damages.
injuries, an award of $23,400 held excessive.-
Under the facts in a suit against a city for
in a street, a verdict for $1 held the result of
In an action for injuries to a servant, a ver-
Fordyce (Mo. Sup.) 679.
Verdict for $2,500 in action against street
railroad for personal injuries held not grossly
A verdict for $6,375 in favor of a husband for
In action for injury to crops and realty by
In an action for personal injuries held that a
& 5. Pleading, evidence, and assessment.
what plaintiff may sustain in the future.-
Reynolds v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) In an action by an employé for injuries
through negligence, defendant held entitled to
An instruction held to authorize double dam-
money.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
v. Nesbit (Tex. Civ. App.) 891.
The charge held not to assume that there
See "Waters and Water Courses," $ 2.
roads," $8 5–7.
Competency of evidence in action for wrong-
Liability of carrier for death of passenger, see
“Carriers," $ 6.
“Abatement and Revival," $ 1.
Pleading and evidence of damages, see "Dam-
ages," $ 5.
-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hitt (Ark.)
*In an action for death, plaintiff was en-
ery.--St. Louis, I, M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Cleere
riage of the widow as affecting the assess.
*Widow and children of a decedent held en-
titled to sue for his death by negligent act
more v. Sebree Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 1062.
Co. (Mo. Sup.) 623.
An instruction defining the measure of dam- | Agent, see “Principal and Agent," § 2.
Deeds of particular species of property.
Particular classes of deeds.
porations,” $ 4; “Mortgages.
8 1. Requisites and validity.
A deed reserviug a life estate to the grantor
and to become operative at her death is valid.
--Lewis v. Tisdale (Ark.) 579.
In an action against a railroad company for
for a right of way, certain deeds eridencing
sufficient definiteness.-Little Rock & Ft. S.
Ry. Co. v. Evans (Ark.) 992.
Where a married woman conveyed her sep-
arate estate in satisfaction of a liability which
she supposed she had incurred as surety for
her husband, she was entitled to have the
deed set aside.—Bowron v. Curd (Ky.) 1106.
Whether the vendor in a deed shared in a
mistake as to the person to whom the deed
should have been made is immaterial after a
correct the alleged mistake.-Jones v. Hum-
A conveyance by one joint purchaser of prop-
posed interest in the property held without con-
sideration.—Paddock v. Bray (Tex. Civ. App.)
A description in a deed held sufficient.--
Wall v. Club Land & Cattle Co. (Tex. Civ.
§ 2. Construction and operation.
Under Kirby's Dig. $ 734, a quitclaim deed
to an undivided interest in a mining location
grantors after they abandoned the location as a
lain and relocated it as a placer claim.--
A deed held to have given the grantee a fee
simple, free from attempted restrictions.-
the deed to the grantor for the purpose of in-
serting additional property and redating and
redelivering it.- City of St. Joseph ex rel.
Forsee v. Baker (Mo. App.) 1122.
When there are two descriptions in a deed
grantee is at liberty to select that which is most
“Cancellation of Instru- favorable to him.-McBride V. Burus (Tex.
Civ. App.) 391.
§ 3. Pleading and evidence.
In a suit to set aside a deed, the evidence
held sufficient to show delivery.-Lewis v. Tis-
dale (Ark.) 579.
That a certain power of attorney did not au-
thorize the attorneys to convey the land for a
cient deed held insufficient to establish that the
"Reformation of Instru- deed was made in pursuance of such power,
and that it was invalid.-Brown v. Orange
County (Tex. Civ. App.) 247.
"Husband and Wife," $ 2; “Insane Persons,
See “Corporations," $ 1.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.