Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

$ 20. Judgment, sentence, and final p. 291, c. 124), an appeal bond in criminal case
commitment.

held sufficient.--Holland V. State (Tex. Cr.
Sufficient grounds for believing that defendant App.) 361.
was insane at time of trial or sentence held
shown, so as to require an inquiry, as provided $ 24. Record and proceedings not in
by Kirby's Dig. § 2440.-Ince v. State (Ark.)

record.
818.

The overruling of a motion for a new trial
Under Kirby's Dig. § 2440, a verdict of guilty, in a criminal case cannot be reviewed in the
notwithstanding the defense of insanity, held absence of a bill of exceptions filed within the
not a bar to a plea of insanity at time of trial term; there being no extension of time for
or sentence.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

filing the same.-State v, Miller (Mo. Sup.)

607.
A motion in arrest of judginent, on conviction
of crime, on the ground of present insanity of In determining, on appeal in a criminal case,
defendant, should be treated as a motion to stay the propriety of denying a continuance, affi-
sentence.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

davits filed subsequent to the trial cannot be

looked to.-State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
§ 21. Appeal and error, and certiorari-
Form of remedy, jurisdiction, sidered.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

An unsigned bill of exceptions cannot be con-
and right of review.
Circuit court held to have jurisdiction of an In a prosecution for murder, exclusion of cer-
appeal from a conviction before a justice of the tain testimony will not be reviewed where the
peace for violation of Kirby's Dig. § 1680.-object of the testimony was not stated in the
Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.

bill of exceptions.-Upton v. State (Tex. Cr.
& 22. Presentation and reservation App.) 212.

in lower court of grounds of A bill of exceptions held too indefinite to be
review.

considered, because it was difficult to deter-
Where there was no exception to an instruc- mine whether defendant was objecting to the
țion, nor any assignment of error based thereon courts' refusal to retire the jury, or the admis-
in the motion for a new trial, the instruction is sion of the evidence.-Hall v. State (Tex. Cr.
not reviewable.—Corothers v. State (Ark.) 585. App.) 244.

An exception to the admission of evidence on Where the court adjourned on April 30th,
a trial for crime, not brought forward in the and the statement of facts was not filed until
motion for a new trial, will not be considered August 30th, it cannot be considered, in the
on appeal.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

absence of any reason assigned for the delay.
*On appeal in a criminal case, an objection to -Hall v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 244.
evidence which was not excepted to in the trial The refusal of a continuance will not be re-
court will not be considered.-Maxey v. State viewed in the absence of a statement of facts.
(Ark.) 1009.

-Hall v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 244.
*A general exception to evidence is insuffi-

A bill of exceptions held to raise no question
cient to raise the question of error in its ad- for review.-Reyes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
mission.- Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.

245.
An objertion to an omission of the court to

Where the district judge appends a qualifving
charge particular propositions in a criminal case explanation to a bill of exceptions, appellant
will not be reviewed where no exceptions were
served or requests made to give such instruc- then procure the appellate court to strike out

cannot accept the bill with the explanation and
tious.-Williams v. United States (Ind. T.) the explanation.-Pool v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
334.

350.
Objections not made at the trial, nor includ-
ed in the grounds for a new trial, but first ap- conviction cannot be reviewed where the record

The sufficiency of the evidence to support
pearing in the assignments of error, will not contains no statement of facts.—Lockhart v.
be considered on appeal.-Williams v. United State (Tex. Cr. App.) 350.
States (Ind. T.) 331.
An objection to the sufficiency of the in- lord without bill of exceptions or statement of

Under Code Cr. Proc. $ 1895, art. 723, a rec-
dictment cannot be raised for the first time facts held insufficient to show prejudicial error
on appeal.- Baldridge v. Commonwealth (Ky.) in instructions.—Ruiz v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
1076.

S08.
Where a rerdict finding defendant guilty of
aiding and assisting in establishing a "policy" $ 25. Dismissal, hearing, and
was fatally defective, defendant held entitled

hearing.
to object thereto on appeal, without raising the A motion to dismiss an appeal in a criminal
objection by motion in arrest.-State v. Cronin case because no affidavit for an appeal had been
(Mo. Sup.) 601.

filed, not filed until submission of the case on
Objection cannot be made to the testimony of its merits, held too late.-State v. Miller (Mo.
witnesses for the first time on appeal.--State

Sup.) 607.
v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

8 26. Review.
An objection after the close of the examina- The court in controlling the cross-examination
tion of a juror, "challenged for cause," in- of accused is vested with discretionary power.
sufficient to preserve for appellate review any --Corothers v. State (Ark.) 585.
error in overruling the challenge. — State v.
Forsha (No. Sup.) 746.

Under the record on appeal in a prosecution

for murder, held, that it was presumable that a
Objections and exceptions to testimony must juror was peremptorily challenged before he was
be made at the time the testimony is given, in

sworn in chief.--Daniels v. State (Ark.) 844.
order to preserve for appellate review any error
in admitting the same. -State orsha (Mo.

All presumptions are in favor of the trial
Sup.) 716.

court's rulings and to call for reversal an af-

firmative showing of error is required, not a mere
$ 23.

Proceedings for transfer of showing that under some circumstances there
cause, and effect thereof.

might have been error.—Johnson v. State (Ark.)
Under Act 27th Legislature (Gen. Laws 1901, \ 905,

• Point annotated. See syllabus.

[ocr errors]

V.

[ocr errors]

In a prosecution for larceny, error in admit- On a prosecution for the murder of defendant's
ting certain evidence held not shown by record. husband, testimony of a police officer as to the
-Johnson v. State (Ark.) 905.

business in which deceased was engaged at the
Where the record in a criminal case disclos- and nature of the business, though immaterial,

time witness first knew him, and the character
ed that the jury were placed in charge of a
"sworn bailiff," it would be presumed after ver-

was not reversible error.-State v. Cummings
dict that the bailiff was “Quly sworn."— Wil- (Mo. Sup.) 706.
liams v. United States (Ind. T.) 334.

On a prosecution for arson, held, that there
The Supreme Court, on appeal in a criminal

was no prejudicial error in an instruction call-
case, will review only such errors as were ad-ling for a conviction, if the crime was com-
mitted and properly preserved by the record.-mitted within three years prior to the date

when the amended information was filed.-
State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

State v. Hunt (Mo. Sup.) 719.
When an appellant assumes to point out spe-

In homicide, the admission in evidence of a
<ifically grounds of objection to a charge, it vile epithet applied by defendant after the kill-
will be presumed that he has no others. to urge.ing to nonunion hack drivers, to which class
---Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

deceased belonged, was not ground for reversal.
In the absence of a showing to the contrary, -State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
it will be presumed, on a criminal appeal, that
an application for a continuance, the overrul- tions to jurors in a murder case not to make

Under Code Cr. Proc. arts. 817, 821, instruc-
ing of which is complained of, was a second ap- a tlida vits as to their misconduct, if any, held
plication.-Sliger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 243.

not prejudicial to defendant.-Long v. State
$ 27.
Harmless error.

(Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
On a trial for homicide, a verdict of guilty set Showing made on motion for new trial in a
aside in view of the evidence and conditional prosecution for murder held not to indicate
verdict originally rendered.-Ince v. State (Ark.) | that defendant was prejudiced by statements
818.

made in the jury room as to how a former jury
The remarks of the court, on refusing to re-

had stood. —Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
ceive the jury's verdict in a homicide case and In a prosecution for robbery, the admission of
directing them to retire, held not reversible er- certain evidence, if erroneous, held not re-
ror.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

versible error.--Tones y. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
Where, on defendant's objection to certain 217.
evidence, the jury are instructed that it is The mere inquiry by one of the jurors during
incompetent, it will not be considered on ap- their deliberations, "Why did defendant not
peal.--Johnson v. State (Ark.) 905.

testify ?held not misconduct of the jury.-
Argument of prosecuting attorney as to effect Parrish v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
of certain impeaching testimouy held improper The admission of certain evidence on a trial
and prejudicial.-Hinson v. State (Ark.) 917. for murder held not prejudicial.—Cole v. State

Where the record raises a presumption of (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
consent by accused to a suspension of a for- In a criminal prosecution, the exclusion of eri.
mer prosecution, parol proof by the state of dence of a conversation cannot be regarded as
accused's express consent to such suspension is injurious to defendant where it is not shown
immaterial and harmless.-Burnett v. State what the conversation was.-Ellingtou v. State
(Ark.) 956.

(Tex. Cr. App.) 361.
In a prosecution for murder, argument of the In a prosecution for theft from the person, a
prosecuting attorney held not cause for rever- charge that the theft must be committed with-
sal.-Byrd v. State (Ark.) 974.

out the knowledge of the person held, if erro-

harmless as to defendant.

neous,
On a trial for murder, the error in excluding State (Tex. Cr. App.) 807.

Nelson v.
evidence contradicting the testimony of a wit-
ness held not prejudicial.-Casteel v. State

Admission of testimony, afterwards with-
(Ark.) 1004.

drawn, that in the opinion of witnesses defend-

ant had sufficient mental capacity to know it
*The admission of incompetent evidence over was wrong to attempt to kill prosecutor, held
objection is harmless, where the same facts are harmless.-McKinney v. State Tex. Cr. App.)
shown by other evidence not objected to.-- 1012.
Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1003.
In a prosecution for the violation of Kirby's

CROPS.
Dig. & 1680, making it a crime to furnish a
prisoner with means to escape, evidence that

As subject to levy on execution, see "Execu-
the prisoner assisted was tried and acquitted Excessive damages for injuries to crops, see

tion," $ 1.
held irrelevant but nonprejudicial.-Maxey v.
State (Ark.) 1009.

"Damages," $ 4.

Injuries to, caused by fowage, see “Waters
In a criminal prosecution, remarks of prose and Water Courses,” 8 2.
cuting attorney merely drawing inferences from Landlord's lien for rent, see "Landlord and Tea-
testimony before the jury are not prejudicial. ant," $ 4.
Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.
*The error in permitting the wife of the ac-

CROSS-EXAMINATION.
cused to testify on a trial, under Cr. Code Prac.
$ 156, to determine his sanity, held harmless. See “Witnesses," $ 2.
Commonwealth v. Woelfel (Ky.) 1061.
It is reversible error, on a trial for crime, to

CROSSINGS.
fail to instruct on the whole law governing the
case.-French v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1070.

Accidents at railroad crossing, see "Railroads,"

$ 6.
A person indicted for murder in the first de-
gree and convicted of a lesser degree cannot

CRUELTY.
complain of an instruction on murder in the
first degree.--State v. Craig (Mo. Sup.) 641. See “Divorce," $ 2.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

CUSTODY.

*In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff

may recover damages for pain which will
Of child, see “Parent and Child."

be suffered in the future as a result of the in-
Of jury, see “Criminal Law," § 18.

jury. - Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Io.

App.) 1119.
CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

A carrier having failed to perform a contract

to furnish certain cars for the shipment of cat-
As affecting landowner's right to recover for- | tle as agreed, the shipper held not bound to
feit money paid broker, see “Brokers," 2. arrange for the shipment for a part of the dis-

tance over such carrier's line in order to re-

duce the damages.- Pecos River R. Co. v.
DAMAGES.

Latham (Tex, Civ, App.) 392.

*Evidence held to present issue of future
Compensation for property taken for public use, suffering from personal injury.-Missouri, K.
see “Eminent Domain," $ 1.

& T. Ry. Co. of Texas V. Nesbit (Tex. Civ.
Instructions in general, see “Trial," $ 9. App.) 891.
Liability of building and loan association for

negligence of building contractor, see “Build- & 3. Measure of damages.
ing and Loan Associations."

In an action for personal injuries, damages
Negligence in general as cause of, see "Neg- should be estimated on the basis of compensa-
ligence," $ 4.

tion. -Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co.

(Mo. App.) 147.
Damages for particular injuries.

Measure of damages for personal injuries as
See "Assault and Battery,” s 1; “Death," § 1. dependent on physician's services stated.-- Nel-

son v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 781.
Breach by buyer of contract for sale of goods,
see “Sales," $ 6.

Under Rev. St. 1899, c. 51, a married woman
Breach of contract to transport passenger, who runs a boarding house is entitled to the
see “Carriers," 8 5.

profits thereof and to damages resulting from
Breach of covenant, see “Covenants," $ 2. personal injuries rendering her unable to pursue
Breach of warranty, see “Sales," $8 5, 7.

her vocation.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry.
Ejection of passenger, see “Carriers," $ 8. Co. (Mo. App.) 781.
Failure to furnish cars, see “Carriers," $ 1. The measure of damages for breach of a con-
From malicious acts of servant, see “Master tract to erect a building stated.-Simons v.
and Servant," § 10.

Wittmann (Mo. App.) 791.
From overflow, “Waters and Water
Courses," $ 2.

8 4. Inadequate and excessive damages.
Injuries to live stock by carrier, see “Carriers," In an action against a street railroad for
$ 2.

injuries, an award of $23,400 held excessive.-
Refusal of landlord to deliver possession of Reynolds v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.)
demised premises, see “Landlord and Tenant," | 50.

$ 3.
To live stock by railroads, see “Railroads, $ 8. injuries caused by falling over an obstruction

Under the facts in a suit against a city for
§ 1. Nature and grounds in general.

in a street, a verdict for $1 held the result of
Where one who has contracted to erect build- prejudice.-Fischer v. City of St. Louis (Mo.
ings wholly fails to perform any part of his con- Sup.) 82.
tract, the other party may recover damages, In an action for injuries, verdict for $5,000
though he does not proceed with the erection held not excessive. — Haxton v. Kansas City
of the buildings. Simons v. Wittmann (Mo. (Mo. Sup.) 714.
App.) 791.

In an action for injuries to a servant, a ver-
§ 2. Grounds and subjects of compen- dict for $7,500 held not excessive.-Smith v.
satory damages.

Fordyce (Mo. Sup.) 679.
Where one employed to repair the cylinder *In an action for injuries, held, that a verdict
of an engine improperly delayed its return, held for $6,000 was not excessive.-Rapp v. St. Lou-
not liable for special damage caused by the idle is Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 865.
ness of the mill during the delay.--Pine Bluff

Verdict for $2,500 in action against street
Iron Works v. Boling & Bro. (Ark.) 306.

railroad for personal injuries held not grossly
Where injuries are such that they are neces- excessive.--Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. R.
sarily certain to continue to cause pain and Co. (Mo. App.) 147.
anguish, the fact that they are not shown to be

A verdict for $6,375 in favor of a husband for
permanent does not preclude the consideration
of future pain and anguish as elements of dam- | injuries to his wife held not excessive.-Chi-
ages therefor.—Haxton v. Kansas City (Mo. cago, R.-I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ.
Sup.) 714.

App.) 445.
Pain of body and mental anguish, resulting overflows, verdict for plaintiff for $300 held not

In action for injury to crops and realty by
from personal injuries are elements that enter excessive.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Har-
into the estimation of compensatory damages.bison Tex. Civ.’App.) 452; Same v. Wetherly
--Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. Ř. Co. (Mo. (Tex. Civ. App.) 436; Same v. Oates (Tex. Civ.
App.) 147.

App.) 457.
An allowance of damages for future pain and
suffering likely to result from personal injuries

In an action for personal injuries held that a
should be confined to such damages as are rea- judgment for plaintiff for $2.000 was not ex-
sonably certain to result from the injuries. — cessive.--St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of
Waddell v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) Texas v. Harkey (Tex. Civ. App.) 506.
765.

& 5. Pleading, evidence, and assessment.
The fact that reasonable obligations, such as In an action for injuries, an instruction held,
medical attention, etc., resulting from personal not erroneous as authorizing a recovery of loss
injuries, have not been paid, does not prevent a of time, and also for diminished earning ca-
recovery therefor.--Nelson v. Metropolitan St. pacity during the same period. and for loss of
Ry. Co. (MIo. App.) 781.

what plaintiff may sustain in the future.-
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

Reynolds v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) In an action by an employé for injuries
50.

through negligence, defendant held entitled to
In an action for injuries to a physician which show by plaintiff's medical witness that his orig-
interfered with his practice, it was proper to inal diagnosis of the injuries was incompatible
perinit him to testify as to his earnings for that with subsequent developments. Chicago, R. I.
monih in the previous year.-Sluder v. St. Louis & M. Ry. Co. v. Harton (Tex. Civ. App.) 857.
Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.

An instruction held to authorize double dam-
In an action for breach of warranty of sound- ages for diminished capacity to labor and earn
ness of hogs, evidence held insufficient to au-

money.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
thorize an award of substantial damages.-

v. Nesbit (Tex. Civ. App.) 891.
Narr v. Norman (Mo. App.) 122.

The charge held not to assume that there
Where testimony as to physician's services, would necessarily be future suffering from per-
made necessary by personal injuries, fails to sonal injuries received.—Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
show the amount of the charge or the reasonable Co. of Texas v. Nesbit (Tex. Civ. App.) 891.
value of the services, a recovery for liability in-
curred for such services cannot be sustained.-

DAMS.
Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.)
781.

See "Waters and Water Courses," $ 2.
A petition alleging the payment of sums of
money for medical attention, etc., made neces-
sary personal injuries, does not authorize a

DEATH.
recovery for liabilities incurred for such items, Caused by operation of railroad, see “Rail-
but not paid.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry.
Co. (Mo, App.) 781.

roads," $8 5–7.

Competency of evidence in action for wrong-
In an action for damages from the breach of ful death, see "Evidence," $ 2.
a contract to erect buildings, an allegation of Declarations as evidence in action for wrongful
the petition held sufficient to justify admission death, see “Evidence," 8 4.
of evidence as to the reasonable cost of erecting Instructions in general in action for,
the buildings.-Simons v. Wittmann (Mo. App.) “Trial," 88 5, 11.
791.

Liability of carrier for death of passenger, see
Damages not specially pleaded should not

“Carriers," $ 6.
be made an element of damage in the instruc-Of party to action ground for abatement, see
tions.-Stafford v. Adams (Mo. App.) 1130.

“Abatement and Revival," $ 1.

Pleading and evidence of damages, see "Dam-
In an action for personal injuries, an instruc-

ages," $ 5.
tion authorizing the recovery of damages for
the impairment of plaintiff's nervous system 1. Actions for causing death.
and memory in addition to the damages to *In an action against a railroad for wrongful
which he was entitled on other grounds held death, a verdict for $10,000 held not excessive.
proper. -Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Yates --St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hitt (Ark.)
(Tex. Civ. App.) 283.

908, 990.
In an action for injuries to plaintiff's wife, *Testimony of a life insurance agent as to
the refusal to caution the jury not to allow the expectancy of life, as shown by the mortality
more than the amount claimed in the petition tables, of a man of decedent's age, and an es-
for medical expenses held not error.–San An- timate of the amount required to purchase an
tonio Traction Co. v. Menk Tex. Civ. App.) annuity equal to his income, held admissible.
290.

-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hitt (Ark.)
In action for killing horse

908, 990.

track,
where petition alleged market value, evidence *In action for death, a verdict for $13,190
of intrinsic value for special purpose held in- held not excessive.-St. Louis, I, M. & S. Ry.
admissible.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cooper Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.
(Tex, Civ. App.) 301.

*In an action for death, plaintiff was en-
In an action for injuries, evidence held suffi-| titled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per
cient to justify a recovery for time lost in the annum on the amount of damages from the
past and future.--Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mc- date of deceased's death to the date of recov-
Dowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 415.

ery.--St. Louis, I, M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Cleere
In an action for injuries, an instruction au-

(Ark.) 995.
thorizing a recovery for expenses incurred for *Where, after the commencement of an ac-
physician and medicine held uot objectionable tion by a widow as administratrix of her de-
as authorizing a recovery for services of a ceased husband to recover damages for his
physician, in the absence of evidence of the death, she remarried, held proper to instruct
reasonable value thereof.—Texas & P. Ry. Co. that the jury should not consider the remar-
v. McDowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 415.

riage of the widow as affecting the assess.
In an action for death, defendant held enti- ment of damages.- St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry.
tled, under the general issue, to show that de Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.
cedent, at the time she sustained the injuries, *An action for death by wrongful act is
had a disease which would have caused her transitory.-Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v.
death as soon as she did die, independent of the McGinty (Ark.) 1001.
injuries.----Hardin v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry.

*Widow and children of a decedent held en-
Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 440.

titled to sue for his death by negligent act
Petition for injuries held to state the damages on refusal of administrator to sue, under Civ.
sustained by plaintiff with sufficient particular-Code, $ 24, notwithstanding Const. § 241, Civ.
ity.-El Paso & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Vizard (Tex. Code, Š 21, and Ky. St. 1903, § 3882.- McLe-
Civ. App.) 457.

more v. Sebree Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 1062.
In an action for injuries, a petition held not In an action for the death of an eight-year
subject to exception for indefiniteness of allega-old child at a railroad crossing, held that the
tion as to the nature and extent of the inju- question whether the child was sui juris was
ries.-Alexander v. McGalsey (Tex. Civ. App.) one for the jury.- Holmes v. Missouri Pac. Ry.
462

Co. (Mo. Sup.) 623.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.

on

An instruction defining the measure of dam- | Agent, see “Principal and Agent," § 2.
ages in an action for death by wrongful act Sheriffs, see “Execution," § 4.
held misleading.-International & G. N. R, Co.
v. Glover (Tex. Civ. App.) 515.

Deeds of particular species of property.
It is not necessary, in an action for death See "Homestead," § 2; "Public Lands,”

1, 2.
by wrongful act, that the proof be confined to
the date alleged in the petition.-International Accretions, see “Waters and Water Courses,”
& G. N. R. Co. y. Glover (Tex. Civ. App.) 515. § 1.

Particular classes of deeds.
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. Of trust, see "Chattel Mortgages,” $ 1; “Cor-

porations,” $ 4; “Mortgages.
See “Assignments_for Benefit of Creditors”; Tax deeds, see “Taxation," $ 2.
"Bankruptcy''; "Fraudulent Conveyances."

8 1. Requisites and validity.

A deed reserviug a life estate to the grantor
DECEDENTS.

and to become operative at her death is valid.

--Lewis v. Tisdale (Ark.) 579.
Estates, see Descent and Distribution"; "Exec-
utors and Administrators.”.

In an action against a railroad company for
Testimony as to transactions with persons damages caused by the appropriation of land
since deceased, see “Witnesses," $ 1.

for a right of way, certain deeds eridencing
plaintiff's title held to describe the land with

sufficient definiteness.-Little Rock & Ft. S.
DECEIT.

Ry. Co. v. Evans (Ark.) 992.
See "Fraud.”

Where a married woman conveyed her sep-

arate estate in satisfaction of a liability which
DECLARATION.

she supposed she had incurred as surety for

her husband, she was entitled to have the
In pleading, see "Pleading," 8 2

deed set aside.—Bowron v. Curd (Ky.) 1106.

Whether the vendor in a deed shared in a
DECLARATIONS.

mistake as to the person to whom the deed

should have been made is immaterial after a
As evidence in civil actions, see “Evidence," conveyauce has been made by the vendee to
§ 5.

correct the alleged mistake.-Jones v. Hum-
As evidence in criminal prosecutions, see phreys (Tex. Civ. App.) 403.
"Criminal Law," $ 9.

A conveyance by one joint purchaser of prop-
Dying declarations, see "Homicide," $ 8.
Of agent to prove agency, see "Principal and erty to another in payment for the latter's sup-

posed interest in the property held without con-
Agent,” $ 1.

sideration.—Paddock v. Bray (Tex. Civ. App.)

419.
DEDICATION.

A description in a deed held sufficient.--
§ 1. Nature and requisites.

Wall v. Club Land & Cattle Co. (Tex. Civ.
The legal effect of a deed dedicating to the App.) 534.
public streets and alleys on land platted as a

§ 2. Construction and operation.
town site and of a deed granting a railroad a

Under Kirby's Dig. $ 734, a quitclaim deed
right of way over a street held a question of
law for the court.-Oklahoma City & T. R. Co. held not to convey the interest acquired by the

to an undivided interest in a mining location
v. Dunham (Tex. Civ. App.) 819.

grantors after they abandoned the location as a
§ 2. Operation and effect.

lode

lain and relocated it as a placer claim.--
A deed of dedication to public of streets and Walls v. Chase (Ark.) 1030.
alleys in a town site and a deed granting a rail-

A deed held to have given the grantee a fee
road a right of way over a street held to con-
fer right to use of right of way, restricted only Kessner v. Phillips (Mo. Sup.) 66.

simple, free from attempted restrictions.-
by the right of the public to the reasonable use
of the street and the right not to have a nui- A grantee, in possession under an unrecorded
sance imposed.--Oklahoma City & T. R. Co. v. deed, does not lose his title by redelivery of
Dunham (Tex. Civ. App.) 849.

the deed to the grantor for the purpose of in-

serting additional property and redating and
DEEDS.

redelivering it.- City of St. Joseph ex rel.

Forsee v. Baker (Mo. App.) 1122.
See "Lost Instruments.”

When there are two descriptions in a deed
Best and secondary evidence, see "Evidence,” which are inconsistent with each other, the
$ 2.

grantee is at liberty to select that which is most
Cancellation,

“Cancellation of Instru- favorable to him.-McBride V. Burus (Tex.
ments."

Civ. App.) 391.
Covenants in deeds, see “Covenants."
Dedicating streets and alleys to public, see

§ 3. Pleading and evidence.
“Dedication," 8 1.

In a suit to set aside a deed, the evidence
Distinguished from will, see "Wills," $ 1.

held sufficient to show delivery.-Lewis v. Tis-
In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Con-

dale (Ark.) 579.
veyances."

That a certain power of attorney did not au-
In trust, see "Trusts," $ 1.

thorize the attorneys to convey the land for a
Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence,” consideration mentioned in the attorneys' an-
$ 8.

cient deed held insufficient to establish that the
Reformation,

"Reformation of Instru- deed was made in pursuance of such power,
ments.”

and that it was invalid.-Brown v. Orange

County (Tex. Civ. App.) 247.
Deeds by or to particular classes of parties.
See “Executors and Administrators,” $ 3; DE FACTO CORPORATIONS.

"Husband and Wife," $ 2; “Insane Persons,
$ 1.

See “Corporations," $ 1.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.
88 S.W.-74

see

see

« AnteriorContinuar »