Imágenes de páginas


See "Libel and Slander."

See “Executors and Administrators"; "Home-

stead," $ 3; “Wills."

Inheritance and transfer taxes, see “Taxa-

tion," $ 3.
Judgment by, see "Judgment," 8 3.

§ 1. Persons entitled and their respec-

tive shares.

A widow held in equity to have title to per-

sonal property left by her husband, not exceed-
In transportation or delivery of goods by car. ing that allowed by Rev. St. 1899, 88 107, 108.
rier, see “Carriers," $ 1.

Mahoney y. Nevins (Mo. Sup.) 731.
In transportation or delivery of live stock,

see "Carriers," $ 2.
Laches, see "Equity," $ 2.


Of land partitioned, see "Partition," $ 1.

Of property conveyed, see “Deeds," $$ 1, 2.
Of legislative power, see “Constitutional Law,"
§ 1.


Liability of railroad for assault by detective,

see "Principal and Agent," $ 2.
Or goods to carrier, see "Carriers," $ 1.
Redelivery of deed, see "Deeds," $ 2.


See "Wills."
For payment of bill or note, see "Bills and
Notes," 8 4.

Sufficiency of complaint to show demand for
cars, see “Carriers," 8 1.

Duty of carrier, see “Carriers," $ 2.

[ocr errors]



Liability of carrier for demurrage paid by In civil actions, see "Trial," $ 4.
shipper, see “Carriers," $ 1.

To evidence, see “Trial," $ 4.

Of aliens, see "Aliens," $ 1.
Of passenger as ground for his nonacceptance

by carrier, see "Carriers."
See "Affidavits"; "Witnesses."

In election contests, see "Elections," $ 3.
Presence of witnesses whose depositions had From indebtedness, see "Accord and Satisfac-

been withdrawn as ground for continuance, tion"; "Release.
see Continuance."

From liability as guarantor, see "Guaranty,"

$ 1.
Depositions taken in a cause are not admissi. From liability as surety, see “Principal and
ble in a subsequent cause as against one not Surety," $ 3.
a party to that in which they were taken.-

Of judgment, see "Judgment," 8 11.
Parlin & Oreudorff Co. v. Vawter (Tex. Civ.
App.) 407.
Copy of notice to take depositions and inter-

rogatories, required by Rev. St. 1895, art. 2274,

Continuance in criminal
to be served on the opposite party. need not


**Criminal Law," $ 14.
be certified by the clerk of court.-El Paso & Review in civil actions, see "Appeal and Er-
S. W. Ry. Co. v. Vizard (Tex. Civ. App.) 457.

ror," $ 20.
Under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 2289,
motion to quash deposition made after an-
nouncement of ready for trial held too late.-

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v.
Hurkey (Tex. Civ. App.) 506.

Dismissal of appeal or writ of error, see

“Appeal and Error," & 8; "Criminal Law,"
Motion to quash deposition held to raise ques- $ 25.
tion of fact, authorizing court to receive testi- Dismissal of condemnation proceedings, see
mony outside of what was shown by deposition

“Eminent Domain," $ 2.
itself or indorsement on envelope. ---St. Louis Yonsuit in action on insurance policy, see “In-
Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Harkey (Tex.

surance," $ 7.
(iv. App.) 506.

In bank, see "Banks and Banking," § 1.

See “Breach of the Peace."

Drunkenness, see "Drunkards."

Maintenance of by railroads, see "Railroads,"
§ 2.

Of judge, see "Judges," $ 1.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.

$ 3.


An ordinance declaring drunkenness in a pub-

lic place a nuisance held not to conflict with
Of partnership, see "Partnership," $ 4.

Kirby's Dig. 882550, 2552, 2553, authorizing

arrest by a peace officer of the state of a drunk

en person in a public place.—Town of Dewitt

v. La Cotts (Ark.) 877.
of assets of partnership on dissolution, see
“Partnership," 4.

Of estate assigned for creditors, see "Assign-
ments for Benefit of Creditors," $ 1.

As a defense to criminal prosecution, see “Crimi.
Of estate of decedent, see "Descent and Dis- nal Law," $ 1.

tribution"; "Executors and Administrators," As contributory negligence of person sitting
$ 2.

on end of railroad cross-tie, see “Railroads,

$ 7.
DISTRICT AND PROSECUTING AT. Of passenger, see "Carriers," $$ 3, 6, 7.

Argument and conduct at trial, see “Criminal See “Homicide," $ 8.
Law," 88 16, 27.

Ground of jurisdiction of United States courts, Damages for loss of, see “Damages," 3.
see “Removal of Causes,” g 1.


See “Dedication"; "Highways."
See “Sales," $ 2.


Of passenger, see “Carriers,” | 8.
Presumptions on appeal or writ of error, see
"Appeal and Error," & 19.

§ 1. Defenses.

See “Trespass to Try Title.”
Both parties a suit for divorce denied re- Contradiction of witnesses, see "Witnesses,"
lief, because both were at fault.-Malone v.
Malone (Ark.). 840.
82. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-

§ 1. Right of action and defenses.

*In ejectment, the plaintiff must rely on the
The testimony of the wife, suing for a divorce, strength of his own title.-Carpenter v. Jones
held not sufficiently corroborated.-Malone v.

(Ark.) 871.
Malone (Ark.) 840.

§ 2. Pleading and evidence.
Evidence in a suit by a wife for divorce held In ejectment for a mining claim, plaintiffs
not to show cruel treatment sufficient to war- could not, under the issues, rely on adverse
rant a decree.--Malone y. Malone (Ark.) 840. possession as a source of title. - White River
Facts held not to show one a resident of

Min. & Nav. Co. v. Langston (Ark.) 971.
Tennessee so as to entitle him to maintain a In ejectment heid incompetent for defendants
bill for divorce there under Shannon's Code, s to contradict issues tendered by them and con-
4203.--Sparks v. Sparks (Tenn.) 173.

ceded by plaintiffs.-Kessner v. Phillips (Mo.

Sup.) 66.
§ 3. Alimony, allowances, and disposi-
tion of property.

*Awarding $400 to a wife as alimony in a de-
cree of divorce held excessive.- Newton v. New-Between

of action in pleading, see
ton (Ky.) 1050.

"Pleading," $ 7.
Between testamentary provisions and other

rights, see "Wills," $ 4.
As evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence,"

$ 7.
As evidence in criminal prosecutions,

As against principal and agent, see “Principal
"Criminal Law," $ 10.

and Agent," 8 2.

In an action on a contract between railroad

companies for the protection of a right of way,

defendant company, electing to stand on the
In suits for divorce, see "Divorce," $ 2.

contract, cannot recover on a quantum meruit.

- Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas City & Air

Line Co. (Mo. Sup.) 3.

See “Intoxicating Liquors."

Best and secondary evidence of vote cast, see

"Evidence,' § 3.

Local option elections, "Intoxicating
*Municipal corporations held authorized, by Liquors," § 1.
Kirby's Dig. 88 5438, 5461, to by ordinance Stock law elections, see "Animals."
declare drunkenness in a public place to be a Submission to voters of question of issuance
nuisance and disorderly conduct.-Town of De- of school district bonds, see "Schools and
witt v. La Cotts (Ark.) 877.

School Districts," $ 1.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.




§ 1. Election districts or precincts and with reference to business, the demand for

property, and any increase or development rea-
Votes cast in the wrong township in reliance sonably to be expected in the immediate fu-
on universally recognized but erroneous lines ture, held proper.-City of El Paso v. Coffin
would not be excluded.---Lovewell v. Bowen (Tex. Civ. App.) 502.
(Ark.) 570; Rhodes v. Driver, Id.

In a proceeding to condemn land near a
$ 2. Count of votes, returns, and can- projected union station for a park, the jury held

entitled to consider the contemplated construc.
Under Kirby's Dig. 8 2838, when election bal- tion of the depot as bearing on the value of
lots are once turned over to the court no pre- defendant's land.-City of El Paso v. Coffin
sumption in favor of official regularity can be (Tex. Civ. App.) 502.
indulged to sustain them if subsequently produ-

Property owner held entitled to recover dam-
ced from election commissioners. —Lorewell v.

ages sustained by personal annoyance and in
Bowen (Ark.) 570; Rhodes v. Driver, Id.

convenience suffered by her and her family on
Under Kirby's Dig. $ 2838, certain defective account of operation of railway near her resi-
ballots produced at an election contest could dence.--St. Louis, S. F. & T. Řy. Co. v. Shaw
not be deemned the identical original ballots in (Tex. Civ. App.) 817.
untampered form that were cast in a certain

In an action against a railroad for damages
township, so as to authorize the returns from
such township to be thrown out.—Lovewell v.

to plaintiff's property from the use of a right

of way granted defendant over a street, plain-
Bowen (Ark.) 570; Rhodes v. Driver, Id.

tiff's recovery held limited by allegations and
§ 3. Contests.

proof to certain damages.-Oklahoma City &
Kirby's Dig. § 2861, requiring evidence in T. R. Co. v. Dunham (Tex. Civ. App.) 819.
election contests to be taken by depositions, is
exclusive of other modes, and precludes the $ 2. Proceedings to take property and
hearing of oral testimony of judges of electior

assess compensation.
to sustain the returns.-Lovewell v. Bowen

Under Kirby's Dig. $8 2947, 2952, 2954, 2955,
(Ark.) 570; Rhodes v. Driver, Id.

a court, on petition by a railway company to
condemn land for a right of way, held not en-

titled to try the issues raised by the answer

of the owner of the land questioning the com-

pany's right to condemn the land.-Mountain
In stores as common carriers, see "Carriers," Park Terminal Ry. Co. v. Field (Ark.) 897.
§ 6.

In an action against a railroad company for

damages caused by the appropriation of a right

of way, defendant held not entitled to complain
Assignment of errors in condemnation, pro- value of the land had not been shown.-Little

of a verdict on the ground that the market
ceedings, see "Appeal and Error,” 8 14.
Establishment of highways, see Highways,"

Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Evans (Ark.) 992.
8 1.

In the absence of statutory regulations to
Examination of witnesses in condemnation the contrary, a municipal corporation held en-
proceedings, see “Witnesses," $ 2.

titled to abandon condemnation proceedings at
Instructions in general in condemnation pro- any time before judgment in favor of property
ceedings, see "Trial," $ 5.

owners.-In re Seventeenth St. (Mo. Sup.) 45;
Opinion evidence in condemnation proceed. Kansas City v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R.
ings, see "Evidence," $ 9.

Co., Id.
Public improvements by municipalities, see Under St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 7

"Municipal Corporations," 5.
Relevancy of evidence in condemnation pro- land, the disapproval by the municipal assem-

et seq., relating to proceedings to condemn
ceedings, see “Evidence," $ 2.

bly of the report of the commissioners appointed

does not of itself operate as a dismissal of
§ 1. Compensation.

Under Kirby's Dig. $$ 3001, 6681, a railroad the proceeding.-City of St. Louis v. Lawton
company held not entitled to compensation for (Mo. Sup.) 80.
constructing a road crossing or keeping it in In condemnation proceedings, held, that owing
repair, but entitled to damages for the estab- to previous determination the question whether
lishment of a road across its right of way. one of defendants was entitled to any damages

--St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Royall was not examinable.-Union Ry. Co. v. Hun-
(Ark.) 555.

ton (Tenn.) 182.
Where a landowner, after condemnation of a In condemnation proceedings the rental value
highway, received the damages assessed, he of the property is one consideration to be look-
could not. without the consent of the county, ed to in determining the value.-Union Ry. Co.
restore his rights by a return of the money. v. Hunton (Tenn.) 182.

-Brooks, Neely & Co. v. Yell County (Ark.) In condemnation proceedings it was

not to permit petitioner to show that a lease
Where the establishment of a railroad depot of the property held by one of the defendants
and switches near defendant's land was not a was not obtained with a view to use and en-
special benefit to him, it should not be consid-joyment of the property, but as a means of
ered in determining his damages in condemna- speculation in the expected condemnation pro-
tion proceedings.-Kirby v. Panhandle & G. Ry. ceedings.-Union Ry. Co. v. Hunton (Tenn.)
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 281.

In proceedings to condemn land for a railroad In condemnation proceedings a lessee of the
right of way, damages sustained by the land land is a necessary party.--Uniou Ry. Co. y.
owner by an overtlow caused by a defective Hunton (Tenn.) 182.
construction of the railroad's embankment held
not recoverable.--Kirby v. Panhandle & G. tition for condemnation of land held not re-

Under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. art. 4447, a pe-
Ry. Co. (Tes. Civ. App.) 281.

quired to allege the amount of defendant's land
An instruction authorizing a jury in condem- not taken which might be damaged thereby.--
nation proceedings to consider conditions sur- Kirby v. Panhandle & G. Ry. Co. (Tex, Civ.
rounding the property at the time it was taken | App.) 281.

• Point annotated. See syllabus.



In proceedings to condemn land for a railroad

right of way, answers to special issues submit-
ted held not responsive, nor sufficient to sustain Of courts, see "Courts," § 1.
the judgment.- Kirby v. Panhandle & G. Ry. Of highways, see “Highways,” $ 1.
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 281.

Of lost instruments, see “Lost Instruments."
Const. art. 5, 88 8, 16, held not to deprive of trusts, see “Trusts,” $ 3.

Of railroads, see “Street Railroads," $ 1.
county, courts of jurisdiction of condemnation
proceedings.-City of El Paso v. Coffin Tex.
Civ. App.) 502.

In condemnation proceedings, the fact that created by deed, see “Deeds," 88 1, 2.
the court had already charged on the same
subject did not render a subsequent instruction, Decedents' estates, see "Descent and Distri-

Created by will, see “Wills," $ 3.
referring to Const. art. 1, § 17, objectionable,
as calculated to unduly impress the jury with Estates for years, see “Landlord and Tenant.”

bution"; "Executors and Administrators."
the fact that defendant was entitled to receive

full value of the property.--City of El Paso Tenancy in common, see "Tenancy in Com-
v. Coffin (Tex. Civ. App.) 502.
In a condemnation proceeding, the fact that

a certain paragraph of the charge did not state
the time as of which the value of the property By judgment, see "Judgment," $ 9.
was to be estimated was not error.- City of Of principal by knowledge of agent, see "Prin-
El Paso v. Coffin (Tex. Civ. App.) 502.

cipal and Agent," $ 2.
To avoid or forfeit insurance policy, see "In-

surance," $ 2.

To deny corporate existence, see "Corpora.

tions," $ 2.
See "Master and Servant."

To set up tax title, see "Taxation," $ 1.

§ 1. Equitable estoppel.

A municipality held not estopped from assert-

ing the invalidity of a franchise.-Little Rock
Re-entry by landlord, see "Landlord and Ten- Ry. & Electric Co. v. City of North Little
ant," $ 5.

Rock (Ark.) 826.

Creditor held not estopped to deny authority

of attorney who collected a certain claim.-

Bank of Batesville v. Maxey (Ark.) 968.
See "Ejectment."

*Certain facts held not to constitute estoppel.

-Fox y. Commercial Press Co. (Ky.) 1063.

See "Estoppel," § 1.

Oftenant of demised premises, see “Land-

lord and Tenant," $ 3.
Equitable estoppel, see “Estoppel," $ 1.

Laches in seeking to establish right of sub-
rogation, see “Subrogation."

See “Affidavits"; "Depositions”; “Witnesses."
Relief against judgment, see "Judgment,” g 6. Applicability of instructions to evidence, see
Particular subjects of equitable jurisdiction and *Trial,” § 8.
equitable remedies.

Harmless error in rulings on, see “Appeal and
See “Cancellation of Instruments"; "Fraudu-

Error," § 24; "Criminal Law," § 27.
lent Conveyances”; “Injunction”; “Parti- Newly discovered evidence as ground for new
tion," $ 1; "Quieting Title"; "Receivers'';

trial, see “Criminal Law," 8 19; "New
“Reformation Instruments";

Trial," 8 1.

Performance''; “Trusts."

Objections for purpose of review, see "Appeal

and Error," $ 2; "Criminal Law," $ 22.
§ 1. Jurisdiction, principles, and max- Questions of fact for jury, see “Trial," $ 4.

Questions presented for review, see "Appeal
Plaintiff, being guilty of irregularities affecting and Error,” g 12.
defendant's rights, held not entitled to maintain Reception at trial, see "Criminal Law," § 15;
trespass to try title.-Cobb v. Gooch (Tex. Civ. "Trial," 8 2.
App.) 401.

Review on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-

peal and Error," $ 21.
8 2. Laches and stale demands.
The court will refuse to apply the doctrine Verdict or findings contrary to evidence, see

Tax deed as evidence, see “Taxation,” 8 2.
of laches to dealings of an old mother with

“New Trial," $ 1.
her son except in a pronounced case, and, not
being allowable as a defense against her, it is

As to particular facts or issues.
not available against her heirs suing, timely See “Damages," $82, 5; "Deeds," $ 3;
on her demise.- Stevensou v. Smith (Mo. Sup.)

"Fraudulent Conveyances," $ 2; “Judgment,'

8 13; “Partnership," 1; "Trusts," $ 1.

Agency, see "Principal and Agent,” $8 1, 2.

Authority, of corporate agent, see "Corpora-
See “Appeal and Error."

tions," $ 4.
Breach of warranty, see "Sales," $ 5.

Criminal intent, see "Robbery.”

Customs of railroad as affecting release by in-

jured employé, see "Release," $ 1.
Harmless error in prosecution for furnishing Fire caused by railroad locomotive, see "Rail-
means of, see “Criminal Law," $ 27.

roads," 8 9.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.



[ocr errors]


Giving of signals, at railroad crossings, see *In an action against a street railway for in-
“Railroads," $ 6.

juries to a passenger, evidence of plaintiff's
Negligence of passenger, see "Carriers," $ 7. expressions of pain at time of injury held com-
Ownership of railroad, see "Railroads,” 8 4. petent.—McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.
Probable cause for prosecution, see "Malicious Sup.) 853.

Prosecution," $ 1.
Undue influence in procuring making of will, refuse to allow petitioner to show the price of

In condemnation proceedings, it was error to
see “Wills," $ 1.

other lots in the neighborhood of the lot in
In actions by or against particular classes of question within a reasonable time prior to the

taking of the land involved.—Union Ry. Co. v.

Hunton (Tenn.) 182.
See “Building and Loan Associations”; “Car-
riers," 88 1, 2, 6; "Husband and Wife," 8 4;

On the issue of the market price of goods
Master and Servant," § 9; "Principal and sold, evidence of a sum realized by the seller
Surety," $ 3; "Railroads," 88 7-9; "Street

on a resale is admissible, but is not conclusive.
Railroads,” $ 2.

-Hardwick v. American Can Co. (Tenn.) 797.
Against agent, see “Principal and Agent,” § 2.

Evidence of purchases of certain land by a
Telegraph company, "Telegraphs and witness in the vicinity of that condemned for a
Telephones," $ 1.

railroad right of way held inadmissible without

proof of similarity.-Kirby v. Panhandle & G.
In particular civil actions or proceedings. Ry, Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 281.
See “Account, Action on"; "Conspiracy," § 1;

Evidence material only on a question, issue
"Divorce," § 2; "Ejectment," $ 2; “Fraud,

as to which is not raised, held improperly ad-
$ 2; Negligence," $ 4; "Rape,"' $ 3; “Re mitted.—Oneal v. Weisman (Tex. Civ. App.)
formation of Instruments," $ 2; "Trespass,"

$ 1.

In an action for personal injuries, the admis-
Condemnation proceedings,

"Eminent sion in rebuttal of certain evidence relative to
Domain," $ 2.

a different accident held proper.—Texas & P.
Election contests, see "Elections," $ 3. Ry. Co. v. Malone (Tex. Civ. App.) 389.
For breach of contract, see “Contracts,” $ 3.
For causing death, see "Death," $ 1.

§ 3. Best and secondary evidence.

*When the original deed is lost and was
For delay in transportation of live stock, see recorded, oral evidence thereof is admissible.-
"Carriers," $ 2.

Carpenter v. Jones (Ark.) 871.
For failure to deliver telegram, see "Telegraphs
and Telephones," 1.

Testimony of election commissioners as to
For injuries from fires caused by operation of yote cast on license question held incompetent.
railroad, see "Railroads," $ 9.

in the absence of a showing of a loss of orig.
For injuries from overflow, see "Waters and inal returns.---State v. Songer (Ark.) 903.
Water Courses," $ 2.

$ 4. Admissions.
For injuries to live stock from operation of In an action against a railway company for
railroad, see "Railroads,” 8 8.

failure to furnish cars to a shipper, the state-
For injuries to property from use of right of ments of certain persous, known as the com-
way, see "Eminent Domain," $ 1.

pany's officers, held admissible.-Choctaw, 0.
For personal injuries, see "Carriers,” 8 6; & G. Ry. Co. v. Rolfe (Ark.) 870.

"Master and Servant,” 8 9; "Railroads,
87; "Street Railroads," $ 2.

Where plaintiff's pleadings admitted that
For price of goods sold, see “Sales," $ 7.

a certain person was its agent, it was not error
On bill or note, see "Bills and Notes," $ 6.

to admit in evidence the conversations of such
On judgment, see "Judgment," $ 12.

agent, ut evidence of the agency.-Nicola
On note given as bonus to railroad, see "Rail- Bros. Co. v. Hurst (Ky.) 1081.
roads," 8 2.

In an action for injuries to cattle shipped, a
Probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 2.

statement of defendant's couductor to plaintiff
To enforce homestead rights, see "Home during the transportation held admissible as an
stead," $ 5.

admission against interest.--Missouri, K. & T.
To establish lost instrument, see “Lost In- Ry. Co. of Texas v. Russell (Tex. Civ. App.)

To foreclose vendor's lien, see “Vendor and

An application for a continuance, made by
Purchaser," $ 4.

plaintiffs through their attorney, containing an
In criminal prosecutions.

admission contradicting plaintiffs' testimony, is

admissible for that purpose.-W. Scott & Co.
See "Assault and Battery,” & 2; "Burglary,” v. Woodard (Tex. Civ. App.) 406.

$ 1; “Criminal w," $$ 6-13; "Homicide," In a suit by a trustee in bankruptcy to re-
ŠS 7-9; "Larceny,"'. $ 2; Perjury,".. 8. 2; cover property alleged to have been conveyed

"Rape," $ 2; "Robbery"; "Seduction," § 1. pursuant to a conspiracy to defraud creditors,
For offenses against liquor laws, see "Intoxi- testimony is admissible that the bankrupt stat-
cating Liquors,” $ 4.

ed to witness that the property was his, and

that he placed it in his wife's name to prevent
§ 1. Presumptions.

his creditors from subjecting it to the payment
In an action on a liquor dealer's bond, held of debts.--Shelley v. Nolen (Tex. Civ. App.)
proper for the district attorney to state that the 524.
minor's mother was mentally unsound, as re-
butting any unfavorable inference from failure

$ 5. Declarations.
to put her on the stand.-Brewster V. State

In an action against a carrier for the death
(Tex. Civ. App.) 858.

of plaintiff's wife, held that her declarations

were admissible against plaintiff to show her
$ 2. Relevancy, materiality, and come physical condition.-Hardin v. St. Louis South-
petency in general.

western Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 440.
*In an action against a street railway com- In an action for injuries, statements by in-
pany for the death of a traveler in a collision jured party to her physician as to how she was
with a

car, evidence of certain experiments injured were not admissible in favor of plain-
held inadmissible.---Louisville Ry. Co. v. Hos- tiff.-Hardin v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry.
kins' Adm'r (Ky.) 1087.

(o. of Texas (Tex, Civ, App.) 440.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

« AnteriorContinuar »