Where the grantee has knowledge that the grantor intends to defraud his creditors, the question whether consideration was paid is not material.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.) 1082.
As under Rev. St. Mo. 1899, § 3616, a home- stead is exempt from attachment and execution, a conveyance thereof by husband to wife is not fraudulent as to his creditors.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
A deed of trust held not within Rev. St. 1899, § 3397, avoiding deeds conveying chattels to the use of the grantor.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo. App.) 131.
A deed of trust held not void as to creditors because of provision for sale of real estate at request of mortgagor.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo. App.) 131.
§ 2. Remedies of creditors and purchas.
*A wife's bare statement that the conveyance to her by her insolvent husband was in con- sideration of a loan made years before held in- sufficient to prevent the conveyance being treat- ed as fraudulent.-Waters v. Merrit Pants Co. (Ark.) 879.
In a suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudu- lent toward creditors, evidence held to charge the grantee with notice of the grantor's fraudu- lent purpose.-Brite v. Guy (Ky.) 1069.
A conveyance by a husband in failing cir- cumstances to his wife places upon the gran- tee the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.) 1082.
In a suit to set aside a fraudulent convey- ance, evidence held to support findings that the grantee had knowledge of the fraudulent intent of the grantor and that no considera- tion was paid.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.) 1082.
In order to set aside a deed at the instance of a creditor, the proof need not establish fraud beyond all doubt.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.) 1082.
In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, fraud may be proved by circum- stantial evidence.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.) 1082.
Question as to whether the garnishee held moneys in fraud of defendant's creditors held under the evidence one for the jury.-White v. Gibson (Mo. App.) 120.
Where there was evidence of conspiracy be- tween defendant and the garnishee to defraud the defendant's creditors, it was error not to permit plaintiff to introduce the application of defendant to be discharged in bankruptcy.- White v. Gibson (Mo. App.) 120.
On an issue whether a transfer by an insol- vent was fraudulent, evidence that shortly be fore the transfer the insolvent had transferred other property to another party for less than it was worth was admissible.-Horstman v. Little (Tex. Civ. App.) 256.
Delay in shipment, see "Carriers," § 1. GAMING.
GARNISHMENT.
See "Attachment"; "Execution."
1. Nature and grounds. *Act Feb. 27, 1867 (Laws 1866-67, p. 157) 82 (Kirby's Dig. § 3707), relative to issuance of garnishment to another county from a circuit court on a justice's judgment filed therein, held repealed by Act 1889, entitled "An act to pro- vide the procedure in judicial garnishment." Acts 1889, p. 168.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bowman (Ark.) 1033.
Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 3705, 4631-4633, 4634, held, a writ of garnishment may issue to an- other county from a circuit court on a justice's judgment filed therein.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bowman (Ark.) 1033.
2. Persons and property subject to garnishment.
A creditor held entitled to reach the interest of a tenant in a gathered crop, placed in the hands of the landlord as security for debts, by garnishment.-Groesbeck v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 889.
Charitable gifts, see "Charities." To wife, see "Husband and Wife," § 2. Transfer taxes, see "Taxation," § 3.
Of purchaser, see "Bills and Notes," § 3; "Sales," § 4.
Statute authorizing commutation of sentence as invasion of pardoning power, see "Constitu- tional Law," § 1.
See "Indictment and Information."
Of public lands, see "Public Lands."
See "Indemnity"; "Principal and Surety." Acceptance of check as guaranty, see "Bills and Notes," § 1.
Requirements of statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of," § 1.
Review of findings, see "Appeal and Er- ror," § 21.
1. Discharge of guarantor.
Where a contract of guaranty was changed without the guarantors' knowledge, that the in- debtedness accrued before the alteration can- not preclude the guarantors from insisting on their discharge.-John A. Tolman Co. v. Hun- ter (Mo. App.) 636.
GUARDIAN AND WARD.
Joinder of causes of action between, see "Ac- tion." § 3.
Liability of guardian of indigent insane person for support of ward, see "Paupers," § 1.
§ 1. Custody and care of ward's person and estate.
Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 3804, 3805, 3808, a guardian held chargeable with interest because of his failure to make a loan of his ward's money. Merritt v. Wallace (Ark.) 876.
§ 2. Accounting and settlement.
A guardian must introduce evidence to sus-
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
tain the challenged items of his final account.- Merritt v. Wallace (Ark.) 876.
Under Rev. St. 1889, § 5329, a settlement made by a guardian, without filing the exhibit and giving the notice required by statute, held not a final settlement, but merely to have the effect of an annual settlement as prima facie evidence.-May v. May (Mo. Sup.) 75.
The final settlement of a guardian stands up- on the same footing as a judgment, and is con- clusive as to all proper subjects of account in- cluded and involved.-May v. May (Mo. Sup.)
§ 1. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re- lief. On habeas corpus, where bail is the only ques- tion, errors of the trial judge in rejecting or admitting certain facts will not be considered on appeal.-Ex parte Parker (Tex. Cr. App.) 230.
Where a petition for habeas corpus is dis- See "Wills," § 1. missed, it is equivalent to a refusal to grant the writ, and the remedy is by another applica- tion.-Ex parte Billups (Tex. Cr. App.) 347. Where, after an appeal from a judgment in habeas corpus admitting appellant to bail, he gives bond and is liberated, the appeal will be dismissed.-Ex parte Elmore (Tex. Cr. App.)
Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Do- main," § 1. Duty of county clerk as to transmission of transcript in highway proceedings, see "Cer- tiorari," § 1.
Restraining opening road, see "Injunction," § 1.
See "Exemptions." Conveyance of in fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1.
§ 1. Nature, acquisition, and extent. Under the express provisions of Kirby's Dig. § 3902, the debtor's right of homestead is not forfeited by his omission to claim it as ex- empt before sale on execution.-Isbell v. Jones (Ark.) 593.
Where legal title to homestead is in wife, she is entitled to the rents and profits against cred- itors of husband.-Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.) 929.
The fee of the homestead of a widow is liable to sale, subject to her right, by order of the probate court, for payment of debts of the husband.-Robbins v. Boulware (Mo. Sup.) 674.
Where land has become a homestead prior to the owner executing a note which did not in- clude any of the purchase price of the land, the payee could acquire no lien on the land as security for the note.-Sweet v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.) 384.
A judgment creditor of husband held not en- titled to subject to lien vendor's lien notes given the wife on sale of the homestead.- Howard v. Mayher (Tex. Civ. App.) 409.
Homestead rights of tenant in common stated. -Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.
§ 2. Transfer or incumbrance. *Creditors may not complain of the convey- ance to the wife of the homestead, although it is bought by the husband with his own funds.-- Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.) 929.
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, conferring on a homesteader the right to designate and choose the part of the land which shall be exempt from execution under section 3616, a wife is entitled to select the particular part of land conveyed to her by her husband, to the value of the amount of exemption, which she will son (Mo. Sup.) 71.
§ 1. Establishment, alteration, and dis-retain as a homestead.-Reed Bros. v. Nichol-
Acts 24th Leg. Sess. Laws 1895, p. 213, c. 132, constituting a special road law for certain counties, and incorporating the provisions of the railroad law (amended by Acts 26th Leg. Gen. Laws 1899, p. 105, c. 70) regulating the condemnation of land, is as to the condemnation of land for road purposes inconsistent with, and
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3616, relating to home- stead exemptions, where land is subject to a mortgage, the homesteader held entitled to a homestead to the amount of the exemption in what remains of the total value of the land after the mortgage is deducted.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
Under Const. art. 16, § 50, the county court has no jurisdiction to sell the homestead of a lunatic to pay the ordinary debts of the estate, and a purchaser thereunder acquires no title. --Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.
3. Rights of surviving husband, wife, children, or heirs.
In partition, the fee-simple interest of infants should be laid off with respect to their rights, given by Ky. St. 1903, § 1707, to occupy the homestead of their deceased father during their minority.-Campbell v. Asher (Ky.) 1067.
A widow with no minor children was titled to the crops growing on the homestead at the time of the husband's death.-Mahoney v. Nevins (Mo. Sup.) 731. § 4.
Abandonment, waiver, or forfei- ture.
*In a suit to restrain a levy on a homestead, an instruction as to intent to abandon held erroneous as a charge on the weight of evi- dence.-Lynch v. McGown (Tex. Civ. App.) 894.
$ 5. Protection and enforcement of rights.
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, where an exe- cution is levied on a homestead, the sale is void unless the homesteader is given a right to make his selection. Kessner v. Phillips (Mo. Sup.) 66.
In a proceeding in equity to set aside a con- veyance of land by a husband to his wife as fraudulent to creditors, powers of court in respect to finding and decree, where the land is occupied as a homestead, defined.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
Admissions by accused, see § 9. Competency of jurors, see "Jury," § 3. Competency of witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 1. Credibility, impeachment and contradiction of witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 3. Documentary evidence, see "Criminal Law," § 10.
Evidence of character of accused, see "Criminal Law," & 8.
Evidence of similar offenses, see "Criminal Law," § 8. Examination of witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 2.
Hearsay, see "Criminal Law," § 9. Indictment in general, see "Indictment and In- formation," § 2. Instructions in general, see "Criminal Law," § 17.
Opinion evidence, see "Criminal Law," § 11. Questions presented for review, see "Criminal Law," § 24. Relevancy of evidence and res gestæ, see "Criminal Law," § 7. Review in general, see 1. The homicide. Pocket knives are not per se deadly weap- ons.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208. The bare fact that a wound inflicted by a weapon produced death is not conclusive that it was (Tex. Cr. App.) 208. a deadly weapon.-Craiger v. State
Even courts of equity are bound by the home-82. Murder. stead laws of the state, and cannot, in proceed- the person they rob, shooting at them in self- Robbers held not guilty of homicide, where ings to enforce a judgment, order the home-defense, kills a third person.-Commonwealth stead interest paid to the debtor in cash in- stead of allowing him to designate the partic- ular piece of the land he will hold as such homestead. Reed Bros. V. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
In a proceeding to set aside a conveyance of
land by a husband to his wife as fraudulent to creditors, evidence examined, and held in- sufficient to show a reduction by the husband to his possession of the wife's money invested by him in the land, so as to entitle him to such money under the rules of the common law.- Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, relating to homestead exemptions, a sheriff's sale of land subject to a homestead, without compliance with the statute, is void.-Reed Bros. v. Nich- olson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
Whether land subject to a mortgage exceeds in value the $1,500 homestead exemption over and above the mortgage can only be ascertain- ed by commissioners appointed to value the land, as the statutes do not confer power on the court-even on a court of equity-to de- termine the question.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.
In proceedings to enforce a judgment, the set- ting apart of a homestead in kind held possible
The fact that a participant in a homicide flees from the scene thereof before the fatal shot is fired held not to relieve him from crim-
inal responsibility.-State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.)
The provocation that will reduce a homicide to manslaughter must arise at the time of the killing.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
A husband is entitled to the custody of his wife and to use force against her father to obtain custody of her, and is guilty of man- slaughter only, on killing the father while under excitement growing out of the difficulty.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
*Homicide held not manslaughter when de- fendant had cooling time after previous alter- cation.-Franks v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 923. $ 4. Assault with intent to kill.
Without a specific intent to kill there can be no assault with intent to murder.-Reyes v. State (Tex. Ct. App.) 245.
§ 5. Excusable or justifiable homicide. To render one guilty of provoking a diffi- culty, he must be shown to have used some lan- *Point annotated. See syllabus.
guage or done some act with that intent.-Gar- za v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
In a prosecution for murder, evidence held inadmissible that a pistol used by deceased in the conflict was unloaded, which fact was not known to accused.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr.
To render one guilty of provoking a diffi- culty, it must be shown that he did some act at the time calculated to have that effect. App.) 221. Pedro v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 233.
Law of self-defense as applied to one accused of assault with intent to commit murder held not applicable to accused personally, so that accused's right of self-defense would be same as that of person in whose defense he was act- ing.-Martinez v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234. A husband held entitled to the custody of his wife and to the right of self-defense on danger to his life arising out of his efforts to secure her custody from her father.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
*Mere pursuit of a person with intent to bring on a difficulty held not to deprive pur- suer of right of self-defense.-Franks v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 923.
Indictment and information. An indictment for murder held not defective, because the word "willingly" was used there- in, instead of "willfully."-Daniels v. State (Ark.) 844.
Information in homicide held to have suf- ficiently charged defendants with having in- flicted the wound upon deceased from which he died.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
§ 7. Evidence-Admissibility in general. *In a prosecution for murder by shooting with a pistol, it was improper to ask a witness whether defendant was in the habit of carrying a pistol or had that reputation.-Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.
On a prosecution for the murder of defend- ant's husband, held proper to admit evidence of a conversation by a witness with defendant a short time before the homicide.-State v. Cum- mings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
In homicide, statement of defendant held competent to show motive and intent.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
In homicide, held not error to exclude cer- tain testimony as to whether defendant insti- gated the principal actor to commit the crime. -State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.) 746.
In a prosecution for murder, the rifle with which defendant killed deceased is admissible in evidence.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
In a prosecution for murder, evidence that defendant did not indorse the religious views of deceased was competent on the question of motive.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
In a prosecution for murder, a note written by defendant to deceased three days before the killing, warning him to keep his stock out of defendant's pasture, held admissible.-Long v. State (Tex. Čr. App.) 203.
In a prosecution for murder, evidence of certain threats by defendant against deceased held admissible.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence as to threats made by defendant a year be- fore the homicide held admissible as original as well as impeaching testimony.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
In a prosecution for murder, held error to exclude testimony by accused that deceased's relations with his children were friendly, to show that deceased could procure the children to carry a note to his wife.-Upton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 212.
In a prosecution for murder, where the diffi- culty arose from a report imputed to accused, it was error to exclude evidence by accused that he did not start the report.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
On a prosecution for murder alleged to have been committed for the purpose of procuring decedent's money, certain evidence held admis- sible in behalf of defendant as tending to show that another committed the crime.-Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 223.
In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence held not to raise the issue of manslaughter, and inadmissible.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
In a prosecution for murder, held not error to permit a witness to testify to a statement with the court's explanation in the bill of ex- of defendant, when considered in connection ceptions.-Hall v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 244.
A defendant on trial for murder relying on self-defense held entitled to prove acts tend- ing to show the desperate character of decedent. --Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
On a trial for homicide, the admission of evidence of blood on the ground where the homi- cide occurred and of the wounds of decedent held not error.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
On a trial for murder, the exclusion of evi- dence as to what defendant had stated about his family troubles held error.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
On the trial of defendant for the murder of his father-in-law, letters written by defendant to his wife held admissible.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
On a trial for homicide, certain evidence re- lating to decedent's physical condition held im- proper.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
In a prosecution for murder, evidence that a short time before deceased was killed he was drunk and quarrelsome held admissible, if de- fendant had knowledge of these facts.-Crow v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 814.
Dying declarations. On prosecution for homicide, dying declara- tions of deceased held admissible. State v. Craig (Mo. Sup.) 641.
In a prosecution for murder, held not error to admit oral evidence of a dying declaration of deceased, objected to on the ground that a dy- ing declaration had been taken in writing.- Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
In a prosecution for murder, a statement by deceased to his physician the morning after the shooting held admissible as a part of the predicate for the introduction of a dying dec- laration.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
Sufficient predicate held laid for the admis- sion of dying declarations.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
Weight and sufficiency. Evidence held to support a conviction for murder in the second degree.-Daniels v. State (Ark.) 844.
On a prosecution for murder, evidence con- sidered, and held sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. — Chancellor v. State (Ark.) 880. * Point annotated. See syllabus.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain a convic- | ing right of self-defense with provoking diffi- tion of murder in the first degree.-Moore v. culty.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208. State (Ark.) 946; Goley v. Same (Ark.) 952.
In a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, evidence held sufficient to show that de- fendants were guilty of aggravated assault. -Hinson v. State (Ark.) 947.
Evidence on trial for murder held to show that the death of decedent resulted from the act of defendant.-Casteel v. State (Ark.) 1004. In a prosecution for murder, evidence held sufficient to support a conviction.-Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.
On prosecution for murder, evidence held to identify defendant as murderer.-State v. Heu- sack (Mo. Sup.) 21.
On a prosecution for murder, evidence held to establish the corpus delicti.-State v. Heu- sack (Mo. Sup.) 21.
Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 1765, 2387, held, on a prosecution for murder, that an instruction that matters of mitigation must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence was erroneous.- Cogburn v. State (Ark.) 822.
In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction that deceased had a right to draw his gun, and if defendant pressed him he would have a right to use it, held proper.-Williams v. United States (Ind. T.) 334.
*On a trial for homicide, an instruction held to give defendant the same right to defend his brother as himself.-McQueen v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1047.
On a trial for voluntary manslaughter, the failure to charge with respect to defendant's testimony held reversible error.-French Commonwealth (Ky.) 1070.
Where an indictment only charged murder in the second degree, the court was not called on to charge on murder in the first degree. State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
In homicide, charge held a correct statement of law of provoking the difficulty.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
In homicide, charge on provocation of diffi- culty held not open to the objection of predicat- ing a "felonious intent upon condition."-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
In homicide, instructions on self-defense and on provoking the difficulty held not in conflict. -State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
In homicide, instruction on manslaughter, hypothesized on a petty difficulty instigated by defendant and a subsequent killing in self- defense, held properly refused.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
The terms "self-defense" and "bring on diffi- culty," as used in the law of homicide, are self- explanatory, and need not be specifically defin- ed in instructions.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
On prosecution for homicide, defendant held entitled to have Pen. Code, art. 717, relating to the means by which the homicide was com- mitted, given in the charge.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
Defendant on prosecution for homicide held entitled to a charge the converse of one limit-
On prosecution for homicide, defendant held entitled to charge as to previous threats by de- ceased to injure defendant, under Pen. Code 1895, art. 713.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
Defendant on prosecution for homicide held entitled to have Pen. Code 1895, arts. 651, 652, relating to the cause of death, charged.--Arms- worthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
On a prosecution for homicide, evidence held to raise the issue of self-defense.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
On prosecution for homicide, evidence held to entitle defendant to charge on aggravated as- sault.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
On a prosecution for homicide, evidence held to entitle defendant to charge on manslaughter. -Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.
In a prosecution for murder, evidence held not to suggest the issue of provoking the dif- ficulty on the part of accused.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
In a prosecution for murder, the evidence held to warrant a charge with reference to self- defense.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.
Evidence on a prosecution for murder held to require the submission to the jury of the issue of murder in the second degree. Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) LED.
Evidence on prosecution for assault with in- tent to murder held to require a charge that, if defendant's friend, in whose behalf defend- ant interfered, had no intention of provoking difficulty, and did no act to bring it on, his friend's right of self-defense was complete.- Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
Defendant, on prosecution for assault with intent to murder, held not entitled to a charge on self-defense, but to a charge confined to af- firmance of his right to interfere in behalf of his friend. Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
Evidence on prosecution for assault with in- tent to murder held to justify charge on pro- voking difficulty.-Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.
In a prosecution for murder, a charge held not erroneous as limiting defendant's right of self-defense.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
In a prosecution for murder, an instruction that, when danger of death or serious bodily injury ceases, the right to kill ceases with it, was correct, and not erroneous as limiting de- fendant's right to act on apparent danger.- Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
In a prosecution for murder, an instruction that, when danger of death or serious bodily injury ceases, the right to kill ceases with it, held applicable.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
In a prosecution for murder, a charge on the appearance of danger.-Coleman v. State self-defense held not erroneous as eliminating (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
In a prosecution for murder, an instruction as to threats held not erroneous.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.
On a prosecution for assault with intent to murder, held the duty of the court to have in- structed on a lesser degree of the offense.- Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239.
On a prosecution for assault with intent to murder, held that the court should have in- Point annotated. See syllabus.
« AnteriorContinuar » |