Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

structed under the evidence on aggravated as- name, it will be presumed that such advance-
sault.-Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239. ments constitute a gift.--O'Hair V. O'Hair
A charge on simple assault held required un-

(Ark.) 945.
der the evidence on a trial for assault with In an action by a mother-in-law against the
intent to murder.-Reyes v. State (Tex. Cr. surviving husband to recover personal property
App.) 245.

owned by the wife, evidence held to support a
Evidence held not sufficient to require submis- finding that the husband had acquired the
sion to the jury of the issues of manslaughter property, by gift from the wife.-Carter v.
and self-defense.-Franklin v. State (Tex. Cr. | Reeves (Ark.) 976.
App.) 357.

8 3. Wife's separate estate.
In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence *Wife's property held not liable to creditors
held not to justify a charge on provoking the of the husband for enhancement of value by
difficulty.-Crow v. State (Tex. Čr. App.) 814. | labor of the husband.-Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.)

929.
In a prosecution for murder, facts held in-
sufficient to justify the qualification of a charge A wife, who merely signs notes of her hus-
on self-defense.-Crow v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) band as his surety, does not charge her separate
814.

estate.-Bowron v. Curd (Ky.) 1106.
$11. Appeal and error.

A conveyance of real estate by a husband
In a prosecution for murder, admission in

to his wife makes the land conveyed her sep-
evidence of the bloody clothing of deceased arate estate, irrespective of whether the deed
held not cause for reversal.—Long v. State specifically so declares.—Jones v. Humphreys
(Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

(Tex, Civ. App.) 403.

The separate property of a wife cannot be

sold to reimburse the community estate for
HOSPITALS.

improvements made out of community funds.

- Collins v. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.) 432.
Railroad hospital association held a distinct
corporation from the railroad, and the latter A wife who had joined in deed of trust on
was not liable for the negligence of the for her separate property held, as to certain por-
mer's physicians in treating a railroad em-

tions of the debt, not released, under Sayles'
ployé. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Buchanan (Ky.) Ann. Civ. St. 1897, art. 2970, by the husband's
312.

extension.—De Barrera v. Frost (Tex. Civ.

App.) 476.
HOUSEBREAKING.

The insolvency of a husband does not affect

the rule that a contract or extension of his
See “Burglary."

debt, not participated in by the wife, dischar-
ges her property which stauds as surety for

the debt. -De Barrera v. Frost (Tex, Civ. App.)
HUSBAND AND WIFE.

476.
See "Divorce."

Certain provisions in a deed of trust given
Action by wife for wrongful death of husband, by a husband and wife on her separate property
see "Death,” $ 1.

to secure his debt held not to bave authorized
Appointment of receiver in suit to cancel deed of any rights she might have by reason of an

him to make extensions so as to deprive her
of trust of wife's separate property,
“Receivers."

extension not participated in by her.-De Bar-
Competency as witnesses, see "Witnesses,” 8 1.

rera v. Frost (Tex. Civ. App.) 476.
Conveyance of wife's separate estate, A husband has no authority to extend any
"Deeds," 8 1.

indebtedness secured by a mortgage on the
Excessive damages for injuries to wife, wife's separate property.-De Barrera v. Frost
“Damages," $ 4.

(Tex. Civ. App.) 476.
Fraudulent conveyances between, see “Fraudu-
lent Conveyances," 8 2.

$ 4. Actions.
Hearsay on issue of ownership of property as

Burden held on the wife to show, as against
between husband and wife, see “Evidence," creditors of the husband, that funds used in
$6.

purchases and investments were not furnished
Ilusband as trustee of wife, see "Trusts," $ 2. by the husband.-Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.) 929.
Interest on judgment in favor of trustee in

A husband may recover damages for breach
bankruptcy for community funds invested in of a contract made with him for the erection
improvements on wife's separate properly, see of buildings on his wife's land.-Simons V.
"Interest,” s 1.

Wittmann (Mo. App.) 791.
Measure of damages for injury to married
woman, see "Damages," § 3.

§ 5. Community property.
Rights of survivor, see "Descent and Distri- No presumption arises that improvements
bution,” 8 1; "Homestead," $ 3.

erected by a husband out of community funds
Rights of trustee in bankruptcy as to commu- on land which is the separate property of his
nity property, see “Bankruptcy,” $ 2. wife are a gift, in the absence of evidence to

show such intention.-Collins v. Bryan (Tex.
§ 1. Mutual rights, duties, and liabili. Civ. App.) 432.

ties.
The children of a husband and wife, to whom In a suit by a wife to cancel a deed of trust
land had been conveyed, take on the wife's given by her and her husband on her separate
death a half interest in the land, and share with property to secure his debt, the authorizing of
the husband's children by a second wife on his a receiver to rent the property and collect the
death in the other half.---Campbell v. Asher rents held not erroneous.-De Barrera v. Frost
(Ky.) 1067.

(Tex. Civ. App.) 476.
§ 2. Conveyances, contracts, and other
transactions between husband

IDENTIFICATION.
and wife.
*Where a husband advances money to pay Of defendant on prosecution for burglary, see
for land. title to which is taken in his wife's “Burglary," $ 1.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.
88 S.W.—75

see

see

see

IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CON-

For particular offenses.
TRACT.

See “Arson"; "Burglary," $ 1; "False Pre-

tenses" ; "Forgery" ; "Homicide,”. $ 6;
See “Constitutional Law," $ 2

"Larceny," § 2; "Rape," 2; “Robbery."

Establishing or keeping lottery, see "Lotteries,”
IMPEACHMENT.

8 1.
Of record, see "Appeal and Error," g 11.

1. Filing and formal requisites of in-
Of witness, see "Witnesses," $ 3.

formation or complaint.
An information for arson held sufficient as

to the venue, under Rev. St. 1899, § 2527.-
IMPLIED WARRANTY.

State v. Hunt (Mo. Sup.) 719.
See “Sales," 8 5.

Information held sufficient, without repeating
venue in verification.-State F. Bailey (Mo.

Sup.) 733.
IMPRISONMENT.

The omission of the seal of the court to the
See “Bail."

jurat of the clerk does not invalidate the veri-

fication of an information.-State v. Forsba
Habeas corpus, see
“Habeas Corpus."

(Mo. Sup.) 746.

§ 2. Requisites and sufficiency of accu-
IMPROVEMENTS.

sation.

An indictment for murder held sufficient-
Liens, see
"Mechanics' Liens."

Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.
Public improvements, see “Municipal Corpora-
tions," $ 5.

§ 3. Issues, proof, and variance.
Right of purchasers at void partition sale to Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 420, it must
compensation for, see “Partition," $ 1. be shown that an offense was committed prior

to the presentment of the indictment.-Moore
IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE.

v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 228.

$ 4. Conviction of offense included in
See "Negligence," $ 3.

charge.

Under au indictment for an assault with in-
INADEQUATE DAMAGES.

tent to rape, which does not charge defendant

as being an adult male and the assaulted party
See "Damages," $ 4.

as a female, a conviction for aggravated assault
may be had.-Kearse v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

363.
INCOMPETENT PERSONS.

INDORSEMENT.
See “Insane Persons."

Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see
INCORPORATION.

“Bills and Notes," $ 3.
See “Corporations,” g 1.

INEVITABLE ACCIDENT.
INCUMBRANCES.

As affecting liability of carrier, see "Carriers,"

§ 1.
On homestead, see "Homestead," $ 2.

INFANTS.
INDEMNITY.

See

“Adoption”; “Guardian and Ward";
See "Guaranty"; "Principal and Surety."

“Parent and Child."
Indemnity mortgage, see “Mortgages,” $ 1. Care required as to children, see “Negligence,"
In action on lost instrument, see "Lost In- 8 1.
struments."

Care required as to infant employés,
To surety, see “Principal and Surety," 8 4. "Master and Servant," $ 5.

Citizenship of, see "Citizens."
An action held maintainable on a contract Injury at railroad crossing, see "Railroads,"
of indemnity on the facts showing the sustain- 8 6.
ing of a loss on the part of the indemnitee.- Whether child is sui juris as question for jury,
Bonta v. Harvey (Ky.) 1079.

see “Trial," $ 4.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

INFERIOR COURTS.
Liability of building and loan association for

negligence of building contractor, see “Build: See “Courts," $ 3.
ing and Loan Associations.'

INFORMATION.
INDIANS.

Criminal accusation, see “Indictment and IQ.
Act Cong. July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 88 31-33, 32 formation."
Stat. 616-648, providing for the establishment
of a Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court

INHERITANCE.
of the Indian Territory, etc., held constitutional.
-Wallace v. Adams (Ind. T.) 308.

See "Descent and Distribution,"
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.

INHERITANCE TAX.
Presentation of objections for purpose of re-
view, see "Criminal Law," $ 22.

See “Taxation," $ 3.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

or

INJUNCTION.

INSURANCE.
Review of judgment on complaint for violation Insurance partnership, see “Partnership," § 4.
of, see "Contempt," 8 1.

Mistake in policy of insurance as ground for

reformation, see "Reformation of Instru-
Restraining particular acts or proceedings. ments," $ 1.
See “Execution," $ 3.

Parol or extrinsic evidence of policy, see "Evi-
Collection of municipal tax, see "Municipal

dence," $ 8.
Corporations," $ 9.

Questions for jury in general in action on
Enforcement of judgment, see "Judgment,"

policy, see “Trial," 4.
$ 6.

8 1. Insurance agents and brokers.
Tax sale, see "Taxation,” 1.

In action on policy of insurance, evidence

held to show that insurance agent was made
8 1. Subjects of protection and relief.

A property owner is entitled to an injunction the agent of the insured for the purpose of pro-
to restrain the opening of a contemplated road ant's policy was in force.—Phænix Ins. Co. v.

curing and canceling policies so that defend-
over his land, where there has been no valid State (Ark.) 917.
condemnation of such land for the road.
Plowman y. Dallas County (Tex. Civ. App.) Insurance solicitor hield agent of the general
252.

agent, and not of the policyholder, in accept-
§ 2. Writ, order or decreo, service, and ington (Ark.) 967.

ing a note for a premium.-Remmel v. Wither-
enforcement.
Pending an injunction restraining the declara- 8 2. Estoppel, waiver,

agreements
tion of the result of an election, held pursuant

affecting right to avoid or for-
to Kirby's Dig. $ 5522, to determine the ques-

feit policy.
tion of the annexation of a portion of one mu-

The stipulation in a policy of fire insurance
nicipality to another, the municipality from for cancellation on five days' notice to the as-
which the territory was sought to be severed

sured is for the benefit of, and may be waived
held to have no right to grant a franchise af-by, the assured.-Phønix Ins. Co. v. State
fecting the territory in question.--Little Rock (Ark.) 917.
Ry. & Electric Co. v. City of North Little *A soliciting agent of a life insurance com-
Rock (Ark.) 826.

pany held not authorized to accept notes in lieu

of cash payments of premium. -Mutual Life
INNUENDO.

Ins. Co. v. Abbey (Ark.) 950.

*A general agent of an insurance company
See "Libel and Slander," 8 3.

held authorized to bind the company by ac-
cepting notes in lieu of cash payments of pre-

miums.-Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Abbey (Ark.)
IN PAIS.

950.
Estoppel, see

A policy held lapsed for failure to pay pre-
"Estoppel," § 1. .

miums to a person authorized to receive pay-

ment.-Continental Casualty Co. v. Jasper
INSANE PERSONS.

(Ky.) 1078.

8 3. Risks and causes of loss.
Competency of witnesses on issue of sanity, see An accident policy held to insure against in-
"Witnesses," $ 1.

ability to substantially perform the duties of
Harmless error in trial of issue of sanity of assured's occupation, and nerely against
accused, see "Criminal Law," § 27.

inability to perform any of the duties.-James
Indigent insane persons, "Paupers," $ 1.

v. United States Casualty Co (Mo. App.) 125.
Insanity of accised after conviction, see "Crim-
inal Law," $ 20.

§ 4. Extent of loss and liability of in-
Opinion evidence as to sanity of accused, see
"Criminal Law," $ 11.

Where a building covered by an insurance
Prejudice against plea of insanity as affect- | policy was wholly destroyed by fire with the

ing competency of jurors, see "Jury," $ 3. exception of a glass door, the loss was a total
Trial of issue of insanity of accused, see "Crim-one.-American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Noe (Ark.)
inal Law," $ 15.

572.
§ 1. Property and conveyances.

Under Kirby's Dig. $ 4375, the value of a
The action of the guardian of an insane per-

house wholly destroyed by fire is not open to
son in bringing a partition suit as to the ward's evidence in an action on the insurance policy
interest in real estate binds the ward to every. Noe (Ark.) 572.

covering the same.-American Cent. Ins. Oo. v.
thing which the partition suit could validly ac-
complish.-Cowling v. Nelson (Ark.) 913.

A provision in an accident policy that it in-
sured only against total inability to perform

any of the duties of insured, who was a mer-
INSOLVENCY.

chant, cannot be construed literally, and has

no practical control over other provisions of
See “Assignments for Benefit of Creditors”; the policy.--James v. United States Casualty
"Bankruptcy."

Co. (Mo. App.) 125.

§ 5. Notice and proof of loss.
INSTITUTIONS.

A provision of an accident policy held not to
work a forfeiture for failure to comply with a

provision as to notice.-James v. United States
State institutions, see “States," $ 1.

Casualty Co. (Mo. App.) 125.

§ 6. Adjustment of loss.
INSTRUCTIONS.

An award made pursuant to the terms of a

fire policy should not be vacated unless it clear-
In civil actions, see "Trial," $8 5-11,

ly appears to have been made without author-
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,” ity, or to be the result of fraud or mistake or
$ 17; "Homicide," $ 10.

of the misfeasance of malfeasance of the ap-
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

surer.

praisers.—Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Boon (Ark.) ( Purchase price of land, see “Vendor and Pur-
915.

chaser," $ 2.
$ 7. Actions on policies.

Pecuniary interest in particular subjects.
Under the express provisions of Kirby's Dig. Effect as to credibility of witness, see “Wit-
4381, if plaintiff in an action on an insurance
policy suffers nonsuit, he may commence a new

nesses," $ 3.
action within one year after such nonsuit.-8 1. Rights and liabilities in general.
American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Noe (Ark.) 572. Husband's trustee in bankruptcy held not

In an action on a life policy, evidence held entitled to interest on a judgment for the
to warrant a finding that insurer's general amount of community property of baukrupt
agent accepted notes in lieu of cash payment of invested in improvements erected on separate
a premium on the policy.-Mutual Life Ins. property of bankrupt's wife.-Collins v. Bryan
Co. v. Abbey (Ark.) 950.

(Tex. Civ. App.) 432.
An instruction in an action on a life policy 8 2. Time and computation.
held to correctly submit to the jury the issue Under Rev. St. 1893, § 3705, contingent at-
whether the insurer's general agent accepted torney's fee held to become due on and bear
potes in lieu of cash payment of the premium interest from the final determination of the
on the policy.--Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Abbey case.-Morrow v. Pike County (Mo. Şup.) 99.
(Ark.) 950.

In an action on an accident policy providing INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT.
for double payments if insured was injured
while a passenger on a street car, evidence held Appealability, see “Appeal and Error," $ 1.
to justify submission to the jury of the ques-
tion whether plaintiff was a passenger at the

INTERNATIONAL LAW.
time he was injured. - James v. United States
Casualty Co. (No. App.) 125.

See "Aliens"; "Treaties."
8 8. Mutual benefit insurance.
A fraternal beneficial association doing busi-

INTERROGATORIES.
ness in Texas will be presumed, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, to have been incor- To jury, see “Trial,” & 12.
porated for the purpose described in Acts 1899, To witnesses, see "Depositions."
p. 195, c. 115, $$ 1, 2, 3, and could not divert
its benefit fund to pay certificates of another
society with which it had no power to consol- INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
idate. Whaley v. Bankers' Union of the World
(Tex. Civ. App.) 259.

See “Commerce," $ 1.
A mutual benefit society, alleged to have ab-
sorbed another society by which plaintiff's wife

INTERVENTION.
was insured for plaintiff's benefit, held not lia-
ble on such certificate on the ground of equita- In attachment proceedings, see "Attachment,"
ble estoppel.-Whaley v. Bankers' Union of

$ 2.
the World (Tex. Civ. App.) 259.
The holder of a certificate against a mutual

INTESTACY.
benefit association held entitled to enforce his
rights against its assets which had been turn- See “Descent and Distribution."
ed over to another association under an in-
valid consolidation agreement only through a
receiver:- Whaley v. Bankers' Union of the

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
World (Tex. Civ. App.) 259.

Absence of witness as cause for continuance
Under the by-laws of a mutual benefit so- in action on liquor dealer's bond, see “Con-
ciety, written acceptance of a benefit certificate

tinuance."
held not necessary to its validity. --Sovereign Adoption of local option as ground for termina-
Camp Woodmen of the World v. Brown (Tex. tion of lease of premises for saloon purposes,
Civ. App.) 372.

see "Landlord and Tenant," $81, 3.
The holder of a mutual benefit certificate who argument and conduct of counsel in prosecu-
exchanged it for a new certificate held not en- tion for offense against liquor laws,
titled to recover the premiums paid on the first "Criminal Law," $ 16.
certificate.-Supreme Council A. L. H. v. Lyon Best and secondary evidence of vote cast at
(Tex. Civ. App.) 435.

election on license question, see "Evidence,"

§ 3.

Hearsay in prosecution for violation of liquor
INTENT.

law, see “Criminal Law,' 8 9.

Judicial notice of local option laws, see "Crimi.
Criminal, see “Burglary," $ 1; "Robbery." nal Law," $ 6.
Of parties to contract, see "Contracts," $ 1.

Presumptions in action on liquor dealer's bond,

see “Evidence,” g 1.
INTEREST.

Reception of evidence in prosecution for offense

against liquor laws, see “Criminal Law," $ 15.
Authority of agent to collect interest as evi-Duty of excise commissioner to make and cer-
dence of authority to collect principal, see

tify record in relation to granting dramshop
"Principal and Agent," 8 2.

license, see "Certiorari," $ 2.

§ 1. Local option.
On particular classes of liabilities.

Under Kirby's Dig. § 5119, license issued by
See "Bills and Notes."

county judge raises a presumption that a ma-
County warrant, see "Counties," $ 3.

jority of votes cast in the county were in favor
Damages for wrongful death, see 'Death,” s 1. of license.-State v. Songer (Ark.) 903.
Funds of ward, see "Guardian and Ward," $ 1. Finding of the county court that a majority
Money collected by attorney, see "Attorney of votes were in favor of license held not over-
and Client," $ 2.

come by an abstract of the vote filed by the
• Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

election commissioners, certificate to which does / for the revenue license on the brandy, he was
not cover the question of license. — State v. guilty of a sale of intoxicating liquor. --Barnes
Songer (Ark.) 903.

v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 804.
Under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, art. 3393, Where the owner of fruit has it manufactured
a local option election, held more than two into liquor, receiving the product of the identi-
years after the last preceding election, is not cal fruit furnished, the distiller is not guilty
invalid because the result of the preceding elec- of a sale of liquor; but if the fruit is ex-
tion was published within two years.--Ex parte changed for liquor already manufactured, or
Smith (Tex. Cr. App.) 245.

if the distiller furnishes the owner of the fruit
An order for a local option election may be liquor in advance, the transaction is a sale. -
made either at a regular or special session of Barnes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 805.
the commissioners' court.-Koch v. State (Tex. $ 4. Criminal prosecutions.
Cr. App.) 809.

Proof of selling “beer" to a minor without

proof that it was intoxicating, does not warrant
§ 2. Licenses and taxes.

conviction.-Cassens v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
*A liquor license is a mere privilege, subject 229.
to revocation.-Sarlo v. Pulaski County (Ark.)
953.

On a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating

liquor on Sunday in violation of Pen. Code 1895,
A county court, authorized to issue licenses art. 199, whether sale of a lunch in connection
for the sale of liquors, held empowered to im- with a purported gift of the liquor was in fact
pose a condition forfeiting the license on the
licensee violating the law.-Sarlo v. Pulaski --Savage v. State (Tex. Or. App.) 351.

a sale of the liquor held a question for the jury.
County (Ark.) 953.

In a prosecution for violation of the local
*Under Kirby's Dig: $ 5120, a county, court, option law, evidence held to require submission
authorized to issue licenses, held required to

to the jury of the question whether the trans-
treat alike all applicants possessing the legal action was a sale or a gift.-Barnes v. State
qualifications.-Sarlo v. Pulaski County (Ark.) (Tex. Cr. App.) 805.
953.
The posting of notices for the application tion law, testimony that witness had drunk

In a prosecution for violating the local op-
for a liquor license held not a compliance with liquor at the same place some years before the
Ky. St. 1903, § 4203.—Commonwealth v. Red- sale in question held inadmissible.-Rutherford
man (Ky.) 1073.

v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 810.
*Ky. St. 1903, § 4203, held to authorize the

In a prosecution for violating the local op-
county court to grant liquor licenses only in tion law, evidence of prior sale of certain liquid
the case the proper notice for the application held inadmissible to prove the intoxicating
therefor has been given.-Commonwealth

v. property of the liquid in question.—Rutherford
Redman (Ky.) 1073.

v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 810.
Transaction held to constitute a transfer of a
dramshop license within the prohibition of Rev. charge held to improperly place the burden of

In prosecution for violating local option law,
St. 1899, Š 2992.-Sawyer 0. Sanderson (Mo. proof of nonintoxicating character of liquor
App.) 151.

sold on defendant.-Rutherford v. State (Tex.
Contract, including as an indivisible part Cr. App.) 810.
thereof the transfer of a liquor license, held In a prosecution for violating the local option
void under Rev. St. 1899, $ 2992, and other law, requested instruction on the properties
provisions of the dramshop act.-Sawyer v. of the drink sold should have been given.
Sanderson (Mo. App.) 151.

Rutherford v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 810.
Under Rev. St. 1899, 88 2993, 2997, where a
petition was filed for dramshop license in May,

INTOXICATION.
1904, and was not acted on until January, 1905,
the commissioner was without jurisdiction to As defense to criminal prosecution,
grant a license to continue for a term of six "Criminal Law," $ 1.
months from the latter date.--State ex rel. Common or habitual drunkards, see “Drunk-
Sager v. Mulvihill (Mo. App.) 773.

ards."

Of person sitting on cross-tie of railroad track
§ 3. Offenses.

affecting contributory negligence, see
In a prosecution for violating the local option

“Railroads," $ 7.
law, held error to refuse an instruction that the Proof of to affect credibility of witness, see
defendant was not guilty if the liquor sold was

"Witnesses," $ 3.
a medical preparation, and was not an intoxi-
cating liquor when drunk in such quantities as
could be practically drunk.-Pearce v. State

ISSUES.
(Tex. Cr. App.) 234.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Indictment and
Defendant held not guilty if the liquor sold

Information,” $ 3.
contained various drugs as ingredients, and the Presented for review on appeal, see "Appeal
intoxication of a person taking it was the re- and Error," $ 2.
sult of the drugs, and not of any intoxicating
liquor contained in the preparation.—Pearce
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234.

JEOPARDY.
Defendant held guilty of violating the local Former jeopardy, bar to prosecution, see
option law.-Sliger v. State (Tex. Or. App.) “Criminal Law," $ 5.
243.
Pen. Code 1895, art. 200, authorizing res-

JOINDER.
taurants to keep open on Sunday, does not ex-
empt restaurant keepers from the penalty pro- or causes of action, see “Action," $ 3.
vided by article 199 for the sale of intoxicating
liquors on Sunday.-Savage v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 351.

JOINT ADVENTURES.
Where an employé of the owner of a still The relation of joint purchasers of property is
delivered brandy in exchange for peaches and fiduciary, and one will not be permitted to ac-

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

as

.

« AnteriorContinuar »