« AnteriorContinuar »
It is not error to refuse a requested instruc- | the shares and entitled to their possession at
In an action for the conversion of corn, in-
See "Corporations," $ 3.
Charitable trusts, see “Charities."
Combinations to monopolize trade, see “Mo-
In an action for injuries to a servant, instruc- Conveyances in trust for creditors, see “As-
signments for Benefit of Creditors.”
cuted by corporation, see "Corporations," $ 2.
A mere preponderance of parol proof held in-
Evidence held insufficient to sustain a decree
ing trust for fraud.-McNutt v. McNutt (Ark.)
*Constructive trusts resting in parol must be
In a suit to procure the declaration of a re-
*Payment of price by one for land bought by
another, who orally agreed to hold it for the
On an issue as to whether a father, in whose
name title to property was taken, or his daugh-
evidence held to support a finding of the chan-
A deed held not to create a spendthrift trust.
Spendthrift trusts are recognized in Missouri.
-Kessner v. Phillips (Mo. Sup.) 66.
resulting trust in land, the evidence considered,
and held to show that defendant purchased the
intestate, taking the title in his own name, and
therein corresponding to the amount of her
Where only a part of the purchase money is
the land bought.-Stevenson v. Smith (Mo.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.
be a conveyance, a fund, and a beneficiary.- Purchasers at sale op execution, see "Exe
cution,” $ 4.
close vendor's lien, see “Appeal and Er-
"Reformation of Instruments," $ 1.
Specific performance of contract, see “Specific
Statement of a vendor as to fertility of land
held one of fact, which under circumstances
chaser.-Oneal v. Weisman (Tex. Civ. App.)
8 2. Performance of contract.
for the payment of money, a forfeiture incur.
held estopped from insisting on letter of con-
tract.—Morris v. Green (Ark.) 565.
*A purchaser held liable for interest on the
price from the day he received actual possession
of the land.- Ewell & Smith v. Jackson's
Adm’r (Ky.) 1047, 1135.
§ 3. Rights and liabilities of parties.
chase from the vendor by an heir of the de-
ceased original purchaser from the purchase
the benefit of the other heirs of the original pur-
chaser.-Tillar v. Clayton (Ark.) 972.
8 4. Remedies of vendor.
*A purchaser, taking possession of land under
a verbal contract of purchase, has the burden
of proving payment of the purchase price in
an action to foreclose the vendor's lien.—Tillar
v. Clayton (Ark.) 972.
*Neither a purchaser taking possession of
land under a verbal contract of purchase nor
his heirs can dispute the title while the pur.
close the vendor's lien.—Tillar v. Clayton (Ark.)
A vendor, in order to secure a decree fore-
closing his vendor's lien, held required to make
a proper deed.--Tillar v. Clayton (Ark.) 972.
In an action on a note given for the price
of land, the answer held merely a denial that
plaintiff had made defendant a good title,
and not to a denial that he had accepted a
warranty deed.-Fitzpatrick v. Vincent (Ky.)
paying the same.-Diffe v. Thompson (Tex.
Holder of vendor's lien notes, to whom the
land was conveyed by the maker, held entitled
to the payment of such notes before his su-
perior right to the land could vest in a grantee
Superior title to land conveyed by deed re-
cumbrances reserved by the deed.-Diffie v.
Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 381.
One who forecloses a vendor's lien held to
County warrants, see "Counties," $ 3.
Evidence of damages for breach, see "Dam-
ages,' $ 5.
On sale of goods, see “Sales,” 88 1, 5, 7.
WATERS AND WATER COURSES.
Any objection to change of venue from cir: 8 1. Natural water courses.
Where a deed described the land conveyed as
a government subdivision, the purchaser was
land described and a river.—Perry v. Sadler
Where defendant contracted to convey to
plaintiff a certain named tract of land, con-
taining a certain number of acres more or less
and bounded on one side by a river, plaintiff
ler (Ark.) 832.
§ 2. Artificial ponds, reservoirs, and
channels, dams, and flowage.
One negligently constructing dam and, em-
bankment in and adjacent to stream held not
caused thereby during an overflow which would
tions.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harbison
(Tex. Civ. App.) 432; Same v. Wetherly (Tex.
Civ. App.) 456; Same v. Oates (Tex. Civ. App.)
In action against railroad for injury to crops
would not tend to injure plaintiff's land held
immaterial.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Har-
bison (Tex. Civ. App.) 452; Same v. Wetherly
Mandatory injunction against railroad, com-
manding removal of dam and construction of
ciently specific, under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St.
1897, art. 4436.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Harbison (Tex. Civ. App.) 452; Same v. Weth-
erly (Tex. Civ. App.) 456; Same y. Oates (Tex.
Civ. App.) 457.
In action against railroad for injury to crops
and realty by construction of dam, evidence as
to effect of overflows subsequent to removal of
portion of dam held admissible.-Gulf, C. &
Same v. Wetherly (Tex. Civ. App.) 456; Same
v. Oates (Tex, Civ., App.) 457.
Public ways, see "Highways"; "Municipal
Corporations," $ 8.
Liability of carrier for accidental shooting of
passenger, see “Carriers," $ 6.
cide," & 1.
bution, see “Descent and Distribution," $ 1.
of kin only.-Levi v. Fidelity Trust & Safety
Vault Co. (Ky.) 1083.
was paid his mother's share of the estate,
his property passed under the law of descent.
-Barret v. Gwyn (Ky.) 1096.
Where realty is devised to testatrix's hus-
funeral expenses are all paid the remainder of
only a life estate in the land devised, with re-
§ 4. Rights and liabilities of devisees
-Walker v. Bobbitt (Tenu.) 327.
See “Affidavits”; “Depositions"; "Evidence."
Instructions as to credibility, see “Trial,” § 6.
Opinions, see “Evidence,” $ 9.
the issue of the sanity of one indicted for crime,
the wife of the accused is not a competent wit-
attorney held not erroneous, on the theory that
it related to confidential communications.-
*A will, to become effective only on the petency as witnesses of parties to transactions
conversations had with the party seeking to en.
(Mo. App.) 1008.
On a trial for homicide, contents of letters
munications by wife to husband, and inadmissi-
Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 774, held not to
render a wife incompetent to testify to an ex-
after committing a homicide.-Cole v. State
St. 1897, art. 2302).-Jones v. Day (Tex. Civ.
tify as to transactions with plaintiff's ancestor.
tion had with the bankrupt's wife, since de-
ceased, under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. art. 2302.-
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
cross-examine accused as to attempts to silence In a prosecution for murder, cross-exami-
he was testifying untruthfully, was improper.
for truth and veracity was bad at places where
the time of trial, but for only a short time be-
fore.-Craft v. Barron (Ky.) 1099.
Proof of former conviction for misdemeanor
Heusack (Mo. Sup.) 21.
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 4680, state, on pros-
ecution for crime, held entitled to cross-examine
-State v. Heusack (Mo. Sup.) 21.
In homicide, held competent for the state to
ed guilty to a common assault. it was proper
to show, as affecting his credibility, that he
intent to kill.–State v. Forsba (Mo. Sup.) 746.
In a prosecution for seduction, the limitation
to contradiction alone of evidence that prior to
The state cannot impeach its own witness,
On a prosecution for crime, evidence of de-
fendaut's intoxication is inadmissible to affect
tion, if he had not been indicted for adultery
to which he answered in the affirmative.-Sex-
ton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 348.
In a criminal case, held proper to admit cer-
ing a night he was at witness' house.-Sexton
In a prosecution for murder, evidence that a
witness for the state, whom the defendants
trial, held competent.-Franklin v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 357.
WORK AND LABOR.
see "Set-off and Counterclaim," § 1.