ABANDONMENT.

XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

§ 730 (Tex.) Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 1018,
the reason of complaint not appearing in an
assignment of error must otherwise be given
with it.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
v. Maxwell, 143 S. W. 1147.

An assignment of error held to present no
error of law apparent on the record, so as to
allow its consideration under Court of Civil
Appeals Rule 24 (20 S. W. viii), though fail-
ing to distinctly specify the grounds relied on.
-Id.

abandoned by resisting dismissal of appeal in
$805 (Tex.Civ.App.) Writ of error held not
the same case.-Western Union Telegraph Co.
v. White, 143 S. W. 958.

XVI. REVIEW.

(A) Scope and Extent in General.
§ 837 (Tex.) The Supreme Court is not
bound to search the record for evidence to sus-
tain a finding.-Hopkins v. Cain, 143 S. W.
1145.

(B) Interlocutory, Collateral, and Supple-
mentary Proceedings and Questions.

§ 739 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment of er-
ror held not objectionable as submitting two
distinct propositions of law.-Dunn v. Taylor,
143 S. W. 311.

§ 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statement held to au-
thorize consideration of assignment of error.-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kanause, 143
S. W. 189.

$742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Sayles' Ann.
Civ. St. 1897, art. 1018, and Court of Civil
Appeals rules 24, 25, and 26 (67 S. W. xv), a
general assignment of error not followed by a
sufficient proposition will not be considered.-
Rudolph v. Tinsley, 143 S. W. 209.

$742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error,
not followed by statements, will not be con-
sidered. Stevens v. Porter, 143 S. W. 264.
References to bills of exception and the
statement of facts are not sufficient statements
to follow assignments of error.-Id.

An assignment of error, followed by a state-
ment so imperfect as to be unintelligible, will
not be considered.-Id.

Assignments of error complaining of the re-
fusal of special charges will not be considered,
where the statements do not refer to the spe-
cial charges.-Id.

$742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Courts of Civil
Appeals rule 31 (67 S. W. xvi), statements
held insufficient to support assignments of er-
ror.-Addington v. Howard, 143 S. W. 268.

§ 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) A proposition held not
germane to an assignment of error.-Nacog-
doches Compress Co. v. Texas & N. O. R.
Co., 143 S. W. 302.

$742 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment of er-
ror is limited to the questions included in the
proposition.-St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v.
Drahn, 143 S. W. 357.

Proposition held not germane to an assign-
ment of error.-Id.

§ 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) A proposition held not
germane to an assignment of error.-Wright
v. Wright, 143 S. W. 720.

§ 743 (Mo.App.) An appellate court will not
consider matters in an assignment which are
not located in the abstract by the assignment
or motion for new trial.-Davis v. Barada-Ghio
Real Estate Co., 143 S. W. 1108.

$750 (Tex.Civ.App.) A certain objection to
the admission of evidence, if raised for review
by the objection taken at trial, held waived by
the assignment of error, the proposition fol-
lowing it having asserted a different ground
for its incompetency.-Rudolph v. Tinsley, 143
S. W. 209.

753 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where no assignments
of error are filed below, but the case is brief-
ed, the court on appeal will examine the rec-
ord for fundamental errors.-Swearingen v.
Myers, 143 S. W. 664.

§ 873 (Ky.) An appeal held properly taken
from a judgment rendered in the action, as dis-
tinguished from the order overruling a motion
for a new trial.-Straight Creek Coal Co. v.
Huddleston's Adm'r, 143 S. W. 775.

(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
$ 880 (Ky.) A defendant tort-feasor held not
entitled to complain that a verdict was not
rendered against a codefendant.-Madisonville,
H. & E. R. Co. v. Owen, 143 S. W. 421.

A defendant in whose favor a verdict was
rendered held not entitled to complain of the
direction of a verdict for a codefendant.-Id.

$882 (Ky.) A party may not complain of
testimony introduced by it over objection of
the adverse party.-Good Roads Machinery
Co. v. Commonwealth, 143 S. W. 18.

having been put into the record at defendant's
§ 882 (Ky.) A receipt executed by plaintiff
express request, defendant could not complain
on appeal that it was inadmissible as a self-
serving declaration.-Bowman Realty Co. v.
Moss, 143 S. W. 765.

Defendant held not entitled to object on ap-
peal to the admission of a contract after its
counsel had consented to its introduction.-Id.
§ 882 (Ky.) Appellant cannot complain on
appeal of the giving of an instruction identical
with one requested by it.-Louisville & N. R.
Co. v. Burley Tobacco Society, 143 S. W. 1040.

§ 882 (Mo.App.) Appellants held not entitled
to complain of nonconformity to Rev. St. 1909,
§ 1972, relating to findings, conclusions of law,
and declarations of law in cases tried without a
jury. Stewart v. Brinson-Waggoner Grain Co.,
143 S. W. 868.

§ 882 (Mo.App.) A carrier sued by a street
car passenger held to have precluded itself
from objecting on appeal to an instruction on
Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 143 S. W. 1114.
contributory negligence. Harmon v. United

$882 (Tex.) An error in giving an instruc-
tion to give plaintiff nominal damages held in-
vited by defendant.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
Co. of Texas v. Maxwell, 143 S. W. 1147.

$ 882 (Tex.Civ.App.) By requesting charges
submitting the issues to the jury and partici-
pating in the trial, appellant held estopped
from claiming that the evidence is insufficient
to support a verdict for appellees.-Sanford v.
Nueces River Valley R. Co., 143 S. W. 329.
882 (Tex. Civ.App.) A party who partici-
pates in the submission of an issue to the
jury is estopped from subsequently claiming
that the evidence does not support the issue.-
Blair v. Nueces River Valley R. Co., 143 S.
W. 713.

(E) Presumptions.

§ 907 (Ark.) In the absence of an abstract
of testimony, the presumption obtains that the
evidence supported the verdict.—Queen of Ar-
kansas Ins. Co. v. Royal, 143 S. W. 596.

§ 907 (Tex.Civ.App.) The court, in view of
the record, held required to presume that the
judgment was correct.-Wichita Falls & W.
Ry. Co. of Texas v. Hamman, 143 S. W. 942.
The court, in view of the record, held requir-
ed to presume that the judgment was rendered
on an item of damage sufficiently pleaded.-Id.

$909 (Tex.Civ.App.) A judgment against an
employer for the negligence of an independent
contractor will not be reversed where the
record on appeal does not contain the evi-
dence.-Wichita Falls & W. Ry. Co. v. Pigg,
143 S. W. 669.

$911 (Mo.) On recitals in an abstract of
the record, held, that it would be presumed
that a circuit court continued in regular ses-
sion as required by Rev. St. 1909, § 4017.-
State ex rel. Modern Woodmen of America v.
Broaddus, 143 S. W. 455.

$930 (Tex.Civ.App.) It must be presumed,
in the absence of a contrary showing in the
record, that the jury followed the instruc-
tions.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kan-
ause, 143 S. W. 189.

§ 931 (Ark.) The Supreme Court must as-
sume that the trial court did not arbitrarily
disregard certain undisputed evidence.-Longer
v. Carter, 143 S. W. 575.

$931 (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of find-
ings of fact, held that it would be presumed
that the judgment was based on a finding
which would support it.-Lowmiller v. Heasley,
143 S. W. 947.

§ 1001 (Mo.App.) A verdict sustained by
substantial evidence is conclusive.-Peek v.
Stratton, 143 S. W. 501.

§ 1001 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the evidence
shows that the testimony necessary to support
the verdict is false, it must be set aside.-
Threadgill v. Wells, 143 S. W. 342.

§ 1002 (Ky.) A jury's finding on conflicting
evidence not clearly and palpably against the
weight of the evidence cannot be reviewed.-
Bowman Realty Co. v. Moss, 143 S. W. 765.
$1002 (Mo.App.) A verdict on conflicting
evidence is conclusive on appeal.-Johnson v.
Fiala, 143 S. W. 537.

is conflicting, a verdict will not be set aside.-
$1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the evidence
Threadgill v. Wells, 143 S. W. 342.

§ 1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) A finding on conflict-
ing evidence held not reversible on the weight
of the evidence, except where the evidence is
not sufficient to support it.-Harrington &
Overton v. Chambers, 143 S. W. 662.

$1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) The Court of Civil
Appeals has no power to disturb findings of
fact made on conflicting evidence.-Freeman
v. Swan, 143 S. W. 724.

$ 1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence, though con-
tradicted, will support a verdict.-Lowmiller v.
Heasley, 143 S. W. 947.

$ 1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) A verdict upon conflict-
ing evidence is conclusive on appeal.-Mitchell
v. Crossett, 143 S. W. 965.

§ 1003. A verdict supported by evidence will
not be disturbed on appeal.

ed upon parts of the answer not excepted to;
and the exceptions will not be reviewed.-Id.

v. Hogan, 143 S. W. 585;

(Ky.) National Council of Knights and La-
dies of Security v. Wilson, 143 S. W. 1000.
§ 1003 (Ky.) A verdict which is not palpa-
on appeal.-Junior Order United American Me-
chanics v. Ringo, 143 S. W. 22.

a

(F) Discretion of Lower Court,
966 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to grant
continuance to procure a witness held within
the trial court's discretion.-Freeman V.
Griewe, 143 S. W. 730.

$970 (Tex.Civ.App.) The exercise of the
trial judge's discretion, on motion to strike out
testimony after witnesses have been fully ex-
amined and cross-examined, will not be dis-
turbed, unless abused.-Knights of Maccabees
of the World v. Johnson, 143 S. W. 718.

$978 (Tex.) The discretion to grant a new
trial for misconduct of a juror, conferred on
the trial court by Acts 29th Leg. c. 18, held
reviewable by the Supreme Court.-Houston &
T. C. R. Co. v. Gray, 143 S. W. 606.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-

ings.

§ 999 (Mo.App.) An appellate court can only
consider the question of negligence, when it
determines that the facts are indisputable, and
that but one legitimate legal inference may
be drawn from them.-Fink v. Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co., 143 S. W. 568.

$ 1001 (Ark.) A verdict is conclusive upon
appeal, if there is no evidence legally suffi-
cient to sustain it.-Hodges v. Bayley, 143 S.
W. 92.

§ 1003 (Ky.) A verdict cannot be set aside
on appeal, unless manifestly against the weight
of the evidence.-New York Life Ins. Co. v.
Evans, 143 S. W. 37.

$1003 (Tex.Civ.App.) If the evidence is le-
gally sufficient to support a finding, it is im-
material that it be against the weight of the
evidence.-Knights of Maccabees of the World
v. Hunter, 143 S. W. 359.

§ 1005 (Mo.App.) A verdict approved by the
trial court held conclusive on appeal.-Louisi-
ana Purchase Exposition Co. v. Emerson, 143
S. W. 843.

$ 1005 (Tex.Civ.App.) A verdict on conflict-
ing evidence and approved by the trial court will
not be disturbed.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Ford, 143 S. W. 943.

$1009 (Ark.) Where the court is unable to
determine that the chancellor's finding is
against the preponderance of the evidence, it
should be affirmed.-Campbell v. Kennerly &
Dorr, 143 S. W. 97.

§ 1009 (Ark.) A finding on conflicting evi-
dence held conclusive on appeal.-Brickey v.
Ashley, 143 S. W. 1066.

§1009 (Ky.) The Court of Appeals will not
disturb a chancellor's findings of fact on doubt-
ful evidence.-H. T. Hackney Co. v. Noe, 143
S. W. 418.

$ 1009 (Ky.) The Court of Appeals gives
considerable weight to the finding of a chan-
cellor on questions of fact.-Poutch v. Nation-
al Foundry & Machine Co., 143 S. W. 1003.

exclusively for the trial court.-Stewart v. Brin-
son-Waggoner Grain Co., 143 S. W. 868.
Findings of fact on a trial without a jury
are conclusive on appeal if supported by sub-
stantial evidence.-Id.

$1011 (Tex. Civ.App.) Appellate courts will
not reverse a judgment supported by conflict-
ing evidence.-Arceneaux v. Mayumi, 143 S. W.
1194.

v.

§ 1048 (Mo.App.) The exclusion of certain tes-
timony held prejudicial error.-McFadden
Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 143 S. W. 884.

§ 1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in admit-
ting evidence cumulative with evidence admit-
ted without objection was harmless.-Texas
Traction Co. v. Hanson, 143 S. W. 214.

1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) The error, if any, in
permitting a nonexpert witness to testify to
fact, testified to by a physician, is harmless.
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Coker,
143 S. W. 218.

(H) Harmless Error.

$1031 (Mo.App.) Since an appeal must be
disposed of on the theory on which it was
tried below, the appellate court will not as-
sume that the verdict would have been the
same had the jury been properly instructed.-
Fink v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 143 S.
W. 568.

Errors apparent in the record raise the pre-
sumption of materiality, unless the record af-
firmatively shows the contrary.-Id.

81031 (Tex.Civ.App.) A mere possibility
that error in admitting evidence influenced the
amount of the verdict held not to require a re-
versal. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kan-
ause, 143 S. W. 189.

§ 1033 (Ark.) A charge as to the burden of
proof, although erroneous, was not ground for
reversal, where favorable to appellant.-M.
Jones & Co. v. Bank of Horatio, 143 S. W.
1060.

$1033 (Ky.) Appellant cannot complain on
appeal of instructions which were too favor-
able to it.-Ohio & K. Ry. Co. v. Beuris, 143
S. W. 16.

$ 1036 (Ky.) Failure to strike the names of
unnecessary parties plaintiff held not prejudi-
cial to defendant.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Burley Tobacco Society, 143 S. W. 1040.

$1036 (Tex.Civ.App.) A judgment in a con-
solidated cause held not reversible for incapac-
ity of a party in one of the causes.-Swearingen
v. Myers, 143 S. W. 664.

Error in consolidation of a cause held not re-
versible.-Id.

$1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) The admission of cop-
ies of deeds, copies of which were not filed with
the papers of the case three days before the
trial as required by statute, held harmless, and
not to warrant a reversal.-Hill v. Walker, 143
S. W. 687.

§ 1051 (Ky.) Error in admitting incompetent
evidence was not prejudicial where the same
facts were shown by competent testimony.-
Ohio & K. Ry. Co. v. Beuris, 143 S. W. 16.

§ 1051 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action against
a railroad company for burning of a cotton
compress, admission of testimony as to the
amount of production of oil in Texas in cer-
tain years held harmless.-Nacogdoches Com-
press Co. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 143 S. W.
302.

1052 (Tex. Civ.App.) Testimony of a wit-
ness as to the value of a cotton compress al-
leged to have been destroyed by defendant's
negligence held harmless, where the verdict al-
lowed no damages.-Nacogdoches Compress Co.
v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 143 S. W. 302.

§ 1053 (Ark.) The error, if any, in admitting
certain testimony, held not prejudicial.-Fee-
Crayton Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Hogan, 143
S. W. 585.

$1053 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in admitting ev-
idence held not reversible, in view of instruc-
tions rendering it inapplicable.-Western Union
Telegraph Co. v. Kanause, 143 S. W. 189.

§ 1053 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of evi-
dence of a receipt in full to defendant in an
action for a balance due under a contract held
not reversible error in view of an instruction.
-Storrie v. Ft. Worth Stockyards Co., 143 S.
W. 286.

Any error in admitting evidence held cured
by an instruction.-Id.

$1039 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in permitting

evidence of the laws of another state in the
absence of pleading was harmless, where the
court properly instructed a verdict against par-
ty complaining on another ground, as to which
the evidence was immaterial.-Johnston v.
Branch Banking Co., 143 S. W. 193.

§ 1040 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in overrul-
ing a special exception to the petition not ad-
dressed to the court in which it is filed held
harmless, where the court has jurisdiction.-
O'Brien v. Mayer, 143 S. W. 240.

§ 1040 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any error in overrul-
ing special exceptions to allegations in petition
is harmless, where the court does not submit
issues presented by the allegations.-Smith v.
Milam, 143 S. W. 293.

§ 1040 (Tex.Civ.App.) The sustaining of an
exception to plaintiff's supplemental petition
held harmless.-Bell v. Campbell, 143 S. W.
953.

$1047 (Ky.) Reception of testimony in re-
buttal which should have been offered in chief
held not reversible error.-Chesapeake & O.
Ry. Co. v. White's Adm'x, 143 S. W. 1046.

§ 1048 (Mo.App.) Any error in overruling an
objection to the form of a question is as a rule
harmless if the answer is competent evidence.-
Kirkpatrick v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 143 S.
W. 865.

v. Ft.

§ 1058 (Tex.Civ.App.) A refusal to allow tes-
timony of a person that he told an agent that
he had sold hay, placed in his hands for sale,
to the defendant held harmless, where the agent
and such person were permitted to testify that
the hay was sold to the defendant.-Campbell
v. Prieto, 143 S. W. 668.

§ 1060 (Tex.Civ.App.) Remark accompanying
introduction of letter, in broker's action for
commission, held not prejudicial.-Riggins v.
Sass, 143 S. W. 689.

§ 1060 (Tex.Civ.App.) Improper remark of
counsel in argument held not reversible.-Free-
man v. Griewe, 143 S. W. 730.

§ 1064 (Ky.) That the instruction upon the
amount recoverable did not state that the
amount, therein stated to be the highest amount
the jury could award, was the amount demand-
ed in the petition, was not prejudicial error.-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Burley Tobacco So-
ciety, 143 S. W. 1040.

§ 1064 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in using the
word "value," instead of "market value," in a
charge on the measure of damages for delay
in shipping cattle, held not prejudicial.-St.
Louis. S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Drahn, 143 S.
W. 357.

§ 1066 (Ky.) Technically incorrect instruction
upon negligence held not prejudicial.-Chesa-