inference from the record is that J. C. Jackson was the only heir and child of Jarvis Jackson.

It further appears that J. C. Jackson died, leaving surviving him only two children, and these two children conveyed in 1911 the land in controversy to Lickliter. It is further shown that while Jones, under his purchase from Jarvis Jackson, took possession of the land and held it for a time, that for twenty years at least no one had been either in the actual or constructive possession of it. It was not for many years enclosed by any fence, nor has there been any habitable or occupied house on it. It also appears that Jones, if he ever claimed the possession, abandoned such claim, because he made several attempts to buy the land from the children of J. C. Jackson.

When the land was sold to satisfy the unpaid purchase money due by Jones, and purchased by the administrator of Jarvis Jackson, this sale and purchase had the effect of vesting the title in the administrator as trustee for the benefit of the heirs of Jarvis Jackson, and the further effect of divesting Jones of any title he may have had to the land, and if he continued in possession of the land after that time his possession was not hostile to the possession of the purchaser at the judicial sale. Cryer v. McGuire, 148 Ky., 100. So that under the circumstances Jones has no title or claim to the land resting on possession that is available to him in this controversy.

In respect to the argument that it was incumbent upon Lickliter, before he could maintain the action, to show a title deducible from the Commonwealth when his title was put in issue, as it was by the answer of Jones, it is a sufficient answer that any title that Jones relies on begins with the conveyance of the land to him by Jarvis Jackson, and as Lickliter, as well as Jones, claim title from and under this common source, it was not necessary that Lickliter should go back to the title of Jarvis Jackson in an effort to show that he had a good paper title to the land. Luen v. Wilson, 85 Ky., 503; Gaulbaugh v. Rouse, 31 Ky. L. R., 1195. Under the facts shown by the record, when this action was brought Lickliter had not only the possession of the land, but a title to it that Jones was not in a position to dispute, and, therefore, the court properly adjudged Lickliter the relief he sought.

The judgment is affirmed.

INDEX

ABANDONMENT-See Homestead; Nuisance; Vendor and Pur-

chaser.

Page

ABATEMENT-See Nuisance.

ABUTTING OWNERS-See Streets.

ACCEPTANCE-See Bonds.

ACCOUNT-See Action, 6.

ACCOUNTING-See Partnership.

ACQUIESCENCE-See Adverse Possession.

ACTION-See Deeds; Limitation;

1.

dence; Sheriffs; Corporations-

Partition; Contracts; Evi-

When Law of Place Governs as to Right of-Statute of State
Without Extra-territorial Force.-While the statute of another
State is without extra-territorial force, a right acquired
under it will always, in comity, be enforced, if not against the
public policy of the State where the action is brought. In such
cases the law of the place where the right was acquired or
the liability was incurred, will govern as to the right of action,
while all that pertains merely to the remedy will be controlled
by the law of the State where the action is brought; that is
the lex fori, and not the lex loci, will prevail with respect to
the time when the action should be commenced. Louisville &
Nashville Railroad Company v. Burkhart......

2. Equitable Action to Subject Alleged Interest of Husband in
Property of Wife to a Judgment Debt-Evidence-Finding of
Chancellor. In an action to subject to a judgment debt an
alleged interest of the husband in certain property, the legal
title to which, is in the wife, held, the finding of the chan-
cellor dismissing the petition is sustained by the evidence, it
not appearing that any of the earnings of the husband went
toward the payment of the property, and there being nothing
in the evidence from which it may be fairly inferred that
since the purchase of the property, the earnings of the hus-
band have even been sufficient to support the family. Birdsell
Manufacturing Company v. Burgess

ACTION-Continued-

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Deed-Fraud-Assignment.-The right of a vendor to avoid

a deed on the ground of fraud practiced by the vendee is
a mere personal right incapable of sale or transfer. Stewart,
et al. v. Stewart, et al....

Page

367

Right of Assignment-Section 20 of the Civil Code.-Sec-
tion 20 of the Civil Code, giving to the person to whom the
transfer or assignment is made the right to be substituted in
the action if the right of the plaintiff be transferred or as-
signed during the pendency of the action, does not apply to
a case where the assignment is made prior to the institution
of the action and the action itself is unauthorized by the
assignor. It is also limited to those cases where the right
of action itself is a proper subject of assignment. Id................... 367
Several Causes-Consolidation-Submission.-Where plaintiff
brings several successive actions for the keep of stock, and
it is admitted that he kept the stock during the time covered
by the fourth petition, it is not error to consolidate that case
with the others, and submit it for judgment, where the only
issue between the parties is whether or not the stock were to
be kept on the shares or as boarders, and it appears that sev-
eral hundred pages of proof has been taken on this question
and no claim is made by the defendant that he had any addi-
tional proof which he could have taken but was not given an
opportunity to do so. Von Cotzhausen v. Barker.........
Account-Interest.-In an action on an account where a bal-
ance is found due to the plaintiff, interest should be allowed
on such balance from the bringing of the action. (For original
opinion see 154 Ky., 328). Caldwell and Drake v. Pierce............ 771
Action for Mistake-Limitation.-An action for relief for mis-
take cannot be maintained after ten years from the time the
transaction, occurred; and this rule applies in an action by a
sheriff against his deputy to correct a mistake in a settle-
ment made more than ten years before the action was brought.
(For original opinion see 154 Ky., 324). Alexander v. Alex-
ander

Common Law-Submission to Court Without Intervention of
Jury-Finding-Effect of.-Where a common law action is sub-
mitted without the intervention of a jury, the judgment of
the trial court is entitled to the same weight as the verdict
of a well-instructed jury, and cannot be reversed unless
flagrantly against the evidence. Brown v. Threlkeld's Guard-
ian

625

773

ACTION TO QUIET TITLE-See Land.

ADJOINING LAND OWNERS-See Boundaries.

ADJUDICATION-See Courts; Judgment.

Page

ADMISSIONS-See Evidence; Insurance, Fire, 2.

ADULTERY-See Homestead, 3; Criminal Law, 24.

ADVERSE POSSESSION-See Limitation; Partition; Land; Lis
Pendens-

Tenancy in Common-Limitation of Actions.-As a general rule,
the possession of one cotenant is amicable and not adverse
to that of another cotenant, but such possession may be ad-
verse and, if continued uninterruptedly for fifteen years, will
ripen into a perfect title. Wilson v. Hoover, et al....................

AFFIDAVITS-See Estates; New Trial.

AGENCY-See Intoxicating Liquors; Principal and Agent.

AGISTERS-See Animals.

ALIMONY-See Divorce.

ANIMALS-See Action, 5; Contracts, 13—

Agister's Lien-Livestock-Contract for Keep-Time for Payment
Not Fixed.-Where the contract for the keep of livestock is
terminable at the will of either party, and no time for pay-
ment is fixed, it cannot be said that the keep is due at any
particular time, and a keeper who still has the stock in his
possession, is entitled to a lien and to retain the stock until
his claim is paid, although claim covers a period of more than
six months. Von Cotzhausen v. Barker........

ANTENUPTIAL CONTRACTS-See Husband and Wife.

APPEAL-See Bonds; Instructions; Drainage; Elections; Crim-
inal Law; Homicide; Nuisance, 3; Elections-

1.

2.

Practice-Filing Omitted Portion of Record.-Where a case
has been reversed to the prejudice of infants upon an in-
complete record and the infants tender, with their petition
for a re-hearing, the omitted portion of the record which cures
the error for which the judgment was reversed, the supple-
mental record will be filed and the judgment arffimed upon
the record, as completed. Wade, et al. v. Wade, et al.
Jurisdiction-Prosecution for Misdemeanors.-Section 347,
Criminal Code, fixes the appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals, in penal actions and prosecutions for misdemean-
ors; and, by its provisions, an appeal by a defendant from a
judgment of the circuit court in a penal action or misdemeanor
cannot be entertained by the Court of Appeals, unless the
"judgment be for a fine exceeding fifty dollars, or for imprison-

1

624

24

APPEAL Continued-

Page

ment exceeding thirty days."

Eutsler v. Commonwealth;

Same v. Same; Same v. Same
3. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals in Prosecutions for Misde-
meanors-Satisfaction of Judgment.—Where in such case the
fine in the circuit court exceeds fifty dollars and the imprison-
ment is less than thirty days, and the defendant, after super-
seding the judgment, pays the fine and thereby satisfies the
judgment pending the appeal, such satisfaction of the judg-
ment deprives the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction of the ap-
peal and compels its dismissal, Id...------

4.

35

35

Dismissal of-Failure to Place Old Record With New Record
-Where there is nothing before the court by which it may
be determined whether the judgment appealed from is a com-
pliance with the mandate following a reversal on a former ap-
peal, and rule 7 of the court not having been complied with,
the appeal will be dismissed. (For former opinion, see 124 S.
W., 873). Martin v. Bates, et al...-------
197

5. Striking Briefs From Record.-Where the brief of a party to
the appeal is not accompanied by a classification of the ques-
tions discussed, with the authorities relied on to sustain them,
as is required by section 3 of Rule 3 of this court, it will
be stricken from the record. Miller v. Commonwealth............. 201
Records-Omissions-Presumption.-Where
maps and ex-

6.

hibits, not copied into the record, are lost and cannot be sup-
plied, and the evidence in the record in support of the finding
and judgment is persuasive merely, it will be presumed that
the finding and judgment is correct. Roberts, et al. v. Cal-
houn

7. Effect of Failure of Counsel for Appellant to Brief Case.-
When counsel for appellant do not point out in a brief any
error in the judgment appealed from or assign any reason
why it should be reversed, this court, having neither
the time nor the inclination to hunt for errors that might
justify a reversal, will assume that the judgment appealed
from is correct, and affirm it. Brown v. Daniels......

8. Verdict. In an action for death, where the evidence shows the
earning capacity of decedent to be something like $1,000 a
year and his expectancy to be practically twelve years, a ver-
dict for little less than $6,000 will not be set aside as ex-
cessive. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Parks'
Admr...

9.

211

267

269

Instructions-Harmless Error.-In an action for personal in-
jury an instruction as to the care required of the deceased for
his own safety should be in the same terms as that as to the
care required of the wrongdoer, but where the language used
is pracitcally the same, a reversal will not be ordered. Id..... 269
10. New Trial.-No error committed during a trial is available
upon appeal, unless it has been relied upon as a ground for