the other's title.-Meyer v. Snell (Ark.) 208. VIII. COLLECTION AND ENFORCE- ty is precluded from showing the invalidity of (A) COLLECTORS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR COLLECTION IN GENERAL. Collection of fees belonging to predecessor in office, computation of limitations in action by heirs, see Limitation of Actions, § 103. Right of set-off in action by heirs of tax collector for fees collected by successor in office, see Set-Off and Counterclaim, § 35. § 551. A revenue agent held not empowered under St. 1909. § 4267, to bring suit on November 29th to collect taxes due on the 1st of that month, where the tax warrants, the ordinary process for collection by the sheriff, had not been issued.-Commonwealth v. Louisville Water Co. (Ky.) 712. $ 551. under St. 1909, § 4267, to collect a delinquent A revenue agent held not empowered tax until the sheriff has exhausted the ordinary process in his hands under Act March 15, 1908, art. 8, §§ 20, 21-27 (Laws 1906, pp. 152, 163, c. 22).-Commonwealth v. Louisville Water Co. (Ky.) 712. 8810. A suit to confirm a tax title, but which proceeds to final hearing as a suit by defendant against plaintiff to cancel plaintiff's 7105, but defendant must rely on the strength tax title, held not governed by Kirby's Dig. § of his own title.-McDaniel v. Berger (Ark.) 194. § 810. A petitioner to quiet title under a deed executed by the commissioner of state lands, conveying land forfeited for taxes, and his possession and payment of taxes, has the burden to show title.-Morris v. Breedlove (Ark.) 223. XIII. LEGACY, INHERITANCE, AND TRANSFER TAXES. § 878. Defendants held to have inherited father's will, and liable for an inheritance tax property in question as heirs of their mother, and not to have taken as devisees under their which became operative after the death of the father and before the death of the mother.Commonwealth v. Still's Adm'r (Ky.) 687. TAXATION OF COSTS. (B) SUMMARY REMEDIES AND ACTIONS. See Costs, §§ 214, 218. § 603. An auditor's agent held not authorized under St. 1909, § 4263, to sue a corporation delinquent in payment of its taxes to recover TEACHERS. the penalty provided by section 4091.-Louis- See Schools and School Districts, §§ 131, 135. ville Water Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 711. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES. I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE. 15. A telephone company placing and maintaining an instrument in the house of a patron for his use held required to maintain in connection with its wires and instruments approved lightning arresters.-Southern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 418. § 20. In an action against a telephone company for injuries to the wife of a patron by lightning entering into the house through the company's failure to provide a proper lightning arrester, evidence held to justify a recovery.Southern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 418. § 20. In an action against a telephone company for injuries through its failure to provide a proper lightning arrester in connection with its telephone at the house of a patron, a requested charge held properly refused because it ignored evidence.-Southern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 418. II. REGULATION AND OPERATION. Refusal of request for instructions already given, see Trial, § 260. § 37. Want of a definite address held not to excuse a telegraph company's failure to deliver a telegram unless it caused or contributed to the failure.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lewis (Ark.) 894. $ 37. In an action against a telephone company for failing to notify plaintiff of a sick call, that the call was received after office hours held no defense; it appearing that it was received without objection.-Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 89. § 66. In an action against a telephone comcall, evidence held sufficient to show that an pany for failure to notify plaintiff of a sick operator at a certain point was the common agent of defendant and another company for all communications to be transmitted over the lines of both companies.-Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 89. § 66. In an action against a telephone company for failure to notify plaintiff of a sick call received over the line of another company, the exclusion of a certain contract between the two companies for the transmission of calls held not erroneous.-Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 89. $ 74. In an action against a telephone company for failure to notify plaintiff of a sick call, an instruction held properly refused.Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 89. TITLE. Acquisition of title by aliens by limitations, see Of statutes, see Statutes, § 109. To office, see Officers, § 83. Under patent, see Patents, § 195. TOBACCO TRUST. See Monopolies, § 30. TOOLS. Liability of employer for defects, see Master and Servant, §§ 101-129. TORTS. Construction and execution, see Powers, § 44. Causing death, see Death, §§ 14-99. Judicial notice of times, dates, subdivisions of years, etc., in criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, § 304. For particular acts in or incidental to judicial proceedings. Correction of appeal record, see Appeal and Error, § 643. Filing bill of exceptions, see Exceptions, Bill of. § 43. Filing demurrer, see Pleading, § 199. Filing statement of facts, see Appeal and Error, § 564. New trial in justice's court, see Justices of the Peace, § 116. Taking appeal or suing out writ of error, see Appeal and Error, § 346. Taking appeal from justice's judgment, see Justices of the Peace, § 155. For particular acts not judicial. Construction of street railroad, see Street Railroads, § 35. Making of public improvements, see Municipal Corporations, § 362. Payment of interest, see Interest, § 50. $ 8. "Day" defined.-Muckenfuss v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 51. $10. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 4160 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2252), where the last day for filing a claim against the estate of the decedent fell on Sunday, a claimant had all the following Monday in which to file his claim.-Keys v. Keys' Estate (Mo.) 537. Liabilities of particular classes of nersons. See Municipal Corporations, §§ 762-822. Agents, see Principal and Agent, § 148. Employés, see Master and Servant, §§ 302–332. Particular torts. See False Imprisonment; Fraud; Libel and Slander; Malicious Prosecution; Negligence; Nuisance. Remedies for torts. Measure of damages, see Damages, §§ 112, 113. $ 18. One cannot recover damages for an act in which he actively participated without fraud or misrepresentation.-Moore v. Woodson (Tex. Civ. App.) 608. § 22. Joint tort-feasors are both jointly and severally liable, and either or all may be sued.Fulwider v. Trenton Gas, Light & Power Co. (Mo.) 508. TOWNS. See Counties; Municipal Corporations; Schools and School Districts, §§ 22-177. IV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION. restrain the issuance and sale of bonds by a $ 52. A taxpayer held not entitled to sue to town complying with Ky. St. 1909, § 3705, in the absence of a showing that the debt created would exceed limitations fixed by Const. §§ 157-159.-Morris v. Hoagland (Ky.) 684. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES. Trade-mark as property subject to taxation, see Taxation, § 61. I. MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECTS OF OWNERSHIP. § 1. "Trade-mark" defined.-Commonwealth v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. (Ky.) 766. $ 19. In an action for trespass, plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, though defendant's patent be void.-Thurman v. Leach (Ky.) 300. Art. 1882. Art. 2046. Art. 2198. Art. 5252. 43 .1139 1907, p. 277, ch. 143. 1907, p. 308, ch. 165. 1907, p. 509, ch. 24. 147 860 630 35, 80, 115, 393, 624 1907, p. 510, ch. 24, § 5.. 638 400 1899, p. 111, ch. 74...... 594 | 1907, p. 269, ch. 139.. 1899, pp. 166, 167, ch. 95 648 400 1899, p. 195, ch. 115, 88 Arts. 3158-3160, 3202, 3203 365 6-8 Arts. 4218f, 4218fff.. 861 1899, p. 214, ch. 125. Art. 4426. 423 Amended by Laws 1905, 129 p. 29, ch. 25.. 377 1901, p. 26, ch. 22...582, 1151 1905, p. 29, ch. 25....377, 403 1905, p. 30, ch. 25, § 2... 403 1907, p. 219, ch. 118, § 1 582 CODE SUPPLEMENT 1907. 1907, p. 246, ch. 132. .1158 1907, p. 258, ch. 138. 813 § 410.. LAWS. 1836, p. 156, ch. 139, § 40 823 1887, pp. 133, 134, ch. 139. Amended by Laws 1899, pp. 166, 167, ch. 95.... 648 STENOGRAPHERS. WEST VIRGINIA. 738 § 61. In an action against a city by grantees of a franchise to build a street railway for damcertain evidence held inadmissible.-Spencer v. City of Palestine (Tex. Civ. App.) 857. Incorporation of report of in statement of facts, ages resulting from a forfeiture of the franchise. see Appeal and Error, § 561. Of court, see Courts, § 57. STIFLING COMPETITION. Ground for forfeiture of corporate franchise, see Corporations, § 592. STOCKHOLDERS. Of corporations, see Corporations, §§ 218, 227. STOLEN GOODS. See Receiving Stolen Goods. STORAGE. See Warehousemen. STREET RAILROADS. See Railroads. Carriage of passengers, see Carriers. I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE. § 35. Evidence held insufficient to show that the grantees of a franchise to construct a street railroad commenced work within the time required by the ordinance granting the franchise.Spencer v. City of Palestine (Tex. Civ. App.) 857. § 38. A street railway company, laying its rails in a street, held required, at common law and under the ordinance granting a franchise, to keep the track and street in good repair.Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. v. Johns (Tex. Civ. App.) 62. § 48. A street railway company, purchasing the property and franchise of another company, held to assume, not only the common-law obligation, but the contractual obligation, created by the franchise to the selling company, of keeping the tracks in repair so long as they are permitted to remain in the streets.-Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. v. Johns (Tex. Civ. App.) 62. § 54. Where a street railroad company's property was mortgaged for much more than its value at the time plaintiff recovered a judgment against the company, and such property was sold to pay the mortgage so far as possible, the judgment was not enforceable against the purchaser under Const. § 203.-Russell's Adm'r v. Frankfort & Suburban Ry. Co. (Ky.) 289; Brawner's Adm'r v. Frankfort & Versailles Traction Co., Id. § 61. Where municipal ordinances granting franchises for the construction of an electric light plant and a street railway contained no provisions for forfeiture, and were accepted, the rights could only be declared forfeited in a suit brought for that purpose.-Spencer v. City of Palestine (Tex. Civ. App.) 857. II. REGULATION AND OPERATION. $ 86. A street railway company, purchasing the property and franchise of another company, held bound to exercise ordinary care to keep a street on which a track was laid in condition for travel. Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. v. Johns (Tex. Civ. App.) 62. $ 86. A street railway company, purchasing the property of another company and its franchise to build and operate a street railroad, held required to use ordinary care to keep the tracks constructed by the selling company in a reasonably safe condition for public travel.Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. v. Johns (Tex. Civ. App.) 62. $99. Contributory negligence of a husband, driving with his wife over a street on which a street car track was so laid as to protrude above the surface of the street, will preclude recovery by him for injuries to his wife.-Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. v. Johns (Tex. Civ. App.) 62. $111. In an action for injuries to pedestrian struck by a street car, a fact held evidentiary only, and provable, though not pleaded.-Reynolds v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1135. § 113. Where all the evidence showed that the condition of a switch in a street car track remained unchanged for a long time after an accident, a witness, who had examined the switch about four hours after the accident, might testify as to its condition.-Reynolds v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1135. § 114. In an action for injuries to a pedestrian struck by a street car because of its failure to take the right track at a switch, evidence held to justify a finding of actionable negligence.-Reynolds v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1135. § 117. A pedestrian, injured at a street crossing by a street car failing to take the right track at a switch, held not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.-Reynolds v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1135. § 118. In an action against a street railway company for injuries to a traveler on a street. an instruction as to the duty of the company to keep the street in safe condition held not er roneous, in the absence of a requested instruetion.-Citizens' Ry. & Light Co. v. Johns (Tex. Civ. App.) 62. STREETS. See Highways; Municipal Corporations, §§ 669. 762-822. SUBROGATION. § 7. A wife, whose property was used to pay a debt of her husband for which she was Trial of criminal prosecutions. See Assault and Battery, §§ 95, 96; Burglary. § 46; Criminal Law, §§ 591-614, 622-884; Dueling, § 5; Homicide. §§ 268-370; Larceny, $ 77; Rape, § 59; Robbery, § 27. For keeping disorderly house, see Disorderly House, § 19. For offenses against liquor laws, see Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 238, 239. III. COURSE AND CONDUCT OF Review of discretionary rulings as to granting IV. RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE. In particular civil actions or proceedings. For compensation of broker, see Brokers, § 88. For injuries from accident to trains, see Rail- For injuries from operation of street railroad, see Street Railroads, § 117. For injuries to licensees or trespassers caused by operation of railroad, see Railroads, § 282. For injuries to passenger, see Carriers, § 320. For injuries to person on city street, see Municipal Corporations, § 821. For injuries to servant, see Master and Servant, $$ 285-289. On insurance policy, see Insurance, § 668. (B) ORDER OF PROOF, REBUTTAL, AND sustain an issue, it is enough to warrant its REOPENING CASE. $ 68. A verdict is not against the evidence when prejudicial errors either in the admission of evidence or in the rulings of the court were committed during the progress of the trial. Lynch v. Snead Architectural Iron Works (Ky.) 693. (C) OBJECTIONS, MOTIONS TO STRIKE OUT, AND EXCEPTIONS. § 75. Defendant cannot object to parol evidence to show the purpose of an assignment of a judgment absolute on its face, where he admits in his answer that it was not intended to be absolute, but only as security for a debt.Ryan v. Logan County Bank (Ky.) 1179. $ 75. Defendant held not prejudiced by the court's refusal to permit plaintiff's ex parte deposition, taken before trial, to be read in evidence.-Holland v. Riggs (Tex. Civ. App.) 167. $ 76. A party must object to evidence, and state the reason at the time the evidence is offered.-Holland v. Riggs (Tex. Civ. App.) 167. § 76. A party may not object to testimony for the first time by requesting special charges instructing the jury not to consider it.-Holland v. Riggs (Tex. Civ. App.) 167. § 83. An objection to the admission of evidence is insuflicient, where it states no ground. -Jordan v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co. (Mo. App.) 432. $ 85. Where an objection goes to the entire answer of a witness and any part of the answer is admissible, the objection is properly overruled.-Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Wheeler (Tex. Civ. App.) 83. V. ARGUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF Harmless error, see Appeal and Error, § 1060. 1169. § 133. Statement by plaintiff's counsel in argument that the jury should apply the Golden Rule was not error, where he voluntarily withdrew the remarks, and the court instructed the jury not to consider them.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. Morin (Tex. Civ. App.) 656. VI. TAKING CASE OR QUESTION § 139. If there is a scintilla of evidence to submission to the jury.-Mason & Hoge Co. v. Highland (Ky.) 320. $139. Only after verdict can the court consider the probative force of evidence, and then only to determine whether the verdict is so clearly against its preponderance as to show passion or prejudice.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 106. § 139. In a suit for injuries to a switchman who was struck by cars which ran back into a switch which failed to lock, no error can be predicated on the refusal to inform the jury that negligence was not to be inferred from the mere happening of the event.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Hart (Tex. Civ. App.) 415. § 139. Where the evidence presented an issue under the pleadings, the court must submit it to the jury.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Pigott (Tex. Civ. App.) 841. § 140. The weight of the testimony of a witness is for the jury.-Reynolds v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1135. $141. The testimony of one witness as to the intoxication of insured within three years before his application for insurance, in contradiction to his answer therein, held not to constitute undisputed evidence of fact, but to only raise a question for the jury.-Des Moines Life Ins. Co. v. Clay (Ark.) 232. § 141. Where there was no conflict, and the" evidence was all one way, it was error to submit an issue of fact as to the title of property sued for.-Cooper v. Ratliff (Ky.) 748. § 143. Though the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports one contention, the court must submit the issue to the jury where there is some evidence to the contrary.-Lynch v. Snead Architectural Iron Works (Ky.) 693. (D) DIRECTION OF VERDICT. § 168. To authorize the direction of a ver dict, the undisputed evidence must be such that but one conclusion can be drawn therefrom by reasonable men.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 106. VII. INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. Assignment of errors, see Appeal and Error, § 719. Harmless error, see Appeal and Error, §§ Objections for purpose of review, see Appeal Review as dependent on setting out evidence (A) QUESTIONS OF LAW OR OF FACT IN See Adverse Possession, § 116. GENERAL. As to boundaries, see Boundaries, § 40. As to agency, see Principal and Agent, § 24. Contributory negligence of passenger, see Carriers, § 348. Measure of damages, see Damages, §§ 216-217. VIII. COLLECTION AND ENFORCE- ty is precluded from showing the invalidity of (A) COLLECTORS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR COLLECTION IN GENERAL. Collection of fees belonging to predecessor in office, computation of limitations in action by heirs, see Limitation of Actions, § 103. Right of set-off in action by heirs of tax collector for fees collected by successor in office, see Set-Off and Counterclaim, § 35. § 551. A revenue agent held not empowered under St. 1909, § 4267, to bring suit on November 29th to collect taxes due on the 1st of that month, where the tax warrants, the ordinary process for collection by the sheriff, had not been issued.-Commonwealth v. Louisville Water Co. (Ky.) 712. § 551. A revenue agent held not empowered under St. 1909, § 4267, to collect a delinquent tax until the sheriff has exhausted the ordinary process in his hands under Act March 15, 1906, art. 8, §§ 20, 21-27 (Laws 1906, pp. 152, 163, c. 22).-Commonwealth v. Louisville Water Co. (Ky.) 712. the other's title.-Meyer v. Snell (Ark.) 208. § 810. A suit to confirm a tax title, but which proceeds to final hearing as a suit by defendant against plaintiff to cancel plaintiff's tax title, held not governed by Kirby's Dig. § 7105, but defendant must rely on the strength of his own title.-McDaniel v. Berger (Ark.) 194. § 810. A petitioner to quiet title under a deed executed by the commissioner of state lands, conveying land forfeited for taxes, and his possession and payment of taxes, has the burden to show title.-Morris v. Breedlove (Ark.) 223. XIII. LEGACY, INHERITANCE, AND § 878. Defendants held to have inherited. property in question as heirs of their mother, and not to have taken as devisees under their father's will, and liable for an inheritance tax which became operative after the death of the father and before the death of the mother.Commonwealth v. Still's Adm'r (Ky.) 687. TAXATION OF COSTS. (B) SUMMARY REMEDIES AND ACTIONS. See Costs, §§ 214, 218. § 603. An auditor's agent held not authorized under St. 1909, § 4263, to sue a corporation delinquent in payment of its taxes to recover the penalty provided by section 4091.-Louisville Water Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 711. TEACHERS. See Schools and School Districts, §§ 131, 135. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES. I. ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE. § 15. A telephone company placing and maintaining an instrument in the house of a patron for his use held required to maintain in connection with its wires and instruments approved lightning arresters.-Southern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 418. § 20. In an action against a telephone company for injuries to the wife of a patron by lightning entering into the house through the company's failure to provide a proper lightning arrester, evidence held to justify a recovery.— Southern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 418. § 20. In an action against a telephone company for injuries through its failure to provide a proper lightning arrester in connection with its telephone at the house of a patron, a requested charge held properly refused because it ignored evidence.-Southern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Evans (Tex. Civ. App.) 418. II. REGULATION AND OPERATION. Refusal of request for instructions already giv en, see Trial, § 260. § 37. Want of a definite address held not to excuse a telegraph company's failure to deliver a telegram unless it caused or contributed to the failure.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lewis (Ark.) 894. § 37. In an action against a telephone company for failing to notify plaintiff of a sick call, that the call was received after office hours held no defense; it appearing that it was received without objection.-Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 89. § 66. In an action against a telephone company for failure to notify plaintiff of a sick call, evidence held sufficient to show that an operator at a certain point was the common agent of defendant and another company for all communications to be transmitted over the lines |