(H) ESTATES IN TRUST AND POWERS. § 681. A will construed, and held to vest the legal title to the property devised in trustees.Appel v. Childress (Tex. Civ. App.) 129.

II. COMPETENCY.

(A) CAPACITY AND QUALIFICATIONS IN GENERAL.

37. Where it appeared that a person was defendant's bookkeeper during the time in question, and kept the books correctly, and that all goods sold to plaintiff were either sold by him or upon orders written by him, he was a competent witness as to plaintiff's indebtedness to defendant.-Jett v. O. B. Crittenden & Co. (Ark.) 665.

§ 37. In a prosecution for murder of a little girl by the burning of the dwelling house in which she lived, the child's grandmother held competent to identify the child's bones.-Sprouse v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 344.

8 37. A city engineer was not incompetent to testify to the width of a city street because he was not present when the original lines were surveyed.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. Morin (Tex. Civ. App.) 656.

§ 39. In a prosecution for rape, an objection to the prosecutrix testifying as to penetration, on the ground that she did not know the meaning of the word, held properly overruled.-Leftrick v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 817.

§ 79. In a suit to set aside a conveyance by plaintiff, an incompetent, plaintiff held to have been properly excluded as a witness because of present incapacity, and not because of her allegation of prior insanity.-Holland v. Riggs (Tex. Civ. App.) 167.

(B) PARTIES AND PERSONS INTERESTED IN EVENT.

§ 106. Wife of one indicted for theft held incompetent to testify against one indicted for receiving the stolen property.-Bowmer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 798.

§ 141. In an action for a servant's death, the master's superintendent held competent to testify for him as to conversations with decedent.Massey's Adm'r v. Pike Consol. Coal Co. (Ky.) 276.

$142. A stockholder having a financial interest in the case cannot testify for the company in an action against it by representatives of a decedent, as to conversations, etc., with dece dent.-Massey's Adm'r v. Pike Consol. Coal Co. (Ky.) 276.

§ 153. Under the Code, a party to a suit cannot testify concerning a transaction with a deceased agent of the adversary party.-Swearingen's Executor and Trustee v. Tyler (Ky.) 331.

§ 158. In a suit against a married woman on a note in which she claimed that she signed as surety and her husband as principal, the fact that her husband is dead does not, under the Code, preclude her from testifying that she received no portion of the proceeds of the note.Swearingen's Executor and Trustee v. Tyler (Ky.) 331.

§ 158. In an action on a note executed by a married woman through the agency of her hus band, the payee of the note is not prohibited by the Code from testifying to material facts, independent of what occurred between himself and the husband.-Swearingen's Executor and Trus tee v. Tyler (Ky.) 331.

§ 159. In an action by heirs for specific performance of a contract between decedent and defendant, exceptions were properly sustained to defendant's testimony relating to a transaction and conversations had with decedent.-Skinner v. Creasy (Ky.) 753.

$159. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 4652 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2520), beneficiary in insurance policy held incompetent to testify as a witness as to transactions with decedent.-Deal v. Hainley (Mo. App.) 1.

(D) CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.

$ 190. Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 774, relating to confidential communications between husband and wife, in a prosecution for killing her husband, a wife could not testify as to threats made to her alone by her deceased husband to kill accused.-Gant v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 801.

$191. The rule making privileged confidential communications between husband and wife includes letters from one to the other.-Gant v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 801.

$193. Communication by husband held not a confidential communication to wife, made inadmissible under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 774, where there were third persons_present.-Richards v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 587.

§ 195. The privileged character of confidential communications between husband and wife, without the presence of others, extends beyond the dissolution of the marital relation by divorce or death.-Gant v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 801.

$146. If deeds presented do not conform to the contract, the purchaser must do one of two things, either show the contract or furnish vendor with a copy, so they can be properly drawn, or himself prepare a deed and tender it for execution.-Skinner v. Creasy (Ky.) 753.

(D) PAYMENT OF PURCHASE MONEY. § 185. Forfeiture of the rights of a purchaser under contracts would not become operative till vendor exercised his right to declare it.McGrew v. Smith (Mo. App.) 1117.

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PARTIES.

(A) AS TO EACH OTHER.

§ 208. The fact that a person has an option contract giving him the privilege to purchase land at a certain time does not deprive the one having title to the land of an interest therein which she can convey.-Elliott v. Delaney (Mo.) 494.

(B) AS TO THIRD PERSONS IN GENERAL. § 212. A grantor declaring a forfeiture of the title who subsequently conveyed the land to a purchaser for value cannot defeat the title acquired by the purchaser by waiving the cause of forfeiture.-Lowe v. Stepp (Ky.) 293.

§ 212. A failure on the part of a grantee to pay the government dues as stipulated in the deed does not authorize the annulment of the deed or invalidate the title, and the payment of such dues by a junior purchaser having notice of the prior title did not help the junior title.Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 823.

§ 218. One cannot recover for obstructions and excavations placed and made upon his land before its purchase by him.-Boyd v. Schreiner (Tex. Civ. App.) 100.

$219. One holding land under a bond for title may sue in trespass to try title against another, and except as against the vendor he need not prove payment according to the terms of the bond-Sanderson v. Wellsford (Tex. Civ. App.) 382.

(C) BONA FIDE PURCHASERS.

$ 224. A quitclaim deed covering parts of a survey not previously conveyed gave the grantee and his successors no better title against those claiming under a prior deed than the original grantor would have.-Raley v. Magendie (Tex. Civ. App.) 174.

$ 229. Rule respecting priorities of junior and senior purchasers, as affected by failure to record the senior deed, stated.-J. M. West Lumber Co. v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.) 652.

§ 231. Whether the decree in an action to declare a person trustee of certain property is valid or not, it constitutes notice to a party thereto who subsequently takes a deed to such property as to the title of such trustee.-Burel v. Baker (Ark.) 181.

§ 231. A deed is superior to another deed expressly conveying subject to previous deeds, where the first-mentioned deed was executed first, and was recorded when made.-Raley v. Magendie (Tex. Civ. App.) 174.

$231. Subsequent grantees of a purchaser having notice of a prior deed held themselves to have notice of the prior deed.-Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 823.

§ 231. A defective record of a deed held not to aid the title of subsequent grantees from a purchaser with notice of a prior deed.-Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App:) 823.

$231. Under Act Dec. 20, 1836 (1 Laws 1836, p. 156, c. 139, § 40), one claiming under a junior deed held not to be charged with notice that the original grantee held under a deed of trust or had reconveyed to his grantor.-Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 823.

§ 242. It may be presumed from the payment of the purchase money that a purchaser bought without notice of a prior unrecorded deed.-Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 823.

§ 242. One claiming as innocent purchaser for value and those claiming under him as against a prior unrecorded deed have the burden of proof to show that fact.-Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 823.

§ 244. In trespass to try title in which plaintiff and defendants deraigned title from a common source, evidence held to show that a purdeed before a prior deed from the common granchaser from the common grantor recording his tor was recorded was not a purchaser for value without notice.-Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 823.

VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR. (A) LIEN AND RECOVERY OF LAND. § 266. The taking of personal security, the recovery of a personal judgment, and an attempt to make the debt by execution, do not ordinarily waive a vendor's lien.-Elswick v. Matney (Ky.) 718; Matney v. Elswick, Id.

§ 280. A petition to foreclose a lien given by a note held sufficient as against a special exception that it showed on its face that the lien was barred.-Munroe v. Munroe (Tex. Civ. App.)

878.

§ 15. One rendering services in a land transaction held not deprived of the right to recover on a quantum meruit by the fact that he, after rendering the services, endeavored to prevent defendants from procuring the land.-C. W. Hahl & Co. v. Southland Immigration Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.) 831.

§ 29. Where services are rendered on the expectation, of both the person rendering the services and the person receiving them, that he is to be paid, a reasonable compensation may be recovered.-Walker v. Ganote (Ky.) 689.

§ 29. In an action for the reasonable value of services rendered in a real estate transaction, a finding that the services were worth $17.500 held authorized.-C. W. Hahl & Co. v. Southland Immigration Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.) 831.

mine from their own knowledge the value thereof.-C. W. Hahl & Co. v. Southland Immigration Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.) 831.

§ 30. A defendant in an action for the reasonable value of services who offered no testimony as to the reasonable value thereof could not complain if the jury made their own estimate from their own knowledge.-C. W. Hahl & Co. v. Southland Immigration Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.) 831.

§ 30. In an action for the reasonable value of services rendered in a real estate transaction, certain findings held not inconsistent.-C. W. Hahl & Co. v. Southland Immigration Ass'n (Tex. Civ. App.) 831.

WRONGS. YEAR.