*An act of a deputy sheriff, proceeding with-
out a warrant or without an offense being com-
mitted in his presence, is not the act of the See "Equity," § 1.
sheriff.-Brown v. Wallis (Tex. Civ. App.) 1068.
*In an action against a sheriff for injuries in-
flicted by his deputies, proof of the existence
of facts warranting the exercise of authority
by them is essential to recover.-Brown v. Wal-
lis (Tex. Civ. App.) 1068.
The presumption in favor of the regularity
of official conduct will not apply to hold a sher-
iff liable for the acts of his deputies.-Brown v.
Wallis (Tex. Civ. App.) 1068.
In an action against a sheriff for personal in-
juries inflicted by his deputies, evidence held
not to show that any offense was committed
in the presence of his deputies.-Brown v. Wal-
lis (Tex. Civ. App.) 1068.
Expert testimony of, see "Evidence," § 11.
To pleading, see "Pleading," § 6.
SLANDER.
See "Libel and Slander."
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Persons as against whom statutes of limitation
are applicable, see "Limitation of Actions,"
§ 1.
§ 1. Nature and grounds of remedy in
general.
*Plaintiff held entitled to a reversal of a de-
cree denying him specific performance of a con-
tract to sell land.-Kirkpatrick v. Pease (Mo.
Sup.) 651.
Contracts enforceable.
*A deed insufficient to convey title held sus-
ceptible of specific performance as a contract to
sell.-Kirkpatrick v. Pease (Mo. Sup.) 651.
An answer alleging a contract to convey cer-
tain of the land in controversy, but failing to
allege an agreement to convey any certain quan-
tity or part of the land, held insufficient to
sustain a decree of specific performance.-Cook
v. Embrey (Tex. Civ. App.) 844.
§ 3. Good faith and diligence.
A decree in an action to compel defendant to
take the deeds to certain property sold under a
title bond and pay a certain sum held proper.
Scott v. Boen (Ky.) 917.
Appointment of administrator with will annexed
to administer spendthrift trust, see "Execu-
tors and Administrators," § 1.
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
See "Intoxicating Liquors."
By witness inconsistent with testimony, see
"Witnesses," § 4.
Of case or facts for purpose of review, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 7; "Criminal Law, $3.
30.
Of mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," § 2.
Of plaintiff's claim, see "Pleading."
Legislative power over municipal corporation,
see "Municipal Corporations," § 1.
Public lands, see "Public Lands," § 1.
*The statutes of limitation apply to the state
as well as to individuals, as provided by Ky. St.
1903, § 2523.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith
(Ky.) 317.
![[merged small][ocr errors]](https://books.google.rs/books/content?id=XiwLAAAAYAAJ&hl=sr&output=html_text&pg=PA1284&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:ISBN0313293678&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1n3rjhdkVIipsd21Auftx2eir0wA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=506,591,429,331)
Stock laws as affecting liability of railroad for
personal injuries, see "Railroads," § 8.
Provisions relating to particular subjects.
See "Abatement and Revival," §§ 1, 2; "Ac-
knowledgment," §§ 1, 2; "Action," § 1; "Ad-
verse Possession," § 1; "Animals"; "Appeal
and Error," §§ 2, 4, 5, 8, 19, 21; "Appear
ance"; "Assault and Battery," 8 1: "AS-
sociations"; "Attachment." § 1; "Bigamy"
"Bills and Notes," §§ 1, 2, 4; "Carriers," $8
1, 6; "Chattel Mortgages," §§ 2, 6; "Com-
merce, 88 1, 2; "Corporations," §§ 3, 5, 6;
"Costs," § 1; "Courts," §§ 1, 3; "Criminal
Law," §§ 3, 4, 12, 21, 26; "Curtesy"; "Dep-
ositions"; "Descent and Distribution"; "Em-
bezzlement"; "Eminent Domain," § 1; "Evi-
dence," §§ 9, 12; "Executors and Adminis-
trators," 88 1-4; "Exemptions," § 1; "False
Imprisonment," § 1; "Ferries," § 1; "Fraud-
ulent Conveyances," § 1; "Gaming," § 1;
"Highways," §§ 1, 2; "Homestead"; "Hus-
band and Wife." § 4; "Indictment and In-
formation," §§ 3, 4; "Innkeepers"; "Insur-
ance," §§ 9, 11; "Interest," §§ 1, 2; "Intoxi-
cating Liquors"; "Judgment," 88 2, 4, 6;
"Jury," § 1; "Justices of the Peace," $$
1, 2; "Landlord and Tenant," §§ 2, 6-8;
"Lewdness"; "Licenses," § 1; "Limitation of
Actions," § 1; "Master and Servant," § 2;
"Mechanics' Liens"; "Pledges"; "Physicians
and Surgeons"; "Schools and School Dis-
Actions for wrongful death, see "Death," § 1.
tricts," § 1; "Witnesses," § 2.
Expert testimony, see "Evidence," § 11.
Privileged communications, see "Libel and Slan-
der," § 1.
Statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of."
§ 1. Enactment, requisites, and validity
in general.
*An act bearing the signature of the speakers
of the House and Senate, and approved by the
Governor, held deemed properly passed within
Const. art. 2. § 18.-Home Telegraph Co. v.
City of Nashville (Tenn.) 770.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.rs/books/content?id=XiwLAAAAYAAJ&hl=sr&output=html_text&pg=PA1285&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:ISBN0313293678&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U21weuHp1Nj36-eS9wAZjj9FKHSgw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=73,109,446,137)
2. General and special or local laws.
Act March 6, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 52, c. 16),
creating a board of waterworks for cities of the
first class, held not to create a corporation to
carry on private business, contrary to Const. §
59, prohibiting the passing of local or special
laws granting a charter to any corporation.-
Kirch v. City of Louisville (Ky.) 373.
*Act March 6, 1906 (Acts 1906, p. 52, c. 16).
creating a board of waterworks for cities of
the first class, held not special legislation in
contravention of Const. § 59.-Kirch v. City of
Louisville (Ky.) 373.
*Ky. St. 1903, § 2560, as amended by Act
March 14, 1906 (Laws 1906, p. 86, c. 21), regu-
lating local option elections, held not objection-
able as differentiating between counties contain-
ing cities of the fourth class and others, with
reference to the time of holding such elections.
-Board of Trustees of Town of New Castle v.
Scott (Ky.) 944; Gentry v. Peyton, Id.
Acts 1903, p. 1220, c. 424, redistricting Knox
county, is not obnoxious to Const. art. 11, § 8,
as arbitrary and vicious class legislation.-Max-
ey v. Powers (Tenn.) 181.
3. Subjects and titles of acts.
*Acts 1906, p. 549, providing for license
taxes on compounded, etc., distilled spirits, held
not invalid under Const. § 51, requiring that
an act shall relate to only one subject, which
subject shall be expressed in the title.-Brown-
Foreman Co. v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 321.
*Const. § 51, providing that no law shall re-
late to more than one subject which shall be ex-
pressed in the title, held not contravened by
Laws 1906, p. 439, c. 123, entitled an act to
amend and re-enact section 3140, Ky. St. 1903.
-Ex parte City of Paducah (Ky.) 898.
Section 123 of Act 1899, p. 161, c. 94, entitled
"An act relating to negotiable instruments,"
held to contain no matter not expressed in the
title of the act, and is not in contravention of
Const. art. 2, § 17.-Gilley v. Harrell (Tenn.)
424.
ed by a railroad company allowing Johnson
The provision for damages to persons injur-
grass to mature on its right of way, contained
in Laws 1901, p. 283, c. 117 (Laws 27th Leg.),
held not in violation of Const. art. 3, § 35.-
Doeppenschmidt v. International & G. N. R.
Co. (Tex. Sup.) 1080.
relative to joint actions against carriers, held
Act March 13, 1905, Laws 1905, p. 29, c. 25,
not to embrace two subjects, in violation of
Const. art. 3, § 35.-Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Marrs
(Tex. Sup.) 1177.
*The part of Act March 13, 1905, p. 29, c.
25, relating to the subject expressed in the title,
held not affected by any part relating to a sub-
Marrs (Tex. Civ. App.) 1177.
ject not so expressed.-Texas Cent. R. Co. v.
4. Amendment, revision, and codifica-
amended by Act March 14, 1906 (Laws 1906, p.
Under Const. § 51, Ky. St. 1903, § 2560, as
86, c. 21), held not objectionable in that its ti-
tle indicated an amendment of such section
while the act in fact was a repeal of a former
section and the enactment of new provisions.-
Board of Trustees of Town of New Castle v.
Scott (Ky.) 944; Gentry v. Peyton, Id.
§ 5. Repeal, suspension, expiration, and
*Act Feb. 16, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 19, c. 19,
2), as amended by Act May 8, 1899 (Acts
1899, p. 305, c. 168), as to filing articles of in-
corporation by foreign corporations held impli-
edly repealed by substitution by Act May 23,
Telegraph Co. v. State (Ark.) 745.
1901 (Acts 1901, p. 386, c. 216).-Western Union
§ 6. Construction and operation.
*Words used in a statute which have been
judicially construed are used in the light of the
construction which has been placed upon them.-
Sheehan v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 380.
Amended by Laws
1885-86, p. 210, ch. 1254 974
745, 748 499, subsec. 13.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Election between counts in action for injuries
from operation, see "Pleading," § 8.
Pending appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal Harmless error in rulings in action for injuries
and Error," § 6.
caused by operation of, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," 19.
Judicial notice as to character of, see "Evi-
dence," § 1.
Opinion evidence as to speed of street cars, see
"Evidence," § 11.
Pleading in justice's court in action for injuries
caused by operation of, see "Justices of the
Peace," § 2.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Requests for instructions in action for injuries
caused by operation of, see "Trial," § 9.
Review of rulings in action for injuries caused See "Warehousemen."
by operation as dependent on presentation in
lower court of grounds of review, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 4.
§ 1. Regulation and operation.
In an action against a street railroad com-
pany for injuries to an infant, while he was
playing in the street, an instruction held not
objectionable as failing to submit the question
whether the motorman's alleged negligent act
was within the scope of his employment.-
Wahl v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 1.
An allegation in an action for injuries to a
child by a street car held to sufficiently allege
that the motorman's act was within the scope
of his employment.-Wahl v. St. Louis Transit
Co. (Mo. Sup.) 1.
In an action for the death of one killed in a
collision between his vehicle and a car, an in-
struction on the circumstances under which
plaintiff would be entitled to recover, notwith-
SUBLETTING.
See "Landlord and Tenant," § 4.
*A county held subrogated to the rights of a
mortgagee under a mortgage; its treasurer hav-
ing_wrongfully used its money to pay it.-Young
v. Pecos County (Tex. Civ. App.) 1055.
standing contributory negligence on the part Inclusion of in computation of time, see "Time.”
of decedent, held proper.-White v. St. Louis
& M. R. R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 14.
In an action for the death of one killed in a
collision between his vehicle and a car, an in-
struction on negligence held proper.-White v.
St. Louis & M. R. R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 14.
*Under the facts, a street railroad held liable
for the death of one killed in a collision be-
tween his vehicle and a car, irrespective of will-
fulness, recklessness, or wantonness on the part
of the operatives.-White v. St. Louis & M. R.
R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 14.
*In an action for the death of one killed in
On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and
Error," § 6.
a collision between his vehicle and defendant's See "Principal and Surety."
street car, the question of negligence held for
the jury.-White v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co.
(Mo. Sup.) 14.
"Cancellation of Instruments."
*In an action against street railway for in- Of written instrument for cancellation, see
juries received by plaintiff in a collision be-
tween vehicle in which he was driving and de-
fendant's car, the question whether defendant
was negligent in running its car at a certain
speed held for the jury.-Carey v. Metropolitan
St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1123.
*In an action against a street railway for in-
juries received by plaintiff in a collision be-
tween the vehicle in which he was driving and
defendant's car, the question of plaintiff's con-
tributory negligence held a question for the
jury.-Carey v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.) 1123.
*One driving across street car tracks with an
ordinary carriage at a time an approaching car
is 350 feet away held not guilty of contributory
negligence as a matter of law. Hall v. St. Louis
& S. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1137.
In an action against a street railway company
for damages to a vehicle in a collision with a
car, the issue whether the company was operat-
ing the car held for the jury.-Hall v. St. Louis
& S. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 1137.
*In an action against a street railway com-
pany for damages to a vehicle in a collision with
a car, the question of the negligence of the
motorman in charge of the car held for the jury.
-Hall v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.)
1137.
See "Boundaries," §§ 1, 2.
Of cause of action, see "Abatement and Re-
vival," § 3.
See "False Pretenses."
Capacity of infant to commit, see "Infants,"
§ 1.
Admissions by tax rendition as evidence, see
"Evidence," § 6.
Inconsistent pleadings on issue of ownership of
tax bill, see "Pleading," § 2.
Jurisdiction of district court to restrain assess-
or from making tax levy, see "Courts," § 2
Payment of taxes to sustain adverse possession,
see "Adverse Possession," §§ 1, 3.
Persons concluded by judgment on tax bills,
see "Judgment," § 8.
Pledge of tax bill, see "Pledges."
See "Highways"; "Municipal Corporations," §§ Review of rulings in action on special tax bil
Corporate stock, see "Corporations," § 2.
as dependent on presentation in lower court
of grounds of review, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," § 4.
Rights and remedies of county taxpayers, see
"Counties," § 2.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
|