« ПретходнаНастави »
(F) Loss or Relinquishment of Rights.
Om 181 (Mo.) Insertion by grantor in deed
sold at time it was acknowledged and long after its
Elsea v. Smith, 202 S. W. 1071.
IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
of proving delivery as a part of their case,
since they alleged delivery.-Whiteley v. Bab-
cock, 202 S. W. 1091.
Om 196(1) (Ky.) If grantor, who is old and
27, 37; Fraudulent Conveyances; Mort- sustaining confidential relation, and who has
custody of or resides with him, burden is on
grantee to show that transaction was devoid
On 200 (Mo.) That the grantor in a trust deed
thereafter gave deeds to right of way for a
er the trust deed was intended to take effect
en 206 (Mo.) Much stricter proof is required
to overthrow by parol evidence a deed proper-
ly signed, acknowledged, and delivered than is
trust deed was seen about the land, collected
rents, paid taxes, and made improvements and
deed was not intended to be effective until his
grantee to make repairs, and that he would
never written into the deed.-Whiteley v. Bab-
Evidence of plaintiffs, in action to set aside
deed on the ground that it was not intended
to take effect until graptor's death, held not
of such character as to satisfy the mind of the
em 208(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on fire
ed by change in title, evidence held to show
conveyance when delivered to plaintiff.-
cancel deed of their grandmother to her sons
on ground of mental incapacity, evidence held
to warrant judgment for plaintiffs.-Davidson
v. Davidson, 202 S. W. 493.
on ground of undue influence. evidence held to
DE FACTO DEPUTIES.
See Sheriffs and Constables, ww20.
See Licenses, ww39.
See Street Railroads, w163.
DISCRETION OF COURT.
See Appeal and Error, m957-981; Criminal
Law, m 1153; Judgment, m139; New See Elections, em 287; Estoppel, m108;
Trial, em 6; Witnesses, Om240.
DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.
See Appeal and Error, 781; Corporations,
04 (Mo.) Rev. St. 1909, $ 4758, making it See Escrows.
an offense to display the sign of an honest busiww9 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a county deposi- ness on a house ordinarily used as an assignatary credits to the county the amount of a tion house, one who permits the sign to be er. check drawn by county tax collector and depos- posed, although he does not put it up, is guilty ited by county treasurer, it cannot be charged of the offense.-State v. Griffin, 202 S. W. 512. back to the county upon dishonor of the check, w 12 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $ 4758, deunder Rev. St. 1911, arts. 1485, 1505, 1509, fining offense of displaying sign of honest busi2440–2444, 2447, 2449.-Watson' v. El Paso ness on house ordinarily used as assignation County, 202 S. W. 126.
house, indictment need not allege that any per
son was deceived by the sign; offense being DEPOSITIONS.
complete when the sign is displayed which may
inveigle innocent persons into the house.-State Omw 70 (Tex.Civ.App.) A witness whose deposi- v. Griffin, 202 S. W. 542. tion is to be taken in writing in answer to writ-Om 17 (Mo.) Evidence held to show that deten interrogatories need not be sworn before his fendant was the manager and in charge of a answers are reduced to writing, such require building used commonly as an assignation house ment applying only on oral examination.-Zeiger on which a hotel sign was displayed.--State y. v. Woodson, 202 Š. W. 164.
Griffin, 202 S. W. 542. Om 103 (Mo.App.) Objection to question and Under Rev. St. 1909, $ 4758, making it an answer in a deposition that the time of stated offense to permit display of sign of honest busiconversation between witness and defendant ness on building commonly used as assignation company's president was not fixed was properly house, evidence that sign was on house for sev. overruled, where other answers therein fixed eral months, during which defendant conducted the date.-Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Mer- the unlawful business, supported finding that he chants' & Consumers' Market se Ass'n, 202 permitted the display of such sign.-Id. S. W. 596. DEPOSITS.
DISQUALIFICATION. See Banks and Banking, 140, 148.
See Partnership, Omw327; Religious Societies. See Sheriffs and Constables, On 20.
See Fraudulent Conveyances, Om318.
See Drains; Waters and Water Courses, DESCRIPTION
179. See Boundaries, C3, 25; Names; Taxation,
DIVORCE. 421; Wills, Om559, 565.
See Constitutional Law, em 277.
Em 29 (Mo.App.) Where husband twice coerced See Physicians and Surgeons, em 6.
wife into taking drugs calculated to cause mis
carriage, which twice took place, drugs being DIRECTING VERDICT.
procured on husband's prescription, and there
by health of wife was undermined and she had See Trial, Cm 420.
to undergo operation, she was entitled to divorce.-Cunningham v. Cunningham, 202 S. W.
420. DISABILITIES. See Slaves.
IV. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS,
(D) Evidence. See Accord and Satisfaction; Appeal and Er-Com 130 (Ky.) In husband's action for divorce,
ror, w1227; Bills and Notes, ww437; evidence held to sustain wife's countercharge Compromise and Settlement; Indemnity; of cruel and inhuman treatment justifying di
rations.-Birmingham Drainage Dist. v. ChiOm 184(12) (Ark.) In divorce action, husband cago, B. & Q. Ř. Co., 202 S. W. 404. cannot complain that there was no evidence as em 15 (Mo.) Legislature may, from its own into ownership of land, interest in which was de- formation, fix boundaries of incorporated draincreed to wife under Kirby's Dig. $ 2684.-Heg- age district.-Birmingham Drainage Dist. · v. wood v. Hegwood, 202 S. W. 35.
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 202 S. W. 404.
em 18 (Mo.) Drainage districts organized purV. ALIMONY, ALLOWANCES, AND suant to Laws 1913, p. 232, exercise granted DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.
powers within their territorial jurisdiction as em 240(2) (Ky.) $1,000 alimony payable in fully and by same authority as municipal corfive yearly installments should be allowed; porations.-Birmingham Drainage Dist. v. Chiwife, who was mistreated, having no property, cago, B. & Q. R. Co., 202 S. W. 404. and the husband, 37 years old, having farm of
II. ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL 142 acres and other property worth $4,500,
TAXES. and only trifling indebtedness.-Johnston v. Johnston, 202 S. W. 869.
mw 66 (Mo.) Among powers which may be ex. Om 240(5) (Ky.) Where husband, whose wife ercised by a drainage district organized pursusecured divorce, with custody of two children, ant to Laws 1913, p. 232, is that of taxation, was worth $20.000, alimony of $3,800, with which power so far as expressly granted is allowance of $20 a month for support of chil- only limited by power of Legislature which dren, was not excessive.-Burris v. Burris, 202 grants it.-Birmingham Drainage Dist. y. ChiS. W. 906.
cago, B, & Q. R. Co., 202 S. W. 404. 253 (Ark.) Pleadings in divorce case need Omw 69 (Mo.) The Legislature may, from its not set forth property of husband, under Kir
own information, fix the amount of special by's Dig. $ 2684, giving wife one-third of prop- drainage assessments.-Birmingham Drainage erty of husband on decree of divorce.-Hegwood Dist. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 202 S. W. 404. y. Hegwood, 202 S. W. 35.
Om82(3) (Mo.) Laws 1913, p. 232, as to drain
age districts, authorize only a limited appeal VI. CUSTODY AND SUPPORT OF from assessments not so broad as jurisdiction CHILDREN.
invoked by writ of error.-Birmingham DrainOm 299. (Ky.) Instead of ordering the depend age Dist. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 202 S. ent wife, to whom divorce was granted and
W. 404. custody of the children awarded, to deliver
If writ of error would lie under provisions of them, at intervals, to the husband, for oppor- general code for purpose of giving Supreme tunity to see them, he should be required to Court a jurisdiction which it could not exercise send
for them.-Johnston v. Johnston, 202 S. by virtue of appeal provided for by Laws 1913, W. 869.
p. 232, where there has been no attempt to
bring in many landowners against whose propDOCKETS.
erty drainage benefits were assessed, writ will See Trial, 10.
be dismissed in view of Rev. St. 1909, 88 2054,
2058, 2071.-Id. DOCTORS.
Om 90 (Tex.Civ.App.) Although drainage dis
tricts are the owners of funds and may sue and See Physicians and Surgeons.
be sued under Rev. St. 1911, art. 2584, the
county may sue the county tax collector thereDOCUMENTS.
for, in view of Rev. St. 1911, arts. 2533, 2540,
2541, 2603, 2605, 2606, but a county cannot reSee Evidence, em 155, 370, 383.
cover under allegations that such funds be
longed to the county.--Watson v. El Paso CounDOGS.
ty, 202 S. W. 126.
See Intoxicating Liquors. en 4(1) (Ky.) Where a resident of another
DUEBILLS. state, having formed an intention of becoming a citizen of B. county, Ky., left her former See Bills and Notes, Ow151. home, arrived in the state, but died before reaching B. county, the county court of such
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
See Homicide, em 203–221.
See Dedication; Highways.
I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND other reason why intention of Legislature, evi
TERMINATION. dent from Laws 1913, pp. 241, 253, &$ 16, 36, 7(2) (Ky.) To establish passway easement to confine right of review by Supreme Court by prescription the use must have been exercisin drainage proceedings to assessment of dam- ed under a claim of right continuously for 15 ages upon appeal and not by writ of error, ) years.--Godman v. Jones, 202 S. W. 662. should not be respected.--Birmingham Drainage m8(2,3) (Ky.) Whenever the use of a passDist. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 202 S. W. way is interrupted or controlled by the land404.
owner as a matter of right, such interruption Om 13 (Mo.) Drainage districts organized pur- and control is evidence of permissive use.suant to Laws 1913, p. 232, are public corpo- I Godman v. Jones, 202 S. W. 662.
Om 10(1), (Ky.) Where a landowner claimed a state otherwise fully administered and distribpassway by prescription or by necessity and uted.--Id. implication of law, questions of convenience in access could not be considered.--Godman v. V. DAMAGES, MESNE PROFITS, IM. Jones, 202 S. W. 662. *
PROVEMENTS, AND TAXES. On 16 (Ky.) On conveyance of one of several om 139 (Ark.) In ejectment against a person parcels of land of one owner, or partition be- who had located on a sand bar in a river formtween heirs of deceased owner, there is an im- ing part of a public street, defendant held enplied grant or reservation of all apparent and titled to remove all structures erected by him continuous easements created or used by the thereon, provided he did no damage to the freeowner during the unity of possession.-Godman hold.-City of Little Rock v. Jeuryens, 202 S. v. Jones, 202 S. W. 662.
W. 45. 18(1) (Ky.) Where an estate was parti-140 (Ark.) Kirby's Dig. &$2754, 2755, retioned, easements of necessity were immediate-lating to betterments, does not apply to public ly created, but a subsequent change in condi- agencies.-City of Little Rock v. Jeuryens, 202 tions would not give rights to a way by neces. S. W. 45. sity; the owner being confined to the way ex-143 (Ark.) Where a defendant in ejectment isting at the time of the partition.--Godman v. had improved the property in good faith, he will Jones, 202 S. W. 662.
not be required to pay rent therefor.-City of en 36(1) (Ky.) Presumption of acquisition of Little Rock v. Jeuryens, 202 S. W. 45. easement to passway arising from mere user,
Where a defendant in ejectment after an adthough continued for whatever period, does not verse judgment remains on the property, he avail if the use has been permissive.-Godman may be compelled to pay its rental value, alv. Jones, 202 S. W. 662.
though such value is the result of improve36(3) (Ky.) Passways, being, like all serv
ments made by him.-Id. itudes, limitations of, or deductions from, an- On 144 (Ky.) Where there was an oral exother person's ownership and dominion over his change of lands and failure of title to land obland, should be clearly established by the proof tained by plaintiff, the defendant was Deverbefore the landowner should be deprived of his theless entitled to a lien for improvements put property.-Godman v. Jones, 202 S. W. 662. on the land it received in good faith.–Turner v.
Davis, 202 S. W. 487. II. EXTENT OF RIGHT, USE, AND On 145 (Ark.) Where a defendant in ejectOBSTRUCTION.
ment had improved a sand bar forming part of Paw 61(9) (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to right to recover the added value of the prop
a public street located near a river, he had no show acquisition of right to passway over ad-Ierty which his labor had given it.- City of Litjoining land by prescription.-Godman v. Jones, tle Rock v. Jeuryens, 202 S. W. 45. 202 S. W. 662.
Evidence held to show existence of one passway affording access at time of partition of
ELECTION OF REMEDIES.
Om7(1) (Tex. Civ. App.) Where corporation
bought cotton oil subject to rules of associa. See Trespass to Try Title.
tion which required notice of date when to ship
to be given by the purchaser, and on failure to I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DE deliver authorized purchase through broker of FENSES.
like quantities, and trustee in bankruptcy of Em 26(2) (Mo.) A defense in ejectment held to purchaser authorized broker to buy like quanbe purely equitable within Rev. St. 1909, Štities but broker failed to do so, employment of 1806, allowing such a defense in actions at Planters’ Oil Co. v. Gresham, 202 S. W. 15a
the broker was not an election of remedies.law.-Hynds v. Hynds, 202 S. W. 387.
Own (Mo.App.) In an action for damages for II. JURISDICTION, PARTIES, PRO
breach of contract to hold for mortgagors their CESS, AND INCIDENTAL PRO
premises bought in by mortgagee at forecloCEEDINGS.
sure, tbe striking of part of mortgagee's an
swer, setting up his claim in bar that plaintiff 39 (Ark.) A city held not barred by laches had sued his vendee to recover land, was propunder Kirby's Dig. f 5648, for maintaining er, the petition showing abandonment of action ejectment against a locator on a river sand bar against such vendee, so that there was no elecforming part of a public street.-City of Little tion of remedies.-Robinson v. Cruzen, 202 S. Rock v. Jeuryens, 202 S. W. 45.
W. 449. III. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
ELECTIONS. Em78 (Ark.) In ejectment, court properly See Indictment and Information, C110; Instruck out exhibits to defendant's answer which
toxicating Liquors, 36; Municipal Cordid not show paper title in him and could not
porations, 867; Pleading, em 367. in any way have aided jury in arriving at correct conclusion on either of issues.-Morgan v.
IX. COUNT OF VOTES, RETURNS, Kankey, 202 S. W. 844.
AND CANVASS. Cm93 (Ark.) In ejectment, evidence held suf
265 (Ky.) Under Laws 1916, c. 24, as to ficient to support verdiet for “plaintiff.-Morgan common school system, sections 92 and 109, v. Kankey, 202 S. W. 844.
respecting election of trustees and penalty imOm 93 (Mo.) Testimony to support an equita- posed on officer of election for fraud, county ble defense' in an action at law must be ad- superintendent of schools was without authorijudged by equitable rules established to pro- candidate for trustee in subdistrict of educa
ty to issue or grant certificate of election to tect legal rights and not by ordinary rules applying to trials of actions at law.-Hynds v.
tion district. -Doss v. Howard, 202 S. W. 888. Hynds, 202 S. W. 387. In ejectment, evidence held to show defend
X. CONTESTS. ant sole owner in equity of the land as the On 269 (Ky.) A proceeding against election only asset of his father's estate held by the commissioners for mandatory injunction to comadministratrix in trust remaining undistributed pel them to issue certificate of election as jus
within Corrupt Practices Act (Laws 1916, c.; it requires a statement of expenses to be filed 13) $ 11.-Sparkman v. Saylor, 202 S. W. 649. by a candidate before election and directory in
271 (Ky.) Failure of a candidate to file so far as it requires such statement to be filed statement of expenses within a reasonable time, on the fifteenth day before election.-Sparkman as required by Corrupt Practices Act (Laws v. Saylor, 202 S. W. 649. 1916, c. 13), 8°4, is ground for contest.-Spark-eww 316 (Ark.) Section 18, Act Feb. 5, 1913 man v. Saylor, 202 S. W. 649.
(Acts 1913, p. 74), making it unlawful to give On 275 (Ark.) Under authority of Const. art. or promise an office or anytbing of value for 19, $ 24, the Legislature has provided (Kirby's political support, aid, or vote of any person, Dig. $ 2860) for contest of elections of county held not to require the promise to be made to officers in the county court, and, there being person to whom the office, etc., is to be given. no other specific provisions for school officers -Wright v. State, 202 S. W. 236. returns of whose election must be made to the 329 (Ark.) In a prosecution for making a county clerk under section 7677, such directors promise as consideration for political support are county officers whose election must be con- in violation of section 18, Act Feb. 5, 1913 tested in the county court.–Ferguson v. Wal- (Acts 1913, p. 74), evidence held to sustain a chansky, 202 S. W. 826.
conviction.-Wright v. State, 202 S. W. 236. Oww285 (3) (Ky.) In suit contesting election of w330 (Ark.) In a prosecution for making a trustee in subdistrict of education district, per promise as consideration for political support tition held not insufficient as alleging that only in violation of section 18, Act Feb. 5, 1913 one of eighteen persons named was not legal (Acts 1913, p. 74), held, that the court correctvoter.-Doss v. Howard, 202 S. W. 888. am 287 (Ky.) Under Ky. St. $ 1596a, subsec. ed the law in its rulings on the instructions.
ly interpreted the statute and correctly declar12, in an election contest, court erred in per- Wright v. State, 202 s. W. 236. mitting defendants to file demurrer to petition, over contestant's objection, more than 20 days after service of summons.--Doss v. Howard,
ELECTRICITY. 202 S. W. 888.
See Trial, m 296. Oma 289 (Ky.) Allegations of pleading, in action contesting election, do not have to be 15(1) (Mo.) Where a boy playing upon a proven when not denied, 'as in any other action building belonging to another party by owner's where a statute does not exist which requires sufferance climbed upon a tree either on such that an allegation be proven though not denied. party's premises or in an alley, and while there ---Doss v. Howard, 202 S. W. 888.
was injured by defendant's uninsulated wires, @ww29! (Ky.) Where an election is contested such boy was not a trespasser as to defendant. for failure to file statement of expenses as re
-Williams v. Springfield Gas & Electric Co., quired by Corrupt Practices Act (Laws 1916,
202 S. W. 1. c. 13) § 4, within a reasonable time, the burden ons 16(7) (Mo.) Since electric companies to prove such failure is upon the contestant.-stretching wires through trees which children Sparkman v. Saylor, 202 S. W. 649.
can climb must anticipate their presence in em 295(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In election contest
such trees, where a boy climbed from building for fraudulent substitution of ballots, uncor- into tree and fell against electric company's unroborated testimony of voters repudiating bal- insulated wires and was injured the company lots held insufficient to support finding of fraud- was liable.-Williams v. Springfield Gas & ulent substitution.-Baskin v. Walschak, 202 S. Electric Co., 202 S. W. 1. W. 747.
Om 18(1) (Mo.) Where plaintiff climbed into a in suit contesting election as to whether road tree and fell against defendant's uninsulated district should issue bonds, evidence held to wires passing through the tree, and there was support findings that 28 voters, returned as vot- no evidence that he knew of the defect or puring for issuance of bonds and levy of tax, in posely touched the wires, contributory neglifact voted against issuance and levy.-Id. gence is not shown.-Williams v. Springfield
298(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, Gas & Electric Co., 202 S. W. 1. art. 3062, in suit contesting election on issuance of bonds by road district, where court
EMINENT DOMAIN. found 28 votes were cast against bond issue, but fraudulently made to appear for it, it prop- See Municipal Corporations, Om296-495. erly subtracted such votes from total for issue as returned, and added them to total against I. NATURE, EXTENT, AND DELEGAissue.-Baskin v. Walschak, 202 S. W. 747.
TION OF POWER. Ow299(4) (Tex.Civ. App.) In election contest, Om2(6) (Tenn.) Priv. Acts 1915, c. 564, $ 20, consideration by judge of irregularities in bal- requiring the owner to furnish a wagon, team, lots, discovered and noted in private room in and feed for road work, held, as to the wagon presence of counsel without formal tender in and team, not to violate Const. art. 1, § 21, but court for judicial consideration, held not revers- otherwise as to the feed.--Galoway v. State, ible error.-Baskin v. Walschak, 202 S. W. 202 S. W. 76. 747. C303 (Ky.) Judgment which should be ren
II. COMPENSATION. dered in election contest on undenied petition
(C) Measure and Amount. is determined by sufficiency of facts alleged inom 141(3) (Mo.App.) Where change of grade petition, or deemed to exist because of the de- of street'is made, measure of damages is diffault and the application of the law to such ference between market value, before and after facts.-Doss v. Howard, 202 S. W. 888. In election contest, where petition, which ments placed on it before grade was estab
change of grade, of both the lot and improvestated
of action, specifically prayed lished.--Nestlehut v. City of De Soto, 202 S. plaintiff should be adjudged duly elected, court, W. 425. petition not being denied, should have adjudged plaintiff duly elected, and rendered such III. PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PROPjudgment as would have entitled him to quali
ERTY AND ASSESS COM. fy.-Id.
PENSATION, XI. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS. Em 237(7) (Ky.) In suit by landowners to set
aside order confirming report of commissioners 0311 (Ky.) Corrupt Practices Act (Laws in railroad's condemnation proceeding, evidence 1916, c. 13) $ 4, held mandatory in so far as held to sustain finding railroad did not ap