Слике страница
PDF
ePub

was

DEDICATION.

(F) Loss or Relinquishment of Rights.

Om 181 (Mo.) Insertion by grantor in deed
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT. con^ying to a daughter and heirs of her body,
Emo 53 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where land

sold at time it was acknowledged and long after its
and conveyed with reference to alley, purchaser delivery, that guardian of daughter's only son
acquired by dedication easement in such alley, born at the time of acknowledgment should
which became charged with incidental servi- | pay taxes, would in no wise affect its validity:-
tude, and purchaser could have alley kept open.

Elsea v. Smith, 202 S. W. 1071.
-Barclay y. Dismuke, 202 S. W. 364.

IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
Where land was sold with reference to alley
which seller dedicated as inducement to pur- 190 (Mo.) Heirs of intestate who sought
chaser, such purchaser, suing to keep alley to set aside deeds on ground that they were
open, is not required to plead and prove special not to take effect until his death had burden
injury to his property.-Id.

of proving delivery as a part of their case,

since they alleged delivery.-Whiteley v. Bab-
DEEDS.

cock, 202 S. W. 1091.

Om 196(1) (Ky.) If grantor, who is old and
See Acknowledgment; Covenants; Estoppel, physically infirm, transfers his property to one

27, 37; Fraudulent Conveyances; Mort- sustaining confidential relation, and who has
gages; Taxation, en 760.

custody of or resides with him, burden is on

grantee to show that transaction was devoid
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. of_any vice rendering it inequitable or unfair.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyano. -Davidson v. Davidson, 202 S. W. 493.
es in General.

On 200 (Mo.) That the grantor in a trust deed
wa 17 (4) (Ky.) Where days of grantor, whose pipe line was admissible on the issue of wheth-

thereafter gave deeds to right of way for a
income exceeds that of either of her gran-

er the trust deed was intended to take effect
tees, who have families to support, are num-
bered, agreement to support will not be held during his life.-Whiteley v. Babcock, 202 s.
"valuable consideration." -Davidson v. David-

W. 1091.
son, 202 S. W. 493.

en 206 (Mo.) Much stricter proof is required

to overthrow by parol evidence a deed proper-
(D) Delivery.

ly signed, acknowledged, and delivered than is
On 61 (Mo.) If deeds were delivered to trus- required to prove a nondelivery of a deed.-
tee with collateral agreement not to deliver Whiteley v. Babcock, 202 S. W. 1091.
them to the beneficiaries nor record them until em 208(1) (Mo.) Evidence held to sustain
after grantor's death, they were void because claim of delivery of deed.-Elsea v. Smith, 202
it was not intended that they should be ef. S. W. 1071.
fective or pass title during the grantor's life. 208(7) (Mo.) Mere fact that grantor of
-Whiteley y. Babcock, 202 S. W. 1091.

trust deed was seen about the land, collected

rents, paid taxes, and made improvements and
III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA- repairs until his death, did not show that the
TION.

deed was not intended to be effective until his
(A) General Rules of Construction. death, where he had orally agreed with the
93 (Mo.) A deed is to be construed as

grantee to make repairs, and that he would
nearly as possible in harmony with purpose of collect the rents, though such agreement was
grantor, to be determined from terms of in-cock, 202 S. W. 1091.

never written into the deed.-Whiteley v. Bab-
strument.-Elsea v. Smith, 202 S. W. 1071.

Evidence of plaintiffs, in action to set aside
(C) Estates and Interests Created,

deed on the ground that it was not intended

to take effect until graptor's death, held not
mm 127 (1) (Mo.) A deed by a father to a
daughter and to heirs of her body, containing chancellor beyond a reasonable doubt that such

of such character as to satisfy the mind of the
provision as to reverting of land in case of was the intention of the parties.-Id.
death of daughter or such heirs without issue,
would, in absence of statute, create an estate policy wherein insurer claimed policy was avoid-

em 208(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on fire
tail.-Elsea v. Smith, 202 S. W. 1071.
em 127(2) (Mo.) Although a deed to a daugh- deed back to plaintiff, 'executed by husband and

ed by change in title, evidence held to show
ter and heirs of her body provided that, in case wife to whom he had sold, became effective
of death of daughter without issue, lands
should revert to grantor or his heirs, grantee's Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Morgan,

conveyance when delivered to plaintiff.-
only son became vested with a fee on her 202 s. w. 784.
death, making attempted reversion to grantor
or his heirs of no effect in view of Rev. St. Em 211(1) (Ky.) In suit by grandchildren to
1909, $ 2872, abolishing estates tail.-Elsea v.

cancel deed of their grandmother to her sons
Smith, 202 S. W. 1071.

on ground of mental incapacity, evidence held

to warrant judgment for plaintiffs.-Davidson
Om 132 (Mo.) An estate in fee having been
created, a remainder cannot be limited thereon.em 211(4) (Ky.) In suit by grandchildren to

v. Davidson, 202 S. W. 493.
-Elsea v. Smith, 202 S. W. 1071.
Om 134 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 2874, cancel deed of their grandmother to her sons

on ground of undue influence. evidence held to
where land has been conveyed to a first taker warrant judgment for plaintiffs.-Davidson v.
for life, with limitations over fee created in Davidson, 202 S. W. 493.
second taker cannot be cut down by a de-
feasance or executory interest, but upon death
of first taker becomes absolute.-Elsea v.

DE FACTO DEPUTIES.
Smith, 202 S. W. 1071,

See Sheriffs and Constables, ww20.
(E) Conditions and Restrictions.
mom 155 (Ark.) Deed granting land for stated

DEFAMATION.
consideration provided that if the vendee fail- See Libel and Slander.
ed to pay the sums named the conveyance
should be void and all rights thereunder cease,

DEFAULT.
the estate was on condition subsequent subject
to forfeiture on failure to pay.-Swaim v. Beak- See Appeal and Error, em957; Judgment,
ley, 202 S. W. 476.

137-162.

as

DELAY.

DISCLAIMER.
See Appeal and Error, em 628; Equity, e69– See Estoppel, m71.
84; Telegraphs and Telephones, m 38.

DISCOUNTS.
DELEGATION OF POWER.

See Licenses, ww39.
See Constitutional Law, Om60, 61.

DISCOVERED PERIL.
DELIVERY.

See Street Railroads, w163.
See Deeds, 61, 200-208; Escrows.

DISCRETION OF COURT.
PEMURRER.

See Appeal and Error, m957-981; Criminal

Law, m 1153; Judgment, m139; New See Elections, em 287; Estoppel, m108;

Trial, em 6; Witnesses, Om240.
Pleading, 192–228; Quieting Title; Trial,
383.

DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.
DE NOVO.

See Appeal and Error, 781; Corporations,
See Appeal and Error, Cwm 893; Justices of the Om519; Criminal Law, Ow1131.
Peace, en 174.

DISORDERLY HOUSE.
DEPOSITARIES

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 Judges.

DISSOLUTION.
DEPUTIES.

See Partnership, Omw327; Religious Societies. See Sheriffs and Constables, On 20.

DISTRIBUTION.
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.

See Fraudulent Conveyances, Om318.
See Curtesy; Executors and Administrators ;
Taxation, Cm 859-905; Trusts; Wills.

DITCHES.

See Drains; Waters and Water Courses, DESCRIPTION

179. See Boundaries, C3, 25; Names; Taxation,

DIVORCE. 421; Wills, Om559, 565.

See Constitutional Law, em 277.
DETECTIVES.

II. GROUNDS.

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,

AND RELIEF.
DISCHARGE.

(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

(G) Appeal.

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 Animals, Om2; Highways, em 184; Rail-
roads, m419, 424.

DRAMSHOPS.
DOMICILE.

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.
county had no jurisdiction to administer her See Constitutional Law, om 277–318.
estate under Ky. St. $$ 3894, 4849.-Rudolph v.
Wetherington's Adm'r, 202 S. W. 652.

DURESS.
DOWER.

See Payment.
See Curtesy.

DYING DECLARATIONS.
DRAINS.

See Homicide, em 203–221.
See Constitutional Law, 54, 60.

EASEMENTS.
I. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAIN-

See Dedication; Highways.
TENANCE
On 2(1) (Mo.) There is no constitutional or

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.
lands, so that subsequent purchaser had no See Wills, Om781, 800.
right' in a different way chosen by himself, as
a way of necessity.--Id.

ELECTION OF REMEDIES.
EJECTMENT.

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

cause

« ПретходнаНастави »