« ПретходнаНастави »
propriate more land than was condemned.- the land in 1914.-War Fork Land Co. v. Mar. Riddle v. Williamson & P. C. R. Co., 202 S. W. cum, 202 S. W. 668. 484.
72(1) (Mo.App.) Mere delay of about a
year, by purchasers in investigating and bring. IV. REMEDIES OF OWNERS OF
ing suit for rescission for false representations, PROPERTY.
will not, on the ground of laches, bar the suit; em 295 (Ky.) In property owner's action for the vendors not being prejudiced thereby, damages for taking of land for sidewalk con- | Hayes v. Wyatt, 202 S. W. 584. struction, where the city denied plaintiff's title m84 (Mo.) The legal title of plaintiff cannot to the strip taken, plaintiff had the burden of be divested by application of the equitable docestablishing his title thereto.-Holmes v. Town trine of laches in an action purely one at law.of Rochester, 202 S. W. 871.
Hunter v. Moore, 202 S. W. 544. cm 300 (Ky.) Evidence held to support judg. 84 (Mo.) Doctrine of laches is only applicament dismissing petition in property owner's ble to equitable remedies, and not to vested action for damages for the city's taking land legal estates which are only divested by lapse from a lot for sidewalks.-Holmes v. Town of of time in accordance with provisions of staiRochester, 202 S. W. 871.
ute of limitations.-Newbrough v. Moore, 202
S. W, 547.
ERROR, WRIT OF.
See Appeal and Error.
Om3 (Tex.Civ.App.) Grantee named in deed EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.
cannot hold it as escrow, and it takes effect on See Constitutional Law, 136.
delivery despite his agreement that it shall not
be effective as conveyance until he has done ENCROACHMENT.
certain things.-Springfield Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Morgan, 202 S. W. 784.
See Curtesy; Deeds, Em127-134; Executors See Ejectment.
and Administrators; Life Estates; Perpetuities; Remainders; Tenancy in
Common; EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.
Wills, en 671. See Estoppel, m52-108.
See Appeal and Error, w882; Boundaries, See Cancellation of Instruments; Estoppel; Cw47; Corporations, 425 ;
Insurance, Fraudulent Conveyances; Injunction; Judg.
ww664; Judgment, Oma 590–747; Landlord ment, w 407-461; Marshaling Assets and and Tenant, 64; Principal and Agent, Securities; Partition; Quieting Title; Re On 25, 137. ceivers; Reformation of Instruments; Spe
II. BY DEED. cific Performance; Subrogation; Trusts.
(A) Creation and Operation in General. I. JURISDICTION, PRINCIPLES, AND 27(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) If defendant, substi, MAXIMS.
tute purchaser of public school lands, had filed (A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and
in general land office his transfer, together with tent of Jurisdiction in General. statutory affidavit negativing collusion, quesOm 39(1) (Ark.) The doctrine that chancery tiff, subsequent purchaser, for purpose of in
tion of collusion could not be raised by plaincourts will do complete justice when they assume jurisdiction for one purpose cannot be validating defendant's title. -Schauer v. Schau
er, 202 S. W. 1010. extended to different causes of action between different parties, involving the recovery of (B) Estates and Rights Subsequently Aclands or the enforcement of liens thereon in
quired. different counties.-Harris v. Smith, 202 S. W.m37 (Ky.) The rule as to a subsequently 244.
acquired title inuring to the benefit of a grantee (C) Principles and Maxims of Equity.
does not apply to a case of one conveying land
without authority.--War Fork Land Co. v. Cm 65(1) (Mo. App.) Agent of corporation who Marcum, 202 S. W. 668. participated in deceit of third party in securing lease could not invoke against his prin III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. cipal clean-bands doctrine, on ground of de
(A) Nature and Essentials in General. ceit.-Mountain Grove Creamery, Poultry & Produce Co. v. Willow Springs Creamery Co., Cw52 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where one by his acts, 202 S. W. 1054.
declarations, or silence, where it is his duty
to speak, has induced another, in reliance on II. LACHES AND STALE DEMANDS. such acts, declarations, or silence, to enter into ww 69 (Mo.) Defense of laches is not available transaction, he shall not later, to hurt of perwhere plaintiff had no actual notice of defend-son misled, impeach transaction, being estopant's acts, and defendant was not misled by ped.-Barclay v. Dismuke, 202 S. W. 364. any act of plaintiff, and was not injured by the C 54 (Ky.) A party cannot be charged with delay.-Hunter v. Moore, 202 S. W. 514. notice of something he did not authorize and Cm71(2) (Ky.) Failure to inquire into the un
never heard of, or be estopped by some act or authorized conveyance of land by another to conduct of another unkuown to him.-War whom the owner afterward, in 1874, gave an
Fork Land Co. v. Marcum, 202 S. W. 668. unexecuted power of attorney to convey it, was 621) (Tex.) Where property owners have
streets and improved them, and other persons pits authorized officers title would pass to purhave purchased property on such streets in re- chaser.-De la 0 v. Consolidated Kansas City liance upon the recorded plat, the city and the Smelting & Refining Co., 202 S. W. 1027. property owners are estopped to change the w28 (Mo.App.) Courts of Missouri will take plat.-Halsell v. Ferguson, 202 S. W. 317. judicial notice of statutes of Territory of Loui
siana before state was carved out of it, be(B) Grounds of Estoppel.
cause such were acts of antecedent government Om71 (Ky.) In an action to correct a deed al- of state.-Lillard v. Lierley, 202 S. W. 1057. leged to have been taken in grantee's name by w35 (Mo.App.) Courts cannot take judicial fraud, grantee's admissions that she did not notice of statutes and decisions of sister state. own the property did not create an equitable --La Duke v. Dexter, 202 S. W. 254. estoppel, where the property was rightly con- m43(4) (Mo.App.) Decisions of courts of othveyed in her name.-Furey v. Gallagher, 202 S. er states must be pleaded and proved. -Lillard W. 641.
v. Lierley, 202 S. W. 1057. Ow78 (4) (Mo.) Where a bank purchased the assets and assumed the debts of another bank
II. PRESUMPTIONS. and took possession of its property, it was estopped to allege that the sale of the assets fendant compress company, with whom plain
en 69 (Tex.Civ.App.) Presumption is that dewas invalid for the purpose of defeating an action for tax levied upon stockholders, which tiff stored cotton, was doing a lawful business under Rev. St. 1909, $ 11359, the bank itself in a lawful way.-Jackson v. Greenville Comwas required to pay.-State ex rel. and to use
press Co., 202 S. W. 324. of Bay v. Citizens' State Bank, 202 S. W. 382. Om75 (Ark.) Where plaintiff had in its posemo 83(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under agreement that session a letter, but failed to produce it, undefendant was to receive, smelt, and pay for favorable inferences against defendant could ore coming from plaintiff's mines only, plain- not be indulged as to the contents of the lettiff, who, through his agent, delivered' as his ter. --Burke v. Napoleon Hill Cotton Co., 202
S. W. 827. own, to defendant, ore coming from mine of another company, would be estopped to
set Cw80(1) (Mo.App.) Nebraska having up that such company was deprived of title been an English possession, it cannot be preby confiscation of Mexican government.--De sumed that common law is in force, but it will la 0 v. Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & be presumed that law is same as the statute Refining Co., 202 S. W. 1027.
and constructive law of forum.-Lillard v. Lier. w83(4) (Tex.) Where property owners have ley, 202. S. W. 1057.
In action on Nebraska note, where only fiveplatted their land and faced lots upon certain streets and improved them, and other persons shown in evidence, and that maker left such
year statute of limitations of such state was have purchased property on such streets in reliance upon the recorded plat, the city and the state soon after executing note, Rev. St. 1909, property owners are estopped to change the $ 1897, relating to absence from state, will be plat.-Halsell v. Ferguson, 202 S. W. 317.
presumed to be law of Nebraska.-Id.
Where Nebraska was carved from Louisiana (E) Pleading. Evidence, Trial, and Re
Territory and made Indian country. laws of view.
the territory became inoperative, and cannot Om 108 (Ky.) In suit to enforce lien for street em 80(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of
be presumed to still be law of Nebraska.-Id. improvement, that defendant by allowing street to be improved, without making any objection pleading and proof, the statute law of another until work was completed, waived his right to state will be presumed to be the same as the resist collection, could be 'enforced upon plain- law of the forum.-Thompson v. Thompson, 202 tiff's demurrer to defendant's answer.-Realty
S. W. 175. Savings Co. v. Southern Asphaltoilene Road CM80(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of showCo., 202 S. W. 679.
ing law of state wherein note was given as to
which the statute of limitations might have acETC.
crued, had there not been letters preventing
bar. the court must presume such law to be See Corporations, Om656.
the same as the law of the state wherein the
action was brought.-Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. EVICTION.
v. Humphries, 202 S. W. 981.
w83(2) (Mo.App.) On bill to enjoin street imSee Landlord and Tenant, 171, 173. provements under contract, it will be presumed
that municipal authorities complied with statEVIDENCE
utory requirements where there are no allegaSee Criminal Law, 304-511; Depositions; | 202 S. W. 266.
tions to contrary.-Frazier v. City of Rockport, Witnesses. For evidence as to particular facts or issues or
ww83(7) (Mo.) In absence of evidence to conin particular actions or proceedings, see also had performed duty to make out and file with
trary, trial court had right to presume sheriff the various specific topics. For review of rulings relating to evidence, see Carroll, 202 S. W. 4.
recorder an abstract of attachment.-Elrod v. Appeal and Error. Reception at trial, see Criminal Law, C665– IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND 683; Trial, em 35-105; Wills, w322.
COMPETENCY IN GENERAL.
(A) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues, em? (Mo.App.) It is matter of common knowl- insurance companies for conspiring to prevent
ww117 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action against fire edge, which court judicially knows, that iron plaintiff from obtaining insurance, that one fue 'sheet of boiler, subjected to ordinary uses, of defendant's witnesses bad refused to anwill deteriorate.-Anders v. Lusk, 202 S. W. swer on the ground of privilege was properly 304.
excluded in the absence of a showing that deem26 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court of Appeals will fendants had suggested such refusal.-Palatake judicial notice that Carranza was head of tine Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 202 S. W. 1014. a military government in northern Mexico at time ores in question were imported, that
(B) Res Geste. such government could seize and sell property w 121(12) (Mo. App.) In action against receivfor military purposes, and that by such sale by Iers of railroad for injuries to servant, while
tightening “sunflower” in boiler, evidence that, negligently broke plaintiff's sternum, statement foreman, when plaintiff fell, said, “I was afraid of defendant member, while treating plaintiff of that," held admissible as res gestæ.-Ander- after injury, to effect that he was cause of all son v. Lusk, 202 S. W. 304.
the suffering, was admissible against him.-Ateww123(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of wit- | kinson v., American School of Osteopathy, 202 ness who went to scene of wreck immediately S. W. 452. after it happened, that it was about 20 minutes (C) By Grantors, Former Owners, or Privbefore members of train crew who went away returned, and that deceased was not removed from wreckage until they got back, was part of w230(3) (Mo.) Loose declarations of granres geste.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hicks, tion of deed are not sufficient to overturn the 202 S. W. 778. Cu 123(11) (Ky.) Declarations of motorman absence of the grantee.-Whiteley v. Babcock,
deed, especially where generally made in the about five minutes after car killed boy, and 202 S. W. 1091. while there viewing body, "I thought the boy would get out of the way," held admissible as
(D) By Agents or Other Representatives. part of res gestæ.-Louisville Ry. Co. v. Broaddus' Adm'r, 202 S. W. 654.
244(11) (Mo.App.) In action against school
of osteopathy and a member of its faculty, wbo, Om 127(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) In personal injury while treating plaintiff, negligently broke her action, expressions of person injured concern
sternum, what was said by president while mak. ing bodily pain or illness, when shown to have ing diagnosis, at request of defendant member, followed injury, are competent.-Northern Tex- with reference to condition of plaintiff's steras Traction Co. v. Crouch, 202 S. W. 781.
num, ribs, etc., was admissible.-Atkinson v. (C) Similar Facts and Transactions.
American School of Osteopathy, 202 S. W. 452. Emo 129(6) (Mo.App.) In an action to recover
(E) Proof and Effect. bidder's deposit held by defendant's architects after rejection of bid, the admission in evidence sion that plaintiff was entitled to recover, un
On 265(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant's admisof another bidder's transactions with these architects held not error.–Fairbanks Morse & pleaded, was admission that plaintiff's deed and
less defeated by some of special defenses Co. v. Merchants' & Consumers' Market House deeds through which he deraigned title conAss'n, 202 S. W. 596.
veyed legal title to strip in controversy.-Deck(E) Competency.
er v. Rucker, 202 S. W. 1001. Om 155(8) (Tex.Civ.App.). In suit for conversion absence of grantees subsequent to executing
265(18) (Mo.) Grantor's declarations in the of iron purchased by plaintiff, fact that it was deeds as to his intent that they should not be developed on cross-examination that plaintiff had in his pocket letters from iron company
delivered until after his death, even when adoffering so much a ton for iron, and was call mitted without objection, were entitled to no ed on by defendant's attorney to let him. see throw the deeds.-Whiteley v. Babcock, 202 S.
weight or probative force in order to them, who then asked questions as to plaintiff's
W. 1091. knowledge as to who wrote them, etc., did not authorize submission of letters in evidence by
VIII. DECLARATIONS. plaintiff.-Waldrop v. Goltzman, 202 S. W. 335.
(A) Nature, Form, and Incidents in Gen
eral. V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.
272 (Mo.App.) Defendant's admissions, alOm 158 (26) (Tex.Civ.App.) In
though made before he attained majority, he! against a surety company on an indemnity admissible against him.-Pledge v. Griffith, 202 bond originally executed by another company, S. W. 460. but reinsured by defendant company, a letter, had reinsured bond, although not the best evi- husband,' her predecessor in title, to defendwritten by surety company, stating that it w 274(11) (Ark.) In suit to restrain removal
of fence, declarations of plaintiff's deceased dence of the assumption of the obligation, was ant's agent, as to location of his fence, made competent evidence thereof.-American Surety while he was in possession, were admissible Co. v. Camp, 202 S. W. 798.
to show intention with which he was occupy. En 178(?).(Tex.Civ.App.) In action for per: ing.–Britt v. Berry, 202 S. W. 830. sonal injuries, plaintiff having proved loss of his state license to act as insurance agent, pa X. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. rol testimony of himself and wife that he had such license was admissible.-Rick Furniture (D) Production, Authentication, and Ef. Co. v. Smith, 202 S. W. 99.
370(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action against VII. ADMISSIONS.
a surety company on an indemnity bond, rein(A) Nature, Form, and Incidents in Gen. sured by defendant, recognition by defendant eral.
of the existence of the contract rendered such
bond admissible in evidence, without prelimiww219(2) (Mo.App.) In action for wrongful nary proof of execution.-American Surety Co. death, evidence by defendant's motorman that v. Čamp, 202 S. W. 798. he had refused to testify before coroner's jury because defendant had advised him not to, was 383 (7), (Ark.) Where a deed of trust exadmissible as showing an admission on defend-pressly authorized the substitution of a trustee ant's part.-Kamoss v. Kansas City & W. B. who recited in his deed that he had complied Ry. Co., 202 S. W. 434.
with all the requirements of the deed of trust em220(2) (Mo.A pp.) In action against school facie true, shifts the burden on the party as
in making such sale,” such recital, being prima of osteopathy and member of its faculty, who sailing the deed of sale to prove the contrary. negligently broke plaintiff's sternum, held, court -Fillips v. G. B. Mixon & Co., 202 S. W. 701. properly permitted plaintiff to relate conversation to effect that, when she charged defendant
XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVI. member with responsibility for her injuries, ac
DENCE AFFECTING WRITINGS. cusation was not denied by him.-Atkinson v. American School of Osteopathy, 202 S. W. 452. (A) Contradicting, Varying, or Adding to (B) By Parties or Others Interested in
Terms of Written Instrument.
0387(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) In view of Rev. St. 222(2) (Mo.App.) In action against school 1911, art. 2276, where tax collector sues county
record, under an order of the commissioners', erly permitted to give their opinions as to court, parol evidence that the order did not husband's sanity.-Heinbach v. Heinbach, 202 correctly describe the contract is inadmissible, S. W. 1123. as contradicting the record.--King v. Marion In widow's action to establish husband's will, County, 202 S. W. 1052.
defended on ground of incapacity, witnesses, ww408(7), (Tex.Civ.App.) Ordinarily, ware- who had seen husband every day for three houseman's receipt is a contract which cannot years and present when will was executed, be impeached by parol testimony.- Jackson v. held competent to give conclusion as to wheth. Greenville Compress Co., 202 s. W. 324.
er husband at execution of will had sufficient
mind to comprehend who his children were, (C) Separate or Subsequent Oral Agree- nature and extent of his property, and to ment.
whom he desired to give it.-Id. w 441(11) (Mo.App.) In an action on a note mw 489 (Tex.Civ.App.) In
of converalleged to have been procured by fraud, evi, sion of personal property, witness must show dence that plaintiff's cashier orally represented he was acquainted with market value of the that it was not to be paid unless money was property at such time and place.-Waldrop v. made out of the sale of the land for which it Goltzman, 202 S. W. 335. was given held inadmissible as violating the rule against showing contemporaneous oral (B) Subjects of Expert Testimony. agreement.--First Nat. Bank v. Henry, 202 Sem 505 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for damages W. 281.
to shipment of horses, it was proper for ex(D) Construction or Application of Lan- pert witness to testify to market value of horsguage of Written Instrument.
es at point of destination if they had been
transported in the usual manner and time; such Omw 448 (Mo.) If terms are susceptible of more testimony being in respect to a fact.-Galveston, than one meaning so that reasonable men may H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Gibbons, 202 S. W. 352. fairly and honestly differ in construction there-m506 (Mo.) In action for injuries by exploof, extrinsic evidence is admissible to resolve sion of powder mill, physician was properly alsuch ambiguity in order to arrive at the true lowed to state whether the conditions found in intention.-Interior Linseed Co. Becker- plaintiff could have resulted from the accidenr; Moore Paint Co., 202 $. W. 566.
such question not invading the province of the Om 450(8) (Mo.) A contract of sale held so jury.- Liggett v. Excelsior Powder Mfg. Co., indefinite as to admit extrinsic evidence to fix 202 S. W. 372. the time of delivery.-Interior Linseed Co. v. 534 (Mo.) Experts in sewer construction Becker-Moore Paint Co., 202 S. W. 566.
could testify in the city's action for the con
tractor's breach as to the cost of completing XII. OPINION EVIDENCE.
the work according to contract.-City of Ken(A) Conclusions and Opinions of Witness- nett v. Katz Const. Co, 202 S. W. 558.
es in General. cm 470 (Mo.) A nonexpert witness may give
(C) Competency of Experts. his conclusions or deductions when matter is em 537 (Mo.App.) Permitting a lay witness, one which witness of ordinary intelligence can who had herself been a sufferer with asthma for understand, and such conclusions or deduc- years, to state that she had never discovered tions are based on facts not capable of being symptoms of asthma in plaintiff, was not prej. properly or accurately described.-Heinbach v. udicial error.-Atkinson v. American School of Heinbach, 202 S. W. 1123.
Osteopathy, 202 S. W. 452. Ow471(24) (Ky.) In action against railroad Cw538 (Ky.) In prosecution of board of councompany for assault and abuse by brakeman, cil of city for creating and maintaining nuievidence that women left, the station because of sance by permitting sewage field to become inbrakeman's language was properly excluded; adequate physician held qualified to testify as the reason why they left being but the witness's expert.--Board of Council of City of Danville opinion.-Blackburn v. Williamson & P. C. Ry. v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 858. Co., 202 S. W. 500. Om471(26) (Ky.) Statement that servant
(D) Examination of Experts. was injured on canal property ceded to the Ow553(1) (Mo.App.) Every party has right to government, by one who did not profess to place before jury scientific inferences properly know the location of the right of way, was deducible from such facts as evidence tends to only conclusion.-Henry Bickel Co. v. prove.-Atkinson v. American School of OsteWright's Adm'x, 202 S. W. 672.
opathy, 202 S. W. 452. On 471 (35) (Mo.App.) It was error to permit Counsel may put to an expert a question in witness to testify as to whether lot had been which the things which the evidence adduced benefited or damaged by improvement of street. tends to prove, and which counsel claims to -Nestlehut v. City of De Soto, 202 S. W. 425. have proved, are stated as a hypothesis.-Id. Cw471 (35) (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action against ww553(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) The age, experifire insurance companies for conspiring to pre- ence, and average monthly earnings of brokers' vent plaintiff from obtaining insurance, plain- representative are not facts to be considered in tiff's statement that he had been damaged held determining reasonable value of brokers' seryinadmissible as being a conclusion.-Palatine ices for work done largely by such representaIns. Co. v. Griffin, 202 S. W. 1014.
tive, and a hypothetical question based thereon 472(8) (Mo.) In widow's action to estab- was properly excluded.-Brady v. Richey & lish husband's will, where witnesses were per Casey, 202 S. W. 170. mitted to detail all particulars of husband's Ow553(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for damlife, court properly ruled out conclusions as ages for injuries sustained by minor while atto sanity where particular witnesses had nei- tempting to board defendant's street car, statether had business transactions with him nor ment by medical expert that displacement of witnessed transactions of his.-Heinbach v. womb would likely cause accelerated or irreguHeinbach, 202 S. W. 1123.
lar menstruation was reversible error, in ab474(4) (Mo.) In widow's action to establish sence of evidence of such injury.--Northern husband's will, defended on ground of inca- Texas Traction Co. v. Crouch, 202 S. W. 781. pacity, witnesses who had had business trans-m558(11) (Mo.App.) It was not error to peractions with husband, some over many years, mit counsel on cross-examination to contradict except two or three who had seen him when expert witness by asking whether "Hulett," engaged in business transactions, were prop- whom he had testified was a recognized author.
ity, did not state that direct violence miglat
EXECUTION. cause depression, resulting in fractured cartilage.--Atkinson v. American School of Oste- See Attachment; Exemptions; Garnishment; opathy, 202 S. W. 452.
Homestead ; Judgment, 495 ; Judicial
Sales; Wills, w 108-119. (F) Effect of Opinion Evidence.
III. ISSUANCE, FORM, AND REQUI. Om568(1) (Ark.) Opinion evidence of witnesses
SITES OF WRIT. that emery wheel would not have broken at the speed at which it was driven, unless defective, Ow75 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. 88 3215, 5073, is insufficient to establish a defect in the appli- issuance of process or payment on a judgment ance.-Export Cooperage Co. v. Ramsey, 202 s. will toll statute and form a new period from W. 468.
which it will run for issuance of process there
on.-Koontz v. La Dow, 202 S. W. 686. XIV. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY.
V. STAY, QUASHING, VACATING, 588 (Mo.) Testimony of witness present at AND RELIEF AGAINST EXconversation between grantor and grantee un
ECUTION. der a deed of trust made many years before 171(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In a suit for conthe trial is not entitled to very great weight, version in unlawfully seizing property on an since the witness, not having been interested execution, to support which there is no judgin the transaction, may not have fully under- ment, a writ of injunction may issue to prestood it, and because of infirmities of memory. --Whiteley v. Babcock, 202 S. W. 1091.
vent the sale of the property prior to final determination.--Ramsel v. Miller, 202 S. W. 1050.
Om 172(7) (Ark.) Although constable impropEXAMINATION.
erly left attached property in hands of de. See Criminal Law, m117012; Evidence,
fendant, who obtained an injunction temporarily
restraining its sale and immediately removed 553, 558; Witnesses, em 240–280.
property, exceeding in value plaintiff's judg
ment and although plaintiff was not party to EXCEPTIONS.
injunction suit and not named in bond, the
constable in summary proceedings under KirSee Appeal and Error, em 256, 257, 501; Crim- by's Dig. $ 3998, was entitled to damages inal Law, Ow1054; Trial, On 280.
for the benefit of the plaintiff, for the amount of plaintiff's judgment.--Shugart v. Sorrells,
202 S. W. 817. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF. See Appeal and Error, Saw 870; Criminal Law, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Cm1090-1093.
See Appeal and Error, w374; Constitutional II. SETTLEMENT, SIGNING, AND
Law, em 283; Payment, m70; Trusts;
Wills. FILING. C4! (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bills of exceptions II. APPOINTMENT. QUALIFICATION, not filed within the time allowed therefor can.
AND TENURE. not be considered on appeal.--Elledge v. St. ll (Mo.App.) Right of action for death of Louis
Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, 202 S. child having no property authorizes appointment W. 203.
of administrator.-La Duke v. Dexter, 202 S. ww59(2) (Mo.App.) When bill of exceptions W. 254. is signed and filed, it is part of record, and can On 15 (Ark.) A testatrix has a right in her be amended only by motion nunc pro tunc, will to appoint any one whom she deems propbased on proper memoranda.-Keet & Rountree er as executor.-Bocquin v. Theurer, 202 S. Dry Goods Co. v. Williams, 202 S. W. 620. W. 845.
59 (4) (Mo.App.) When term ends at which w20(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rev. St. 1911, art. case is tried, and time is given to file bill of 7491, authorizing county court to appoint adexceptions, which is signed, filed, and made ministrator in inheritance tax proceedings withpart of record, latter is complete and imports out notice if no application for letters has been verity, and judge cannot amend bill of excep- made within three months, etc., is not invalid tions after term, though time for filing has because not requiring that notice be given, esnot expired.-Keet & Rountree Dry Goods pecially as property cannot be sold to satisfy Co. v. Williams, 202 S. W. 620.
tax without notice.--Dodge v. Youngblood, 202
S. W. 116.
em 29(5) (Ark.) Appointment of administrator
of estate is conclusive of question of necesSee Damages, 132, 134.
sity for administration, but is not conclusive of question of whether lands of estate are
needed to pay debts.-Turley v. Gorman, 202 EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY. S. W. 822.
cm31 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, em8(1) (Mo.) Where defendant, after using art. 3289, providing that executor under forforged abstract to acquire title to plaintiff's eign will filed in Texas should supersede adland, stands mute without attempt to justify ministrator previously appointed there, an inhis conduct or show that plaintiff obtained mer- heritance tax administrator appointed under chantable title to land received in exchange, Rev. St. 1911, art. 7491, is superseded by ex. plaintiff need not show that title to land receiv-ecutor under probated foreign will.-Dodge v. ed by him failed by reason of forgery.-Huggins Youngblood, 202 S. W. 116. v. Davidson, 202 S. W. 395.
C33 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where one nominated by mw8(4) (Mo.) Evidence held to show that de- will as independent executor was appointed fendant falsely represented to plaintiff that he guardian of estate of minor beneficiaries after
owner of land exchanged for plaintiff's, filing his application to probate the will but prithat abstract of title which he delivered to or to admission of the will to probate and his plaintiff to induce him to exchange was reliable, appointment as independent executor, appointand that plaintiff in reliance upon representa- ment as guardian did not amount to resignation tions made exchange.-Huggins v. Davidson, of his executorship.-Beckham v. Beckham, 202