COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS. See "Compromise and Settlement." *In an action on a note, a composition agreement held sufficiently pleaded.-J. M. Robinson, Norton & Co. v. Meyers (Ky.) 428. CONDITIONS. Conditions precedent to foreclosure of mort- In insurance policies, see "Insurance," §§ 5, 6. CONFESSION. Admissibility in evidence, see "Criminal Law," § 12. CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS. Disclosure of communications, see "Witnesses," § 1. CONFIRMATION. Of judicial sale, see "Judicial Sales." CONFLICT OF LAWS. As to descent of land, see "Descent and Distri- CONNECTING CARRIERS. Where plaintiff in an action on a note claimed that by mistake the composition agreement failed to specify that defendant sureties on the note should not be released, evidence held to sustain a verdict for defendants.-J. M. Robinson, Nor- See "Carriers," §§ 2, 3. ton & Co. v. Meyers (Ky.) 428. In an action on a note, the burden held upon plaintiff to show that a composition agreement signed by it by mistake failed to specify that the sureties on the note should not be released. -J. M. Robinson, Norton & Co. v. Meyers (Ky.) 428. COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. CONSIDERATION. Of bill or note, see "Bills and Notes," § 1. CONSTABLES. See "Accord and Satisfaction"; "Compositions See "Sheriffs and Constables." with Creditors"; "Payment"; "Release." A settlement of a will contest between plaintiff and defendant held not to estop plaintiff from asserting a claim against defendant as testator's executrix.-Hespen's Ex'x v. Hespen (Ky.) 99. COMPUTATION. Of interest, see "Interest," § 2. Of period of limitation, see "Limitation of Actions," § 2. CONCEALED WEAPONS. See "Weapons." CONCEALMENT. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Protection of civil rights, see "Civil Rights." Provisions relating to particular subjects. See "Attorney and Client," § 3; "Counties," 2; "Courts," §§ 1. 2, 4, 6; "Dower," § 2; "Evidence," § 3; "Exemptions," § 1; "Home stead," § 2; "Injunction," § 2; "Intoxicating Liquors," § 2; "Judges," § 1; "Jury," § 1; "Municipal Corporations," §§ 7, 10; "Schools and School Districts," § 1; "Sunday"; "Taxation," § 1. Enactment and validity of statutes, see "Statutes," § 1. Special or local laws, see "Statutes," § 2. Subjects and titles of statutes, see "Statutes,” § 3. Rights of persons accused or convicted of crime. Effect on limitation, see "Limitation of Ac- Privilege of witness, see "Witnesses," § 2. tions," § 2. CONCLUSION. Of witness, see "Evidence," § 10. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. Of courts, see "Courts," § 5. CONDEMNATION. *The state Constitution is not a delegation of Taking property for public use, see "Eminent powers, but a limitation, so that wherever it Domain." has not limited the power of the Legislature, *Point annotated. See syllabus. that body may act.-Bullitt v. Sturgeon (Ky.) | ment of Russellville Waterworks Imp. Dist. 468. (Ark.) 867. § 2. Distribution of governmental pow ers and functions. Cr. Code Prac. § 346, authorizing the Governor to fix a day when the execution of a capital sentence is not carried out on a day specified in the judgment, is not a violation of Const. § 28, prohibiting one department of government from infringing on the prerogatives of another.-Bullitt v. Sturgeon (Ky.) 468. *Courts cannot interfere with the exercise of legislative power conferred on cities of the fourth class by Ky. St. 1903, §§ 3484, 3485, to divide the city into wards, by declaring invalid an ordinance dividing a city of that class so as to cause unequal representation.-Moore v. City of Georgetown (Ky.) 905. § 3. Privileges or immunities, and class legislation. *Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, and article 14, § 1, were not designed to interfere with the state's exercise of its police power.-De Grazier v. Stephens (Tex.) 992. *Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, and article 14. § 1; are violated by any act, save in the exercise of the state's police power that imposes a burden on a nonresident of the state which is not imposed upon residents of the state.-De Grazier v. Stephens (Tex.) 992. *Provisions of Act April 10, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 260. c. 138) § 10, requiring an applicant for a retail liquor license to be a resident of the state and county, held not a mere guise to evade Const. U. S. art. 4, § 2, and article 14, § 1, but calculated to aid in regulating the liquor traffic. -De Grazier v. Stephens (Tex.) 992. declaring the business of an owner a nuisance The action of the board of health of a city in held not to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law.-State ex rel. Parker-Washington Co. v. City of St. Louis (Mo.) 748. *The assignee and successor of a toll road company held not deprived of its contract or property rights by an injunction restraining it from charging tolls for the use of the road after the charter of the original corporation had expired.-State ex rel. Hines v. Scott County Macadamized Road Co. (Mo.) 752. *Rev. St. 1899, § 5981 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 3021), relating to the assessment of the cost of constructing sidewalks against the abutting property, held not in violation of Const. 1875, art. 2, 30 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 166), providing that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.-Naylor v. City of Harrisonville (Mo.) 1074. *Rev. St. 1899, § 6975 (Ann. St. 1906, p. maimed by dogs, held not in violation of Const. 3402), providing a recovery for sheep killed or 1875, art. 2, § 30 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 166), as depriving a person of property without due process of law.-Holmes v. Murray (Mo.) 1085. *Act April 5, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 156, c. 77), of intoxicating liquors unlawfully kept for sale in so far as it provides for searches and seizures in local option districts, held not unconstitutional as depriving persons of their property without due process of law.-Ex parte Dupree (Tex.) 493; Ex parte Byrd (Tex.) 496. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS. § 4. Equal protection of laws. CONTEMPT. In violation of injunction, see "Injunction," § 5. *Act Ind. March 4, 1893 (Laws 1893, p. 294, 366. *Ky. St. 1903, § 576, requiring corporations, except those therein named, to place under their names on advertising matter the word "incorporated," held not, because of such exemption, discriminatory or partial legislation within the Constitution of the state or of the United States. -Commonwealth v. Remington Typewriter Co. (Ky.) 399; Same v. Windisch-Muhihauser Brewing Co., Id.; Same v. Lexington Brewing Co., Id.; Same v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., Id. Ky. Cr. Code Prac. § 281, held not to discriminate against persons of any race or color.-Miller v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 899. *Const. U. S. Amend. 14, § 1, held not to prohibit the indictment and trial of a negro unless the jury is composed in part of persons of his own race.-Miller v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 899. *Under Const. U. S. Amend. 14, § 1, a statute excluding from jury service persons of the negro race is invalid as a denial of the equal protection of the laws.-Miller v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 899. 5. Due process of law. Const. art. 19, § 27, held to create a vested right in owners of city real estate, and not to be merely directory.-Craig v. Board of Improve CONTINGENT REMAINDERS. Creation, see "Wills," § 4. CONTINUANCE. In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," Review of rulings on motion for as dependent failing to transmit a telegram, held no abuse *In an action against a telegraph company for of discretion to refuse a continuance for absent testimony.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Woodard (Ark.) 579. *Voluntary drunkenness and the illness from long continued alcoholism as a ground for continuance distinguished.-Harrod v. Hutchinson (Ky.) 365. *A showing made by defendant for continuance because of his illness held sufficient.-Harrod v. Hutchinson (Ky.) 365. *Point annotated. See syllabus. *The discretion of trial courts in the matter of continuances in actions at law must not be exercised arbitrarily.-Harrod v. Hutchinson (Ky.) 365. Application for a continuance for absence of witnesses held insufficient as not showing how or why the expected testimony was material.Raley v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 342. A defendant, in an action for negligent death, is not entitled as a matter of course to a continuance on the filing of an amended petition making other persons plaintiff.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. Howell (Tex. Civ. App.) 560. CONTRACTS. see Agreements within statute of frauds, Harmless error in general in rulings in action Operation and effect of customs or usages, see "Customs and Usages." Operation and effect of usury laws, see "Usury," § 1. Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence," 8 9. Reformation, see "Reformation of Instruments." Restraining breach, see "Injunction," § 4. Specific performance, see "Specific Perform ance. Subrogation to rights or remedies of creditors, see "Subrogation." Sufficiency of instructions in action for breach, see "Trial," § 7. Contracts of particular classes of persons. See "Husband and Wife," § 2; "Master and Servant"; "Municipal Corporations," §§ 5, 6; "Railroads," § 1. Banks, see "Banks and Banking," § 1. Contracts relating to particular subjects. See "Boundaries," § 2; "Interest"; "Mines and Minerals," § 1; "Trade-Marks and TradeNames," § 2. Construction of railroad crossing, see "Railroads," § 1. Ground for mechanics' liens, see "Mechanics' Liens," § 2. Particular classes of express contracts. Stipulations in actions, see "Stipulations." Particular classes of implied contracts. See "Account Stated"; "Contribution"; "Money Lent"; "Work and Labor." Particular modes of discharging contracts. See "Accord and Satisfaction"; "Compromise and Settlement"; "Payment"; "Release." § 1. Requisites and validity. *Where a party to a contract had ample opportunity to read it before signing it, and the contents thereof were not misrepresented, he cannot evade the operation of the contract by proof that he signed it without reading it.Mitchell Mfg. Co. v. Ike Kempner & Bro." (Ark.) 880. *Where one receiving a proposal to contract makes a counter proposal, he declines the first proposal, since to complete a contract the acceptance must be as broad as the proposal; a qualified acceptance being a new proposal.Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Milet (Ky.) 144. *Right of one to recover on a written contract requiring another, through mistake, to pay $10 per 1,000 feet for cutting timber, stated. Mercer v Hickman-Ebbert Co. (Ky.) 441. A contract to organize a corporation to regulate prices of the production of furnaces held void under Sess. Acts 1891, p. 186, so that a stockholder was not liable for money loaned the corporation.-Euston v. Edgar (Mo.) 773. To constitute a contract there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties.-Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. (Mo. App.) 777. *The general rule is that it is for the court to construe the effect of writings relied on to make a contract, and the effect of unambiguous oral words; but where the words are in dispute, the question whether they were used or not is for the jury.-Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. (Mo. App.) 777. § 2. Construction and operation. *Where a written contract contains an express stipulation against warranty, none can be implied.-Mitchell Mfg. Co. v. Ike Kempner & Bro. (Ark.) 880. the whole of the contract after giving effect to *The intention of the parties collected from all its parts, if possible, governs the construction thereof.-Chicago Veneer Co. v. Anderson (Ky.) 108. *In options to buy or sell on account, time is of the essence of the contract.-Smith v. Howard (Ky.) 411. *A water company held bound by a construction given a contract with a city for about four years.-Bounds v. Hubbard City (Tex. Civ. App.) 56. § 3. Rescission and abandonment. *Proper time to avoid a voidable contract stated.-City Nat. Bank of Texarkana v. Merchants' & Planters' Nat. Bank of Mt. Vernon (Tex. Civ. App.) 338. § 4. Performance or breach. *Where plaintiff gave defendant an option on land, but was unable to convey within the specified time because of a lien against the property, defendant does not therefore have additional time in which to exercise the option.Smith v. Howard (Ky.) 411. A lien against the property held not such a defect in the title as would make plaintiff unable to carry out his agreement to convey.-Smith v. Howard (Ky.) 411. *A contractor held not entitled to recover for materials and labor furnished before further performance of a contract to install a fuel oil plant was prevented by the passage of an ordinance.-Binz v. National Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 543. *Point annotated. See syllabus. *One contracting with defendant to install a fuel oil plant and prevented from completing the contract by the passage of an ordinance held not entitled, under a provision of the contract, to recover for material delivered on defendant's premises and labor performed.-Binz v. National Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 543. *Under a contract whereby defendant was to furnish sufficient water for plaintiff's rice crop, defendant held not liable for a breach if he used his best judgment as to the amount of water to be supplied.-Kelly v. Corrington (Tex. Civ. App.) 1155. § 5. Actions for breach. *Evidence in an action on a contract for cutting timber held to show that the price was fixed in the written contract at $10 through mistake, instead of $1, as agreed, and that the contractor knew of the mistake.-Mercer v. Hickman-Ebbert Co. (Ky.) 441. Evidence as to the customary charge for cutting hickory timber is admissible on an issue whether the price, $10, specified in a written contract for such service, resulted from mistake; the agreed price being $1.-Mercer v. Hickman-Ebbert Co. (Ky.) 441. with the contract.-Kerr v. Blair (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. In an action for breach of contract to thresh a crop of rice, a charge that defendant was only his contract was properly refused.-Kerr v. Blair obligated to exercise ordinary care to perform (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. A paragraph of a charge for breach of a contract to furnish sufficient water for plaintiff's rice crop held not subject to certain objection.Kelly v. Corrington (Tex. Civ. App.) 1155. CONTRADICTION. Of record, see "Appeal and Error," § 16. CONTRIBUTION. *Where a joint judgment is settled by one party for less than its face, the other is liable for contribution to the extent of half the amount paid.-Thompson v. Fitzgerald & Ray (Tex. Civ. App.) 334. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See "Negligence," § 3. Of owner of animal killed or injured by opera- An instruction in an action on a warranty that an asphalt floor would continue waterproof for five years, that plaintiff could recover the value of salt in the basement beneath the floor destroyed by the leakage of the floor was proper, when taken in connection with an instruction as to the plaintiff's duty to lessen the dam-Of person injured by defective street, see "Muages as far as possible.-Gallais v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. (Mo. App.) 693. Where the defense in an action on a warranty that an asphalt floor would continue waterproof for five years was that the floor leaked on account of specific acts of negligence by plaintiff, an instruction failing to submit the question whether defendant knew the use to which the floor was to be put was not erroneous.-Gallais v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. (Mo. App.) 693. In an action for breach of a warranty that an asphalt floor would continue waterproof for five years, evidence that defendant offered to repair the floor and make it waterproof is properly excluded. Gallais v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. (Mo. App.) 693. In an action on a warranty that an asphalt floor would continue waterproof for five years, evidence of the condition of the floor at any time within the five years is properly admitted. -Gallais v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. (Mo. App.) 693. The petition in an action for breach of contract to thresh a crop of rice held to allege sufficiently the present value of the rice as if threshed.-Kerr v. Blair (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. The petition in an action for breach of contract held to allege sufficiently the time and person who made representations.-Kerr v. Blair (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. The petition in an action for breach of contract to thresh a crop of rice held to allege sufficiently the reasonable value of the rice when threshed.-Kerr v. Blair (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. The petition in an action for breach of contract to thresh a crop of rice held to allege sufficiently that certain expenses were necessary or reasonable.-Kerr v. Blair (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. *There is no fatal variance between an allegation that a contract was made "on or about September, 1905," and the proof that it was entered into in October of the same year.-Kerr v. Blair (Tex. Civ. App.) 548. Certain proof held insufficient to show that one contracting to thresh a crop of rice complied nicipal Corporations," § 11. Of person injured by operation of railroad, see CONVENTION. Appropriation by fiscal court of county for political convention, see "Counties," § 1. CONVERSION. Wrongful conversion of personal property, see "Trover and Conversion." *Under certain directions in a will, certain land held to become personalty by the doctrine of equitable conversion and subject to sale under the will.-Crane v. Crane (Ky.) 370; Coulter v. Same, Id. CONVEYANCES. In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Convey ances. In trust, see "Trusts," § 1. Conveyances by or to particular classes of persons. See "Husband and Wife," § 2; "Insane Per- Married women, see "Husband and Wife," § 3. Particular classes of conveyances. *Point annotated. See syllabus. CORPORATIONS. Account stated as against stockholders of insol- see "Insur- Laws relating to liability for injuries to em- Mandamus, see "Mandamus," § 2. Sale of corporate assets, see "Sales," § 6. Particular classes of corporations. Banks, see "Banks and Banking," § 1. Turnpike and toll road companies, see "Turn- § 1. Corporate existence and franchise. *Where the special charter of a toll road com- § 2. Capital, stock, and dividends. *Where a defendant made false representa- of a corporation as to how the stock was to be The right of an officer and stockholder of a inspect the corporate books will be controlled A certain fact held not a reason for denying One holding stock in different corporations *At common law a stockholder has a right at § 4. Officers and agents. The president of a corporation, in the absence In an action against the acting president of *In the absence of fraud, corporations having § 5. Corporate powers and liabilities. A letter written by a corporation held not As a general rule a judgment against a de- *Parties owning the stock continued the busi- Under Civ. Code Prac. § 63, and Ky. St. 1903, Evidence of conduct held not admissible on See syllabus. |