« EelmineJätka »
Page Sizemore, H. F. Davis & Co. v. (Ky.)... 16 State ex rel. Nolen v. Hackmann (Mo.)... 494 Slone v. Commonwealth (Ky.)..
464 | State ex rel. Stroh v. Klene (Mo.)... 496 Smith, Bever y. (Mo. App.). 238 | Stauffer v. Stauffer (Mo. App.).
210 Smith, Frost v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 392 Stegner, State v. (Mo.).
826 Snider, Lancaster v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 560 Stephens v. Schadler (Ky.)
704 Solan, State v. (Mo.)
782 Stewart, Eckert v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 317 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Shinn (Tex. Stewart, St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. Com. App.).. 87 v. (Ark.).
440 Southern Pac. Co. v. Berkshire (Tex. Civ. Stewart & Threadgill v. El Paso & S. W. App.) 323 R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)..
594 Southern Pac. Co. v. Miller (Tex. Civ. Stiles v. Hawkins (Tex. Com. App.).
89 App.) 554 Stone, Harris & White v. (Ark.).
413 Southern R. Co. v. State (Tenn.) 724 Strange, Home Inv. Co. v. (Tex.)
307 Southern Real Estate & Financial Co. v. Stuart, Barron v. (Ark.)
22 Bankers' Surety Co. (Mo.).
506 Styles, Matagorda Canal Co. v. (Tex. Civ. Southern Real Estate & Financial Co. v.
502 Bankers' Surety Co. (Mo.)..
513 | Sullivan & Co., Raley v. (Tex. Com. App.) 906 Southern Trust Co., St. Francis County Summit Place Co. v. Terrell (Tex. Civ. Road Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. (Ark.) 52 App.)
145 Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum, v. State (Tex.) 308 Schmidt v. (Mo. App.).
874 Southwestern Veneer Co., Bailey & Co. Sursa v. Wynn (Ark.).
209 V. (Ark.)..
34 Sutherland Building & Contracting Co., Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W., Weise v. Ogle v. (Mo. App.).
818 (Mo. App.).
249 Sutherland, St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W., v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.).
982 (Ark.) 45 Swadley, Hunter v. (Tenn.)
730 Spearman v. Mims (Tex. Civ. App.). 573 Swartz v. Hiler (Mo. App.).
238 Speer, Pollard v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 620 Spinner-Hay Lumber Co. v. Applebaum (Tex. Civ. App.)
716 Spradlin v. Adams (Ky.)
735 Sproul v. Interstate Coal Co. (Kv.).
456 S. Samuels & Co. v. Morgan & Friedlander
Taylor v. Commonwealth (Ky.). (Tex. Civ. App.)..
Templeton v. Wellington (Tex. Civ. Ann.) 186 Stailings v. Bradshaw (Ark.)
Terrell, Summit Place Co. v. (Tex. Civ. Staples v. Freeman (Ark.). 433
App.) Stark v. Scherf (Mo. App.)
Texas Midland R. R. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. Starling, State v. (Mo.). 767
App.) State v. Berger (Mo.)
Texas Midland R. R. v. Butler (Tex. Civ. State v. Bersch (Mo.) 809
App.) State, Brooks v. (Ark.)
Texas Midland R. Co. v. Cummer Mfg. Co. 209
(Tex. Civ. App.). 930
617 State, Bryant v. (Tex. Cr. App.) State, Campos y. (Tex. Cr. App.)
Texas Refining Co., Waco Oil & Refining State v. (aperton (Mo.) 795
Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). State, Clark v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
Texas & Pacific Coal Co., Haney v. (Tex. State v. Cook (Mo.)
.375 State v. Dinkelkamp (Mo.)
Texas & P. R. Co. v. Duff (Tex. Civ. State v. Fox (Mo.)
App.) State, Gamewell V.
Texas & P. R. Co. v. Lester (Tex. Civ. (Ark.)
211 State v. Garrett (Mo.)
784 State, Harper v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
Texas & P. R. Co. v. McGraw (Tex. Civ. 96 App.)
539 State, Hughes y. (Tex. Cr. App.). 990 State v. Hunt (Tex. Civ. App.).
Texas & P. R. Co. v. West Bros. (Tex. 6:36 Com. App.)
918 State v. Jones (Mo.)
Thomas v. Derrick (Tex. Civ. App.). 140 State, Knight v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
73 State, Lind v. (Ark.). State, Lockett v. (Ark.)
Thompson v. Harmon (Tex. Com. App.) 909 State v. Luudy (Mo.)
Tittle v. Bartholomae (Tex. Civ. App.)... 176
221 State v. Lyons (Mo. App.).
261 State v. McHenry (Mo.)
Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co., Minter v. (Mo. App.).
840 State, Martinez v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 930
719 State v. Miller (Mo.) 797
Trammell v. Griffin (Tenn.). State v. Moten (Mo.). 768
947 State v. Porter (Mo.).
Trevino, Griner v. (Tex. Civ. App.)
610 State, Ray v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
990 State v. Sibley (Mo.)..
39 State v. Solan (Mo.)..
Turner v. Weitzel (Ark.). 782
Turney. Hess & Skinner Engineering Co. State, Southern R. Co. v. (Tenn.). 724
171 State, Southwestern Telegraph & Tele
v. (Tex. Civ. App.)..... phone Co. v. (Tex.).
308 State v. Starling (Mo.)..
767 Umsted Auto Co. v. Henderson Auto Co. State v. Stegner (Mo.).
437 State v. Troell (Tex. Civ. App.).
610 Union Lumber Co., Sherrill v. (Tex. Civ. State, Venable v. (Tex. Cr. App.).. 5:20 App.)
149 State, Watkins v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 926 Union Terminal R. Co., Buddy_v. (Mo.).. $21 State, Wright v. (Tex. Cr. App.)... 99 United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Johnston v. State ex rel. and to use of Birmingham
232 v. Hackmann (Mo.)..
498 Unverferth, Peter Hauptinann Tobacco State ex rel. and to use of Lancaster v.
Co. v. (10. App.),...
283 Kennedy (Mo. App.).
71 State ex rel. and to use of Mosberg v. Valdespino v. Dorrance & Co. (Tex. Civ. Owens (Mo, App.) 241 App.)
619 State ex rel. Bybee v. Hackmann (Mo.).. 64 / Val Reis Piano Co. v. Gordon (Mo. App.) 233
Page Van Valkenburgh v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 405 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Deaver (Tex. Venable v. State (Tex, Cr. App.)... 520 Civ. App.).....
Whaley, McDonald v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 609 Wabash R. Co., Bailey v. (Mo. App.).... 82 Whitacre, Daley v. (Tex. Civ. App.).... 350 Wabash R. Co., Paulson v. (Mo. App.).. 81 White, Davis v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
679 Wabash R. Co., Riffe v. (Mo. App.). 78 Wichita Falls Motor Co., McCoy v. (Tex. Waco Oil & Refining Co. v. Texas Refining
332 Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)..
987 Wiles, Daugherty v. (Tex. Com. App.).. 900 Wagner & Sons v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 632 Wilie v. Hays (Tex. Civ. App.).
427 Waldschmidt, City of New Braunfels v. Wilkinson v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.) 638 (Tex.)
303 William Wurdack Electric Mfg. Co. v. ElWalker, Howell v. (Ark.).
41 liott & Barry Engineering Co. (Mo. Warden, City of Kirksville v. (Mo.). 66 App.)
.877 Warren' v. Crawford Wilson Coal Co. (Mo. Williams v. Commonwealth (Ky.).
883 Williams, Gillespie v. '(Tex. Civ. App.).. 975 Warren v. Parlin-Orendorff Implement Co. Williams v. Ogerly (Tex. Civ. App.) 572 (Tex. Civ. App.). 586 Williams v. Williams (Ky.).
468 Warren v. Ray County Coal Co. (Mo.
Wilson v. Schaff (Mo. App.)..
883 Wilson, Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W., v. Warren County, Potter Matlock Trust Co.
45 (Ky.) 709 Wilson v. Todhunter (Ark.).
221 Warren Oil & Gas Co. v. Gilliam (Ky.). 698 Wilson & Co., Quinn v. (Ark.)
211 Washington v. Austin Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. W. M. Finck & Co. v. Nacogdoches MerApp.) 382 cantile Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)
601 Watkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 926 W. M. Sutherland Building & Contracting Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com. App.). 914 Co., Ogle v. (Mo. App.).
818 Weeks v. First State Bank (Tex. Civ. Wood, St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. App.) 973 (Ark.)
32 Wehrenbrecht v. Wehrenbrecht (Mo. App.) 290 Woodall, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. Teil v. Hatton Tex. Civ. App.). 991 of Texas v. (Tex. Com. App.)...
84 Weise v. Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W. (Mo. Word, Chicago, R. I. & G. R. Co. v. (Tex. App.) 249 Com. App.)..
902 Weisner v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Wright v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
99 Texas (Tex. Com. App.)
904 Wurdack Electric Mfg. Co. v. Elliott & Weitzel, Turner v. (Ark.)
39 Barry Engineering Co. (Mo. App.).. 877 West Bros. v. St. Louis, 1. M. & S. R. W. W. Kimball Co., Ray V. (Tex. Civ. Co. (Tex. Com. App.). 918 App.)
351 West Bros., Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex. Wynn, Sursa v. (Ark.)
209 Com. App:)..
918 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Armstrong Young, Prange v. (Ark.).
445 (Tex. Civ. App.)
592 Youngblood, Benjamin v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 687 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Barrett (Tex. Yuede v. Funck (Jo. App.)..
211 Civ. App.).....
(Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.]
Reed's Adm'r y. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 206 S. W.
Grain Co., 206 S. W. 126.
See End of Index for Tables of Southwestern Cases in State Reports
THE SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
17. PARTITION 97–LIEN NOTE-RIGIIT TO KING v. KING et al.*
ENFORCE LIEN AGAINST LAND.
Upon death of owner of farm subject to (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Dec. 20,
lien note, holder of note has right, upon action 1918.)
to partition land, to assert his claim and to 1. PARTITION 77(3) – SUSCEPTIBILITY OF
enforce his lien against the land, especially LAND TO DIVISION.
where no settlement of estate is made, or efWhere lands are susceptible of division
fort made to show that administrator has suf
ficient funds with which to satisfy lien. without material impairment of their value, a division thereof will be bad if desired by the 8. PARTITION Om 114(1)-CostS-ASSIGNMENT owners, rather than a division of the proceeds OF DOWER. after a sale for that purpose.
In action for partition, in which widow of 2. PARTITION 77(4)-SUFFICIENCY OF Evi- deceased owner was made defendant, where DENCE-SUSCEPTIBILITY OF Division.
petitioner admitted widow was entitled to dowIn a partition action, evidence held to show
er, the cost of the assignment of dower should lands to be susceptible of division, without ma
not have been taxed against plaintiff, but should
| have been paid by all parties. terially affecting their usefulness or value. 3. PARTITION 92-PREMATURITY OF JUDG Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County. MENT-SATISFACTION OF LIEN. In action for partition of land subject to
Action by V. J. King against D. M. King lien, a judgment directing master commission and others. Judgment for defendants, and er to sell only enough of tract to satisfy lien plaintiff appeals. Affirmed, with directions. debt, and when sale is made definitely fix bound
J. Verser Conner, of Louisville, and I, G, ary of the tract sold so that balance can be certainly known and boundaries fixed, was not
Mason, of Adairville, for appellant. premature by reason of leaving unknown num
Judge S. R. Crewdson, of Russellville, for ber of acres for division, where commissioner appellees. appointed to divide the lands so arranged the division that the part sold for payment of lien SAMPSON, J. D. M. King died intestate could be increased or diminished without chang
and childless in October, 1915, while a resiing the general outline of the remainder.
dent of Logan county, Ky., leaving consider4. PARTITION 86 - RIGHT TO RENT-able personal property and a farm of 166 WAIVER.
acres situated near Adairville. He was past Where owner of farm died intestate and 40 years of age, and left surviving him a childless but left surviving him widow, father, widow, the defendant Mrs. Kate King. The and mother, the mother was not entitled to re- plaintiff, Victoria J. King, is his mother, and cover from widow and father, alleged to have
defendant J. M. King is his father. After had use and rental of land during year follow
his death, J, M. King was appointed adminising owner's death, any portion of the rent, where she had not availed herself of father's offer to
trator of his estate and qualified and entered use part of land during such year,
upon the discharge of the duties of the trust.
In September, 1916, this action was insti5. APPEAL AND EBROR O1172(2)-REVIEW
tuted by V. J. King against J. M. King, adFINDINGS.
ministrator, J. M. King, and Katie King, widThat part of a judgment which is sustained by the pleadings, and evidence and admitted to
ow of the deceased, for a sale of the aforebe correct by appellant's brief, will not be dis
said farm owned by D. M. King at his death, turbed on appeal.
and a division of the proceeds. By the peti6. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
tion it is alleged in substance that the father
and mother are the only heirs of D. M. King; Where no objection was made to claim
that he died intestate; that his wife, Katie based on lien note, because of insufficient veri
King, is entitled to dower in the lands; that fication under Ky. St. $$ 3870-3874, but issue
said lands are not susceptible of division was joined upon the claim without objection, without material impairment of the value of the objection was waived.
the whole and of each part thereof; that
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 207 S.W.-1
*Rehearing denied February 4, 1919.
there are no other liens upon the lands, and Mr. E. A. Keller was next called by plainall the debts of the estate have been paid from tiff, and stated that he lived on the farm of the personal property thereof; that defend- Mrs. King in 1916, and cultivated a part of ants Katie King and J. M. King have had it. After telling about the crops which were the use and rental of the farm for the year raised on the farm in that year and the 1916; and that the reasonable rental of the value thereof, he was asked if the farm could farm for that year was $700, and the plain-| be divided into three parts without materialtiff V. J. King is entitled to one-half thereof, ly impairing its value, and he answered: $350. J. M. King and Katie King filed sep- | “No, sir; I do not believe it could." He then arate answers by which the indivisibility of stated, in answer to questions, the locations the lands, described in the petition, is denied, of the several houses and barns and timber and it is affirmatively averred that the lands plots. are susceptible of advantageous division. Then came R. E. Crocker, a farmer, who The answer of J. M. King also asserted a stated that he lived next to the D. M. King lien for purchase money, amounting to about farm, and had known it for some 30 years, $1,300 upon the lands, and averred that said or more. Answering the question whether it tract is subject first to this lien debt, and was susceptible of advantageous division, he then that Katie King is entitled to dower in said: one-third of the remainder, and that the "That is a little hard question to answer. I residue should be divided equally between tell you the truth about it though; I just do the plaintiff V. J. King, and the defendant not think it could, not very conveniently. Now, J. M. King. He denied having used the I can give you my reason why I think so. If lands or received rental therefrom for the it was cut up into pieces that way—it is a lityear 1916, or at any time, and averred that tle out of the way place to start with-and if the defendant Katie King had held and used you was to cut it up, there would be no coma part of the lands only, as she had a right petition if you wanted to sell it, it just joins one
man on each side there. It don't seem to me to do as widow, no dower having been as
to be the proper thing to do." signed, and that the plaintiff, V. J. King, was privileged to have used and occupied a part Mr. E. N. Taylor, a farmer, when asked if of said farm had she desired to do so, but the lands could be divided into three equal that she failed and refused to cultivate or parts without depreciating the value, said: use any part of said lands, and for that "No, sir; I do not think it could." reason was not entitled to recover rents ei- The foregoing is the strongest evidence ther of J. M. King or the widow, Katie King. given for the plaintiff in support of her averIssue was joined upon the several questions ment that the land was not susceptible of presented.
division. On the other hand, four persons The appellant, Mrs. V. J. King, did not give were called by the defendants who had reher deposition, and the deposition of J. M. cently gone upon the lands for the purpose of King was, upon motion of the plaintiff, studying the situation and making a tentastricken. The plaintiff, however, offered the tive division thereof in three parts, after depositions of nine witnesses in support of laying off enough to satisfy the lien debt her contention that the lands were not sus
of $1,300. These persons fixed the value of ceptible of advantageous division. Upon this the land at about $45 per acre. They estipoint the defendants offered five witnesses. mated that it would take about 30 acres of Mr. Barnard Johnson, who was called for the the tract to satisfy the $1,300 lien debt, and plaintiff, stated he lived on an adjoining that would leave 136 acres to be divided into farm to the lands in question, and, when three parts. They then laid off 36 acres as asked whether the D. M. King farm was sus dower, to the widow around the mansion ceptible of division, he answered:
house, including two barns, garden, orchard,
etc., which was satisfactory to her. When "Well, it just depends upon circumstances, these two pieces are lopped off, there is left but my opinion is that you might make arrange- approximately 100 acres to be divided bements to sell part of it and get something for tween the plaintiff V. J. King, and her husit, and you might not.”
band, defendant J. M. King. The widow,
Katie King, stated that she had lived upon He continued:
the farm for a number of years, had no "Well, it would be a little unhandy for an other home, and desired to retain her dower outlet. That is the biggest trouble I can see interest in the lands and to continue to reabout it. You could not get an outlet."
side thereon. J. M. King also desired to
have his share in kind. The four witnessFurther along in his deposition he said:
es who examined the lands, one of them be"No, sir; I cannot say it could not be done, ing a surveyor, gave it as their opinion that because I do not know very much about the the land was easily susceptible of division place, as I said before, except about the line without impairment to its value. They also coming out the road; never been on the place stated that some years before a road had only just on that part of it from the road up passed through this farm, and that the road, to the house."
bed is still intact, and is used for the benefit