« EelmineJätka »
| proof sufficient to induce conviction, trial court
properly refused to submit such questions to
jury.-Spradlin V. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.
Ons 324(1) Mo.) Whether there is any sub-
stantial evidence tending to prove grounds of
contest is question of law.-Sanford v. Holland,
Executors and Administrators; Guardian and a 324(2) (Ky.) In probate proceedings, due
of testamentary incapacity being conflicting,
question of his sanity or insanity was for jury.
--Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.
by contestant held insufficient to raise issue
court properly directed verdict upholding the
(A) General Rules.
Paw 439 (Ky.) The primary purpose for the con-
struction of a will is to ascertain testator's in-
tent, and, when this intent is ascertained, it
controls to the exclusion of any rules of con-
struction.-Williams V. Williams, 207 S. W.
m440 (Ky.) The written language of a will
is the best evidence of its meaning, and testa-
tor's intention must be gathered from the will.
Where a will contains ambiguous terms, tes-
| tator's motives, the purpose of the will, the na-
ture and extent of the property, and the rela-
looked to in construing testator's intention.-Id.
property as to its extent, use, and manner of
use, its necessity, and appurtenancy to build-
(D) Description of Property.
561(1) (Ky.) Where two buildings owned by
testator had a common hallway between them,
and testator had erected a board fence dividing
the property and rented the buildings in ac-
m vise of one building to each son, the hallway
to be used jointly, or if both buildings were de-
stroyed the ground covered thereby to be di-
vided equally, the line established by testator
controlled as to the property devised to each ot
the sons.--Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.
VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
732(2) (Tenn.) A general legacy of a cer-
tain amount of money cannot be paid out of
there is an intention to do so expressly de-
clared or clearly inferred from the language
will.-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER
ble, where attorney had died prior to commence-
presence, he opened his safety deposit box,
tore up the envelope indorsed as the property
away, held incompetent.--Harding v. St. Louis
trell. 207 S. W. 734 255(9) (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. 88 2195,
2196, minutes of the testimony before the
to show witness' contradictory statements
ed to refresh the memory of members of the
grand jury who might be called as witnesses on
the issue.-Lind v. State, 207 S. W. 47,
(B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina-
Sam 268(1) (Mo.) Cross-examination should be in
inquiry, and tend to throw light upon witness'
Barry Engineering Co., 207 S. W. 877.
Om 277(4) (Mo.) In a prosecution for man-
slaughter under Rev. St. 1909, $ 4458, where
witness for state testified that he paid accused
for performing the illegal operation, an inquiry,
IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-
(A) In General.
intent to rape, it was not competent for de-
acter inadmissible until his general reputation
Kirby's Dig. 8 3140, declaring that such proof
is inadmissible until general reputation has grand jury who might be called as witnesses on
the issue.--Lind v. State, 207 S. W. 47.
plaintiff and other witnesses that witness had
of trial, evidence of declarations of witness cor-
roborative of testimony made at a time when
| no such intluence existed is admissible.--Id.
deposition of same witness, could not explain
of immoral conduct for the purpose of the conflict between testimony contained in first
torion for truth and morality to prior unsworn statements of the witness.--
Providence-Washington Ing. Co. v. Owens, 207
(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of
8 3 98(3) Mo.App.) Where, on cross-examina-
agreed to buy plaintiff's interest in the crop.
414(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) That defendant's
thereto, did not render admissible testimony by
plaintiff and other witnesses that witness bad
told them that the agent had made such state-
ments.-Providence-Washington Ing. Co. v. Ow-
ens, 207 S. W. 666.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
field (Ark.) 207 S. W. 58.
"Active service."--Redd v. American Cent. Life
Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 74.
"Actual notice.”—Citizens' State Bank of
Greenup v. Johnson County (Ky.) 207 S.
207 S. W. 793.
Implement Co., Id. 586.
“Demonstrative legacy."-Ford v. Cottrell
207 S. W. 914.
Mosberg v. Owens (Mo. App.) 207 S. W.
"Specific legacy.”—Ford v. Cottrell (Tenn.) 207
"Stenographer."--State ex rel. Nolen v. Hack-
"Subrogation."-Sanger Bros. v. Ely & Walk-
Ry. Co. v. Kemp (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.
“Title to real property.”—Phelps v. Johnson
“Transferred."--Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com.
Co. v. Pipkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. | "Trial.”—Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Muse
(Tex.) 207 S. W. 897.
Use of Birmingham v. Hackmann (Mo.) 207 207 S. W. 98.
| "Vice principal."--San Antonio Portland (e-
S. W. 967.
Banking Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 642.
Kalb (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 973.
WORK AND LABOR.
See Executors and Administrators, em 451;
ristown (Tenn.) 207 S. W. 719.
Om2 (Tex.Civ.App.) Recovery on a quantum
meruit does not necessarily depend upon a
specific value.-Guyer v. Chapman, 207 S. W.
om24(1) (Mo.App.) In an action for services,
not based on contract, rendered by plaintiff so-
licitor in investigating claims against defendant
insurance company, failure to prove the value
of such services is fatal to a recovery.--Cheek v.
National Life Ins. Co. of United States of
America, 207 S. W. 882.
Co29(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Recovery on a quan-
tum meruit does not necessarily depend upon
a specific value, and if it be only shown that
of Greenup v. Johnson County (Ky.) 207 S. titled to nominal damages.-Guyer v. Chapman,
207 S. W. 428.
Sharp (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 72.
"_Colby . Thompson (Mo. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
See Contracts, m108, 138.
WRIT OF ERROR.
zier v. Frazier (Ark.) 207 S. W. 215.
v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 405. Mandamus; Process; Prohibition; Replevin.