Page images
PDF
EPUB

WELLS.

See Negligence, 134, 135.

WILLS.

See Deeds, 177; Descent and Distribution:
Executors and Administrators; Guardian and
Ward, 58; Limitation of Actions, 72;
Public Lands, 174; Trial, 350; Trusts,
97, 110; Witnesses, 149.

proof sufficient to induce conviction, trial court
properly refused to submit such questions to
jury. Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.

324(1) (Mo.) Whether there is any sub-
stantial evidence tending to prove grounds of
contest is question of law.-Sanford v. Holland,
207 S. W. 818.

324(2) (Ky.) In probate proceedings, due
execution of testator's fourth will having been
satisfactorily proved, and evidence on question
of testamentary incapacity being conflicting,
question of his sanity or insanity was for jury.
-Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.

324(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence relied upon
by contestant held insufficient to raise issue
for jury as to testatrix's want of capacity to
make will in question.--Daley v. Whitacre, 207
S. W. 350.

II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.
50 (Mo.) Testator, with mind enough to
understand ordinary affairs and kind and ex-
tent of his property, the natural objects of his
bounty, and that he is giving property to devi-
sees mentioned in manner stated, is capable of
making a will.-Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 324(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence relied upon
818.
by contestant held insufficient to raise issue
for jury as to undue influence.-Daley v. Whit-
acre, 207 S. W. 350.

52(1) (Ky.) Where due execution of paper
offered for probate as will is proved, and paper
is not irrational in its provisions, or inconsist-327 (Mo.) On will contest, where only
ent in its structure, language, or details, with conclusion from evidence is that testator pos-
sanity of testator, burden of showing his in- sessed every qualification to enable him to
sanity shifts to contestants.-Spradlin v. Ad- make valid disposition of his property, trial
ams, 207 S. W. 471.
court properly directed verdict upholding the
will.-Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 818.

52(1) (Mo.) After formal proof of execu-
tion and of testator's sanity contestant has
burden of adducing substantial evidence to sup-
port allegation of testamentary incapacity.—
Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 818.

55(1) (Mo.) Evidence held insufficient to
afford an inference that testator did not pos-
sess testamentary capacity.-Sanford v. Hol-
land, 207 S. W. 818.

IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Testmentary
Dispositions.

88(4) (Tex. Civ.App.) When the grantor in
a deed reserves control of the deed or right to
dispose of the property during his life, or a
deed is deposited with a third party, but un-
der control of the grantor, and not to take ef-
fect until after his death, such control renders
the instrument testamentary in character, with
the right of revocation in the grantor.-Eckert
v. Stewart, 207 S. W. 317.

(F) Mistake, Undue Influence, and Fraud.
163(1) (Mo.) On contest of a will for un-
due influence, contestant is required, in first
instance, to assume full burden of proof of
allegation.-Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W.

818.

[blocks in formation]

440 (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.
-Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.

481 (Tenn.) Will does not take effect un-
til death of testator.-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S.
W. 734.

488 (Ky.) Extrinsic evidence may be em-
ployed to ascertain a testator's intention only
where there are ambiguous terms or clauses in
the will.-Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.

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-
tions between testator and devisees, may be
looked to in construing testator's intention.-Id.

490 (Ky.) In construing a will devising a
hallway, the facts and circumstances of the
property as to its extent, use, and manner of
use, its necessity, and appurtenancy to build-
ings, may be proven to identify the property
devised.-Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.
(D) Description of Property.

163(7) (Mo.) Offices of affection and inter-
est or business services rendered testator by
his wife held not predicates of undue influ-
ence, casting on her and others, upholding will,
on contest by grandson, any burden to show
will was not result of undue influence.-San-561(1) (Ky.) Where two buildings owned by
ford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 818.

(G) Revocation and Revival.

183 (Ky.) Testator's third will, executed
after divorce from his wife, marriage to whom
had revoked first will, revived by second will,
held to revoke second will only in so far as
making provision for divorced wife, not in so
far as reviving first will.-Spradlin v. Adams,
207 S. W. 471.

199 (Ky.) Testator's second will, properly
executed, which not only recognized, but de-
clared the validity of, a former will, revoked
by marriage, and then devised other property
not mentioned in such former will, held a "cod-
icil," reviving former will, under Ky. St. §
4834.-Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT,
AND ANNULMENT.

(I) Hearing or Trial.
324(1) (Ky.) In probate proceedings, where
evidence on questions of undue influence and in-
sane aversion was sufficient merely to excite
suspicion, and did not carry with it quality of

testator had a common hallway between them,
and testator had erected a board fence dividing
the property and rented the buildings in ac-
cordance therewith for many years, under a de-
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 of
the sons.-Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.

VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
(A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen-

eral.

732 (2) (Tenn.) A general legacy of a cer-
tain amount of money cannot be paid out of
proceeds from undevised real estate, unless
there is an intention to do so expressly de-
clared or clearly inferred from the language
of the will.-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.

Under will providing for payment of debts
and personal expenses and of several general
pecuniary legacies, held, that there was no in-
tention plainly expressed and reasonably im-

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
plied that legacies should be provided for oth-154 (Mo.App.) In action on contract enter-
erwise than from personal estate, so that court ed into by plaintiff and an attorney on behalf
erred in holding that realty as to which tes- of railroad, plaintiff's testimony as to making
tatrix died intestate was subject to payment of contract with such attorney was inadmissi-
of such legacies.-Id.
ble, where attorney had died prior to commence-
ment of action; he being the agent of the cor-
poration, and his death disqualifying the surviv-
ing party.-Wilson v. Schaff, 207 S. W. 845.
159(7) (Mo.) In a son's suit against the
executor of his father's estate to recover street
railway bonds, testimony of a daughter as to
explanations made by her father when, in her
presence, he opened his safety deposit box,
tore up the envelope indorsed as the property
of the son containing the bonds and threw it
away, held incompetent.-Harding v. St. Louis
Union Trust Co., 207 S. W. 68.

732(6) (Tenn.) Where specific legacies are
consumed by payment of debts, legatees are en-
titled by way of subrogation to the rights of
creditors to go upon the undevised real estate
for reimbursement to the extent that the person-
alty specifically bequeathed was encroached up-
on or consumed.-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W.

734.

(B) Specific, Demonstrative, and General
Devises and Bequests.

III. EXAMINATION.

755 (Tenn.) Under will bequeathing to a
sister the rents of a house and lot during her
natural life, house and lot to be sold at sister's
death and proceeds given to an orphans' home,
the legacy to the home was not "demonstrative,'
but "specific."-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.255(9) (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 2195,

(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfac-

tion, and Lapse.

771 (Tenn.) There being an ademption of
legacies by testatrix's sale of house and lot in
her lifetime, the proceeds constitute a part of
general personal estate, and should, along with
other personalty, be applied to payment of debts
and general legacies under the terms of the will.
-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.

(H) Vold, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises
and Bequests, and Property and
Interests Undisposed of.

852 (Tenn.) Since, under will bequeathing
to a sister rents of a house and lot during her
natural life, house and lot to be sold at sister's
death and proceeds given to an orphan's home,
a sale of the house and lot during testatrix's
lifetime worked an "ademption" as to sister, it
also worked an ademption as to the home; the
legacy to the sister taking precedence and prior-
ity in time and right to that of the home.-Ford
v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.

2196, minutes of the testimony before the
grand jury cannot be used as original evidence
to show witness' contradictory statements
made before the grand jury, but can only be us-
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-

tion.

268(1) (Mo.) Cross-examination should be in
conformity with well-recognized rules of evi-
dence, have a reasonable limit as to nature of
inquiry, and tend to throw light upon witness'
attitude upon the subject under investigation.--
State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.

270(2) (Mo.App.) In action for the purchase
price of a boiler, defendant contractor setting
up breach of warranty, there was no error in
sustaining an objection to the question on cross-
examination of plaintiff as to what the owner
of the building had said to him about it.-Wil-
liam Wurdack Electric Mfg. Co. v. Elliott &
Barry Engineering Co., 207 S. W. 877.

866 (Tenn.) Where will providing for pay-275(5) (Ark.) In action involving damage
ment of debts and for a number of general pe-
to rice crop, where defendant had testified to
cuniary legacies contained no residuary clause improper cultivation by plaintiff, it was proper
and made no mention of real estate in question, to cross-examine him as to crops on similar
testator died intestate as to such realty and it lands similarly cultivated.-Prange v. Young,
descended to her sole heir at law.-Ford v. Cott- 207 S. W. 445.
rell, 207 S. W. 734.

WITNESSES.

See Appeal and Error, 205, 837, 1048, 1058;
Continuance, 26; Criminal Law, 393,
486, 491, 597, 742, 785, 1043, 1044, 1153, 1166,
1170; Depositions; Evidence; Grand Jury,
37; Insurance, 574; Jury, 34;
Perjury, 37; Process, 149; Trial,
140.

II. COMPETENCY.

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,
on cross-examination of accused, as to why she
had received the money, was a material matter
and prejudicial under Rev. St. 1909, § 5243;
there being nothing in accused's examination in
chief to authorize the inquiry.-State v. Dinkel-
kamp, 207 S. W. 770.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

ROBORATION.

(A) In General.

(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title
or Interest of Persons Deceased or In-318 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with
competent.

149(2) (Mo.App.) In suit by administrator
to recover for breach of written contract,
whereby defendant guaranteed to repurchase
from deceased certain shares of capital stock,
court properly ruled, in view of Rev. St. 1909,
§ 6354, relating to cases where administrator
is a party, that defendant was incompetent to
testify that deceased made no demand.-Grass-
muck v. Ehrler, 207 S. W. 287.

149(2) (Tex.Com.App.) In trespass to try
title by the heirs of the owner against the
widow's devisees, plaintiff's testimony as to
conversations with widow were not inadmissible
under Rev. St. 1911, art. 3690; her executors
not being necessary parties to the suit, and the
inhibition of the statute merely applying to per-
sonal representatives or heirs.-Stiles v. Haw-
kins, 207 S. W. 89.

intent to rape, it was not competent for de-
fendant to introduce testimony of specific in-
stances of immoral conduct for the purpose of
impeaching the character of prosecutrix or her
general reputation for truth and morality, and
such testimony could not be made the basis for
the introduction of testimony supporting her
general reputation, in view of Kirby's Dig. §
3140, making evidence of a witness' good char-
acter inadmissible until his general reputation
has been impeached.-Lockett v. State, 207 S.
W. 55.

While credibility of a witness may be im-
peached by proof on cross-examination of
specific instances of immorality, or by proof of
contradictory statements, such evidence does
not justify the introduction of proof of good
character in support of the witness, in view of
Kirby's Dig. § 3140, declaring that such proof

is inadmissible until general reputation has
been impeached.-Id.

318 (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of evidence
impeaching credibility of a witness, testimony
of former declarations of the witness in sup-
port of his testimony is never admissible.
Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Owens, 207
S. W. 666.

319 (Mo.) Testimony, to affect the credibil-
ity of a witness in a criminal case, is admissible
only as to matters material and relevant to the
issue.-State v. Dinkelkamp, 207 S. W. 770.

321 (Tex.Civ.App.) Party offering deposi-
tions in evidence vouches for credibility of the
witness. Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v.
Owens, 207 S. W. 666.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
344 (2) (Ark.) In prosecution for assault
with intent to rape, it was not competent for
defendant to introduce testimony of specific in-
stances of immoral conduct for the purpose of
impeaching the character of prosecutrix or her
general reputation for truth and morality.

Lockett v. State, 207 S. W. 55.

Credibility of a witness may be impeached by
proof on cross-examination of specific instanc-
es of immorality.-Id.

grand jury who might be called as witnesses on
the issue.-Lind v. State, 207 S. W. 47.

395 (Tex.Civ.App.) That testimony of plain-
tiff's witness as to defendant's defamatory state-
ments was impeached by cross-examination as
to inconsistent testimony given in former depo-
sition did not justify admission of testimony by
plaintiff and other witnesses that witness had
told them that defendant had made such state-
ments.-Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Ow.
ens. 207 S. W. 666.

Where effort is made to impeach witness by
evidence of declarations inconsistent with his
testimony tending to prove testimony a fabrica-
tion by reason of some influence existing at time
of trial, evidence of declarations of witness cor-
roborative of testimony made at a time when
no such influence existed is admissible.-Id.

396(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff, after hav-
ing offered in evidence both first and second
deposition of same witness, could not explain
the conflict between testimony contained in first
with that contained in second by evidence as
Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Owens, 207
to prior unsworn statements of the witness.--
S. W. 666.

(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of
Witness.

361(1) (Mo.) In prosecution for having car-
nal knowledge of a female between the ages of
15 and 18 years, contrary to Rev. St. 1909, $398(3) (Mo.App.) Where, on cross-examina-
4472, as amended by Laws 1913, p. 219, evi-
dence offered by defendant of specified acts of
prior intercourse on the part of prosecutrix,
having effect of impeaching prosecutrix as a
witness, the state's evidence of her general repu-
tation for chastity was admissible for purpose
of rehabilitation.-State v. Cook, 207 S. W. 831.

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.
363(1) (Ark.) It is permissible on cross-ex-
amination to inquire whether witness has any
bias for one of the parties or prejudice against
the other, or interest in the subject-matter of
the litigation which might affect his credibility.
-Prange v. Young, 207 S. W. 445.

372(2) (Mo.) Cross-examination of state's
witness by asking him to recite a poem he was
alleged to have written derogatory to defendant,
for purpose of affecting his credibility, was im-
proper, despite the great latitude allowed in
cross-examination, since the animus of the wit-
ness could have been better shown by direct in-
quiry. State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

379(1) (Ark.) Credibility of a witness may
be impeached by proof of contradictory state-
ments.-Lockett v. State, 207 S. W. 55.

379(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In a purchaser's ac-
tion against the seller of land for removing fix-
tures, evidence that the seller's agent, after the
contract and deed had been executed, stated
that the fixtures did not belong to the land,
etc., could not affect the deed and contract and
was not admissible as impeaching the agent's
testimony that there was no reservation by the
owner when the land was listed.-Alexander v.
Anderson, 207 S. W. 205.

379(9) (Ark.) A state's witness may be
impeached by showing that he made state-
ments in his testimony before the grand jury
contradicting those made on the trial.-Lind v.
State, 207 S. W. 47.

388(8) (Ark.) To impeach a witness by
showing contradictory testimony before the
grand jury a proper foundation should be laid
by asking the witness sought to be impeached
whether he had made the alleged statement be-
fore the grand jury.-Lind v. State, 207 S. W.
47.

393 (3) (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 2195,
2196, minutes of the testimony before the
grand jury cannot be used as original evidence
to show a witness' contradictory statements
made before the grand jury, but can only be
used to refresh the memory of members of the

tion of plaintiff, defendant had elicited plain-
tiff's reasons for going onto defendant's farm,
the defendant was bound thereby, and could not
contradict plaintiff's answers; the only issue in
the case being as to whether defendant had
agreed to buy plaintiff's interest in the crop.-
Sexton v. Lockwood, 207 S. W. 856.

414(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) That defendant's
agent denied making alleged defamatory state-
ments to plaintiff's witness, who had testified
thereto, did not render admissible testimony by
plaintiff and other witnesses that witness had
told them that the agent had made such state-
ments. Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Ow-
ens, 207 S. W. 666.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

"Accord and satisfaction."-G. M. H. Wagner
& Sons v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.
632.
"Actionable negligence."-Heinemann v. Bar-
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.
W. 8.

"Ademption."-Ford v. Cottrell (Tenn.) 207 S.
W. 734.

"Any property."-Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com.
App.) 207 S. W. 914.
"Character."-State v. Cook (Mo.) 207 S. W.

831.

[blocks in formation]

"Conduct of spectators."-State v. Jones (Mo.)
207 S. W. 793.

"County."-Breathitt County v. Hagins (Ky.)
207 S. W. 713.

"Creditor."-Diltz v. Dodson (Tex. Civ. App.
207 S. W. 356; Warren v. Parlin-Orendorff
Implement Co., Id. 586.

"Criminal proceeding."-Kansas City v. Proud-
fit (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 845.
"Cruelty."-McNabb v. McNabb (Tex. Civ.
App.) 207 S. W. 129.
"Defeasible fee."-Murphy v. Murphy (Ky.) 207
S. W. 491.
"Demonstrative

legacy."-Ford V. Cottrell
(Tenn.) 207 S. W. 734.
"Dormant judgment."-Burlington State Bank
v. Marlin Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S.
W. 954.
"Entered service of army."-Redd v. American
Cent. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 74.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

207 S. W. 914.

"Setting forth."-State ex rel. and to use of
Mosberg v. Owens (Mo. App.) 207 S. W.
241.

"Equitable lien."-Luse v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) | "Sale."-Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com. App.)
207 S. W. 942.
"Equitable mortgages."-Luse v. Rea (Tex. Civ.
App.) 207 S. W. 942.
"Exception."-Thomas v. Derrick (Tex. Civ.
App.) 207 S. W. 140.
"Exclusive agents."-Harris & White v. Stone
(Ark.) 207 S. W. 443.
"Expectation."-Shock v. Price (Mo. App.) 207
S. W. 834.

"Family."-St. Louis Police Relief Ass'n v.
Houlehin (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 880.
"Fill."-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. West Bros. (Tex.
Com. App.) 207 S. W. 918.

"F. o. b."-Harris v. Moller (Tex. Civ. App.)
207 S. W. 961.

"Future suffering."-Colby v. Thompson (Mo.
App.) 207 S. W. 73.

"Growing grain."-St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Pipkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.
360.
"Incidental expenses."-State ex rel. and to
Use of Birmingham v. Hackmann (Mo.) 207
S. W. 498.

"Injured party."-Wehrenbrecht v. Wehren-
brecht (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 290.
"Insolvent."-Luse v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 207
S. W. 942.

"Interstate commerce."-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v.
Lester (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 555.
"Joint trespass."-Stephens v. Schadler (Ky.)
207 S. W. 704.

"Judicial admissions."-Probst v. St. Louis Bas-
ket & Box Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 891.
"Land."-Redus v. Blucher (Tex. Civ. App.) 207
S. W. 613.
"Legislative act."-Lotspeich v. Town of Mor-
ristown (Tenn.) 207 S. W. 719.
"Libelous per se."-Providence-Washington Ins.
Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.

666.

"Material alteration."-Commercial Credit Co.
v. Giles (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 596.
"Ministerial act."-Lotspeich v. Town of Mor-
ristown (Tenn.) 207 S. W. 719.
"Murder in first degree."-State v. Solan (Mo.)
207 S. W. 782.

"Specific legacy."-Ford v. Cottrell (Tenn.) 207
S. W. 734.

"Stenographer."-State ex rel. Nolen v. Hack-
mann (Mo.) 207 S. W. 494.
"Subrogation."-Sanger Bros. v. Ely & Walk-
er Dry Goods Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S.
W. 348.

"Through bill of lading."-Ft. Worth & D. C.
Ry. Co. v. Kemp (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.
605.

"Title to real property."-Phelps v. Johnson
(Ky.) 207 S. W. 453.

"Transferred."-Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com.
App.) 207 S. W. 914.

"Trial."-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Muse
(Tex.) 207 S. W. 897.

"Under arrest."-Clark v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
207 S. W. 98.

"Vice principal."-San Antonio Portland Ce-
ment Co. v. Gschwender (Tex. Civ. App.) 207
S. W. 967.

"Volunteer."-Miller V. Guaranty Trust &
Banking Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 642.
"Voter."-Trammell v. Griffin (Tenn.) 207 S.
W. 726.

"Waiver."-Weeks v. First State Bank of De
Kalb (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 973.

WORK AND LABOR.

See Executors and Administrators, 451;
Trial, 29, 145.

[blocks in formation]

24(1) (Mo.App.) In an action for services,
licitor in investigating claims against defendant
not based on contract, rendered by plaintiff so-
of such services is fatal to a recovery.--Cheek v.
insurance company, failure to prove the value
National Life Ins. Co. of United States of
America, 207 S. W. 882.

"Mutuality of obligation."-Warren V. Ray
County Coal Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 883.29(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Recovery on a quan-
"Negligence."-Heinemann V. Barfield (Ark.)
tum meruit does not necessarily depend upon
207 S. W. 58.
a specific value, and if it be only shown that
"Negotiable-instrument."-Citizens' State Bank services were rendered, plaintiff is at least en-
of Greenup v. Johnson County (Ky.) 207 S. titled to nominal damages.-Guyer v. Chapman,
W. 8.
207 S. W. 428.

"On a basis."-J. C. Lysle Milling Co. v.
Sharp (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 72.

"Permanent injury." Colby v. Thompson (Mo. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

App.) 207 S. W. 73.

"Previous chaste character."-State v. Cook See Contracts,

(Mo.) 207 S. W. 831.

'Principal offender."-Lockett v. State (Ark.)

207 S. W. 55.

108, 138.

WRIT OF ERROR.

WRITS.

"Property in the custody of the court."-Fra- See Appeal and Error.
zier v. Frazier (Ark.) 207 S. W. 215.
"Proximate cause."-Haney v. Texas & Pacific
Coal Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 375.
"Quasi public corporation."-Van Valkenburgh
v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 405.
"Reputation."-State v. Cook (Mo.) 207 S. W.

831.

"Res gestæ."-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Huckabee (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 329.
207 S.W.-69

See Attachment; Garnishment; Injunction;
Mandamus; Process; Prohibition; Replevin.

X-RAY.

See Appeal and Error, 1050.

« EelmineJätka »