WELLS.

proof sufficient to induce conviction, trial court

properly refused to submit such questions to
See Negligence, 134, 135.

jury.-Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.

Om 324(1) Mo.) Whether there is any sub-
WILLS.

stantial evidence tending to prove grounds of

contest is question of law.-Sanford v. Holland,
See Deeds, ww177; Descent and Distribution; 207 S. W. 818.

Executors and Administrators; Guardian and w324(2) (Ky.) In probate proceedings, due
Ward, m58; Limitation of Actions, w72; execution of testator's fourth will having been
Public Lands, aw174; Trial, On350; Trusts, satisfactorily proved, and evidence on question
w97, 110; Witnesses, Em149.

of testamentary incapacity being conflieting,

question of his sanity or insanity was for jury.
II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. --Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.
em 50 (Mo.) Testator, with mind enough to mw324(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence relied upon
understand ordinary affairs and kind and ex- by contestant held insufficient to raise issue
tent of his property, the natural objects of his for jury as to testatrix's want of capacity to
bounty, and that he is giving property to devi- make will in question.--Daley v. Whitacre, 207
sees mentioned in manner stated, is capable of S. W. 350.
making a will.-Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. Om324(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence relied upon
818,

by contestant held insufficient to raise issue
Ow52(1) (Ky.) Where due execution of paper for jury as to undue influence.-Daley v. Whit-
offered for probate as will is proved, and paper acre, 207 S. W. 350.
is not irrational its provisions, or inconsist- ww327 (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
52(1) (Mo.) After formal proof of execu- will.--Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 818.
tion and of testator's sanity contestant has
burden of adducing substantial evidence to sup-

VI. CONSTRUCTION.
port allegation of testamentary incapacity.-

(A) General Rules.
Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 818.
Cm 55(1) (Mo.) Evidence held insufficient to

Pam 439 (Ky.) The primary purpose for the con-
afford an inference that testator did not pos: tent, and, when this intent is ascertained, it

struction of a will is to ascertain testator's in-
sess testamentary capacity.-Sanford y. Hol-
land, 207 S. W. 818.

controls to the exclusion of any rules of con-

struction.-Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W.
IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.

468.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Testmentary is the best evidence of its meaning, and testa-

Om 440 (Ky.) The written language of a will
Dispositions,

tor's intention must be gathered from the will.
88(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) When the grantor in -Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.
a deed reserves control of the deed or right to CM 481 (Tenn.) Will does not take effect un-
dispose of the property during his life, or a til death of testator.–Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S.
deed is deposited with a third party, but un- W. 734.
der control of the grantor, and not to take ef- m488 (Ky.) Extrinsic evidence may be em-
fect until after his death, such control renders ployed to ascertain a testator's intention only
the instrument testamentary in character, with where there are ambiguous terms or clauses in
the right of revocation in the grantor.-Eckert the will.-- Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.
v. Stewart, 207 S. W. 317.

Where a will contains ambiguous terms, tes-
(F) Mistake, Undue Influence, and Fraud, tator's motives, the purpose of the will, the na-

ture and extent of the property, and the rela-
Om 163(1) (Mo.) On contest of a will for un- tions between testator and deyisees, may be
due influence, contestant is required, in first looked to in construing testator's intention.--Id.
instance, to assume full burden of proof of Cam490 (Ky.) In construing a will devising a
allegation.-Sanford v. Holland, 207 S. W. hallway, the facts and circumstances of the
818.

property as to its extent, use, and manner of
Cw16317) (Mo.) Offices of affection and inter- use, its necessity, and appurtenancy to build-
est or business services rendered testator by ings, may be proven to identify the property
his wife held not predicates of undue influ- devised. Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.
ence, casting on her and others, upholding will,
on contest by grandson, any burden to show

(D) Description of Property.
will was not result of undue influence.-San- 561(1) (Ky.) Where two buildings owned by
ford v. Holland, 207 S. W. 818.

testator had a common hallway between them,
(G) Revocation and Revival.

and testator had erected a board fence dividing
183 (Ky.) Testator's third will, executed cordance therewith for many years, under a de-

the property and rented the buildings in ac-
after divorce from his wife, marriage to whom vise of one building to each son, the hallway
had revoked first will, revived by second will, to be used jointly, or if both buildings were de-
held to revoke second will only in so far as stroyed the ground covered thereby to be di-
making provision for divorced wife, not in so vided equally, the line established by testator
far as reviving first will.--Spradlin v. Adams, controlled as to the property devised to each of
207 S. W. 471.
Em 199 (Ky.) Testator's second will, properly the sons.-Williams v. Williams, 207 S. W. 468.
executed, which not only recognized, but de-

VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
clared the validity of, a former will, revoked
by marriage, and then devised other property

DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
not mentioned such former will, held a "cod- (A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen-
icil," reviving former will, under Ky, St. Sam732(2) (Tenn.) A general legacy of a cer:
4834.–Spradlin v. Adams, 207 S. W. 471.

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- 1 em 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-
C732(6) (Tenn.) Where specific legacies are ment of action; he being the agent of the cor-
consumed by payment of debts, legatees are en poration, and his death disqualifying the surviv-
titled by way of subrogation to the rights of ing party.-Wilson v. Schaff, 207 S. W. 845.
creditors to go upon the undevised real estate am 159(7) (Mo.) In a son's suit against the
for reimbursement to the extent that the person- executor of his father's estate to recover street
alty specifically bequeathed was encroached up- railway bonds, testimony of a daughter as to
on or consumed.-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. explanations made by her father when, in her
734.

presence, he opened his safety deposit box,

tore up the envelope indorsed as the property
(B) Specific, Demonstrative, and General of the son containing the bonds and threw it
Devises and Bequests.

away, held incompetent.-Harding v. St. Louis
Om755 (Tenn.) Under will bequeathing to a Union Trust Co., 207 S. W. 68.
sister the rents of a house and lot during her
natural life, house and lot to be sold at sister's

III. EXAMINATION.
death and proceeds given to an orphans' home,

(A) Taking Testimony in General.
the legacy to the home was not "demonstrative,”
but "specific."--Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734. S255 (9) (Ark.). Under Kirby's Dig. $$ 2195,

2196, minutes of the testimony before the
(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfao- grand jury cannot be used as original evidence
tion, and Lapse.

to show witness' contradictory statements
Cm771 (Tenn.) There being an ademption of made before the grand jury, but can only be us-
legacies by testatrix's sale of house and lot in ed to refresh the memory of members of the
her lifetime, the proceeds constitute a part of grand jury who might be called as witnesses on
general personal estate, and should, along with the issue.-Lind v. State, 207 S. W. 47,
other personalty, be applied to payment of debts
and general legacies under the terms of the will. (B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina-

tion.
-Ford v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.

268(1) (Mo.) Cross-examination should be in
(H) Void, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises conformity with well-recognized rules of evi-
and Bequests, and Property and dence, have a reasonable limit as to nature of
Interests Undisposed of.

inquiry, and tend to throw light upon witness'
em 852 (Tenn.) Since, under will bequeathing attitude upon the subject under investigation.-
to a sister rents of a house and lot during her State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.
natural life, house and lot to be sold at sister's Om 270(2) (Mo.App.) In action for the purchase
death and proceeds given to an orphan's home, price of a boiler, defendant contractor setting
a sale of the house and lot during testatrix's up breach of warranty, there was no error in
lifetime worked an "ademption" as to sister, it sustaining an objection to the question on cross-
also worked an ademption as to the home; the examination of plaintiff as to what the owner
legacy to the sister taking precedence and prior of the building had said to him about it.-Wil-
ity in time and right to that of the home.-Ford liam Wurdack Electric Mfg. Co. v. Elliott &
v. Cottrell, 207 S. W. 734.

Barry Engineering Co., 207 S. W. 877.
ww866 (Tenn.) Where will providing for pay-m275(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.

277(4) (Mo.) In a prosecution for man-

slaughter under Rev. St. 1909, § 4458, where
WITNESSES.

witness for state testified that he paid accused

for performing the illegal operation, an inquiry,
See Appeal and Error, em 205, 837, 1048, 1058; on cross-examination of accused, as to why sha

Continuance, cm 26; Criminal Law, m393, had received the money, was a material matter
486. 491, 597, 742, 785, 1043, 1044, 1153, 1166, and prejudicial under Rev. St. 1909, $ 5243;
1170; Depositions; Evidence; Grand' Jury, there being nothing in accused's examination in
C-37; Insurance, 574; Jury, 34; chief to authorize the inquiry.-State v. Dinkel.
Perjury, Om37; Process, Om149; Trial, en kamp, 207 S. W. 770.
140.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
II. COMPETENCY.

CONTRADICTION, AND COR-
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-

ROBORATION.
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title

(A) In General,
or Interest of Persons Deceased or In-w318 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with
competent.

intent to rape, it was not competent for de-
em 149(2) (Mo.App.) In suit by administrator | fendant to introduce testimony of specific in.

recover for breach of written contract, stances of immoral conduct for the purpose of
whereby defendant guaranteed to repurchase impeaching the character of prosecutrix or her
from deceased certain shares of capital stock, general reputation for truth and morality, and
court properly ruled, in view of Rev. St. 1909, such testimony could not be made the basis for
$ 6354, relating to cases where administrator the introduction of testimony supporting her
is a party, that defendant was incompetent to general reputation, in view of Kirby's Dig. $
testify that deceased made no demand.-Grass- 3140, making evidence of a witness' good char-
muck v. Ehrler, 207 S. W. 287.

acter inadmissible until his general reputation
Om 149(2) (Tex.Com.App.) In trespass to try has been impeached.-Lockett v. State, 207 S.
title by the heirs of the owner against the W. 55.
widow's devisees, plaintiff's testimony as While credibility of a witness may be im-
conversations with widow were not inadmissible peached by proof on cross-examination of
under Rev. St. 1911, art. 3690; her executors specific instances of immorality, or by proof of
not being necessary parties to the suit, and the contradictory statements, such evidence does
inhibition of the statute merely applying to per- not justify the introduction of proof of good
sonal representatives or heirs.-Stiles y. Haw- character in support of the witness, in view of
kins, 207 S. W. 89.

Kirby's Dig. 8 3140, declaring that such proof

to

to

is inadmissible until general reputation has grand jury who might be called as witnesses on
been impeached.--Id.

the issue.-Lind v. State, 207 S. W. 47.
318 Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of evidence 395 (Tex.Civ.App.) That testimony of plain-
impeaching credibility of a witness, testimony tiff's witness as to defendant's defamatory state-
of former declarations of the witness in sup-ments was impeached by cross-examination as
port of his testimony is never admissible. - to inconsistent testimony given in former depo-
Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Owens, 207 sition did not justify admission of testimony by
S. W. 666.

plaintiff and other witnesses that witness had
319 (Mo.) Testimony, to affect the credibil- told them that defendant bad made such state-
ity of a witness in a criminal case, is admissible ments.--Providence-Washington Ins. Co. y. Ow-
only as to matters material and relevant to the ens. 207 S. W. 666.
issue.-State v. Dinkelkamp, 207 S. W. 770. Where effort is made to impeach witness by
Cw321 (Tex.Civ.App.) Party offering deposi- evidence of declarations inconsistent with his
tions in evidence vouches for credibility of the testimony tending to prove testimony a fabrica-
witness.- Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. tion by reason of some influence existing at time
Owens, 207 S. W. 666.

of trial, evidence of declarations of witness cor-

roborative of testimony made at a time when
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness. no such influence existed is admissible.-Id.
@mw 344(2)(Ark.) In prosecution for assault 396(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff, after hav.
with intent to rape, it was not competent for ing offered in evidence both first and second
defendant to introduce testimony of specific in- deposition of same witness, could not explain
stances of immoral conduct for the purpose of the conflict between testimony contained in first
impeaching the character of prosecutrix or her with that contained in second by evidence as
general reputation for truth and morality.- to prior unsworn statements of the witness.-
Lockett v. State, 207 S. W. 55.

Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Owens, 207
Credibility of a witness may be impeached by S. W. 666.
proof on cross-examination of specific instanc-
es of immorality.--Id.

(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of
Omw 361(1) (Mo.) In prosecution for having car.

Witness.
nal knowledge of a female between the ages of
15 and 18 years, contrary to Rev. St. 1909, $ 0398(3) (Mo.App.) Where, on cross-examina-
4472, as amended by Laws 1913, p. 219, evi tion of plaintiff, defendant had elicited plain-
dence offered by defendant of specified acts of tiff's reasons for going onto defendant's farm.
prior intercourse on the part of prosecutrix, the defendant was bound thereby, and could not
having effect of impeaching prosecutrix as a contradict plaintiff's answers; the only issue in
witness, the state's evidence of her general repu- the case being as to whether defendant had
tation for chastity was admissible for purpose agreed to buy plaintiff's interest in the crop.-
of rehabilitation.-State v. Cook, 207 S. W. 831. Sexton v. Lockwood, 207 S. W. 856.

414(2). (Tex.Civ.App.) That defendant's
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness. agent denied making alleged defamatory state-
Om 363(1) (Ark.) It is permissible on cross-ex- ments to plaintiff's witness, who had testified
amination to inquire whether witness has any thereto, did not render admissible testimony by
bias for one of the parties or prejudice against plaintiff and other witnesses that witness bad
the other, or interest in the subject matter of told them that the agent had made such state-
the litigation which might affect his credibility. ments:-Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Ow-
--Prange v. Young, 207 S. W. 445.

ens, 207 S. W. 666.
372(2) (Mo.) Cross-examination of state's
witness by asking him to recite a poem he was

WORDS AND PHRASES.
alleged to have written derogatory to defendant,
for purpose of affecting his credibility, was im- | “Accord and satisfaction.”-G. M. H. Wagner
proper, despite the great latitude allowed in

& Sons v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.
cross-examination, since the animus of the wit- 632.
ness could have been better shown by direct in- “Actionable negligence."-Heinemann V, Bar-
quiry.--State v. Stegner, 207 S. W. 826.

field (Ark.) 207 S. W. 58.

"Active service."-Redd v. American Cent. Life
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 74.
Cw379(1) (Ark.) Credibility of a witness may

"Actual notice.”—Citizens' State Bank of
be impeached by proof of contradictory state. Greenup v. Johnson County (Ky.) 207 S.
ments.-Lockett v. State, 207 S. W. 55.

W. 8.
379(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In a purchaser's ac- “Ademption.”-Ford v. Cottrell (Tenn.) 207 S.
tion against the seller of land for removing fix- W. 734.
tures, evidence that the seller's agent, after the “Any property."—Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com.
contract and deed had been executed. stated App.) 207 S. W. 914.
that the fixtures did not belong to the land, “Character."-State v. Cook (Mo.) 207 S. W.
etc., could not affect the deed and contract and 831.
was not admissible as impeaching the agent's “Codicil."-Spradlin v. Adams (Ky.) 207 S. W.
testimony that there was no reservation by the 471.
owner when the land was listed.--Alexander v. "Conduct of spectators."-State v. Jones (Mo.)
Anderson, 207 S. W. 205.

207 S. W. 793.
Cu 379(9) (Ark.) A state's witness may be "County."—Breathitt County v. Hagins (Ky.)
impeached by showing that he made state. 207 S. W. 713.
ments in his testimony before the grand jury "Creditor."-Diltz v. Dodson (Tex. Civ. App
contradicting those made on the trial.--Lind v. 207 S. W. 356; Warren v. Parlin-Orendorff
State, 207 S. W. 47.

Implement Co., Id. 586.
388(8) (Ark.) To impeach a witness by "Criminal proceeding."-Kansas City v. Proud-
showing contradictory testimony before the fit (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 815.
grand jury a proper foundation should be laid “Cruelty."-MicNabb v. McNabb (Tex. Civ.
by asking the witness sought to be impeached App.) 207 S. W. 129.
whether he had made the alleged statement be- "Defeasible fee."-Murphy v. Murphy (Ky.) 207
fore the grand jury.-Lind v. State, 207 S. W. S. W. 491.
47.

"Demonstrative legacy."-Ford V. Cottrell
Cam 393(3) (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. $$21.95, (Tenn.) 207 S. W. 734.
2196, minutes of the testimony before the “Dormant judgment."--Burlington State Bank
grand jury cannot be used as original evidence v. Marlin Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S.
to show a witness' contradictory statements W. 954.
made before the grand jury, but can only be “Entered service of army."-Redd v. American
used to refresh the memory of members of the Cent. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 74.
For cases in Dee,Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
“Equitable lien."-Luse v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) | “Sale."-Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com. App.)
207 S. W. 942.

207 S. W. 914.
"Equitable mortgages.”—Luse v. Rea (Tex. Civ. / “Setting forth."-State ex rel. and to use of
App.) 207 S. W. 942.

Mosberg v. Owens (Mo. App.) 207 S. W.
"Exception.”—Thomas v. Derrick (Tex. Civ. 241.
App.) 207 S. W. 140.

"Specific legacy.”—Ford v. Cottrell (Tenn.) 207
"Exclusive agents."-Harris & White v. Stone S. W. 734.
(Ark.) 207 S. W. 443.

“Stenographer."--State ex rel. Nolen v. Hack-
“Expectation."-Shock v. Price (Mo. App.) 207 mann (Mo.) 207 S. W. 494.
S. W. 834.

"Subrogation."-Sanger Bros. y. Ely & Walk-
"Family."-St. Louis Police Relief Ass'n v. er Dry Goods Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S.
Houlehin (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 880.

W. 348.
“Fill."--Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. West Bros. (Tex. Through bill of lading.”-Ft. Worth & D. C.
Com. App.) 207 S. W. 918.

Ry. Co. v. Kemp (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W.
"F. 0. b."--Harris v. Moller (Tex. Civ. App.) 605.
207 S. W. 961.

"Title to real property.”—Phelps v. Johnson
"Future suffering."-Colby v. Thompson (Mo. (Ky.) 207 S. W. 453.
App.) 207 S. W. 73.

"Transferred."--Webb v. Reynolds (Tex. Com.
"Growing grain."-St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. App.) 207 S. W. 914.

Co. v. Pipkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. "Trial.”—Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Muse
360.

(Tex.) 207 S. W. 897.
"Incidental expenses."-State ex rel. and to "Under arrest."-Clark v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

Use of Birmingham v. Hackmann (Mo.) 207 207 S. W. 98.
S. W. 498.

“Vice principal."--San Antonio Portland (e-
"Injured party."—Wehrenbrecht v. Wehren- ment Co. v. Gschwender (Tex. Civ. App.) 207
brecht (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 290.

S. W. 967.
"Insolvent."-Luse v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 | “Volunteer.”- Miller Guaranty Trust &
S. W. 942.

Banking Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 612.
"Interstate commerce."--Texas & P. Ry. Co. v.] “Voter."-Trammell v. Griffin (Tenn.) 207 S.
Lester (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 555.

W. 726.
“Joint trespass.":—Stephens v. Schadler (Ky.) "Waiver."--Weeks v. First State Bank of De
207 S. W. 704.

Kalb (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 973.
"Judicial admissions.”—Probst v. St. Louis Bas-
ket & Box Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 891.

WORK AND LABOR.
"Land."-Redus v. Blucher (Tex. Civ. App.) 207
S. W. 613.

See Executors and Administrators, Omw 451;
“Legislative act."-Lotspeich v. Town of Mor- Trial, 29, 145.

ristown (Tenn.) 207 S. W. 719.
“Libelous per se." - Providence-Washington Ins. meruit does not necessarily depend upon a

Om2 (Tex.Civ.App.) Recovery on a quantum
('o. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. specific value.-Guyer v. Chapman, 207 S. W.

666.
“Material alteration."--Commercial Credit Co. 24(1) (Mo.App.) In an action for services,

428.
v. Giles (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W, 596.
"Ministerial act."-Lotspeich v. Town of Moro licitor in investigating claims against defendant

not based on contract, rendered by plaintiff so-
ristown (Tenn.) 207 S. W. 719.
"Murder in first degree."-State v. Solan (Mo.) of such services is fatal to a recovery. -Cheek v:

insurance company, failure to prove the value
207 S. W. 782.

National Life Ins. Co. of Upited States of
"Mutuality of obligation."—Warren Ray | America, 207 S. W. 882.

County Coal Co. (Mo. App.) 207 S. W. 8833.29(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, m108, 138.

(Mo.) 207 S. W. 831.
'Principal offender."-Lockett v. State (Ark.)

WRIT OF ERROR.
207 S. W. 55.
"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

WRITS.
('oal Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 375.
“Quasi public corporation.”—Van Valkenburgh See Attachment; Garnishment; Injunction;

v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 405. Mandamus; Process; Prohibition; Replevin.
“Reputation."-State v. Cook (Mo.) 207 S. W.
831.

X-RAY.
"Res gesta."-Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Huckabee (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 329. See Appeal and Error, em 1050.

207 S.W.-69

V.