а

by plaintiff, and could not present fundamental 1 other evidence (following Kane v. Railroad Co.
error calling for reversal after judgment.-Cel- 251 Mo. 13, 157 S. W. 644).-Davidson F. St
li v. Sanderson, 207 S. W. 179.

Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 207 S. W. 277.

843(1) (Ky.) An appellate court will not
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. decide a question raised by the parties, but
w719(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) A fundamental ques-

not presented by the evidence, for its decision
tion is to be considered on appeal, regardless on such a moot question would be only die-
of the sufficiency of the assignment of error.-

tum.-Citizens' State Bank of Greenup v. Jobn-
McCoy v. Wichita Falls Motor Co., 207 s. w. son County, 207 S. W. 8.

0843(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments urging
332.
Cm719(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where judgment

that evidence is insufficient to sustain that
does not conform to the verdict, it presents be considered in view of the holding that sucb

part of decree canceling instruments need not
fundamental error, which the appellate court portion of decree must be set aside for watt
will review without assignment.-Holmes v.
Long, 207 S. W. 201.

of_jurisdiction.-Griner v. Trevino, 207 S. W.

917.
ww724(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment of er-
ror which, with proposition under it, fails to cow 8546) (Mo.App.) An order granting a new
indicate any error of which complaint is made trial, though on an improper ground, will be
presents a mere abstraction, instead of funda- affirmed if new trial should have been granted
mental error.--Falfurrias Mercantile Co. v. Citi- on another ground of the motion.-P. R. Sip-
zens' State Bank, 207 S. W. 568.

clair Coal Co. v. Missouri-Hydraulic Mining
Om736 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment of error

Co.. 207 S. W. 200
complaining of the court's refusal to submit Cm 854(6) (Mo.App.) If there is error, although
certain different issues was multifarious, and not assigned as a ground for new trial, the
for that reason should be disregarded.-Grundy granting of a new trial, though for erroneous
v. Greene, 207 S. W. 961.

reasons, must nevertheless be upheld.-David-
m742(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) A statement under a

son v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 207 S. W. 277.
proposition, which is confined to a statement of

(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
the pleadings and the issues sought to be
raised, and does not undertake to set out the w878(1) (Mo. App.) The objection that a judg.
substance of the evidence bearing on the prop- ment should also have included interest is not
osition, is insufficient.-Thomas v. Derrick, 207 available to a respondent not appealing.-Cent-
S. W. 140.

tral Nat. Bank v. Pryor, 207 S. W. 295.
aww 742(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment of er-
ror, not followed by a statement, will not be

(E) Presumptions.
considered; mere reference to a bill of excep-900 (Mo.App.) Every presumption will be
tions in the record not being sufficient.-Falfur- indulged in aid of the proceedings of the trial
rias Mercantile Co. v. Citizens' State Bank, 207 court; it being a court of general jurisdiction.
S. W. 508.

Val Reis Piano Co. v. Gordon, 207 S. W. 2:3.
Om742(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignment of error 907() (Ark.) The presumption, that the
will not be considered, statement following it finding of a chancellor is supported by the er.
being foreign to it.-Lovelady v. Harding, 207 idence where the oral testimony is not pre-
S. W. 933.

was

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
On 930(2) (Tex.Ciy.App.) It must be assumed conflicting testimony.-Falfurrias Mercantile Co.
that the jury regarded the instructions given.- v. Citizens' State Bank, 207 S. W. 568.
Lancaster v. Mays, 207 S. W. 676.

em 1002 (Tex.Civ,App.) Jury's finding settled
Omw931(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In deference to the conflict in the evidence.-Lancaster & Wight v.
trial court, the testimony of the successful Allen, 207 S. W. 984.
party should be accepted as true by the appel. Om 1003 (Ark.) Where by applying to undisput-
late court.-Richardson v. Harless, 207 S. W. ed facts the laws of nature or the physical facts,
139.

it is demonstrated beyond controversy that the
ww931(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where defendant in- verdict based on them cannot be true, the Su-
terposed plea of contributory negligence which preme Court will declare as matter of law the

not submitted, the statute relating to testimony is legally insufficient.-St. Louis-San
special issues would require the court on ap- Francisco Ry. Co. v. Stewart, 207 S. W. 440.
peal to presume that trial court found that w 1009(3) (Ky.) The court will not disturb
plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence the findings of a chancellor where the evidence
if it were necessary to an affirmance of judg- is conflicting and the court is not convinced
ment.-Washington v. Austin Nat. Bank, 207 S. that the chancellor has erred to the prejudice
W. 382.

of the substantial rights of the appellant.-
em933(1) Mo.App.) Where record recites that Jenkins v. Dawes, 207 S. W. 689.
plaintiff confesses defendant's motion for new Com 1009(4) (Ky.) Court on appeal will not dis-
trial and that court, in conformity with such turb chancellor's finding of fact unless against
confession, does modify its former judgment the weight of the evidence.-Price v. Meade,
as to value, etc., it will be presumed that 207 S. W. 695.
plaintiff confessed value of property, and, as om 1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) There being no error
no exceptions appear, it will be conclusively in the judgment if a corner of survey owned by
presumed that plaintiff, if he did not acquiesce defendant was at point shown by plat in the
in, did not except to, action of trial court.- record sent to court on appeal, and there being
Val Reis Piano Co. v. Gordon, 207 S. W. 233. evidence authorizing a finding that the corner
Om933(1) (Tex.) An order vacating an order was at such point, judgment will be affirmed.--
granting new trial, dated same day that final Erwin v. Morgan, 207 S. W. 556.
judgment was entered, will be presumed, in Cos 1010(1) Tex.Civ.App.) The court's findings
absence of anything to the contrary, to have of fact, not being entirely unsupported by or
been rendered prior to entry of final judgment contrary to the evidence, will not be disturbed
under presumption that it was regularly and on appeal.-Williams v. Ogerly, 207 S. W. 572.
lawfully made.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. om 1013 (Tex.Civ.App.) The determination of
Muse, 207 S. W. 897.

the amount of damages in personal injury cases,
934(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where trial was had is committed to the jury in a very large meas-
by the court without a jury, and no findings of ure, and its decision will not be reversed, though
fact were filed by the trial judge, every rea- damages are greater than appellate court would
sonable presumption must be induiged in sup have given.-Burnett v. Anderson, 207 S. W.
port of the judgment rendered.-Diltz v. Dod- 540.
son, 207 S. W. 356.

Ono 1022(2) (Mo.App.) The findings of fact of

the referee, approved by the trial court, are
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.

conclusive on appeal, if supported by substan-
Cm968 (Tex.Civ.App.) Complaint of action of

tial evidence.-Ogle W. M. Sutherland
trial court in compelling plaintiffs, after they Building & Contracting Co., 207 S. W. 818.
had exhausted their peremptory challenges, to
accept a juror, shown to be a customer of de-

(H) Harmless Error.
fendant bank for many years, will not be sus-
tained; it not appearing that trial judge abus- late court to reverse a judgment for error, it

Om 1026 (Tex.Civ.App.) To authorize the appel-
ed his discretion.- Washington v. Austin Nat. must appear that the error was reasonably cal-
Bank, 207 S. W. 382.
Cm978(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) The question whether lart.-Lancaster v. Mays, 207 S. W. 676.

culated to, and probably did, injure the appel-
jurors were prejudiced against the defendant 1031(4) Tex.Civ.App.) Despite Rule 62a
and concealed that fact is primarily within the for Courts of Civil Appeals (149 S. W. x), in-
sound discretion of the trial court, and its ac: jury will be presumed when trial court errone-
tion in denying new trial for misconduct of ously excluded evidence constituting founda-
jury will not be revised where it does not clear- tion of action or defense under such circum-
ly appear that the rights of the parties have
been disregarded. -El Paso Electric Ry. Co stances that it cannot reasonably be expected
v. Gonzales, 207 S. W. 162.

that it can be supplied by other evidence.-
981 (Tex. Civ. App.) Motions for new trial Morris County Nat. Bank v. Parrish, 207 S.

W. 939.
for newly discovered evidence are addressed

improper in-
to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and Emw 1033(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) An
where denied appellate court will not reverse, struction, more calculated to help than to harm
except for clear abuse.-Sherrill v. Union Lum: appellant, cannot be complained of by him.-
ber Co., 207 S. W. 149.

St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v.
Barrett, 207 S. W. 557.

Om 1039(9) (Mo.App.) Where two counts of a
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find- complaint are alleged to be inconsistent and
ings.

V.

agent, error in sustaining an exception to such exceeding speed limit, permitting a witness to
amendment held harmless, where proof under testify that chauffeur had stated shortly after
the amendment was admitted without objection. accident that he was driving a little fast, and
-Henderson v. Beggs, 207 S. W. 565.

that the passenger had stated that she had re-
Om 1048(5) (Ark.) In action involving damage quested chauffeur not to drive so fast, was with-
to rice crop, testimony of witness as to crop out prejudice to defendant.-Burnett v. Ander-
produced on other land was not objectionable son, 207 S. W. 540.
because question did not take into account par-lo 1051(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff was
ticular season or method of farming, where first qualified to testify as an expert upon cattle
question, asked witness referred to year, and values, and accompanied his own to market, and
where witness testified to method of cultivation. the carrier introduced in evidence the daily mar-
--Prange v. Young, 207 S. W. 415.

ket report of sales on that date, plaintiff's evi-
In action involving damage to rice crop, cross-dence, if inadmissible to show that his cattle
examination of defendant as to good crops made would have been the best in their class on the
on similar lands similarly cultivated was not market of that day but for carrier's delay was
prejudicial, where defendant's answer was "the harmless where there was other sufficient evi-
conditions would vary it."--Id.

dence of value.-Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co.
In action for breach of contract to furnish of Texas v. Bomar, 207 S. W. 570.
water for rice crop, cross-examination of wit- lum 1054(2) (Ky.) Admission of incompetent evi-
ness for defendants as to similar contracts in dence on equitable issue being considered by
which witness and one of the defendants were jury was not prejudicial; verdict of jury on
partners, was not prejudicial, where answer did such issue being merely advisory.-Early r.
not show witness had any interest in the sub-| Early, 207 S. W. 466.
ject-matter of the litigation.-Id.

Om 1056(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action involving
Om 1048(5) (Mo.App.) In an action by a step- ownership of attached property, exclusion of
daughter and husband for services rendered de- opinion of claimant as to his ownership of
ceased, where plaintiffs offered evidence that property was not reversible error, where it did
they rendered all the services deceased receiv- not appear that creditors had sustained injury
ed, and, after asking witness if neighbors ren- | by reason thereof.-Frost v. Smith, 207 S. W.
dered services, as well as if sisters did. an ob- 392.
jection thereto was overruled, but the question Om 1056(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In trespass to try ti-
was not answered, and an objection was sus tle, where defendants claimed under an allegedl
tained to a subsequent question whether any forged deed executed by an attorney in fact, er-
one else assisted "in the smallest way," held clusion of a record of affidavits as to genuine-
that no reversible error was committed.--Shock ness of attorney's signature, if error, did not
v. Price 207 S. W. 834.

warrant a reversal, where it would not have
Om 1050(1) (Ark.) The admission of parol evi- affected the result.-Lancaster v. Snider, 207
der:ce to explain meaning of words in contract | S. W. 560.
was not prejudicial, where testimony merely 1056 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Exclusion of evi-
gave such words their legal meaning.-Harris & dence as to the existence of a judgment heid
White v. Stone, 207 S. W. 443.

harmless if erroneous, where the judgment
Om 1050(1) (Mo App.) Any error in allowing had become dormant.-Burlington State Bank
question, "What search did you make for the v. Marlin Nat. Bank, 207 S. W. 954.
murderer?" was harmless; the question, "You Om 1056(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Exclusion of evi-
did not look for the assassin?" having previdence which has no probative force is immaterial
ously, without objection, been asked and an and harmless.-Western Union Telegraph Co. r.
swered in the negative.-Schmidt v. Supreme | Armstrong, 207 S. W. 592.
Council of Royal Arcanum, 207 S. W. 874. Om 1058(i) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where all facts

1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for in- | which might have been elicited by question
juries to pedestrian due to automobile accident, calling for conjectural conclusion, if in proper
that a witness was asked the whereabouts of form, were testified to without objection, there
some X-ray pictures of plaintiff's foot, and re- | was no injury to appellant because of exclu-
plied, "I gave them to the insurance man," held sion of question and probable answer.-Frick
not to have had any appreciable influence in en- | v. International & G. N. Ry. Co., 207 S. W.
larging the verdict or in arousing any degree | 198.
of prejudice.-Burnett v. Anderson, 207 S. W. Om 1058(3) (Mo.App.) It was harmless er-
540.

ror to exclude evidence as to a matter testi-
Om 1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of testi fied to by other witnesses.-William Wurdack
mony with reference to offer of defendant rail Electric Mfg. Co. v. Elliott & Barry Engi-
way company to make settlement for damages neering Co., 207 S. W. 877.
due to fire started by its engine was prejudicial om 1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by a
error.-Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Lancaster, switchman for injuries, where the evidence of
207 S. W. 606.

negligence was close. improper remarks of plain-
1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where evidence as tiff's counsel as to competency of engineer and
to whether defendant's agent made statements as to plaintiff having to live on half rations or
defamatory to plaintiff was sharply conflicting, the charity of his friends if not awarded dam-
and plaintiff's witness' testimony as to state ages must be held to have improperly influenced
ments was inconsistent with testimony given in the jury.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Miller, 207 S.
former deposition, the admission of evidence of W. 554.
declarations of such witness to corroborate his m 1060(4) (Ter.Civ.App.) In action against
testimony that statements were made, was re corporation employer for death of employé,
versible error.-Providence-Washington Ins. Co. plaintiff's counsel's reference to employer as
V. Owens. 207 S. W. 666.

å "heartless and soulless corporation," and
1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where similar tes. his reference to plaintiff, employé's wife, as a
timony was admitted without objection, an as- "wounded dove," and his statement of amount
signment complaining of the admission of tes of property of corporation, did not improperly
timony must be overruled.--Manton v. City of influence jury, where verdict did not indicate
San Antonio, 207 S. W. 951.

either passion or prejudice.-San Antonio
Om 1050(2) (Mo.Apr.) In an action for an Portland Cement Co. v. Gschwender, 207 S.
amount due on a contract of sale for an in- | W. 967.
terest in a crop, admission of immaterial evi- cm 1062(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by a
dence that plaintiff had gone on the farm for railroad fireman for injuries, held, that instruc-
the sole purpose of being registered as a farm-tions, though erroneous in submitting to the
er, in order to avoid military service, was jury facts conclusively established, etc., were
prejudicial.- Serton v. Lockwood, 207 S. W. harmless.-Lancaster v. Mays, 207 S. W. 676.
8.56.

cm 1062(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) It is not error of
1051 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where it was plain which appellant can complain to refuse to sub-
from the evidence that defendant's chauffeur was mit a special issue to the jury, where an affirma.

an

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
tive reply thereto would not be warranted by verdict is excessive.—Duke v. Hatcher, 207 S.
testimony before the jury.-Lancaster v. Snider, W. 575.
207 S, W. 560.

Om 1071(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) In shipper's action
On 1064(1) (Mo.) Instructions for a respondent involving issues as to whether two railroads
which are inconsistent entitle appellant, who were negligent in handling shipment of live
has served an exception to them, to a reversal stock, whether shipper was damaged thereby
of the case if his interest had been prejudiced and amount of any damage, where the evidence
had the jury followed the one rather than the was conflicting and the court, sitting without a
other.-In re Sixth Street, 207 S. W. 503. jury, dismissed one defendant and found for the

1064(1) (Mo.App.) Where the jury were other, its failure to file its findings of fact and
required to find facts which, if true, constitut- conclusions of law, after due request, under
ed negligence on the part of the master, held, Rev. St. 1911, art. 2075, prevented appellant
that an instruction was not prejudicial, though from fairly presenting the appeal, and was
characterizing as negligent a direction given ground for reversal.- Stewart & Threadgill v.
by the vice principal to the deceased servant. El Paso & S. W. Co., 207 S. W. 594.

Medley v. Parker-Russel Min. & Mfg. Co.,
207 S. W. 887.

(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.
Om 1064(1) (Tex.Com.App.) In an action for m1090 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Where shipper
negligent burning of grass in a pasture, er-
roneously instructing that plaintiff was enti- and judgment went for plaintiff as against ter-

sued initial, connecting, and terminal carrier,
tled to recover'the cost of feed for his cattle minal carrier on theory of verbal contract
and the expense necessary in feeding them made with it, and shipper did not appeal or
was reversible error.--Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. assign cross-assignments in Court of Civil Ap-
Co. v. Word, 207 S. W. 902.
1064(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Where there is further appeal by shipper from adverse jud

peals, though terminal carrier appealed, on
à sharp conflict in the testimony as to liability, ment to Supreme Court shipper would be held
the giving of a charge which imposes upon

to have abandoned his cause of action against
plaintiff a greater burden than is required by the other defendant.—Texas & P. Ry. Co. v.
law is calculated to prejudice plaintiff and West Bros., 207 S. W. 918.
cause the jury to render an improper verdict.
-Weisnerv. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of

(K) Subsequent Appeals.
Texas, 207 S. W. 904.
Om 1064(2) (Tex.Civ. App.) In action for 1097(1) (Ky.) An opinion on appeal is the
damages occasioned by frightening of team by law of the case on a subsequent appeal.-Ram-
a locomotive, it was harmless error to instruct mage v. Kendall, 207 S. W. 690.
that persons driving teams "easily frightened” w 1099(3) (Ark.) Declaration on appeal in
should exercise care for their own safety, where contractor's suit for construction of reservoirs,
it appeared without dispute that the team was water district counterclaiming for breach, that
**skittish and would run away sometimes.”—St. contractor.could not escape liability though its
Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Bar- departure from contract resulted in work as
rett, 207 S. W. 557.

good as specified, etc., together with directions
Om 1066 (Mo.App.) The appellate court can-

given trial court on reversal merely to ascer-
not say that instruction on damages authoriz- tain cost of reconstructing work, held law of
ing consideration of whether injuries were

case on second appeal, not to be departed from.
permanent, when there was no pleading or evi- -Inland Const. Co. v. Rector, 207 S. W. 33.
dence thereof, but merely of future suffering,

Ons 1099 (3) (Tenn.) A former judgment
did not “materially affect the merits.” —Colby against an unincorporated religious associa-
v. Thompson, 207 S. W. 73.

tion held on subsequent appeal conclusive as
Om 1066 (Tex.Com. App.) Giving

to the authority of the association to incur

the indebtedness sued for.-Hunter v. Swad-
ous instruction on contributory negligence not
reversible error.-Weisner v. Missouri, K. & that a transaction was champertous is law of
raised by the pleadings or tħe evidence was ley, 207 S. W. 730.

e-1099(4) (Ky.) Holding former appeal
T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 207 S. W. 904.
Ci 1067 (Mo.App.) Defendant was not preju- erty. 207 S. W. 474.

case on subsequent appeal.-Anderson v. Daugh-
diced by refusal of instruction submitting ques-m1099(8) (Mo.App.) In a suit on a claim
tion of excessive speed of automobile as
predicate of liability, where plaintiff did not ceased, the decision on a former appeal sus-

against an estate for services rendered to de-
submit his case upon such assignment of neg- taining the refusal of defendant's peremptory
ligence.-Brooks v. Harris, 207 S. W. 293.

instrnction was the law of the case on a second
Om 1067 (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit by employé to trial, where additional testimony was introduced
recover for injuries sustained while riding upon by claimant.--Kleinberg v. Kinealy, 207 S. W.
track in a motorcycle by invitation of another 237.
employé after working hours, instruction that
plaintiff was a “trespasser," although quoted XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
term was not defined, held without injury to
plaintiff.-Frick v. International & G. N. Ry.

SITION OF CAUSE.
Co., 207 S. W. 198.

(A) Decision in General.
Om 1068(1) (Tex.Ciy.App.) Instruction that ml114 (Tex.) Where defendant in error is
plaintiff was a trespasser on track, and that entitled to have other assignments consider-
defendant railroad owed him no duty, until his ed by Court of Civil Appeals, which it con-
position of peril was discovered, although er- cluded need not be considered under its former
roneous, and not in compliance with Vernon's disposition of the case, the cause will be re-
Sayles' 'Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1984a, as to manded to said court for its further action on
definition of terms, cannot be said to have con- such assignments of error; its judgment being
tributed to result where jury found in answer reversed.-Bird v. Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co.,
to only issue submitted that operators of train 207 S. W. 518.
did not discover plaintiff's peril in time to have
prevented injury.-Frick v. International & G.

(B) Afrmance.
N. Ry. Co., 207 S. W. 198.

en I 127 (Mo.App.) Respondent is too late in
Om 1068(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where plaintiff made seeking the penalty of affirmance for failure to
out no case entitling him to recover, errors in file, in the appellate court, as required by Rev.
the instruction
immaterial.--Saenz

an

errone

on

а

were

904.

1133 (Tex.Civ.App.) There being no state- dor's lien notes, where evidence was insufficient
ment of facts, bill of exception, or assignment to support a recovery, but on another trial ad-
of error in the record, judgment will be affirm- ditional evidence might be offered, held, that
ed, where no fundamental error is disclosed.- judgment would be reversed and cause re-
Ogg v. Loyd, 207 S. W. 553.

manded.-Raley y. D. Sullivan & Co., 207 S.

W. 906.
(C) Modification.

mm 1177 (9) (Mo.App.) In an action where
Cum 1151 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a judg- / judgment was for defendant on plaintiff's pe-
ment was excessive to the amount of $38, and tition and for plaintiff on defendant's counter-
the error is plainly discernible, held that that claim, defendant having admitted owing plain-
is not ground for reversal, as the judgment tiff in his answer, on reversing, the appellate
might be reformed and affirmed.-Burlington court will not direct judgment for the plain-
State Bank v. Marlin Nat. Bank, 207 S. W. tiff, where she conceded in her petition and
954.

testimony that defendant should be credited
(D) Reversal.

with certain taxes and other money paid for

her, the amount of such credits not appearing
Om 1170(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Supreme Court l in

| in the record, but a new trial will be ordered.
Rule 62A (149 S. W. x) was not intended to

|--Algeo v. Algeo, 207 S. W. 842.
deprive the Supreme Court of the power to

Can I 180(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Adults who did not
determine for itself whether any erroneous

answer, and against whom default judgment
action of the trial court was of such charac-

was rendered, are not entitled to relief, though
ter as amounted "to such a denial of the rights

the judgment, which was adverse to other par-
of the plaintiffs as was reasonably calculated

ties having the same title, was reversed on the
to cause and probably did cause the rendition

appeal of such parties.-Eckert v. Stewart, 207
of an improper judgment."-Weisner v. Mis-

S. W. 317.
souri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 207 S. W.

(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower
1170(6) Tex.Civ.App.) Court of Civil Ap-

Court.
peals Rulé No. 62a, prohibiting reversals for
errors of law by the trial court not calculated

Immo 1195(1) (Ky.) An opinion on appeal is the
Cause rendition of an improper judgment. | law of the case on a subsequent trial.—Ram-
applies where the judge, after the jury had

mage v. Kendall, 207 S. W. 690.
failed to agree, stated to them the desirability

1212(2) (Tex.Com.App.) Where shipper
of bringing in a verdict; such statement not

sued initial, connecting, and terminal carriers
being coercive or persuasive in favor of ei-

for injuries to shipment of live stock, but all
ther party.--Texas Midland R. R. v. Brown,

causes of action were abandoned except as
207 S. W. 340.

against terminal carrier and judgment went
Om 1170(9) (Tex.Ciy.App.) In a suit for evic for plaintiff on theory of verbal contract with
tion from a farm, refusal of instruction that it terminal carrier, though acts of negligence
was the tenant's duty to procure other land were also alleged, on reversal and remand for
to lessen the damages, or after having failed invalidity of contract shipper could recover
to procure such land to seek other employment, on another trial on theory of negligence.-
if error, held harmless, where no complaint is Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. West Bros., 207 S. W.
made of excessive verdict in view of Court of 918.
Appeals rule 62a (149 S. W. x).-Duke V.
Hatcher, 207 S. W. 575.

XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND
1171(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) A monetary judg-

UNDERTAKINGS.
ment for $160, otherwise proper, will not be

On 1232 (Tex.) Where a judgment, as render-
reversed because it was excessive in the
amount of $7.-Bryson y. Abney, 207 S. W.

ed by the Supreme Court in plaintiff's favor,
945.

is for a materially less amount than the judg.
Om 1172(2) (Ky.) That part of a judgment

ment decreed in the trial court, it is improper

to render any judgment against the surety on
which is sustained by the pleadings, and evi-
dence and admitted to be correct by appellant's

the appeal bond.-Home Iny, Co. v, Strange, 207

S. W. 307.
brief, will not be disturbed on appeal.-King
v. King, 207 S. W. 1.

om 1234(1) (Ark.) Where appellant, feeling that
Om 1173(1) (Tex. Com. App.) Where shipper

live stock on which the court had declared a
of cattle suing initial, connecting, and terminal

lien was insufficient to warrant a bond under

Kirby's Dig. $ 1218, to supersede the entire
carriers elected to recover from terminal car-
rier, which sought judgment over against con-

judgment, applied to court for appraisal and
necting carriers, but under the Carmack

gave bond under section 1222, they and their
Amendment to the Hepburn Act (U. S. Comp.

sureties took the risk of stock dying, and, if
St. 88 8604a, 8604aa) and under the pleadings

unable to return stock,, must account for value
and evidence the terminal carrier could not

thereof.-Howell v. Walker, 207. S. W. 41.
have recovery over, it was not necessary to
remand the cause as to connecting carrier on

APPEARANCE.
reversal of judgment for plaintiff against ter-
minal carrier. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. West See Justices of the Peace, w161.
Bros., 207 S. W. 918.
1175(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment being

APPREHENSION.
warranted only for fraud or upon some other
equitable ground, the court on appeal will not See Telegraphs and Telephones, cum 68.
render judgment, but will reverse and remand,
where it is unable to determine whether court
based judgment upon finding that power of at-

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
torney was insufficient or upon a finding of

See Insurance, 570, 574; Jury, 13; Mu-
fraud. --Griner v. Trevino, 207 S. W. 947.

nicipal Corporations, m62; Stipulations,
Com 1177 (6) (Tex.Com.App.) Where plaintiff

14.
claimed under a sheriff's deed, but the issue of
the sheriff's authority to execute the deed was
not fully developed, notwithstanding two prior

II. ARBITRATORS AND PROCEED.
trials, held, under circumstances, that a judg-

INGS.
ment for plaintiff, who did not show the sher- 31 (Ky.) As a general rule, arbitrators, in
iff's authority, should be reversed, and the the absence of parties or notice to them of the
cause remanded, instead of judgment being | time and place, cannot receive extrinsic evi-
rendered for defendant.-Richards v. Rule, 207dence calculated to have a material bearing up-
S. W. 912.

I on the award.-R. E. Jones & Co. v. Northern
1177(7) (Tex.Com.App.) In an action in- Assur. Co., Limited, of London, England, 207
volving title to land and the foreclosure of ven-'s. W. 459.