For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER from must be considered, where substantial evi- | by pleadings and evidence.-Mansfield v. Rigsdence supports verdict.-State ex rel. Athletic by, 273 S. W. 290. Tea Co. v. Cameron, 273 S. W. 746.

930(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) On appeal, greatest possible weight is given every fact supporting verdict and judgment.-Proctor v. Miller, 273 S. W. 327.

930 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding must be predicated on testimony properly before the court.-R. B. George Machinery Co. v. Spearman, 273 S. W. 640.

When issue not submitted and not requested deemed as found by court to support judgment stated.-Id.

as

931 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Presumed that to question of fact, trial court found in favor of appellee, in absence of findings and conclusions by trial court.-Adcock v. Shell, 273 S. W. 900.

931 (4) (Ark.) Where discrepancy between description of property in original petition for organization of drainage subdistrict and that in notice of hearing not shown, finding of no discrepancy presumed.-Mahan v. Wilson, 273 S. W. 383.

1001(1) (Ark.) Verdict supported by legally sufficient evidence is conclusive.-McKee v. Legion Oil & Gas Co., 273 S. W. 363.

1002 (Ark.) Jury's finding whether resale of article repossessed by seller was advertised and effected, in accordance with Tennessee law, held conclusive.-White Co. v. Bragg, 273 S. W. 7.

1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of jury on controverted issue will not be disturbed.-R. B. George Machinery Co. v. Spearman, 273 S. W. 640. 1003 (Ark.) Weight of testimony is for jury-McKee v. Legion Oil & Gas Co., 273 S. W. 363.

1003 (Mo.App.) Appellate court cannot disturb judgment and verdict supported by evidence, even if it believes the weight of evidence was in favor of appellant.-State ex rel. Athletic Tea Co. v. Cameron, 273 S. W. 746.

1003 (Tex.Civ.App.) Verdict declaring passenger injured while alighting held not against evidence.-Galveston Electric Co. v. Marangola, 273 S. W. 311.

931 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding, that defendant automobilist violated speed limit, as-1003 (Tex.Civ.App.) Jury trying question sumed in support of judgment for plaintiff.- of fact are exclusive judges of credibility of Dollar Dodge Rent Service v. McEwen, 273 S. witnesses and weight of their testimony.Proctor v. Miller, 273 S. W. 327.

W. 889.

931 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) On failure to require trial court to file findings, if competent evidence supports judgment, it is presumed that court disregarded incompetent evidence. Joseph v. Puryear, 273 S. W. 974.

934 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Every presumption not inconsistent with record indulged in favor of judgment, and doubts as to facts resolved in support thereof.-Campbell v. Teeple, 273 S.

W. 304.

981 (Tex.Civ.App.) Granting of new trials for newly discovered evidence largely within discretion of trial court; ruling not disturbed unless discretion abused.-Wright v. Stone, 273

S. W. 937.

1004 (1) (Mo.App.) Award of damages not disturbed on appeal, where no attempt was made to rebut proof of value of goods lost.Haney v. Geraghty, 273 S. W. 780. 1005(4) (Mo.App.) Weight evidence held for jury and trial court.-Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 273 S. W 221.

of

1008(!) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court's findings entitled to as much consideration as jury's verdict.-Crawford v. Beaver-Electra Refining Co., 273 S. W. 892.

1008 (2) (Ky.) Where law and facts are submitted to court, judgment treated as verdict of properly instructed jury.-Oliver v. Clark, 273 S. W. 46.

1009 (1) (Mo.App.) Chancellor's finding on facts held entitled to great deference on appeal.-Steffen v. Stahl, 273 S. W. 118.

1010(1) (Mo.App.) Finding of trial court in law case is conclusive on appeal, when supported by substantial evidence.-Kistenmacher V. Travelers' Indemnity Co., 273 S. W. 125. 1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court of Civil Appeals held not at liberty to disturb judgment sustained by some evidence.-City of Clifton v. Woodlief Engineering Co., 273 S. W. 619.

1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment of trial court not interfered with when supported by sufficient uncontroverted evidence.-Graves v. Cooper, 273 S. W. 657.

1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of trial (G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-judge, sustained by evidence, conclusive.-Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Cunningham, 273 S. W. 697.

ings.

989 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court must examine entire record for error when trial court instructs verdict.-Graves v. Cooper, 273 S. W. 657.

1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Contributory negligence of pedestrian, struck by automobile, held fact question for trial court.-Dollar Dodge Rent Service v. McEwen, 273 S. W.

889.

989 (Tex.Civ.App.) In passing on question whether answers to special issues are contrary to evidence, only evidence sustaining ver-1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings and judgdict will be considered.-Margules v. Terry, ment sustained where there is evidence in record to sustain them.-Crawford V. BeaverElectra Refining Co., 273 S. W. 892

273 S. W. 690.

989 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court looks to evidence as whole in determining whether verdict contrary to weight of evidence.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 273 S. W. 979.

Trial court's findings of fact not reversed by appellate court where there is some evidence to support them.-Id.

1012(1)(Mo.App.) Weight of evidence held 994 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Jury trying ques- solely for trial court.-Saunders v. Englehart, tion of fact are exclusive judges of credibility 273 S. W. 157. of witnesses.-Proctor v. Miller, 273 S. W. 327.1013 (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding of fact by 999(1) (Mo.App.) Appellate court inter- trial court, supported by evidence, not set feres with verdict only when it appears to per- aside.-Cry v. J. W. Bass Hardware, 273 S. W. mit it to stand would clearly result in injustice. -Saunders v. Englehart, 273 S. W 157.

347.

(H) Harmless Error.

1001 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Neither trial court 1026 (Mo.App.) Error must be prejudicia! nor Court of Civil Appeals authorized to dis- to losing party to work reversal.--Carpenter v. turb finding of jury on fact question supported Burmeister, 273 S. W. 418.

in collecting notes held reversible error.-Gray v. Hafale, 273 S. W. 647.

1026 (Tex.Civ.App.) Matters not hurtful will not be considered reversible.-Haines v. Bankers' Petroleum & Refining Co., 273 S. W. 1062(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Submission of im940.

1033 (5) (Ky.) Instruction held more favorable than defendant was entitled to under the evidence.-Wight v. Rose, 273 S. W. 472.

1040 (10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling exception to allegation that railroad habitually operated trains at high and dangerous rate not prejudicial.-Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Hanna, 273 S. W. 280.

1042(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Striking out trial amendment on account of expired charter held harmless error.-New Liberty Common School Dist. No. 3 v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank. 273 S. W. 330.

material issues and answers thereto not grounds for reversal, if judgment is not in conflict with findings on material issues.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Southern Casualty Co., 273 S. W. 680.

1064(1) (Ky.) Failure to specify to jury what signals should have been given by train, not prejudicial.-Western Collieries Co. v. Rhye, 273 S. W. 91.

1064(1) (Mo.App.) Instruction, if erroneous. in failing to require finding as to character of brakeman's ejection of trespasser on freight train, held harmless, in view of evidence.-Graham v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 273 S. W. 221.

1045(1)(Mo.App.) Refusal to discharge jury, because juror, except for honest mistake 1064(1) (Ark.) Appellant not entitled to in saying he did not know a witness, might have complain of instructions not prejudicial to it.been challenged, held not error.-Zein v. Pickél Ozark Mut. Life Ass'n v. Dillard, 273 S. W. Stone Co., 273 S. W. 165. 378.

1046(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judge's remark as to effect of jury's answer to certain issue held not reversible error.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Southern Casualty Co., 273 S. W. 680.

1048 (2) (Mo.App.) Permitting plaintiff to testify as to transaction with deceased person held reversible error.-Lang v. Wishart, 273 S. W. 768.

1064(1) (Ky.) Instruction on measure of damages for assault held not prejudicial.— Walker v. Rogers, 273 S. W. 439. Instruction on self-defense in suit for as

sault, held not prejudicial.—Id.

1064 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Charge on particular state of facts held harmless error.-Galveston Electric Co. v. Marangola, 273 S. W. 311.

1050(1) (Mo.App.) Admission of indorsers' testimony that they would not have signed if 1066 (Ark.) Submission of two grounds of they had known that other indorsers' names recovery, one being unsupported by evidence, were not to remain on note held erroneous, prejudicial error.-Ayer-Lord Tie Co. v. Puckbut probably harmless.-Miners' & Merchants' ett, 273 S. W. 715. Bank of Flat River v. Richards, 273 S. W. 415.1066 (Mo.) Instruction authorizing jury to 1050(1) (Ky.) Any error in admission of allow damages for permanent injuries held prejevidence that plaintiff had other means of in- udicial error.-Rosenzweig v. Wells, 273 S. W. gress and egress to its property than street on 1071. which track was located held not prejudicial.1066 (Mo.App.) Instruction held prejudiStratton & Terstegge Co. v. Baltimore & O. cial, as giving jury roving commission to find S. W. R. Co., 273 S. W. 506. defendant negligent, and too abstract.-Smith 1050(1) (Mo.App.) Admission of testimony v. Anderson Motor Service Co., 273 S. W. 741. that stock had no market value, if error, held 1067 (Ky.) Failure to instruct as to duty harmless, in view of other evidence.-Citizens' to exercise greater care in approaching danBank of Edina v. Kriegshauser, 273 S. W. 764. gerous crossing held not prejudicial, where ev1050(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Overruling objec-idence largely directed to such question.-Rice's tion on ground of unresponsiveness to inter- Adm'rs v. Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co., rogatory held not injurious.-Missouri Pac. Ry. 273 S. W. 78. Co. v. Baldwin, 273 S. W. 834.

1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of testimony merely cumulative held harmless.-Burrell v. Michaux, 273 S. W. 874.

1050(1) (Mo.App.) Testimony that orders for goods were taken for defendant held not prejudicial error, in view of other evidence.Bluff City Shoe Co. v. Levy, 273 S. W. 1086. Admission of testimony as to matter already testified to by same witness without objection, harmless.-Id.

Failure to instruct as to operator's duties in approaching crossing held not prejudicial, where jury must have understood from whole conduct of trial what such duties were.-Id.

1067 (Mo.App.) Defendant not prejudiced by court's failure to instruct on negligence.Traynor v. Wells, 273 S. W. 1100.

1067 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to instruct to disregard improper arguments of counsel to jury held harmless.-Thetford v. Modern Woodmen of America, 273 S. W. 666.

1056(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Improper exclu-1068(4) (Ky.) No reversal for instruction sion of competent evidence in appellant's favor upon vital issue held reversible error.-Bayliss v. Raney, 273 S. W. 932.

1058(1) (Mo.) Error, if any, in excluding evidence of condition of seller's plant at time of contract, and buyer's knowledge thereof, held harmless.-Scullin Steel Co. v. Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95.

permitting recovery of unauthorized item of damages, disproportionate in amount to cost of retrial.-Hunt v. Callihan, 273 S. W. 555. 1068 (4) (Mo.) Erroneous instruction measure of damages not reversible error, where not affecting result prejudicially to defendant.Rosenzweig v. Wells, 273 S. W. 1071.

on

1068 (4) (Mo.App.) Failure of instruction 1058(3) (Mo.App.) Exclusion of testimony to limit recovery harmless, in view of award. as to matter testified to by appellant's presi--Semper v. American Press, 273 S. W. 186. dent held not reversible error.-Bluff City Shoe 1068(5) (Ky.) Error in failing to instruct Co. v. Levy, 273 S. W. 1086. on speed as prima facie evidence of negligence held not prejudicial, where verdict necessarily implied rejection of evidence as to speed.Wight v. Rose, 273 S. W. 472.

1060(1) (Mo.App.) Argument asking jury how they would like to be in plaintiff's condition not prejudicial.-Stotler v. Blanton-Sims Co., 273 S. W. 137.

1071 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) When failure of 1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) When improper trial court to file findings of fact and concluargument warrants reversal stated.-Thetford sions of law requires reversal stated.—Chilv. Modern Woodmen of America, 273 S. W. 666. dress v. Wolf, 273 S. W. 274. 1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Argument of pro-1071 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure of trial ponent's counsel misstating law as to mental court to file findings of law and fact prejudicial. capacity to make will held not to require re- -Garrow, MacClain & Garrow v Texas & N. versal.-Bell v. Blackwell, 273 S. W. 866. O. R. Co., 273 S. W. 277.

1062 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to submit

1071 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure of trial

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
law held not to necessitate reversal.-George v
Dupignac, 273 S. W. 934.

1071 (2) (Mo.) Seller of pig iron not harmed by holding that contract was one to manufacture and deliver.-Scullin Steel Co. v. Mississippi Valley Iron Co., 273 S. W. 95.

1073 (7) (Mo.App.) Error in permitting recovery of interest prior to demand or institution of suit held cured by filing of remittitur.Rosenberg v. Greenstone, 273 S. W. 133.

60.

IV. ACTIONS.

131 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition held not subject to general demurrer for failure to allege consideration for principal acceptance of order assigning interest in contract with agent.— Bush v. Gholson, 273 S. W. 703.

138 (Tex. Civ. App.) Instructed verdict against principals in assignee's action on order assigning interest in contract executed by agent held proper.-Bush v. Gholson, 273 S. W. 703.

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF

CREDITORS.

V. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF
CREDITORS.

(A) In Aid of Assignment.

293 (Ky.) Assignee for benefit of creditors, failing to account for property and funds received, held liable to creditor of assignor for percentage of claim as agreed on.-Nathan Plaut & Son v. Acree, 273 S. W. 433. ASSOCIATIONS.

874.

1171(6) (Ky.) Plaintiff not entitled to re- See Insurance, 697-800. versal of directed verdict merely because entitled to go to jury on question of nominal dam-4 (Tex.Civ.App.) Right to enjoin use of ages.-Elder v. Florsheim Shoe Co., 273 S. W. laws, nomenclature, and emblems of order held not to depend on showing of tendency to mis1178 (8) (Mo.App.) Case remanded to af-lead public.-Burrell v. Michaux, 273 S. W. ford plaintiff opportunity to amend petition, where he may have cause of action under proper petition.-Anderson v. Wells, 273 S. W. 233. 1180(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Orders of commissioners' court, fixing compensation of county treasurer, prior to similar superseding order which was declared void, rendered inoperative thereby.-Kaufman County v. Gaston, 273 S.

W. 894.

(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower

Court.

thorized use by defendants of laws, nomenEvidence held to support findings that unauclature, and emblems of order would constitute continuing injury and irreparable damage to plaintiffs.-Id.

Plaintiffs held not guilty of laches in enjoining, unauthorized use of laws, nomenclature,

and emblems of its orders.-Id.

Facts held to show no estoppel, abandonment, nor anything rendering it inequitable to arrest further invasion of plaintiffs' rights. -Id. ASSUMPTION OF RISK. 203–226.

1194(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Adjudication that district court was without jurisdiction for lack of appeal bond does not affect county court's See Master and Servant, decree.-Warne v. Jackson, 273 S. W. 315.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

I. SUBMISSION.

3 (Ark.) Void instrument revoking will could not be subject of arbitration.-Newboles v. Newboles, 273 S. W. 1026.

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

See Criminal Law, 706-728; Trial, 106-127.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

See Homicide.

II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. (B) Prosecution and Punishment. 95 (Ky.) Evidence held to make case for jury.-Walker v. Rogers, 273 S. W. 439.

ASSESSMENT.

See Municipal Corporations, 405-567.

ASSIGNMENTS.

1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (B) Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment.

34 (Mo.App.) Assignments by parol are valid, and may be inferred from conduct of parties.-City of Maplewood ex rel. and to Use of Citizens' Bank of Maplewood v. Johnson, 273 S. W. 237.

58 (Tex.Civ.App.) Order for sum due under contract held not "bill of exchange," but subject to equitable assignment without acceptance by person in charge of fund on which drawn.-Bush v. Gholson, 273 S. W. 703.

ATTACHMENT.

See Garnishment.

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS. (B) Grounds of Attachment.

47 (4) (Ark.) Evidence held to sustain finding that defendant was nonresident at time attachment suit instituted.-Nelon v. J. B. Duncan Co., 273 S. W. 18.

III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE. (B) Affidavits.

124 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff must show fraudulent conveyance to hinder and delay creditors. -First Nat. Bank v. Kibble, 273 S. W. 148. VII. QUASHING, VACATING, DISSOLUTION, OR ABANDONMENT.

258 (Mo.App.) Fraudulent conveyance, so as to hinder or delay creditors, held for jury. -First Nat. Bank v. Kibble, 273 S. W. 148.

Whether defendant fraudulently concealed mules to hinder or delay creditors held for jury. -Id.

Instructions, that there was no evidence to support certain charges in affidavit, held justified by and no broader than evidence.-Id.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

See Criminal Law, 706-728; District and
Prosecuting Attorneys; Trial, 106–127.

1. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY.
(B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Lia-
bilities.

26 (Tex.Civ.App.) Writings on both sides of paper to be construed together to determine

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
See Exceptions, Bill of.

purpose and effect of agreement.-Cowan v. Hulse & Allen, 273 S. W. 663.

II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY. 86 (Mo.App.) Plaintiff estopped from denying facts stated by defendant's counsel in open court, where plaintiff stood mute.-Mannion v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston, Mass., 273 S. W. 201.

101(1) (Ky.) Client may repudiate attorney's act in accepting something different than that sued for and dismissing action; answer alleging attorney's agreement to satisfy judg ment held not to state defense in action to set aside fraudulent conveyances.-Melton v. Kemp, 273 S. W. 488.

BAIL.

II. IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

66 (Tex.Cr.App.) Recognizance must state offense for which conviction was had.-Brown v. State, 273 S. W. 862.

139(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Partial payment of note already due insufficient to constitute an extension of time for payment.-Neyland v. Lanier, 273 S. W 1022.

140 (Tex.Civ.App.) Comakers not released 80 (Ark.) Surety not discharged nor state by sureties by extension of time for payment estopped from claiming forfeiture by clerk's to principal signer.-Neyland v. Lanier, 273 S. erroneous entry of judgment that defendant was placed in sheriff's custody.-Richardson v. State, 273 S. W. 367.

See Pledges.

BAILMENT.

W.

1022.

V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON INDORSE-
MENT OR TRANSFER.

(C) Assignment or Sale. 321 (Ky.) In action by assignee of nonnegotiable note, failure to submit issue whether 23 (Ky.) Borrower of shares of stockdefendant claiming a set-off had knowledge of agreeing to return same number of shares was assignment was error.-Dunn v. Limerick, 273 not required to return identical shares borrow- S. W. 553. ed. Sipple v. Pennington, 273 S. W. 434.

31(3) (Mo.App.) Evidence held sufficient to warrant finding that bailment existed.-Haney v. Geraghty, 273 S. W. 780.

32 (Ky.) Liability of party refusing to return within reasonable time after demand number of shares of stock borrowed stated.-Sipple v. Pennington, 273 S. W. 434.

BANKRUPTCY.

See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.

BANKS AND BANKING.
III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS.
(C) Deposits.

119 (Mo.App.) Deposit becomes fund of bank and is ordinary indebtedness of bank to depositor. Horigan Realty Co. v. First Nat. Bank. 273 S. W. 772.

VIII. ACTIONS.

442 (Mo.App.) Action on note grounded on on indebtedness.— promise to pay and not Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

443(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Legal owner and holder of bearer's notes held entitled to main-* tain suit.-Neyland v. Lanier, 273 S. W. 1022.

474 (Mo.App.) Mere denial of indebtedness not a "general denial."-Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

475 (Mo.App.) Denial of indebtedness not denial of execution of note.-Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

485 (Mo.App.) General denial, not under oath, not a denial of execution of note.—Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

130(1) (Mo.App.) Money, deposited by de-485 (Tex.Civ.App.) Wife not required to from bank to which husband delivered it as positor as trustee, becomes fund of bank, in deny transfer of note under oath, to recover absence of latter's knowledge of true ownercollateral without her knowledge or consent.ship.-Horigan Realty Co. v. First Nat. Bank, Dodson v. Isensee, 273 S. W. 634. 273 S. W. 772.

134(1) (Mo.App.) During life of depositor. bank entitled to offset its claim against depositor.-Horigan Realty Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 273 S. W. 772.

489(5) (Mo.App.) Affirmative defense cannot be legally proven under general denial.Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

489(6) (Mo.App.) Allegation in petition 134(2) (Mo.App.) Deposit of deceased per- that note contained words "value received" not son may not be applied to note not maturing an allegation that note was given for value rebefore his death.-Horigan Realty Co. v. Firstceived.-Franklin Bank v. International Hos Nat. Bank, 273 S. W. 772.

BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS.

pital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

489 (7) (Mo.App.) Failure to prove execu tion precludes recovery on proof of indebtedness. Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

491 (Mo.App.) Presumed that note delivered and negotiable and given for valuable consideration, where plaintiff in possession, and execution not denied.-Franklin Bank v. Interna tional Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197. 493(2)(Mo.App.) Not incumbent on plaintiff to prove value or consideration.-Franklin Bank v. International Hospital Equipment Co., 273 S. W. 197.

A promissory and negotiable note is deemed prima facie to have been issued for valuable consideration.-Id.

Burden not on plaintiff to prove value recaiv

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

499 (Ky.) Defendant had burden to prove | 94(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Carrier responsible payment by satisfactory evidence.-Taylor v. for freight charges caused by failure to deliver, Willis, 273 S. W. 464. due to conditions of which it had knowledge.Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. H. & C. Newman, 273 S. W. 335.

33 (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden on plaintiff to show land sued for was embraced within bounded aries of claimed survey.-Proctor v. Miller, 273

136 (Mo.App.) Whether nursery stock was 37(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to sup-negligently delayed by carrier, thereby subjectport verdict that land claimed was not part of ing it to frost, held for jury.-Mount Arbor survey as alleged.-Proctor v. Miller, 273 S. W. Nurseries v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.,