For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
842 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court's con-
clusions on abandoned pleadings set out in find-
ings are not binding.-Cusenbary v. Holman
Bros., 288 S. W. 283.
843(1) (Ky.) Question raised, the decision
of which would have no effect on result of case,
need not be considered by Court of Appeals.-
Green v. Ball, 288 S. W. 309.
(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and
Trial of Cause Anew.
893 (2) (Mo.App.) In equity cases, Court of
Appeals must consider case de novo.-City of
Rock Port ex rel. Lynch-McDonald Const. Co.
v. McMichael, 288 S. W. 785.
900 (Mo.App.) Trial court is presumed to
have acted right.-Julius Seidel Lumber Co. v.
Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 288 S. W. 979.
843 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Question of Legis-
lature's compliance with Constitution, in enact-
901 (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden, on appeal, is
ing amendatory act, is moot by subsequent com-
pliance before case is heard on appeal (Const. on party claiming error in admission or exclu-
sion of testimony to show it.-Texas Employ-
art. 3, § 36).-Page v. Tucker, 288 S. W. 809.
ers' Ins. Ass'n v. Davidson, 288 S. W. 471.
846(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Except for funda-903 (Ky.) Records in former cases, identi-
mental error, there can be no review, in absence fied by order of court, will be presumed copies.
of findings.-McClure v. Missouri State Life Ins.-Kirk v. Cassady, 288 S. W. 1045.
Co., 288 S. W. 270.
in record will be presumed to support chan-
907 (5) (Ky.) Documentary evidence not
cellor's judgment.-Kirk v. Cassady, 288 S. W.
1045.
846 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) In absence of find-
ings and conclusions, judgment, supported by
pleadings and evidence, must be affirmed, on
appeal. Rev. St. 1925, arts. 2208-2210).-Mer-916(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Special exceptions,
ryman v. First Nat. Bank, 288 S. W. 840.
not acted on, will be presumed to have been
waived.-Reeh v. Reeh, 288 S. W. 276.
854(2) (Ky.) Judgment rendered on errone-
ous ground will not be reversed, if correct on
entire record.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. King,
288 S. W. 733.
854 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court
must affirm if there is any ground to support
judgment (Rev. St. 1925, art. 1856).—Sociedad
Union Mexicana La Constructora v. De Orona,
288 S. W. 1111.
926 (1) (Mo.App.) Rulings on evidence, in
trial before court, are more liberally construed
than in jury trials, in considering assignments of
error thereto.-Johnson v. Martindale, 288 S.
w. 970.
927 (5) (Mo.App.) Appellate
construe evidence favorably to plaintiff on de-
murrer. Wells v. Wells, 288 S. W. 950.
927(5) (Mo.App.) Evidence is construed
favorably to plaintiff on appeal from judgment
overruling defendants' demurrers to evidence.-
Squire v. William S. Drozda Realty Co., 288 S.
W. 988.
927 (5) (Mo.App.) Evidence must be con-
strued favorably to plaintiff as against demur-
rer on appeal from judgment for plaintiff.-Agee
v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 288 S. W. 992.
927 (7) (Mo.App.) On considering error as-
signed to refusal of peremptory instruction, re-
spondent must be given benefit of all favorable
evidence.-Brann v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co.,
288 S. W. 941.
927 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Only evidence fa-
vorable to appellant should be considered in de-
termining whether evidence was sufficient for
jury.-Dunlap v. Oak Cliff Pharmacy Co., 288
S. W. 236.
882 (8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where appellant has
elicited certain testimony, he cannot object be-930(1) (Ark.) Evidence must be viewed
cause similar testimony has been brought out
by appellee.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Steen,
288 S. W. 532.
most favorably for plaintiff in testing sufficiency
to sustain verdict.-Arkansas Mining Co. v.
Eaton, 288 S. W. 399.
930 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Entire charge is
presumed to be read by jury.-Wichita Valley
Ry. Co. v. Williams, 288 S. W. 425.
882(12) (Ark.) Defendant, requesting in-
correct instruction, cannot complain of non-
prejudicial modification, which would have been
proper had correct instruction been requested.930 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding of fact by
-Southern Bauxite Co. V. Brown-Pearson
Cash Feed Store, 288 S. W. 377.
882(12) (Mo.) Defendant cannot complain
of conflict between its erroneous instruction and
correct one given for plaintiff.-Bond v. St.
Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 288 S. W. 777.
882(12) (Mo.App.) Defendants cannot com-
plain of plaintiff's instructions referring to pe-
tition for issues, where like instructions were
given for them.-Belt v. Belt, 288 S. W. 100.
court necessary to support judgment will be
presumed, where issue was not submitted to
jury.-Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Brinkman,
288 S. W. 852.
930 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of court
supplementary to special issues, if not express,
are implied in support of judgment.-Hooser
v. G. M. Carlton Bros. & Co., 288 S. W. 1095,
Where case was submitted to jury on special
issues, findings implied are presumed to be sus-
tained by evidence (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2190).
882(12) (Mo.App.) Defendant cannot com-
plain of instruction, under which only judgment-Id.
possible was rendered, as in conflict with er-931(4) (Tex.Com.App.) New contract, su-
roneous instruction in his favor.-American perseding old contract, is presumed to have been
Metallurgical Corporation v. Frank Adam Elec- found by trial judge, under judgment upholding
tric Co., 288 S. W. 972.
settlement of fire loss, based on conflicting evi-
882 (12) (Tex.Com.App.) Giving of errone- dence.-Corsicana Warehouse Co. v. North
ous special charge, in conflict with general River Ins. Co., 288 S. W. 137.
charge, is not grounds for reversal on behalf931 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding that benefi-
of party requesting erroneous charge.-Texas ciary had no insurable interest will be implied
& P. Ry. Co. v. Gibson, 288 S. W. 823.
from judgment against beneficiary, where evi-
882 (12) (Tex.Civ.App.) Claimants were dence is conflicting.-O'Connor v. O'Shaughnes
estopped to claim that charge substantially em- sy. 288 S. W. 842.
bodying their request was erroneous.-Crotsen-932(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court presumes on
burg v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 288 S. W. appeal that recovery in amount raised by plead-
1113.
ing and proof was allowed.-St. Louis South-
western Ry. Co. of Texas v. Denton, 288 S. W. 1009(4) (Ark.) Chancery court findings,
476.
based on inferences or direct proof, will not be
disturbed on appeal, unless against preponder-
ance of testimony.-Rainwater v. Merchants'
Nat. Bank, 288 S. W. 388.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
955 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate courts will
revise action of trial court in appointing receiver
when record shows abuse of discretion.-Ama-ing,
son v. Harrigan, 288 S. W. 566.
1010(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial judge's find-
supported by evidence, against defendant's
claim of title by adverse possession, is conclu-
959(1) (Ky.) Discretion of court in matter sive.-Butler v. Duffey, 288 S. W. 598.
of amendments to pleading will not be controlled 1011(1) (Mo.App.) Findings of court on
on appeal, unless it be abused.-City of Spring-conflicting questions of fact are conclusive on
appeal.-Southern Surety Co. v. Mercantile
Ins. Agency, 288 S. W. 965.
field v. Haydon, 288 S. W. 337.
959(1) (Mo.App.) In absence of abuse,
trial court's discretion in allowing amendments 101! (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where evidence is
will not be reviewed.-Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 288 S. conflicting, appellate court will resolve doubt
in favor of finding below.-Sociedad Union
Mexicana La Constructora v. De Orona, 288
S. W. 1111.
959(3) (Mo.) In absence of clear abuse of
discretion, denial of permission to amend plead-
ings during trial will not be disturbed on appeal
(Rev. St. 1919, § 1274).-Yerxa, Andrews &
Thurston v. Randazzo Macaroni Mfg. Co., 288
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-
ings.
1012(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Whether pre-
sumption of implied warranty was
is question of weight and sufficiency of evidence
for trial court.-Turner & Clayton v. Shackel-
ford, 288 S. W. 815.
987(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Reversing of judg-
ment for insufficiency of evidence of implied war-
1026 (Tex.Com.App.) Error not prejudic-
ranty of derricks for which note sued on was ing litigant does not require reversal.-Wichita
given, held within province of Court of Civil Valley Ry. Co. v. Williams, 288 S. W. 425.
Appeals.-Turner & Clayton v. Shackelford, 2881032(3) (Tex.Com.App.) Erroneous charge
as to carrier's duty of care to passenger suing
for injuries is presumed to have worked injury
to carrier.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Williams,
288 S. W. 425.
995 (Mo.App.) Court of Appeals will not
pass on weight of evidence.-Belt v. Belt, 288 S.
995 (Mo.App.) Reviewing court cannot pass
on weight of testimony.-Gray v. Willard, 288
999(1)(Ark.) Jury's determination of fact
issue held binding.-Kansas City Southern Ry.
Co. v. H. Rouw Co., 288 S. W. 901.
1033 (5) (Ky.) Error in instruction preju-
dicial only to plaintiff cannot be complained of
by defendant.-Big Sandy & K. R. R. Co. v.
Keaton, 288 S. W. 687.
obtaining in-
1033(6) (Ark.) Defendant
struction that plaintiff must have been free from
999 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) If prejudice in- contributory negligence to recover cannot com-
fluenced jury, judgment for any amount should plain of refusal of instructions precluding recov-
be set aside.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Wil-ery, if he failed to exercise ordinary care.-Byrd
liams, 288 S. W. 425.
v. Galbraith, 288 S. W. 717.
1002 (Ark.) Jury's verdict on conflicting 1039 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendants were
evidence, supported by substantial evidence, not injured by inconsistent allegations of amend-
must be accepted on appeal.-Davis v. Falls, ed petition, supported by evidence, praying re-
288 S. W. 723.
turn of amount claimed in a prior petition.-
Cusenbary v. Holman Bros., 288 S. W. 283.
1002 (Ark.) Verdict of jury on conflicting
testimony is decisive of question.-Webb v.
Cobb, 288 S. W. 897.
1002 (Ky.) Verdict on conflicting evidence
will not be disturbed.-City of Bowling Green
v. Knight, 288 S. W. 741.
1002 (Ky.) Verdict for damages for breach
of contract will not be disturbed where evidence
was conflicting and no complaint was made of
instructions or amount allowed.-Consolidated
Fuel Co. v. Sexton, 288 S. W. 1056.
1003 (Ky.) Unless verdict is palpably
against weight of evidence, appellate court will
not disturb it.-Carter v. Carter, 288 S. W. 666.
1003 (Ky.) That Court of Appeals would
reach different conclusion than jury held not to
warrant reversal of judgment as flagrantly
against evidence.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Clarke, 288 S. W. 1022.
1003 (Tex.Com.App.) Findings of fact
against weight of evidence may be set aside by
Court of Civil Appeals, where indicating prej-
udice.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Williams, 288
S. W. 425.
1005 (4) (Mo.App.) Finding of jury and trial
court on evidence is binding on appellate court.
-Agee v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 288 S. W. 992.
1043(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusing continu-
ance to procure depositions held not prejudicial,
in view of admissions, evidence, and exclusion
of evidence, on trial (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2168).
-Levy v. Rosenthal, 288 S. W. 845.
Defendants cannot complain of refusal of con-
tinuance for surprise by discovery of will, ex-
cluded from evidence and constituting link in
plaintiff's title.-Id.
1046(1) (Ark.) Refusal to transfer action
to recover taxes paid to levee district to equity
held not prejudicial.-Chapman & Dewey Land
Co. v. Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee
Dist., 288 S. W. 910.
~1046(1) (Ky.) Where suit was not brought
within required time, refusing further time to
take proof because of illness was not prejudi-
cial.-Baker's Trustee v. People's Bank of Mt.
Vernon, 288 S. W. 1030.
1050(1) (Tex.Com.App.) If error existed
in admission of evidence which may have con-
tributed to cause verdict, error is not harmless.
-Albright v. Smith, 288 S. W. 178.
1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant, object-
ing to part of testimony improperly admitted,
cannot urge error, where similar testimony was
admitted without objection.-Butler v. Duffey,
288 S. W. 598.
1008(1) (Mo.) Jury's finding on question of
fact held conclusive on appeal.-Yerxa, Andrews
& Thurston v. Randazzo Macaroni Mfg. Co., 2881050 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of evi-
S. W. 20.
1009(1) (Ky.) Where, on the whole case,
the mind is left in such doubt that it cannot be
said with reasonable certainty that chancellor
has erred, his judgment will be affirmed.-Bos-
ton v. Trent, 288 S. W. 294.
1009(1) (Mo.App.) In equity case, Court
of Appeals is not bound by finding of jury.-
Davis v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 288 S. W. 80.
dence of continuous occupancy of land by ad-
verse claimant, if error as conclusion, held
harmless, in view of subsequent similar evi-
dence.-Niles v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 288
S. W. 614.
1054 (1) (Mo.App.) In carrier's action
against consignee for freight, tried to court,
admission of letter indicating plaintiff's belief
that only consignor was liable held not reversible
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
error.-Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Evans, 288 1082 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Error held to have
S. W. 73.
been properly preserved forming basis of re-
1058(2) (Tex.Com.App.) In suit to have versal of judgment by Commission of Appeals.
deed declared mortgage, exclusion of testimony-Saner-Whiteman Lumber Co. v. Texas & N.
concerning reason for plaintiff's execution of O. Ry. Co., 288 S. W. 1063.
deed held harmless, where witness elsewhere
testified to same fact.-Crawford v. El Paso
Sash & Door Co., 288 S. W. 169.
Case may not be reversed and remanded on
proposition and assignment of error not proper-
ly preserved.—Id.
1060(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Argument of 1083(1) (Tex.Com.App.) On appeal, ques-
plaintiff's counsel that defendant would have tion of law only was presented as to whether
called certain witness, if he would have testified transaction involving agreement to reconvey was
that accident did not occur in front of defend- mortgage or conditional sale, in view of jury
ant's property, held to require reversal.-Lott-finding sustained by Court of Civil Appeals.-
man v. Cuilla, 288 S. W. 123.
Brannon v. Gartman, 288 S. W. 817.
of Civil Appeals that evidence is insufficient to
support verdict is binding on Supreme Court.
-Holman v. Holman, 288 S. W. 413.
1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Counsel's argu-1083 (6) (Tex.Com.App.) Finding of Court
ment as to how man could sell homestead with-
out wife's signature if he could not mortgage it
held not prejudicial in husband's action to es-
tablish deed given to wife as mortgage after
abandonment of wife (Const. art. 16, § 50).-
Reeh v. Reeh, 288 S. W. 276.
Finding by Court of Civil Appeals that there
is no evidence to sustain verdict is one of law,
subject to revision by Supreme Court.-Id.
Language used by Court of Civil Appeals
held to show with reasonable certainty that only
question of no evidence was determined by that
court.-Id.
1062(1) (Ky.) Submission of issues, not
sustained by evidence, as to condition of tobacco
when delivered and damage because of improper
packing or defective condition before receipt
by initial carrier, held prejudicial error.-E. J. 1091 (4) (Tex.Com.App.) That finding of no
O'Brien & Co. v. Davis, 288 S. W. 682.
evidence includes lesser finding of insufficient
1064(1) (Mo.) Instruction held not to sub-evidence cannot be assumed, in face of contrary
mit issue of acceptance of goods sold so as to language of court making such finding.-Holman
render harmless erroneous instruction on an- v. Holman, 288 S. W. 413.
other issue.-B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Ford Mfg. 1094 (1) (Tex.Com.App.) Excessiveness of
Co., 288 S. W. 59.
verdict and judgment is for Court of Civil Ap-
peals.-Inman v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry.
Co. of Texas, 288 S. W. 150.
1064(1)(Mo.App.) Instruction referring
to petition for issues held not prejudicial,
where there was no discrepancy between alle-
gations and proof.-Belt v. Belt, 288 S. W. 100.
Reciting in two instructions maximum amount 1097(1) (Ky.) Opinion on former appeal
which might be recovered held not prejudicial is the law of the case in same action, and pre-
error.-Id.
cluded appellate court from considering ques-
tions there decided.-Louisville Fire Brick
Works v. Tackett, 288 S. W. 665.
1064 (1) (Tex.Com.App.) Case should be re-
versed where it is reasonably doubtful whether
appellant was prejudiced by giving erroneous
charge.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Williams,
288 S. W. 425.
Charge that carrier is required to exercise
very high degree of care towards passengers,
being erroneous and inconsistent with other
charges, held to require reversal.-Id.
1067 (Mo.App.) Refusal of defendant's in-
structions seeking to withdraw matters from
jury held not prejudicial, where there was am-
ple testimony on issue submitted.-Agee v. Mis-
souri Pac. R. Co., 288 S. W. 992.
1068 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to limit
loss of time and wages to period of time of
trial held harmless in view of damages award-
ed.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Umberson, 288 S.
1070(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of trial
court on issue of ratification, notwithstanding
jury's answers to other special issues submit-
ted, are immaterial, where ratification appears
from undisputed evidence as matter of law.
Broadway v. Miller, 288 S. W. 627.
(I) Error Waived in Appellate Court.
1078(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Sufficiency of pe-
tition stricken on general demurrer presents
fundamental question, entitled to consideration,
though not briefed.-Rausch v. Newton, 288 S.
W. 1100.
1078(6) (Ky.) Errors not discussed in
brief will be deemed waived.-Troendle v. Wells,
288 S. W. 749.
(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.
1082 (1) (Tex.Com.App.) Existence of any
evidence of fact requiring remand for new trial
on reversal must be determined solely from
testimony affirmatively tending to show it.-
Turner & Clayton v. Shackelford. 288 S. W. 815.
1082 (2) (Tex.Com.App.) Failure of trial
court to give general instructions in suit to
have deed declared mortgage, not assigned as
error in Court of Civil Appeals, cannot be con-
sidered by Supreme Court.-Crawford v. El
Paso Sash & Door Co., 288 S. W. 169.
1097(1) (Ky.) Opinion on first appeal is
law of case, where evidence on tirst and second
trial is same.-Big Sandy & K. R. R. Co. v.
Keaton, 288 S. W. 687.
1099 (8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Supreme Court's
instruction that question of adverse possession
was for jury became law of case.-Niles v.
Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 288 S. W. 614.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOSI-
TION OF CAUSE.
(A) Decision in General.
1100 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence on appeal
from temporary injunction will not be reviewed
where all available evidence had not been in-
troduced.-Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Mil-
ler-Vidor Lumber Co., 288 S. W. 498.
1114 (Mo.App.) Court of Appeals must af-
firm trial court's judgment after being reversed
by Supreme Court on ruling on instructions, no
other error appearing.-Goessling v. Excelsior
Press Brick Co., 288 S. W. 95.
114 (Tex.Com.App.) On reversal of judg-
ment of reversal and remand for fundamental
error, Supreme Court should remand cause to
Court of Civil Appeals for consideration of as-
signments not acted on.-Inman v. St. Louis
Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, 288 S. W. 150.
ing instruction fixing maximum amount of dam-
1140(1) (Mo.) Excessive judgment, follow-
ages without disclosing reason therefor, will
be affirmed on condition of remittitur.-Bond v.
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 288 S. W.
777.
1140(1) (Mo.App.) Instructions submitting
measure of damages generally held error cura-
ble only by remittitur of amount by which ver-
dict exceeded nearest of itemized sums asked.
Robinson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 288
S. W. 109.
1140(1) (Mo.App.) Failure to limit recov-
ery to amount prayed may be cured by remit-
titur.-Robinson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,
288 S. W. 113.
1140(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Remittitur should | there decided.-Louisville Fire Brick Works v.
he required where sole question is excessive- Tackett, 288 S. W. 665.
ness of verdict (Rev. St. 1925, art. 1862).— 1212(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant not
Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Williams, 288 S. W. raising issue in subsequent trial of plaintiff's
right to injunction as originally issued cannot
raise issue of liability because of injuries suf-
fered thereby.-McFaddin v. Kibbin, 288 S. W.
490.
1175(5) (Tex.Com.App.) Where evidence
raised presumption of implied warranty of fit-1215 (Ky.) Instructions given in second
ness, rendition of judgment for seller on re- trial as indicated in opinion on appeal from first
versal of judgment for purchaser on cross-ac-
tion was error.-Turner & Clayton v. Shack- trial held proper.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Clarke, 288 S. W. 1022.
elford, 288 S. W. 815.
1175(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court,
on reversing judgment denying royalty under
oil and gas lease, will not render judgment
where amount depends on facts to be found.-
Poe v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 288 S. W.
264.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.
See Criminal Law, 713-730; Trial, 115
-133.
ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
1175(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Cause will not be See Criminal Law, 970.
reversed and rendered for insufficient testi-
mony, unless fully developed evidence barred
possibility of recovery.-Webb v. Smith, 28825 (Ky.) In prosecution for burning dwell-
house was insured, in absence of such allega-
ing house of another, it need not be shown that
tion in indictment (Ky. St. § 1169).-Smith v.
Commonwealth, 288 S. W. 752.
1176(5) (Mo.App.) In equity cases, Court
of Appeals must direct such judgment as trial
court should have rendered.-City of Rock Port
ex rel. Lynch-McDonald Const. Co. v. Mc-40 (Ky.) Case held for jury, in prosecution
Michael, 288 S. W. 785.
for burning dwelling house (Ky. St. § 1169).-
Smith v. Commonwealth, 288 S. W. 752.
1177(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Where justice will
be better subserved by remanding case rather
than by rendering judgment, court will remand.
-Saner-Whiteman Lumber Co. v. Texas & N.
O. Ry. Co., 288 S. W. 127.
1177(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Where judgment
of trial court cannot be affirmed cause should
be remanded rather than rendered, if justice See Drains, 81-90; Municipal Corporations,
would better be served by so doing.-Williams
v. Patterson, 288 S. W. 132.
1177(6) (Tex.Com.App.) Suit for repos-
session of leased rails would be remanded for
new trial rather than render judgment.-Saner-
Whiteman Lumber Co. v. Texas & N. O. Ry.
Co., 288 S. W. 127.
1177(7) (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff's case
has been fully presented, remaining for new
trial after reversal is unnecessary.-Miller v.
Wilson, 288 S. W. 997.
ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF
V. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF
CREDITORS.
(A) In Aid of Assignment.
295(72) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held tó
show negligence of trustee for creditors in not
protecting community creditors' claims in debt-
1177(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Case will be re-or's children's suit for mother's half of trust
manded for retrial, where a cause of action property.-Lipsitz v. First Nat. Bank, 288 S.
may then be shown under proper pleadings.-W. 609.
Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Boles, 288 S.
W. 271.
Testimony of trial judge as to failure of trus-
tee for creditors to attempt to recover com-
munity creditors' claims, in debtor's children's
suit against him, held admissible to show negli-
gence.-Id.
1178(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where appellate
court cannot ascertain value of mortgaged cot-
ton to which surety is entitled to credit, judg-
ment will be reversed and remanded.-Merry-295 (8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Community credi-
man v. First Nat. Bank, 288 S. W. 840.
1178(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Erroneous judg-
ment on merits for defendant in partner's ac-
tion for conversion of firm property held not
sustainable because plaintiff had failed to allege
reasons justifying individual suit, he being en-
titled to remand for amendment.-Traweek v.
Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co., 288 S. W. 843.
tors' recovery from trustee for negligence in
defending debtor's children's suit should not
exceed their pro rata of amount realized from
sale in proportion to their part of community
debts.-Lipsitz v. First Nat. Bank, 288 S. W.
609.
ASSOCIATIONS.
1180(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Decree of Court See Insurance, 705-819.
of Civil Appeals, dissolving temporary injunc-
tion, becomes effective immediately (Rev. St.
1925, art. 4662).-Duncan v. Boyd, 288 S. W. See Master and Servant, 203–217.
(E) Rendition, Form, and Entry of
ATTACHMENT.
1. NATURE AND GROUNDS.
(B) Grounds of Attachment.
1185 (Ky.) Court of Appeals has power,
after term at which rendered, to set aside judg-47 (4) (Ark.) Evidence held insufficient to
ment for fraud, in view of Civ. Code Prac. §
518-Stewart v. Model Coal Co., 288 S. W.
show that defendant was about to remove prop-
erty from state or dispose of it to hinder credi-
tors, as alleged in affidavit for attachment.-
Ford v. Wilson, 288 S. W. 712.
VII. QUASHING, VACATING, DISSOLUTION,
OR ABANDONMENT.
253 (Ark.) Allegations of affidavit for at-
tachment may be denied in verified answer
(Crawford & Moses' Dig. §§ 568, 570).-Ford v.
1195(1) (Ky.) Opinion on former appeal Wilson, 288 S. W. 712.
is the law of the case in same action, and pre-258 (Ark.) Question of discharging or sus-
cludes lower court from considering questions I taining attachment held for court though liabil-
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
ity of defendant for debt sued on was jury ques-163(1) (Ark.) Automobile drivers must ex-
tion.-Ford v. Wilson, 288 S. W. 712.
X. LIABILITIES ON BONDS OR UN-
DERTAKINGS.
337 (Ark.) Having dissolved attachment,
court properly refused to render judgment
against sureties on discharging bond (Craw-
ford & Moses' Dig. §§ 525, 542; Acts 1891, p.
56).-Ford v. Wilson, 288 S. W. 712.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
See Criminal Law, 713-730; District and
Prosecuting Attorneys; Trial, 115–133.
II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY.
ercise reasonable care to avoid injuring street
laborers.-Byrd v. Galbraith, 288 S. W. 717.
171(8) (Mo.App.) Automobile driver
quired to exercise highest degree of care to
avoid collision at intersection (Laws 1st Ex.
Sess. 1921, p. 91, § 19).-Miller v. Wilson, 288
S. W. 997.
171 (9) (Mo.App.) Duty of automobile driv-
er to give warning on approaching street in-
tersection held covered by common law.-Miller
v. Wilson; 288 S. W. 997.
Driver of automobile under common law must
give warning when approaching street intersec-
193(8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Driver of automo-
bile causing injury held within scope of au-
101 (1) (Ky.) Attorney is unauthorized to thority in getting car and driving it to em-
compromise without special authority.-Louis-ployer's home.-Wright v. Maddox, 288 S. W.
ville & N. R. Co. v. King, 288 S. W. 733.
IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN OF
Master's responsibility continues until auto-
mobile driver actually diverts from master's
service.-Id.
(A) Fees and Other Remuneration.
193(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Master's respon-
165 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition for attorney's sibility held not terminated because automobile
services held subject to special exception for driver permitted another to ride contrary to
want of particularity as to time and character orders.-Wright v. Maddox, 288 S. W. 560.
of services.-Austin v. Conner & McRae, 288 201 (1) (Mo.App.) Driver of automobile
S. W. 552.
colliding with another held liable only for in-
jury proximately resulting from negligence.-
Miller v. Wilson, 288 S. W. 997.
166 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bills presented by
attorneys and canceled checks in payment there-
of held admissible to show terms of employ-216 (Mo.App.) Pedestrian need not antici-
ment.-Austin v. Conner & McRae, 288 S. W. pate negligence of automobile drivers, but, on
becoming aware thereof, must exercise ordina-
ry care.-
e.-Russell v. Bauer-Berger Grocery Co.,
288 S. W. 985.
166(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Commissioner's
agreement to schedule of fees for legal services
may be proven, and if charges are reasonable 219 (Ark.) Street laborer need not neglect
and approved by court, agreement is binding occupation to avoid injury by automobile.-
(Complete Tex. St. 1920, art. 467).-Austin Byrd v. Galbraith, 288 S. W. 717.
v. Conner & McRae, 288 S. W. 552.
Street laborer need exercise only ordinary
care to avoid injury by automobile.-Id.
4 (Ky.) Act creating state highway com-
mission held not to repeal statute empowering238 (5) (Mo.App.) Petition held to charge
Attorney General to represent commonwealth violation of speed ordinance by bus operator as
or departments thereof (Acts 1924, c. 290, $$ specific act of negligence.-Hoffman v. People's
1-3, as amended by Acts 1926, c. 195, §§ 1-3; Motorbus Co. of St. Louis, 288 S. W. 948.
Ky. St. 1922, § 112-5).-Montgomery v. Gayle,
III. PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES.
242(1) (Mo.App.) Occupant of automobile
injured in collision at intersection must prove
negligence in failing to warn.-Miller v. Wil-
son, 288 S. W. 997.
242 (2) (Mo.App.) Automobile collision held
(A) Control and Regulation in General. not in itself proof of negligence.-Miller v. Wil-
son, 288 S. W. 997.
59 (Ky.) State may prohibit use of high-242 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff has bur-
ways for private business, or grant right to one den to show driver of automobile causing in-
and refuse it to another.-Harrison v. Big Four jury was servant of defendant.-Wright v. Mad-
Bus Lines, 288 S. W. 1049.
60 (Ky.) Legislature can subject motor
vehicles with carrying capacity of five passen-
gers or less to same regulations as other ve-
hicles (Acts 1926, c. 112). Harrison v. Big
Four Bus Line, 288 S. W. 1049.
Law regulating motor vehicles for hire as to
casual trips held valid (Acts 1926, c. 112, 8
When plaintiff shows that automobile driver
was defendant's servant, defendant has burden
242 (7) (Mo.App.) Person complaining of
to show facts relieving him of liability.-Id.
injury in automobile collision has burden of
and injury.-Miller v. Wilson, 288 S. W. 997.
proving causal connection between negligence
62 (Tex.Civ.App.) Ordinance requiring fee244(2) (Mo.App.) Proof of negligence caus-
for issuance of permit for operation of publicing automobile collision cannot rest on conjec-
ture.-Miller v. Wilson, 288 S. W. 997.
passenger vehicle, held invalid as conflicting 244(14) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to
with statute (Rev. St. 1925. art. 6698).-City
of El Paso v. Look, 288 S. W. 506.
IV. LICENSE AND REGULATION OF
CHAUFFEURS.
sustain finding of negligence of driver of auto-
mobile colliding with parked car.-Wright v.
Maddox. 288 S. W. 560.
244 (35) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to
sustain finding of violation of speed ordinances
by driver of automobile colliding with parked
car. Wright v. Maddox, 288 S. W. 560.
136 (Tex.Civ.App.) City cannot require li-
cense fee from driver of service car (Rev. St.
1925, art. 6698).-City of Waco v. Grimes, 288244 (37) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to
S. W. 1113.
|