For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER -St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. American VENDOR AND PURCHASER. See Sales. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF VERDICT. See Criminal Law, 875-883; Trial, 338-357. VESTED RIGHTS. See Constitutional Law, 100-105. WAR. 39 (Tex.Com.App.) Conveyance of land for 4 (Tex.Cr.App.) Disloyalty Act unconstituimmoral purposes held illegal.-Hall v. Edwards, tional.-Schellenger v. State, 246. 167. 44 (Tex.Com.App.) Contract held not to have been procured through undue influence.Bergstedt v. Bender, 547. II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA- 50 (Tex.Civ.App.) Deed and purchase-money note to be construed together.-Newcom v. Ford, 591. IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. See Drains. IX. PUBLIG WATER SUPPLY. (B) Irrigation and Other Agricultural Purposes. 247(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Water improvement district not empowered to maintain action to by it.-Ward County Water Improvement Dist. adjudicate riparian water rights not acquired No. 2 v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. 1, 665. (D) Payment of Purchase Money. 186 (Mo.App.) Vendor must give reasona-257(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Remedy for excessive ble opportunity for examination of title.-Stew- rates by water engineers is by action and not art v. Chittick, 863. appeal.-Kohler v. United Irr. Co., 337. (B) As to Third Persons in General. 214(1)(Tex.Com.App.) Assignment of option contract held fraudulently induced by secret agreement.-Varn v. Gonzales, 543. Fraudulent assignment of option contract not subject to ratification.-Id. Fraudulent assignment of option contract, promptly repudiated, not ratified.-Id. (C) Bona Fide Purchasers. 236 (Tex.Civ.App.) To be protected as bona fide purchaser, purchaser must pay value.--Conn v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co., 612. 239(6) (Tex.Com.App.) Limitation title prevails over paper title secured when land was vacant.-Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Olive Sternenberg & Co., 534; Same v. Patterson, 538. WEAPONS. 11(1⁄2) (Mo.) That defendant was a postmaster and had government money and stamps did not excuse carrying concealed weapon.State v. Jackson, 746. 17(5) (Mo.) Intention in carrying pistol concealed held for jury.-State v. Jackson, 746. WILLS. See Descent and Distribution; Executors and III. CONTRACTS TO DEVISE OR BE- 58(1) (Mo.) Mere intent to will not en- Evidence held insufficient to prove oral agreement to devise.-Id. 245 (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether junior purchase was in good faith and for value held for 62 (Tex.Civ.App.) Survivor jury. Starr v. Brooks, 660. VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR. under joint will estopped to renounce.-Kirtley v. Spencer, 328. IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (B) Form and Contents of Instruments. (A) Lien and Recovery of Land. 254(3) (Ark.) Vendor, giving bond for title and accepting notes, has an equitable mortgage.94 (Tex.Civ.App.) Essentials of instrument -Fairbairn v. Pofahl, 16. stated.-Massey v. Allen, 682. 278 (Ark.) Provision for acceleration of payment is valid, though not contained in notes. -Fairbairn v. Pofahl, 16. Provision for acceleration of payment not invalid, as working forfeiture.-Id. 280(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on vendor's lien note, general denial sufficient to support judgment.-Newcom v. Ford, 592. 280(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action on vendor's lien note, general denial entitled defendant to explain possession of note.-Newcom v. Ford, 592. VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVISEES AND LEGATEES. 300 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held to justify finding testatrix's daughter-in-law failed to exercise proper diligence.-House v. House, 322. (H) Void, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises 302(1)(Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held insufficient to prove due execution.-Massey v. Allen, 682. 302(6) (Ark.) Holographic will held established by "unimpeachable evidence" of required number of disinterested witnesses.-Murphy v. Murphy, 721. Testimony as to genuineness of purported holographic will held not contrary to physical facts.-Id. (I) Hearing or Trial. 322 (Tex.Civ.App.) Declarations of testator inadmissible in rebuttal.-Massey v. Allen, 682. 324(1) (Ark.) Credibility of witnesses to will held for jury.-Murphy v. Murphy, 721. (K) Review. 358 (Ark.) Judgment admitting will to record appealable as "final order of judgment." -Jenkins v. Jenkins, 714. 364 (Ark.) No appeal from probate of will in common form by infants more than a year after probate.-Jenkins v. Jenkins, 714. 372 (Tex. Civ.App.) Trial court exclusive judge of facts and credibility of witnesses. House v. House, 322. 386 (Ark.) Verdict for proponent, support and Bequests, and Property and 866 (Mo.) Will without residuary clause held to vest remainder in son on testator's death, subject to be divested by birth of children.-Collins v. Whitman, 840. 37(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) Witness competent to testify as to boundary line.-Ludtke v. Wilson, 351. 48(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Relative to competency, term of service in penitentiary not time between conviction and time of testifying.Mayes v. State, 571. 52(7) (Mo.) Evidence held to show common-law marriage, making woman's testimony inadmissible.-State v. Harris, 420. 52(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony of defendant's wife as to conduct of deceased toward her available to defendant, but not to state.-Watts v. State, 558. ed by substantial evidence, not disturbed. tion of spouse held not to apply to testimony of 61(1) (Mo.) Statute as to cross-examinaMurphy v. Murphy, 721. VI. CONSTRUCTION. (A) General Rules. 436 (Mo.) Presumed made with reference to law of testator's domicile.-Jones v. Park, 1018. 439 (Mo.) Intention of the testator is paramount.-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. (B) Designation of Devisees, and Legatees and Their Respective Shares. 506 (3) (Mo.) Remainders to designated persons and their heirs per stirpes held not to include husband of deceased life tenant, whose only child died before life tenant.-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. (C) Survivorship, Representation, and Substitution. a codefendant found guilty in separate trial.State v. Gallagher, 465. 67 (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant's attorney was competent witness to prove agreed statement showing former testimony of a deceased witness.-Mitchell v. State, 983. (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representatives, Survivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased or Incompetent. 158 (Mo.App.) Administratrix may testify plaintiff's witness.-Conley v. Johnson, 891. as to bad reputation for truth and veracity of 159(8) (Mo.App.) Defendant in unlawful detainer action could not prove verbal contract with decedent.-Todd v. Fitzpatrick, SSS. 164 (3) (Mo.App.) Witness disqualified by death of deceased may testify as expert on handwriting.-Conley v. Johnson, 891. 545(4) (Mo.) "In default of such issue at her death" meant without issue living at time of 168 (Mo.App.) Party may testify as to mather death.-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. Life tenant held not entitled to take as heir of her father and mother, who had contingent remainders.-Id. 548 (Mo.) Rights of survivors of class taking per stirpes.-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. 555(4) (Mo.) Remainder held contingent, and issue of remaindermen to take as purchasers not by descent.-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. (F) Vested or Contingent Estates and Interests. 629 (Mo.) Law favors vesting of estates at testator's death.-Collins v. Whitman, 840. 634(4) (Mo.) Will devising life estate to widow with power of disposition held to vest remainders in children.-Dunbar v. Sims, 838. 634(8) (Mo.) Remainders to heirs of life tenant held "contingent remainders."-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. 634(14) (Mo.) Remainder to father, mother, brothers, and sister of life tenant or their heirs per stirpes held "contingent remainder" as to latter class.-Hartnett v. Langan, 403. (I) Actions to Construe Wills. 707(1) (Mo.) Necessity of suit to protect parties seeking construction of will not ground for award of attorney's fees.-Hartnett v. Lan ters occurring since administration.-Conley v. Johnson, 891. (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications. 188(1) (Mo.App.) Private communications between husband and wife inadmissible in divorce case.-Revercomb v. Revercomb, 899. Communications and letters between husband and wife inadmissible.-Id. 192 (Mo.App.) Private communication not made competent by assertion to one other than spouse.-Revercomb v. Revercomb, 899. band's attorney in prosecution of wife for kill201(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony of busing husband not privileged.-Ott v. State, 261. 219(2) (Mo.App.) Wife held not to have waived incompetency of communications with husband.-Revercomb v. Revercomb, 899. III. EXAMINATION. (A) Taking Testimony in General. 236 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Questions purely ancillary not subject to objection that they are immaterial.-Hasley v. State, 579. 240(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Question not leading. -Charles v. State, 255. 242 (Ky.) Question as to statements of third persons to refresh recollection of character witness improper.-Wynn v. Common For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 246(1) (Ky.) A juror may cause a witness | into where he testifies.-Wynn v. Commonto be recalled to propound proper question to him.-Miller v. Commonwealth, 96. 246(5) (Ky.) A juror may cause a witness to be recalled to propound proper question to him.-Miller v. Commonwealth, 96. wealth, 955. 345(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Not impeached by showing indictment.-Talerico v. Garvin, 313. 345(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Impeached by showing charge of murder.-Charles v. State, 255. 345(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Not impeachable by conviction of other than infamous crime.-Talerico v. Garvin, 313. Recalling a witness for examination by juror after submission held not reversible error.-Id. 248(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Answer of witness that he remembered dates because he knew 350 (Tex.Civ.App.) Witness not compelled lawyers would frame up alibi improper.-Houser v. State, 240. to answer on cross-examination whether he has been indicted for felony.-Southern Traction Co. v. Kirksey, 702. 249 (Tex.Cr.App.) Volunteered statement by witness that he thought defendant was automobile thief improper.-Houser v. State, 240. 255(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Permitting witness to refresh recollection from paper not offered in evidence not error.-Narango v. State, 564.379(1) (Mo.) Extrajudical statements ad(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina tion. 359 (Tex.Cr.App.) Details of accusation of murder not admissible.--Charles v. State, 255. (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. missible for impeachment.-State v. Wicker, 1014. 380 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement by deceased witness admissible to contradict her former testimony admitted on second trial.— Mitchell v. State, 983. 268(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Proper to cross-examine witness as to age.-Charles v. State, 255. 269 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Wife of accused cannot be cross-examined as to new matter.-Bris-380(5) (Ark.) On being surprised at testicoe v. State, 249. 270(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Cross-examination of witness improper as irrelevant.--Houser v. State, 240. 271(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Census report not made by witness not relevant on cross-examination.-Charles v. State, 255. 274(1) (Ky.) Question as to general reputation too broad.-Wynn v. Commonwealth, 955. 274(2) (Mo.) Character witnesses may be cross-examined by state.-State v. Seay, 427. Cross-examination of character witnesses as to other offenses improper.—ld. 277(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Accused subject to cross-examination like others.-Messimer State, 583. V. mony of its witness, state could show his contrary statements before grand jury.-Crofton v. State, 30. 384 (Mo.) Not impeachable by prior contradictory statements as to mere matter of opinion.-State v. Nave, 744. 388(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement no ground for impeachment where no foundation is laid. Charles v. State, 255. 388(3) (Mo.) Cross-examination of defendant as to inconsistent statements improper.State v. Wicker, 1014. 388(5) (Ark.) Cross-examination to impeach defendant not erroneous as introduction of confession without proof of voluntary character. Ellis v. State, 1058. 388(10) (Ark.) Inquiry as to conversation as ground for impeachment held too general.Frolich v. Hicks, 373. 277(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Defendant may be cross-examined as to whether his witnesses were present by whom acts attributed by de-389 (Mo.) Evidence of person in charge of ceased's alleged declaration to himself could be child killed by automobile held inadmissible in proved.-Messimer v. State, 583. impeachment.-Reynolds v. Kinyon, 476. 277(4) (Mo.) Where defendant testified to using a pistol, cross-examination as to whether he was in the habit of carrying a pistol was proper.-State v. Wicker, 1014. 277(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Cross-examination that accused on apprehension of danger did not appear for protection when deceased brought out gun held not harmful.-Messimer v. State, 583. 278 (Mo.) Statute as to cross-examination of spouse held not to apply to testimony of a codefendant found guilty in separate trial. State v. Gallagher, 465. 287(1) (Ky.) Question of prosecutor to prosecutrix not erroneous as causing change in testimony.-Thomas v. Commonwealth, 951. (C) Privilege of Witness. 2982 (Ky.) Prosecutrix properly not required to submit to examination.-Thomas v. Commonwealth, 951. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, CONTRADICTION, AND COR ROBORATION. (A) In General. 327 (Tex.Cr.App.) Mental capacity proper subject of impeachment.-Bouldin v. State, 555. 330(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Wife of accused cannot be cross-examined as to new matter.-Briscoe v. State, 249. 3312 (Tex.Cr.App.) Insanity in family admissible to show witness' lack of mental capacity. Bouldin v. State, 555. (B) Character and Conduct of Witness. 337(2) (Ky.) Reputation of accused for morality, truth, and veracity may be inquired 389 (Tex.Cr.App.) Cannot be impeached by immaterial statements which he denies.-Briscoe v. State, 249. 389 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence of statement by a witness inadmissible for impeachment where making of statement is admitted:--Hasley v. State, 579. (E) Contradiction and Corroboration of Witness. 406 (Tex.Cr.App.) Cannot be impeached by proof of conversation between other persons in absence of witness and party for whom he testified.-Hasley v. State, 579. WORDS AND PHRASES. "Affirms."-State v. Hostetter (Mo.) 750. "Alleges."-State v. Hostetter (Mo.) 750. "Asserts."-State v. Hostetter (Mo.) 750. "At the gin."-Norman v. Key (Mo. App.) 499. "Bootlegger."-Johnson v. Commonwealth (Ky.) "Deadly weapon."-Hoover v. State (Tex. Cr. | "Mine."-Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Arthur App.) 244. "Declares."-State v. Hostetter (Mo.) 750. "Delivered."-State v. Plotner (Mo.) 767. (Ark.) 729. "Mutilated."-Stubbs v. Moursund (Tex. Civ. App.) 632. 1027. "Delivery."-Home Life & Accident Co. v. "Negligence."-Gilbert v. Hilliard (Mo. App.) Compton (Ark.) 1063. "Dispose of."-Munday v. Britton (Mo. App.) | “Ordinary care."-Gilbert v. Hilliard (Mo. 504. "Dying declarations."-State v. Hostetter (Mo.) 750. "Estate."-Anderson v. Steddum (Tex. Com. App.) 1090. "Estoppel."-Hodde v. Hahn (Mo.) 799. "Factor."-G. H. Hammond Co. v. Joseph Mercantile Co. (Ark.) 27. "False entries."-State v. Plotner (Mo.) 767. "Final judgment."-Burton Lingo Co. v. First Baptist Church of Abilene (Tex. Com. App.) 203; Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 227. "Final order or judgment."-Jenkins v. Jenkins (Ark.) 714. "Fraud."-Lilly v. Barron (Ark.) 712. "Gaming."-Cafferata v. Ginnochio (Mo. App.) 867. "Good standing."-Moses V. Rawlins (Mo. App.) 865. "Good will."-Hodde v. Hahn (Mo.) 799. "In default of such issue at her death."-Hartnett v. Langan (Mo.) 403. "Independently of all other causes."-Campbell v. Etna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. (Mo.) 778. "Indignities."-Revercomb v. Revercomb (Mo. App.) 899. "Interest in land."-Anderson-Tully Co. v. Gillett Lumber Co. (Ark.) 362. "Interest in real estate."-McFarland v. Bishop (Mo.) 143. "Interlocutory judgment."-Kinney V. Tri State Telephone Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 227. "Intersecting highway."-Sullivan v. Chauvenet (Mo.) 759. "Interstate commerce."-Cox v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. (Tex.) 964. "Issues of fact."-Texas City Transp. Co. v. Winters (Tex. Com. App.) 541. App.) 1027. "Overs."-G. H. Hammond Co. v. Joseph Mercantile Co. (Ark.) 27. "Person dealing with corporation."-State v. Plotner (Mo.) 767. "Political subdivision of state."-City of St. Louis v. Murta (Mo.) 430. "Privileged occasion."-International & G. N. Ry. v. Edmundson (Tex. Com. App.) 181. "Probable cause."-F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Connors (Tenn.) 1053. "Promising a benefit."-Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n v. Floyd (Tex. Com. App.) 967. "Property actually received."-General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Moseley (Tex.) 961; Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Texas v. Pearson (Tex. Com. App.) 967. "Proximate cause."-Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Gambill (Tenn.) 5. "Public lands."-De Shazo v. Eubank (Tex. Com. App.) 976. "Regulation affecting rates."-Shroyer v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 1095. "Remain continuously and strictly within the house."-Inter-State Business Men's Acc. Ass'n v. Sanderson (Ark.) 51. "Sentence."-Thompkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1103. "Title by regular chain or transfer from or under sovereignty of soil."-Martinez v. Logan (Tex. Civ. App.) 611. "Unimpeachable testimony."-Murphy v. Murphy (Ark.) 721. rel. Crow v. "Voters' register."-State ex Carothers (Mo. App.) 1043. "Willfully misapplied or willfully abstracted.”— National Surety Co. v. Atascosa Ice, Water & Light Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 597. "Judicial knowledge."-Riley v. Wallace (Ky.) WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. 1085. "Loan."-Bank of Slater v. Union Station Bank (Mo.) 993. "Malice."-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Edmundson (Tex. Com. App.) 181. "Management."-Hasley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 579. "Manufacturer."-City of Louisville v. J. Zinmeister & Sons (Ky.) 958. "May."-Bradley County Road Improvement Districts Nos. 1 and 2 v. Jarratt (Ark.) 14. See Master and Servant, 375–118. WRIT OF ERROR. See Appeal and Error. WRITS. See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Garnishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus; Process; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; Replevin; Sequestration. |
