THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
action in tort, and not in contract.-Robinson
v. Street, 648.
VI. WAIVER OF GROUNDS OF ABATE-28 (Mo.) Petition held to waive conversion
MENT AND TIME AND MANNER
OF PLEADING IN GENERAL.
and ask recovery of value.-Cowan v. Young,
869.
82 (Tex.Civ.App.) Pleas in abatement out of
order immaterial where same issue was raised
by exceptions.-American Nat. Bank of Oklaho-
ma City, Okl., v. Garland, 397.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Compromise and Settlement.
ACCOUNT STATED.
8 (Tex.) "Account stated" is merely prima
facie evidence of correctness of items and bal-
ance.-Dodson v. Watson, 771.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
I. NATURE AND NECESSITY.
5 (Tex.Civ.App.) Not necessary to valid
lease except of homestead.-Johnson v. Russell,
352.
25 (Tex. Civ.App.) Possession
ecutory contract adverse to all except vendor.
-Robertson v. Smith, 620.
6(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defectively acknowledg- od held to give vendor good title.-Id.
Purchaser's possession for prescriptive peri-
ed lease valid except of homestead.-Johnson v.27 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held not to
Russell, 352.
title.-Robertson v. Smith, 620.
show that purchaser had recognized superior
7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Lease acknowledged by
wife containing blank void despite authoriza-
tion to fill in.-Finkelstein v. Roberts, 401.
III. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
55(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Conclusive in absence
of fraud or imposition.-Fagan v. Texas Co.,
346.
56 (Tex.Civ.App.) Certificate not impeach-
able except where grantee has notice of de-
fects.-Crabb v. Bell, 623.
(F) Hostile Character of Possession.
63 (5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Possession under
executory contract adverse to all except ven-
dor.-Robertson v. Smith, 620.
63 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Possession under
executory contract not adverse to vendor un-
til relation is repudiated.-Robertson v. Smith,
620.
de-71(2) (Ky.) Color of title defined.--New
York-Kentucky Oil & Gas Co. v. Miller, 535.
Where purchaser charged with notice of
fects before payment of purchase money, rule
against impeachment not applicable.-Id.
IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
58 (Tex.Civ.App.) Petition against original
party, alleging wife was not separately examin-
ed, held sufficient.-Hamilton County Develop-
ment Co. v. Sullivan, 116.
Petition held to show notice of disqualifica-
tion of notary.-Id.
See Abatement and Revival.
79(4) (Ark.) Tax deed void for uncertainty
of description not color of title.-Buchanan v.
Pemberton, 660.
85(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) All relevant acts and
statements of possessor should go to jury.-Da-
vis v. Cisneros, 298.
Any fact to establish want of continuous pos-
session and claim admissible.-Id.
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
(A) Extent of Possession.
100(4) (Ky.) Sufficiency of description to
support constructive possession stated.-New
I. GROUNDS AND CONDITIONS PRE-York-Kentucky Oil & Gas Co. v. Miller, 535.
4 (Mo.) Deceit lies, though transaction em-
braced unlawful scheme.-Thompson v. Lyons,
942.
II. NATURE AND FORM.
27(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Complaint in action
for wrongful eviction held to state cause of
220 S.W.-71
III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL,
AND REVIEW.
114(1) (Ky.) Evidence insufficient to es-
tablish defendants' claim of title by adverse
possession.-New York-Kentucky Oil & Gas
Co. v. Miller, 535.
115(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Court cannot deter- | Bealmer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford,
mine issue where question of facts is raised. Conn., 954.
Davis v. Cisneros, 298.
Agreement to pay rent by possessor raises
issue for jury adverse to claim.-Id.
(Tex.Cr.App.) Mutuality is the distinguish-
ing characteristic.-Price v. State, 89.
See Principal and Agent.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
2 (Ark.) Unauthorized words added to ad-
vertising contract material alteration.-Nation-
al Rys. Advertising Co. v. E. L. Bruce Co., 48.
2 (Ky.) Alteration need not be injurious to
avoid instrument.-Hall v. Cannoy, 737.
5(1) (Ky.) Alteration of name need not be
injurious to avoid instrument.-Hall v. Cannoy,
737.
11(2) (Ky.) Alteration by stranger does not
affect validity.-Hall v. Cannoy, 737.
16 (Ky.) Material alteration by parties to
instrument makes it void.-Hall v. Cannoy, 737.
18 (Ark.) Material alteration of contract ab-
solves other party from obligations.-National
Rys. Advertising Co. v. E. L. Bruce Co., 48.
18 (Ky.) Interlineation of additional lessee
releases lessors.-Hall v. Cannoy, 737.
29 (Ky.) Evidence held to show insertion of
additional lessee after signature.-Hall v. Can-
noy, 737.
See Carriers, 216-228; Railroads, 411-
446.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(D) Finality of Determination.
78(3) (Ark.) Order sustaining demurrer
to complaint not final and appealable.-Union
& Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hudson, 465.
79(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Judgment not disposing
of all parties not final.-McKay v. Hines, 171.
~79(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment for defend-
ants making no disposition as to particular
plaintiff not final.-Tenison v. Donigan, 362.
80(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Judgment for defend-
ants making no disposition as to particular
plaintiff not final.-Tenison v. Donigan, 362.
IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW.
(A) Persons Entitled.
150(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trustees had sufficient
interest to prosecute error in foreclosure pro-
ceeding.-Leyhe v. Leyhe, 377.
150(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Requirement to pay
costs gives right to appeal.-Johnson v. Rus-
sell, 352.
(B) Estoppel, Waiver, or Agreements Af-
fecting Right.
154(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Starting another ac-
tion not waiver of right to appeal.-O'Fiel v.
Janes, 371.
V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVA-
TION IN LOWER COURT OF
GROUNDS OF REVIEW.
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
26(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Lessor held not entitled 171(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Party having submit-
to statutory lien on animals for pasturage de- ted case on one theory cannot change.-Master-
priving lessees of privilege to be sued in coun-172(3) (Ark.) Party could not complain of
son v. Turnley, 428.
ty of domicile.-Broad & Pearce v. Cage, 104.
29 (Tex.Cr.App.) Tick Eradication Law not
invalid as prescribing two penalties for same
offense.-Gandy v. State, 339.
Tick Eradication Law in force in counties
where no local election has been held.-Id.
Legislature may bind citizens to obey reason-
able rules prescribed by Sanitary Commission.
-Id.
failure to marshal assets, where he did not ask
such relief and evidence did not show necessity.
-Smith v. Arkadelphia Milling Co., 49.
172(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant not asking
for affirmative relief cannot complain of relief
given him on plaintiff's pleadings.-Wisdom v.
Peek, 210.
30 (Tex.Cr.App.) Tick eradication quaran- |(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
tine established by Governor's proclamation.—
Felchack v. State, 340.
187(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Defect of parties may
34 (Tex.Cr.App.) Disabling sickness defense be urged for first time on appeal.-McKay v.
to prosecution for failure to dip cattle.-Gandy eterson, 178.
v. State, 339.
50 (2) (Ark.) Stock law orders based on
petitions making single townships units void.
-Fesler v. Eubanks, 457.
187(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Nonjoinder of parties
34 (Tex.Cr.App.) Offense under Tick Eradi-waived where not raised below.-Bingham v.
Graham, 105.
cation Law should correspond with date in no-
tice.-Felchack v. State, 340.
194(1) (Mo.) Inconsistency of pleas not
available where not objected to below.-Adair
v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 920.
not
197(4) (Mo.App.) Variance
available
where no affidavit of surprise filed or objection
made.-Ford v. Stevens Motor Car Co., 980.
C204(1) (Mo.) Contention might be disre-
garded where testimony was not objected to nor
admission assigned as error.-Maze v. Boehm,
952.
Order grouping townships in stock law dis-
tricts without supporting petitions void.-Id.
ANTI-TRUST LAW.
See Monopolies, 23.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
See Certiorari; Courts, 223-231; Criminal
Law, 1033-1188; Exceptions, Bill of.
For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-
ics.
I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.
(Ky.) Right may be withheld by Legisla-
ture.-Reese v. Hickman County, 314.
II. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF AP-
PELLATE JURISDICTION.
23 (Mo.) Supreme Court will determine in
the first instance whether it has jurisdiction.-
204(7) (Ark.) Whether medical expert com-
petent cannot be determined where statements
to him and circumstances were not shown.-
Subiaco Coal Co. v. Krallman, 664.
206(1) (Ky.) Request for instruction limit-
ing effect is necessary to review evidence ad-
missible for particular purpose.-Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Scott's Adm'r, 1066.
fers as preventing fair trial must be raised be-
206(1) (Mo.) Objection to questions and of-
low.-Ulrich v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 682.
207 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to argument
unnecessary where harm cannot be removed.-
Alamo Iron Works v. Prado, 282.
216(1) (Mo.App.) Instruction assuming
amount of loss not error where amount not in
dispute.-Ford v. Stevens Motor Car Co., 980.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
216(2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Without request party
cannot complain of omissions in charge.-Long
v. Calloway, 414.
216(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Party aggrieved by in-
correct charge must request correct charge, in
absence of objection.-Nolan v. Young, 154.
218(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) General exception to
contributory negligence issue in language of an-
swer is insufficient.-Alamo Iron Works v. Pra-
do, 282.
220 (Ky.) Objections to evidence before ex-
aminer not called to attention of court deemed
waived.-Johnston v. Williams, 1057.
230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to charge
must be called to attention of court.-Nolan v.
Young, 154.
231(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection that evi-
dence was irrelevant and immaterial not specif-
ic.-Moorman v. Small, 127.
232(1/2) (Mo.) Allegations in avoidance of
defense of limitations sufficient against objec-
tions made.-Thompson v. Lyons, 942.
232(2) (Mo.) Objection to competency of
witnesses does not raise question of time of
reputation testified to.-Ulrich v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 682.
233(2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Not necessary to re-
new exceptions to petition when trial amend-
ment was filed.-Negociacion Agricola y Gana-
dera de San Enrique, S. A., v. Love, 224.
236(2) (Mo.) Objection that petition does
not disclose nature of action must be raised be-
low. Cowan v. Young, 869.
ditional instructions asked for by jury.-Nolan
v. Young, 154.
~544(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Bill of exceptions nec-
essary to review refusal of continuance.-Har-
din v. Hanson, 368.
544(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of fact alone
considered on appeal without statement.-Car-
ter v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World,
239.
549(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rulings on evidence
cannot be considered, without bill of exceptions
or statement of facts.-W. J. & F. J. Powers v.
James, 382.
552 (Tex. Civ.App.) Statement of facts in-
sufficient to show error in decree.-Luse v. Penn,
303.
(D) Contents, Making, and Settlement of
Case or Statement of Facts.
561 (Tex. Civ.App.) Superfluous words should
not be inserted in statement of facts.-Vogt v.
Guidry, 343.
(E) Abstracts of Record.
580 (Mo.App.) Appellant must file both
statement and abstract.-Himes v., Young, 671.
581(3) (Mo.) Abstract of record not refer-
ring to bill of exceptions insufficient to show is-
sues presented or rulings.-Big Tarkio Drain-
age Dist. v. Peters, 874.
586(1) (Mo.) Petition attacked as defective
should be set out in abstract.-Big Tarkio
Drainage Dist. v. Peters, 874.
238(3) (Mo.) Contention might be disre-586(3) (Ark.) Not sufficient for counsel to
garded where testimony was not objected to nor
admission assigned as error in motion for ar-
rest. Maze v. Boehm, 952.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
set out in abstract what he conceives to be
the effect of testimony.-Savage v. Savage, 459.
592(1) (Mo.App.) Appeal dismissed where
abstract not furnished.-Himes v. Young, 671.
301 (Mo.) Contention might be disregarded (1) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and
where testimony was not objected to nor ad-
Correction.
mission assigned as error.-Maze v. Boehm, 952.639(1) (Mo.) Dismissal of appeal where
301 (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignments of error abstract and briefs did not comply with rules.-
not set out in motion for new trial will not be Big Tarkio Drainage Dist. v. Peters, 874.
considered. Hardin v. Hanson, 368.
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS
FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
338(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Amendatory act limit-
ing time to sue out writ of error held to ap-
ply to judgment prior thereto.-Orange & Ñ.
W. Ry. Co. v. Pruter, 797; Same v. Fairchilds,
798.
Amendatory statute limiting time to sue out
writ of error construed as a prior judgment.
-Id.
(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds
or Other Securities.
389(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Affidavit before no-
tary of inability to furnish bond insufficient.
Oliver v. Swift & Co., 234.
(J) Conclusiveness and Effect, Impeach-
ing and Contradicting.
662 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Qualification
bill of exceptions controlling.-Guyler v. Guy-
ler, 604.
(K) Questions Presented for Review,
671 (5) (Mo.App.) Objections depending on
matters not appearing in record cannot be con-
sidered.-Brown v. Tully, 1012.
690(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Alleged erroneous doc-
umentary evidence offered must be shown to
have been known to the jury.-Galveston, H. &
S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 781.
695(2) (Mo.App.) Where abstract does not
contain all the evidence, denial of peremptory
instruction not reviewed.-Brown V. Tully,
1012.
699(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignment that court
X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT erred in not charging the law of the case will
(A) Matters to be Shown by Record.
497(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignment not filed
in lower court cannot be considered.-McKay v.
Lucas, 172.
499(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Record must show
motion to suppress deposition was seasonably
made. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hart-
ford Fire Ins. Co., 781.
(B) Scope and Contents of Record.
532 (Mo.) Appeal proceedings in trial court
held properly abstracted as record proper on
appeal from intermediate court.-Clark v. Kil-
bride, 880.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts.
544(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Bill necessary to bring
up alleged error of court in refusing to give ad-
not be considered.-Dixon v. Haymes, 441.
699(3) (Mo.App.) Where abstract did not
set out mortgage, instructions thereon not de-
termined.-Brown v. Tully, 1012.
(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record.
713(2) (Mo.App.) Argument not contained
in bill of exceptions cannot be considered.-
Baird v. Larabee Flour Mills Corporation, 988.
715(2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Matters outside of
record affecting jurisdiction not considered.-
Bingham v. Graham, 105.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
722(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignment not cor-
responding with motion for new trial not con-
sidered.-Dixon v. Haymes, 441.
728(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to ex-
cluded testimony must appear from assign-
ments.-Guyler v. Guyler, 604.
730(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignment contain-
ing nothing on which proposition can be found-
ed must be overruled.-Dixon v. Haymes, 441.
731(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignment that ver-
dict is contrary to evidence not considered.-
Washington v. Giles, 439.
732 (Mo.App.) Assignment that court erred
in not setting aside verdict insufficient.-Cook
v. City of St. Joseph, 693.
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
878(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment not re-
formed in favor of appellee not filing cross-
assignments. Independent Order of Puritans
733 (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignment that judg-
v. Manley, 647.
ment is contrary to law not considered.-Wash-882(13) (Mo.) Instruction as to interest in
ington v. Giles, 439.
harmony with instruction given at appellant's
736 (Tex.Civ.App.) Multifarious assignment request cannot be complained of.-Witler v.
not considered.-McKay v. Lucas, 172.
City of St. Louis, 875.
too
742(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments must
be followed by statements showing action of
court.-Guyler v. Guyler, 604.
738 (Tex. Civ.App.) Multifarious and
general assignment not considered.-Washing-883 (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff having agreed
to special issues, cannot complain of refusal of
ton v. Giles, 439.
directed verdict.-Masterson v. Turnley, 428.
883 (Tex. Civ.App.) Defendant participat-
ing in trial estopped to object that citation
was not reserved.-Pullman Co. v. Cox, 599.
(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and
Trial of Cause Anew.
742(2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Multifarious assign-
ment not considered as proposition.-McKay v.
Lucas, 172.
742(4) (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignment of error
in admitting evidence not considered, when not
followed by statement.-W. J. & F. J. Powers
v. James, 382.
742(6) (Tex. Civ.App.) Statement held not to
sustain assignment that judgment was not war-
ranted by verdict.-W. J. & F. J. Powers v.
James. 382.
753(2) (Mo.) Appeal dismissed where no er-
rors are assigned.-Duffy v. Allen, 857.
757 (3) (Ark.) Not sufficient for counsel
to set out in brief what he conceives to be the
effect of testimony.-Savage v. Savage, 459.
757(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignment should not
contain conclusions as to what evidence shows.
-McKay v. Lucas, 172.
893(2) (Ark.) Chancery cases tried de novo
on appeal.-Bayou Meto Drainage Dist. v.
Chapline, 807.
895(2) (Mo.) On trial de novo findings are
not conclusive.-Thompson v. Kottwitz, 964.
895(3) (Mo.) Sound objections to evidence
preserved and not waived given force on ap-
peal in equity.-Koger v. Black, 904.
900 (Mo.App.) Correctness of rulings pre-
sumed.-Brown v. Tully, 1012.
901 (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden is on appellants
to show error.-Luse v. Penn, 303.
that decree
907 (2) (Ark.) Presumption
was correct, where appellant sets out conclu-
sion rather than fact.-Savage v. Savage, 459.
758(1) (Mo.) Briefs should contain assign-907(3) (Ark.) Where there is no bill of ex-
ments or point out errors.-Big Tarkio Drain-
age Dist. v. Peters, 874.
759 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignment in brief, not
copy of assignment in record, not considered.
McKay v. Lucas, 172.
761 (Mo.) Assignment of error held too in-
definite for consideration.-Brigham City Fruit
Growers' Ass'n v. G. H. Zollmann Produce Co.,
911.
ceptions, evidence presumed to sustain verdict.
-Rogers v. Meyers, 818.
907(4) (Ark.) Chancellor's findings not dis-
turbed where abstract does not contain all the
evidence.-Foster v. Bradney, 811.
917(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Presumption is that
exception to clause of petition was not sustain-
ed on a statutory ground which had been re-
pealed.-Hitson v. Gilman, 140.
766 (Mo.) Dismissed for failure of brief to 920(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Appointment of re-
allege errors.-Hanchett Bond Co. v. Palm, 673. ceiver held valid where record does not affirma-
766 (Mo.) Dismissal of appeal where briefs tively show contrary.-Bingham v. Graham, 105.
did not comply with rules.-Big Tarkio Drain-933(4) (Mo.App.) Grounds not specified by
court in granting new trial presumed overruled.
age Dist. v. Peters, 874.
-Morgeneier v. Grafeman Dairy Co., 1009.
766 (Mo.App.) No dismissal for noncom-
pliance with rule as to briefs, where errors
complained of are ascertainable.-Endres v.
Hadeler, 1002.
XV. HEARING AND REHEARING.
832(4) (Ark.) Contention not made in trial
court or in abstract and brief not considered on
rehearing. Driver v. Garey, 667.
832(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Appellate court with-
out jurisdiction to determine issue of fraud in
judgment.-Hunter v. Gulf Production Co., 163.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
837(12) (Mo.) In reviewing nonsuit evi-
dence erroneously excluded is considered.
Adair v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 920.
837(12) (Mo.App.) Stipulation rejected in
evidence, but put in record, considered by Su-
preme Court in equity case.-Endres v. Hadeler,
1002.
843(1) (Mo.App.) Questions rendered un-
necessary by reversal.-Esstman v. United Rys.
Co. of St. Louis, 508.
843(2) (Mo.App.) Whether a lien did not
attach for one reason is an unnecessary ques-
tion, where it does not attach for another rea-
son.-Endres v. Hadeler, 1002.
933(4) (Mo.App.) Granting new trial on
specified ground constitutes overruling of other
grounds; weight of evidence not reviewed.—
Ziegler v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 1016.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
955 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appointment of receiver
not usually interfered with.-Bingham v. Gra-
ham, 105.
964 (Tex. Civ.App.) Discretion as to separa-
tion of actions by widow and children for un-
authorized burial held not reversible.-Foster v.
Foster, 215.
969 (Ky.) Ruling on application for view of
place of accident will not be disturbed unless
there is abuse of discretion.-Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Scott's Adm'r, 1066.
971(2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Whether witness
qualified to give opinion a matter within discre-
tion of court.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 781.
972 (Mo.App.) Trial court can better de-
termine bearing of argument.-Baird v. Larabee
Flour Mills Corporation, 988.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-
994(3) (Ky.) Credibility of witnesses for
chancellor.-Rice v. McNeill, 724.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
999(1) (Mo.App.) Finding of jury on ques-1040(16) (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling of ex-
tion properly submitted is conclusive.-Deppe v. ception to portion of answer held harmless.-
National Council Junior Order United American Schwander v. Noble, 443.
Mechanics, 974.
1040 (16) (Tex.Civ.App.) Sustaining of
999(3) (Mo.) Jury finding that evidence was special exceptions to answer held harmless in
true was conclusive.-Thompson v. Lyons, 942. view of amendments.-Guyler v. Guyler, 604.
999(3) (Tex. Civ.App.) Question of negligence 1042(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Striking immateri-
is not question for Court of Civil Appeals.- al allegations not prejudicial error.-Guyler v.
North Texas Gas Co. v. Young, 254.
Guyler, 604.
1001(1) (Mo.) Verdict sustained by evi-1046(5) (Tex. Civ.App.) Comment by court
dence is conclusive as to facts.-Cowan V. on undisputed fact held not harmless.-Alamo
Young, 869.
Iron Works v. Prado, 282.
1001(1) (Mo.App.) Jury finding as to prac-1046 (5) (Mo.) Remarks of court in per-
ticability of guarding saw not disturbed unless sonal injury action, if error, held harmless.-
matter is beyond question.-Brasel v. W. T. Heriford v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 899.
Letts Box & Cooperage Co., 984.
1001 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Verdict supported
by evidence not disturbed.-Hagar v. Adams,-Koger v. Black, 904.
1001(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Question for jury
where evidence would support finding either
way.-Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Thompson,
795; National Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v.
Same, 796.
1047 (1) (Mo.) Judgments in equity ordi-
narily not reversed for error as to evidence.
1048 (6) (Mo.) Cross-examination in per-
sonal injury action, if error, held harmless.-
Heriford v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 899.
of
1050(1) (Ky.) Admission
secondary
evidence not prejudicial where of small proba-
tive value.-New York-Kentucky Oil & Gas
Co. v. Miller, 535.
1002 (Mo.App.) Disputed matter settled by
verdict.-Deppe v. National Council Junior Or-1050(1) (Ky.) Admission of opinion evi-
der United American Mechanics, 974.
1002 (Tex. Civ.App.) Verdict on conflicting
evidence will not be disturbed.-Sutherland v.
Citizens' State Bank, 115.
1008(2) (Mo.) Findings of trial court bind-
ing.-Brooks v. Roberts, 11.
dence as to speed of train held harmless, in
view of testimony of experts.-Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Scott's Adm'r, 1066.
1050 (1) (Mo.) Evidence as to statement
not in defendant's presence harmless.-Colburn
v. Krenning, 934.
1008(2) (Mo.App.) Finding supported by ev-1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony that one
idence not reversed.-In re Buck's Estate, 716. of the defendants was rich and bank director
1009(1) (Ky.) Appellate court weighs the not prejudicial.-Moorman v. Small, 127.
evidence in equity cases.-Johnston v. Williams, 1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of deed in
1057.
evidence held harmless in view of testimony.—
Schwander v. Noble, 443.
1009 (3) (Ky.) Findings of chancellor not
disturbed unless plainly wrong.-Jones v. Tar-1050(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Improper evidence
ry, 523.
must be shown to have influenced jury.-Gal-
1009 (3) (Ky.) No disturbance of judgment veston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hartford Fire
bf chancellor on contradictory evidence.- Ins. Co., 781.
Flener v. Lawrence, 1041.
1009 (3) (Ky.) Weight given finding of
chancellor in case of doubt.-Johnston v. Wil-
liams, 1057.
1009 (3) (Mo.) Supreme Court, in equity
case, will defer to conclusions of trial court on
conflicting evidence.-Wavrin v. Wavrin, 931.
1009 (4) (Ark.) Chancellor's finding con-
clusive unless against evidence.-Foster v.
Bradney, 811.
1051(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Improper admission
of evidence, otherwise proves harmless.-Gal-
veston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 781.
1053(1) (Ark.) Excluding testimony held to
cure error.-McNeal v. Millar, 62.
1056(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Exclusion of evidence
held harmless error.-Farmers' & Merchants'
State Bank & Trust Co. v. Cole, 354.
1056(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Exclusion of opin-
1009(4) (Ky.) Finding not to be disturbed ion as to stopping of street car held immaterial.
unless contrary to weight of evidence.-Bur--Nicholson v. Houston Electric Co., 632.
dine v. White's Adm'x, 750.
1056 (6) (Mo.) Error in exclusion of evi-
1011(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Finding on conflict-dence is harmless where nonsuit is proper with
ing evidence not disturbed.-Steingruber v. City evidence in.-Adair v. Kansas City Terminal
of San Antonio, 77.
Ry. Co., 920.
1011(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings on con-
flicting evidence not disturbed, unless contra-
ry to overwhelming weight.-Deaton v. Ham-
ilton County, 577.
1015(3) (Mo.App.) Order granting new
trial because verdict against weight of evi-
dence not reviewed.-Morgeneier v. Grafeman
Dairy Co., 1009.
1057(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Improper exclusion
of evidence otherwise established harmless.-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 781.
1060 (1) (Mo.) Reading of mandate and
opinion on former appeal not prejudicial.—
Lewis v. Barnes, 487.
1060 (1) (Mo.) Interrupted argument
against contributory negligence held not
versible.-Wagner v. Gilsonite Const. Co., 890.
1029 (Mo.) Where verdict correct, errors 1062(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Erroneous submis-
held not prejudicial.-Brigham City Fruit
Growers' Ass'n v. G. H. Zollmann Produce Co.,
911.
1033(3) (Mo.) Ruling on motion to strike
not unfavorable to appellant cannot be com-
plained of by him.-Heriford v. Kansas City
Rys. Co., 899.
1033(8) (Tex. Civ.App.) No complaint of
favorable error.-Independent Order of Puri-
tans v. Manley, 647.
sion of interrogatories to jury harmless.-St.
Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Lam-
kin, 179.
1062(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Submission of issues
answered favorably to appellant harmless.-
Vogt v. Guidry, 343.
1062 (2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Refusal of special
issue on damages not error, where jury found
against plaintiffs.-Sutherland v. Citizens' State
Bank, 115.
1040(6) (Tex. Civ.App.) Sustaining excep-1062 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Failure to sub-
tions to plea in abatement harmless, in view of
subsequent evidence.-Galveston, H. & S. A.
Ry. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 781.
1040(13) (Tex.Civ.App.) Overruling of de-
murrer harmless where judgment was right.-
Greenameyer v. McFarlane, 613.
mit issue does not justify reversal and rendi-
tion.-North Texas Gas Co. v. Young, 254.
1062(2) (Tex. Civ.App.) Refusal of request
for special findings not error where jury's an-
swers determine issues.-Farmers' & Mer-
chants' State Bank & Trust Co. v. Cole, 354.
|