« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
excessive in amount.-St. Louis, 1. M. & S. An instruction without evidence to sustain it Ry. Co. v. Waren (Ark.) 222.
is properly refused.--San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Argument to jury, going outside of the evi- Co. v. Griffin (Tex. Civ. App.) 512. dence, in an accident case where large dam- Where a party desires a more explicit submisages were awarded, held prejudicial error.- sion of the matter than is made by the court, Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Langston (Tex. he must ask an instruction embodying the point Civ. App.) 610.
in the manner desired.-San Antonio & A. P.
Ry, Co. v. Long Tex. Civ. App.) 599. § 3. Taking case or question from jury. Where a witness made conficting statements,
Where the charge is silent as to a point on held, that the credit to be given to his testimo- which a party has a right to have the jury inny was a question for the jury.-State ex rel. structed, it is the duty of the party to request Jackson County v. Chick (Mo.) 829.
an instruction.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co.
v. Long (Tex. Civ. App.) 599. The evidence of fraud held sufficient to render the granting of a nonsuit erroneous.-Lindsay v.
It is not error to refuse an instruction to Murphy (Tex. Civ. App.) 531.
find for defendant unless the jury are satisfied,
with “clearness and certainty," of the existAn issue held properly withdrawn from the ence of plaintiff's claim.--Mixon v. Farris (Tex. jury, where there was no evidence to support Civ. App.) 741. it.-International Order of Twelve of the Knights and Daughters of Tabor v. Boswell ering a particular phase of the case, it is not
When a court has given a charge fully cov(Tex. Civ. App.) 1108.
proper to reiterate it.-Houston & T. C. R. Co. Instructions to jury.
v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 747. It is not error to refuse request for instruc- A charge held insufficient, as not directing the tion where substance of requested instruction jury to the facts in issue and invoking their has been given.-Noyes v. Tootle (Ind. T.) 1031. judgment on the evidence relative to the issue.
Instruction that jury may disregard entire tes---Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Patterson (Tex. timony of witness intentionally testifying false- Civ. App.) 747. ly as to any material fact held proper.--Noyes v. Charges relating to questions not raised by Tootle (Ind. T.) 1031.
the pleadings are properly refused.-Houston The refusal of an instruction in the nature of T. C. R. Co. v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence held not erro
747. neous, where the testimony was conflicting.“ Where a charge is not sufficiently full, speBaird v. Citizens' Ry. Co. (Mo.) 78.
cial charges ought to be requested.-Houston & Instructions as to the necessity of ringing bell T. C. R. Co. v. Stuart (Tex. Civ. App.) 799. of locomotive at crossing hdd sufficient.-Lamb A party cannot complain of failure to instruct v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 659.
as to an issue, when he did not request submisThe court need not single out each witness, sion of such issue.-Graves v. Hillyer (Tex. Civ. and charge whether his testimony tended to
App.) 889. prove any particular fact.-State ex rel. Jack- A party cannot complain that charge, not son County v. Chick (Mo.) 829.
actually erroneous, is not clear and explicit A refusal to charge that defendant, in the enough, when he did not ask for different one.regular course of pleading should have filed San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Safford (Tex. his answer much sooner, held proper.-State ex
Civ. App.) 1105. rel. Jackson County v. Chick (Mo.) 829.
Verdict. An instruction held not objectionable as A contradictory special verdict held not to comment on evidence.-Baker v. Kansas City, prevent entry of judgment because a breach of Ft. S. & M. Ry. Co. (Mo) 838.
covenant had made only one judgment proper.-It is not error to refuse a charge which as
Roberts, Willis & Tavlor Co. v. Sun Mut. Ins. sumes facts that are controverted.--St. Louis Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 559. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Casseday (Tex. Civ. App.) 6. In view of Sayles' Civ. St. art. 1331, an issue
A requested charge is properly refused where that was not submitted to the jury will be conthe court's charge fully covered the case. -St. sidered as having been resolved in favor of the Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Casseday (Tex. civ. judgment.--Devine v. United States Mortg. Co. App.) 6.
of Scotland (Tex. Civ. App.) 585. It is not error to refuse a charge grouping
A verdict finding that defendant was a prinfacts where some of the facts were not sustain- cipal is not a conclusion of law.-Devine v. United by the evidence.-St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v.
ed States Mortg. Co. of Scotland (Tex. Civ. Casseday (Tex. Civ. App.) 6.
App.) 585. One relying on circumstantial evidence held
A verdict that defendant "has" no claim in entitled to a charge thereon.-Jones v. Hess certain land as a homestead hdd pot to show that (Tex. Civ. App.) 46.
he did not have such claim two years prior to
the trial.-Devine v. United States Mortg. Co. The court, having charged on the burden of of Scotland (Tex. Civ. App.) 585. proof, need not repeat it in a requested charge. -- Texas & P. Ry, Co. v. Humphries (Tex. Civ. 8 6. Trial by court. App.) 201.
A request to the trial judge to file concluAn omission to define a word held not error,
sions of fact and of law must be brought to his where the party relying on such omission did attention to be available.-Western Union Tel. not make a request for a special charge there- Co. v. Trice (Tex. Civ. App.) 770. on.-Schulz v. Tessman (Tex. Civ. App.) 207. A special issue held defective as assuming
Charges on the weight of evidence should be an issuable fact as proved. - Houston, E. & W. refused.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Hous- T. Ry. Co. v. Hartnett (Tex. Civ. App.) 773. ton (Tex. Civ. App.) 539.
In preparing its conclusions of fact and of It was not error to instruct that the evidence law, the court need not state the evidence on showed a certain fact, where the evidence was
which it bases its conclusions.--Gordon v. Mcundisputed:-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v.
Call (Tex. Civ. App.) 1111. Griffin (Tex. Civ. App.) 512.
8 7. Waiver and correction of irreguIt was not error to refuse an instruction, where
larities and errors. a like instruction had been given.--San Antonio Objections to admission of evidence held & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Grillin (Tex. Civ. App.) 512. waived.-Weeks v. McNulty (Tenn. Sup.) 809.
An instruction defining value, which is inap A trustee under a will must account for salplicable to the facts in the case, is cured by a ary received from the estate for acting as pres. special charge explaining and applying the in-ident of a corporation illegally formed by incorstruction to the facts.-Graves v. Hillyer Tex. porating the estate.-Garesche v. Levering Inv. Civ. App.) 889.
Co. (Mo.) 653.
§ 6. Establishment and enforcement of TROVER AND CONVERSION.
The fact that a debt was incurred after a Where one mortgaged as his own a mare
trust resulted to the debtor does not preclude which another owned jointly with him, the mort- the creditor from subjecting the trust estate to gagee and the purchaser, at a sale which he the debt.--Goodrich v. Hicks (Tex. Civ. App.) procured to be made under attachment, are lia- | 798. ble to the other joint owner as for a conversion One paying $1,000 for land worth $500,000, of his interest.-Balletine v. Joplin (Ky.) 417. held to acquire no title against a cestui que
trust, though he had no knowledge of his rights.
-Hanrick v. Gurley (Tex. Civ. App.) 994.
Cestui que trustent have the burden of proring
that a grantee of their trustee had notice of their Charitable trusts, see “Charities," $ 2. Conveyances in trust for creditors, see “Assign-quitable title, or did not purchase for a valuments for Benefit of Creditors."
able consideration.--Hanrick v. Gurley (Tex. Trust deeds, see “Mortgages.”
Civ. App.) 994. § 1. Creation, existence, and validity.
TURNPIKES AND TOLL ROADS. Evidence held insutficient to establish resulting trust.-Wacker v. Wacker (Mo.) 835.
§ 1. Regulation and use for travel. Evidence held insufficient to establish a result
A turnpike-road company is liable for injuries ing trust.-Hutzler v. Groff (Tex. Civ. App.) resulting from the frightening of a horse and the 206.
backing of a vehicle over the side of the road Evidence to establish a resulting trust must where the declivity was such as to cause a perbe both clear and satisfactory.-Goodrich v. son of ordinary prudence to apprehend danger Hicks (Tex. Civ. App.) 798.
from the failure to erect barriers.-Canton, C. A trust held not to result by acts of plaintiffs & H. Turnpike Co. v. McIntire (Ky.) 980. done after the execution of the deed to the alleged trustee.- Arnold v. Ellis (Tex. Civ. App.)
Money received by a father from one to whom See “Bonds." he had made an unauthorized conveyance of his children's land does not belong to the children.-
UNFAIR COMPETITION. Arnold v. Ellis (Tex. Civ. App.) 883.
A cestui que trust has an equitable title, See “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names," $ 3. though the trustee has conveyed to another.Hanrick v. Gurley (Tex. Civ. App.) 994.
UNITED STATES. 8 2. Construction and operation. Trust deed construed, and held to create an
See "Territories." active trust, so that legal title remains in trustee on death of beneficiary.-Walton v. Ketch
UNLAWFUL DETAINER. um (Mo.) 924. 8 3. Appointment, qualification, and
See "Forcible Entry and Detainer.” tenure of trustee. A married woman has no power to appoint a
USURY. trustee for herself.-Grundy v. Drye (Ky.) 155; Same v. Grundy's Ex'r, Id.
1. Usurious contracts and transacThe power to appoint new trustee in place
tions. of original one can only be given by the cre
Facts held to show a mortgage note not to be ator of the trust. Grundy v. Drye (Ky.) 155; usurious.-Martin v. Adams (Ark.) 494. Same v. Grundy's Ex’r, Id.
Presumption, until the contrary is shown, is § 4. Management and disposal of trust that a contract made in another state is valid. -
Everton v. Day (Ark.) 900. property. A master with whom a contract of insur Notes dated and payable in another state canance is made for the benefit of the servant is not be held usurious, in absence of proof of the the trustee of an express trust, and under Civ. usury law of such state.--Sawyer v. Dickson. Code Prac. $ 21, the servant need not be join (Ark.) 903. ed with him in an action on the contract.-Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Ballard & Ballard Co. will be deterinined by the law of the state
Rights of parties to alleged usurious contract (Ky.) 1074.
where it was made and is to be performed.-Liability of county judges made trustees of Sawyer v. Dickson (Ark.) 903. fund for charitable purposes, where county Where the note of the surety was accepted in treasurer to whom the fund had been turned lieu of the original note and the principal disover defaults, determined.-Anderson v. Rob-charged, the principal may recover of the payee erts (Mo.) 847.
usury theretofore paid by him.-Mann v. Bank $ 5. Accounting and compensation of of Elkton (Ky.) 413. trustee.
It was error to sustain a demurrer to an anA trustee held not accountable for compound swer which showed that the note sued on coninterest.-Kane v. Kane's Adm'r (Mo.) 446. tained some usury, though the exact amount did
The account of a trustee under a will held not appear.-Pryse v. Three Forks Deposit surcharged by a bonus allowed him for services Bank's Assignee (Ky.) 415. by a cestui que trust in ignorance of the nature A note executed to plaintiff as renewal of a of the services.-Garesche v. Levering Inv. Co. note executed to her husband, since deceased, (Mo.) 653.
though embracing other indebtedness, should be
purged of usury embraced in the original note. I tained an interest held erroneous, as prejudicial -Hinkson v. Wigglesworth (Ky.) 1079.
to vendor's title.- Watt v. Hunter (Tex. Civ. Act March 9, 1897, rendering usurious note App.) 593. valid for amount of principal and legal inter Contract of sale requiring vendee to pay off est, is not invalid, as attempting to vitalize void or extend an existing loan held to require the contract.-Hardaway v. Lilly (Tenn. Ch. App.) vendee to pay or procure an extension within 712.
a reasonable time.-Watt v. Hunter (Tex. Civ. Act March 9, 1897, providing that suit on
App.) 593. note showing usury on its face shall not be dis Where contract to sell land fixes no time for missed, but judgment shall be rendered for performance, the vendee must tender contract principal with legal interest, applies to con- price within reasonable time.-Cunyus v. Hooks tracts made before its passage.-Hardaway v. Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1106. Lilly (Tenn. Ch. App.) 112.
A usurious building and loan note negotiated 8 4. Rights and liabilities of parties. in Texas is governed by the laws of that state,
A prior unrecorded deed is superior to a subthough executed and performable in another sequeut recorded transfer, unless the subsestate, by the laws of which it is not usurious. quent vendee is an innocent purchaser for -People's Building, Loan & Saving Ass'n v. value, the burden of proving which is on him.Bessonette (Tex. Civ. App.) 52.
Robertson v. McClay (Tex. Civ. App.) 35. § 2. Penalties and forfeitures.
The recital of a consideration in a subseSince the part of a note providing for usuri- quent recorded deed is not evidence that the ous interest is void, the maker is not confined to
rantee is a purchaser for value, as against a his statutory right to recover double interest prior unrecorded conveyance. - Robertson v. paid, but may apply such payments on the prin- McClay (Tex. Civ. App.) 35. cipal debt.- People's Building, Loan & Saving Transfer of title by vendor to assignee of purAss'n v. Bessonette (Tex. Civ. App.) 52.
chase-money note barred by limitations vests
legal title in the assignee.-Davis v. Hertman VACATION.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 50.
Assignment of inferior lien by vendor's asVacating particular proceedings.
signee held not to carry the legal title with it. Of attachment, see "Attachment," $ 3.
-Davis v. Hertman (Tex. Civ. App.) 50. Of judgment, see "Judgment," $ 2.
A record of a deed in which the clerk neg
lects to copy the acknowledgment, as required VALUE.
by law, is not constructive notice to subseLimits of jurisdiction, see “Appeal and Error," quent purchasers.--Dean v. Gibson (Tex. Civ. § 1.
Purchasers of land sold under a released trust VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
deed, before the release was recorded. are not
innocent purchasers, where they acquired title See, also, "Sales."
after the release was placed on record.-MansPurchasers at sale on execution, see "Execu- field v. Garrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 531. tion,” g 1.
Notice to the agent of a purchaser of land sold
under a trust deed that the land had been re} 1. Requisites and validity of contract. leased is imputable to his principal.-Mansfield
Where a deed was to one and her heirs, but, v. Garrison Tex. Civ. App.) 55+. if she should die without issue, then to her mother and her heirs, the title is not marketable, un L’nder a contract by a vendee to improve the der Rev. St. 18:37, p. 119, she surviving her land for the better security of the unpaid mother as sole heir, and still living with issue.- price, the vendee, by defaulting on the conRosier v. Graham (Mo.) 470.
tract, cannot recover of the vendor the value of Vendor's representation that the lands did not Civ. App.) 593.
such improvements. Watt v. Hunter (Tex. overflow, held not false or fraudulent simply because such lands were at times overflowed A vendor obliged to par off a note secured by floods.-Kerns v. Perry (Tenn. Ch. App.) by mortgage on the land which the vendee had 729.
assumed cannot recover of the vendee attorDescription of land in contract of sale hela ney's fees provided by the note unless he actusufficient.-Cunyus v. Hooks Lumber Co. (Tex. ally paid them.--Watt v. Hunter (Tex. Civ.
App.) 593. Civ. App.) 1106.
Purchaser by a deed of a grantor's interest § 2. Construction and operation of con- with covenants of seisin held a bona fide purchastract.
er.-Hanriek v. Gurley (Tex. Civ. App.) 994. A contract of sale, providing that vendee pay or extend an incumbrance, held sufficient to au- $ 5. Remedies of vendor. thorize rendee to make a new loan on the land X. sold to B. his interest in a tract of land and pay the existing incumbrance.-Watt v. which they held jointly under title bond from Hunter (Tex. Civ. App.) 593.
H. In consideration thereof, B. conveyed to $ 3. Performance of contract.
X. a tract of land on which A. held a mortUnder a contract authorizing vendee to pro
gage, and, in satisfaction of A.'s mortgage, excure the extension of an existing incumbrance ecuted to him a note as for the purchase money or pay it by making a new loan on the land, of the half of the H. tract. Held, that a but not fixing the terms of the new loan, a de purchase-money lien was thereby created in cree directing him to make the loan for“ five A.’s favor.-Pickering v. Beckner (Ky.) 148. years, at 10 per cent. interest, was not un Vendee's note given in payment of assumed reasonable.- Watt v. Hunter (Tex. Civ. App.) | mortgage, and reciting that it is purchase593.
money note, held not to create vendor's lien.Where a contract of sale required vendee to Allen v. Newton (Tenn. Ch. App.) 283. pay off or procure an extension of an incumbrance, held that three months was a reasona- vendor's lien to amount of incumbrances, which
A married woman's realty held subject to ble time for him to comply with the contract. she covenanted against, the properties having -Watt v. Hunter (Tex. Civ. App.) 393.
been exchanged as a consideration for each A provision in a decree directing a vendee to other.-Harvey V. Gallaher (Tenn. Ch. App.) make a loan op land on which the vendor re- 298.
There is no vendor's lien where he demands
VINDICTIVE DAMAGES. personal security.-Peterson v. Carson (Tenn. Ch. App.) 383.
See “Damages," g 3. A vendor's contract, made after a sale to enforce his lien, to make good a shortage in the
VOTERS. acreage, held unenforceable, as being without see "Elections." consideration.–Pigeon River Lumber & Iron Co. v. Mims (Tenn. Ch. App.) 385.
WAIVER. An action for the price cannot be defended because of fraudulent representations of the See "Estoppel.” vendor, where the vendees made payments on of objections to particular acts or proceedings. the price after discovery of the fraud.--Kerns See "Appearance"; "Equity," $ 3; “Tțial,” $ 7. v. Perry (Tenn. Ch. App.) 729. Fraudulent representation by the vendor in
Of rights or remedies. regard to the overflowing of the land held not see "Insurance,” 8 5. shown by the evidence.-Kerns v. Perry (Tenn. Ch. App.) 729.
WARDS. A decree for the sale of the entire land on credits corresponding approximately with the See "Guardian and Ward." payments still due on the contract, to satisfy a vendor's lien, held correct, under Mill. & V. Code, $8 4306-4308.-Kerns v. Perry (Tenn.
WAREHOUSEMEN. Ch. App.) 729.
Warehouse receipts issued by a corporation Defendant held not entitled to object that de- not engaged in the warehouse business do not cree foreclosing vendor's lien did not comply create a lien upon the property named therein. with Mill. & V. Code. $8 4306-4308, as to mode --Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. Kentucky Glassand terms of sale.-Kerns v. Perry (Tenn. Ch. Works Co. (Ky.) 440. App.) 729. A judgment of foreclosure containing an in
WARRANT. sufficient description held suficient, where the land was described in another deed, to which For arrest, see “Criminal Law," $ 6. it referred as containing a better description. -Sanger v. Roberts (Tex. Sup.) 1.
WARRANTY. Petition held not within the rule that, where a description by metes and bounds is followed by On sale of goods, see “Sales," $ 2. a reference to some other writing for a further description, the latter cannot be looked to to enlarge the former.-Sanger v. Roberts Tex. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. Sup.) 1.
See, also, "Levees." 8 6. Remedies of purchaser.
The fact that the vendor had previously sold 8 1. Artificial ponds, reservoirs, and to another the mineral rights in the land sold
channels, dams, and flowage. did not coustitute a breach of the covenant of
Rule as to measure of damages for flooding warranty, the purchaser having knowledge of plaintiff's land, and road leading thereto, statthat fact. -Sanders v. Rowe (Ky.) 1083.
ed.-Hall v. City of Austin (Tex. Civ. App.)
§ 2. Public water supply.
A city cannot require citizen who refuses to § 1. Domicile or residence of parties.
release it from liability for failure in water supRev. St. 1895, art. 1194, held not to authorize ply to pay a higher water rate.--Dittmar v. City joinder as defendant of a nonresident of a
of New Braunfels (Tex, Civ. App.) 1114. particular county in an action on another's written obligation, performable therein.-Behrens A city cannot require citizen to sign release Drug Co. v. Hamilton (Tex. Sup.) 5.
from liability for scarcity or failure in water
supply:-Dittmar v. City of New Braunfels $ 2. Change of venue or place of trial.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 1114. Rev. St. 1889, $ 2258, providing that a change of venue may be awarded "in any civil suit," inter alia, where the inhabitants of the county
WAYS. are prejudiced against the applicant, is not lim- Public ways, see "Highways"; "Municipal Corited to jury trials.-Walker v. Ellis (Mo.) 157.
porations," $ 8. Rev. St. 1889, $ 2258, relating to changes of venue, held mandatory.-Walker v. Ellis (Mo.)
WIDOWS. 457. VERDICT.
Dower, see "Dower."
Rights under statutes of descent and distribuIn civil actions, see “Trial," $ 5.
tion, see “Descent and Distribution," 8 1. In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," $ 10.
WILLS. Reception of, on Sunday, see "Sunday." Review on appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal See, also, “Descent and Distribution"; "Execuand Error,” $ 12.
tors and Administrators." VERIFICATION,
Charitable bequests and devises, see "Charities." Of pleading, see “Pleading," § 6.
§ 1. Requisites and validity.
paper in the form of a will, but which di.
rects that the devisees shall take possession at VESTED RIGHTS.
once of the land devised, cannot be admitted Protection, see "Constitutional Law," $ 3.
to probate as a will.-Ward v. Ward (Ky.) 411.
A codicil making no change in a particular VILLAGES.
devise held to be immaterial in determining the
devisees.- Neal v. Hodges (Tenn. Ch. A pp.) See “Municipal Corporations.”
§ 2. Probate.
Under Shannon's Code, $ 5596, disqualifying The creditor in a judgment against the heir husband or wife from testifying as to matters of one dying seised of real estate which, in the occurring between them, they cannot testify to absence of a will, would pass to his heir, is a gift from the husband to the wife, and an "interested in the probate" of a will of deceased, arrangement as to the investment of its prowithin Rev. St. 1889, $ 8888, so as to have the ceeds.--Young v. Hurst (Tenn. Ch. App.) 355. right to contest its validity, where it disinherit
Evidence of plaintiffs, who conveyed and dised him.-Watson v. Alderson (Mo.) 478.
claimed, to evade the rule incapacitating parThe children of the testator, as his next of ties as witnesses, held inadmissible in behalf of kin, may contest the validity of the will as of plaintiffs.-McRae v. Pour (Tex. Civ. App.) 47 common right.-Watson v. Alderson (Mo.) 478.
Where persons having no interest in the suit Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 1902. a nuncupative were joined as defendants to incapacitate them will not offered for probate within six months as parties, their evidence in behair of defrom the time the words were spoken cannot be fendant was properly admitted.-McRae v. probated, whatever the excuse for delay may Poor (Tex. Civ. App.) 47. be.-- Martinez v. De Martinez (Tex. Civ. App.)
A widow held competent to testify to affairs 532.
of a late firm composed of the deceased husband Application for probate of nuncupative will and others.--Gordon v. McCall (Tex. Civ. App.) must allege that the words were uttered during 1111. the last sickness of decedent.-Martinez v. De Martinez (Tex. Civ. App.) 532.
§ 2. Examination.
Where a witness testified that defendants $ 3. Construction.
admitted signing a bond, they may inquire on Trustees under a will held to have no power cross-examination if they did not state that to incorporate the estate and to issue shares the bond was altered after they signed it.of stock in lieu of the property.--Garesche v. State ex rel. Jackson County v. Chick (Mo.) Levering Inv. Co. (Mo.) 653.
829. Mill. & V. Code, $8 2812, 3035, held not to Counsel having, in cross-examination, queschange the rule that a devise of a remainder to tioned witness as to conversations not gone into the children of a life tenant inures to the bene- in chief, cannot complain that on redirect they fit of only such children as survive the life are brought out in full, though originally heartenant.--Neal v. Hodges (Tenn. Ch. App.) 263. say.-Nichols v. Nichols (Mo.) 947.
Devise of land to "heirs" of testator's sons, A question held erroneous as leading.-Gordon "so as to give each one the homestead he now V. McCall (Tex. Civ. App.) 1111. occupies," held to give sons only life estate.Arrants v. Crumley (Tern. Ch. App.) 342.
$ 3. Contradiction and corroboration of
witness. $ 4. Rights and liabilities of devisees Though the evidence connecting accused with and legatees.
the murder was circumstantial, he was entitled Widow having accepted probate of will ex. to prove, for the purpose of impeaching the cluding her from homestead, and giving her es principal witness for the prosecution, that he said tate during widowhood, on remarriage cannot after the discharge of accused on the examining hold homestead or any of the land devised her. trial that he "knew" that accused had nothing --Helm v. Leggett (Ark.) 675.
to do with the killing.--Franklin v. Common
wealth (Ky.) 986. WITNESSES.
One making the adverse party his witness
may prove his case by other evidence, though See, also, "Evidence."
it contradicts such party's testimony.-Imhoff v. 8 1. Competency,
McArthur (Mo.) 456. Under Sand. & H. Dig. § 2916, subd. 2, a An attempt to prove what the father of deboy eight years of age is incompetent.-St. fendant may have said to the witness as to the Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. ('0. v. Waren (Ark.) 222. guilt of defendant, in order to impeach the witA surety in a note executed to plaintiff as
ness on such hearsay testimony, is not permissirenewal of a note to her deceased husband, ble.-Poyner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 516. though no judgment is asked against him, can- As bearing on the credibility of a witness for not testify for the principal as to transactions accused, the prosecution may show that such with the original payee.- Hinkson v. Wiggles- witness left the state at the time of the conworth (Ky.) 1079.
vening of the grand jury.-Gregory v. State A widow was not a competent witness as to (Tex. Cr. App.) 577. transactions with her husband to establish a A witness can be cross-questioned as to his claim against his estate in favor of her children friendliness or other feelings towards the parby a former marriage.--Schaurer v. Schaurer ties.-Cox v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Tex(Ky.) 1087.
as (Tex. Civ. App.) 715. Testimony of an accused's wife held not admissible against him without his consent.--
WORK AND LABOR. State v. Burlingame (Mo.) 72.
Liens for work and materials, see “Mechanics' An executor of a deceased daughter held a
Particular writs. husband or wife from testifying as to matters
See "Execution"; "Injunction"; "Mandamus." occurring between them by virtue of the mar- Writ of error, see “Appeal and Error." riage, the wife may testify as to claim of ownership to property received from the husband. Young v. Hurst (Tenn. Ch. App.) 355.
WRONGFUL INJUNCTION. Statements of husband and wife, inade to a See “Injunction," $ 4. third person when property was purchased by them, are competent to show how and under what title it was to be held.-Young v. Hurst
WRONGS. (Tenn, Ch. App.) 355.
WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS AND STEREOTYPERS, BT. PAUL, MINN.