viction by a court of competent jurisdiction."-
Commonwealth v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.)

158.

§ 2. Carriage of goods.

A complaint in an action against a railroad
company for its failure to furnish a car in
which to ship plaintiff's timber held insufficient
on demurrer.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v.
Lee (Ark.) 99.

Contract for the shipment of tan bark, pro-
viding for the payment of a certain rate per
100 pounds for car-load lots delivered at a
point named, construed.-Chesapeake & O. Ry.
Co. v. Dobbins (Ky.) 334.

Under Acts 26th Leg. p. 214, a railroad com-
pany in Texas may be sued alone in a county
in which it does not run for damage to goods
shipped in such county and received by it from
a railroad running through such county.-Texas
& P. Ry. Co. v. Middleton (Tex. Civ. App.)
378.

Acts of agent of connecting carrier of
freight held negligent conduct, for which car-
rier was liable.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of
Texas v. Dilworth (Tex. Civ. App.) 502.

§ 3. Carriage of live stock.

To permit a recovery of interest in action
against carriers for injuries to a shipment of
cattle, the petition should allege such item.-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lee (Tex. Civ.
App.) 54.

In an action against two connecting carriers
for injuries to cattle shipped, over both roads,
held error for the jury to consider the negli-
gence of both roads in rendering a verdict
against one.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lee
(Tex. Civ. App.) 54.

In an action against two connecting carriers
for injuries to a shipment of cattle over both
roads, verdict held excessive.-Gulf, C. & S. F.
Ry. Co. v. Lee (Tex. Civ. App.) 54.

The fact that one of two connecting carriers
owns a large amount of stock of the other does
not render such road liable for the negligence
of the latter.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lee
(Tex. Civ. App.) 54.

§ 4. Carriage of passengers--Perform-
ance of contract of transporta-
tion.
Evidence in an action by a passenger against
a railroad for setting her down at the wrong
station held not to sustain a judgment for plain-
tiff.-Texas Midland R. Co. v. Terry (Tex. Civ.
App.) 697.

An instruction in an action by a passenger
against a railroad company for setting her
down at the wrong station held erroneous.
Texas Midland R. Co. v. Terry (Tex. Civ. App.)

697.

Evidence of the duties of a car porter held
admissible in an action by a passenger against
a railroad company for setting her down at the
wrong station.-Texas Midland R. Co. v. Terry
(Tex. Civ. App.) 697.

§ 5.

Personal injuries.

An action against a railroad to recover for
personal injuries must be brought in the county
in which defendant's chief officer resides or in
which it has its chief oflice.-Eichhorn v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 797.

What took place in the car at the time of the
accident was competent to show the severity
of the injury.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Car-
others (Ky.) 833.

It was not competent to prove by plaintiff
an injury to his hat after he left the place at
which he was injured.-Louisville & N. R. Co.
v. Carothers (Ky.) 833.

1149

sonal injuries, averments of the answer that
In an action by passenger to recover for per-
plaintiff was asserting claims for the same in-
juries under two accident policies were properly
others (Ky.) 833.
stricken out.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Car-

not in issue held properly stricken out.-Chitty
Portion of an instruction relating to matters
v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.) 959.

injuries received by a passenger, evidence held
In an action against a railroad company for
Wait v. Omaha, K. C. & E. R. Co. (Mo.) 1028.
to show no negligence on defendant's part.-

In an action against a railroad company, in
had kept its ticket office open as required by
which the question was whether the company
law, an instruction, based on Batt's Civ. St.
art. 4542, that it was the duty of the company
to keep such office open for half an hour before
the "arrival of trains and until departure there-
of," held erroneous.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.
of Texas v. Mills (Tex. Civ. App.) 74.

recover damages for personal injuries, an er-
In an action against a railroad company to
roneous instruction held not cured by subse-
quent contradictory instructions which made no
draw nor qualify it.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
direct reference to the error, and did not with-
Co. of Texas v. Mills (Tex. Civ. App.) 74.

Evidence in action by plaintiff, who raised a
car window, which fell on his hand, injuring
damages.-Texas Midland R. R. v. Johnson
it, held insufficient to sustain a judgment for
(Tex. Civ. App.) 388.

held admissible in mitigation of exemplary dam-
Evidence of conduct provoking an assault
ages.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. La
Prelle (Tex. Civ. App.) 488.

in finding that defendant had not exercised
Jury, in action against carrier, held justified
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. La Prelle
due care for the protection of a passenger.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 488.

that his act in assaulting a passenger was the
Conductor held to be agent of railroad, so
railroad's act.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
v. La Prelle (Tex. Civ. App.) 488.

Damages sustained by a
care, while a passenger on an overcrowded train,
holding a child, not her own, but under her
passenger from
held not too remote.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v.
Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 1115.

§ 6.

negligence

of

Contributory
person injured.
ant in inflicting injuries complained of, held in-
sufficient to defeat plaintiff's entire cause of
Provoking conduct, not justifying a defend-
action.-Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. La
Prelle (Tex. Civ. App.) 488.

which had terminated, is no defense to the rail-
A prior assault on a conductor by a passenger,
way company in an action for damages for
an assault by the conductor.-Galveston, H. &
S. A. Ry. Co. v. La Prelle (Tex. Civ. App.)
488.

to hold a child, not her own, while a passenger
Negligence of husband in permitting the wife
in a train crowded so as to compel her to
stand, held a question for the jury-Texas &
P. Ry. Co. v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 1115.

jured as a result of the condition of the train,
Contributory negligence of a passenger, in-
held a question for the jury.-Texas & P. Ry.
Co. v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 1115.

failing to abandon an overcrowded and cold
Contributory negligence of a passenger for
train held a question for the jury.-Texas & P.
Ry. Co. v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 1115.

A railroad company held liable for putting a
drunken passenger off at a dangerous place only
if he was put off against his will or when he
was incapable of having a will.-Bohannon's Of civil actions, see "Venue," § 1.
Adm'x v. Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky (Ky.) Of criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 4.

The word "ejected" does not imply the use of
force, and therefore it was not error to instruct
the jury, in order to find for plaintiff, they Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3.
must believe that his intestate was "negligently
ejected" from the train.-Bohannon's Adm'x v.
Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky (Ky.) 169.

A sale of land under decree of court was not
void, though the land was held adversely, as
the champerty statute does not apply to a title
acquired under judicial proceedings other than See "False Pretenses"; "Fraud."

Against estate assigned for creditors, see "As- See "Husband and Wife," § 4.
signments for Benefit of Creditors," § 2.
Against estate of decedent, see "Executors and
Administrators," § 4.

Mining claims, see "Mines and Minerals," § 1.

COMPLAINT.

In criminal prosecution, see "Indictment and
Information.'

COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.
See "Accord and Satisfaction"; "Payment";
"Release."

COMPUTATION.

Of interest, see "Interest," § 3.

Provisions relating to particular subjects.
See "Carriers," § 1; "Counties," § 2; "Courts,"
§§ 2, 3; "Grand Jury"; "Hawkers and Ped-
dlers"; "Highways," § 2; "Homestead," §§
1-3, 5; "Judges"; "Jury," § 1; "Justices
of the Peace" § 1; "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 9; "Officers," § 1; "Taxation," § 1.
Criminal jurisdiction of courts, see "Criminal
Law," § 3.
Enactment and validity of statutes, see "Stat-
utes," § 1.

Subjects and titles of statutes, see "Statutes,"
§ 2.

Of period of limitation, see "Limitation of Ac-§ 1. Establishment and amendment of
tions," § 2.

CONCEALED WEAPONS.

See "Weapons."

CONCLUSION.

Of witness, see "Evidence," § 13.

CONDEMNATION.

Taking property for public use, see "Eminent
Domain."

CONDITIONS.

In wills, see "Wills," § 4.

CONFESSION.

constitutions.

Under Const. art. 15, § 2, and Rev. St. 1899,
§§ 7123, 7124, an amendment of the constitu-
tion takes effect on the canvass of the vote by
which it is ratified.-State v. Kyle (Mo.) 763.
§ 2. Construction, operation, and en-
forcement of constitutional pro-
visions.

Doubts which may exist as to the constitu-
tionality of an appropriation made by a city
must be resolved in favor of its constitution-
ality. Board of Trustees of House of Reform
v. City of Lexington (Ky.) 350.

As an action to enjoin the laying of a rail-
road track was instituted prior to the time the
present constitution became effective, the rights
of the parties are governed by the former con-
stitution. McHugh v. Louisville Bridge Co.
(Ky.) 456.

An applicant for change of venue cannot ob-
ject that Rev. St. 1899, § 833, requiring him
to deposit $10 with the application, violates

Admissibility in evidence, see "Criminal Law," Const. art. 6, § 33, and article 10, § 10, because
§ 13.

CONFIRMATION.

section 834 requires the money to be paid to
the judge who tries the case.-Cunningham v.
Current River R. Co. (Mo.) 556.

The amendment of Const. art. 2, § 12, adopt-

Of commissioner's report, see "Reference," § 2. ed at the election held November 8, 1900, pro-

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

As to contracts of building and loan associa-
tions, see "Building and Loan Associations."
As to rate of interest, see "Interest," § 2.

CONNECTING CARRIERS.

See "Carriers," §§ 2, 3.

CONSIDERATION.

For transfer of note, see "Bills and Notes,"
§ 2.

Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see
"Bills and Notes," § 1.

Of contract, see "Contracts," § 1.
Of fraudulent conveyance,
Conveyances," § 1.

see

"Fraudulent

viding for prosecutions for felonies or misde-
meanors by indictment or information, was
self-operating from the time it took effect.-
State v. Kyle (Mo.) 763.

§ 3. Distribution of governmental pow-
ers and functions.

Act March 11, 1898, regulating elections, was,
to the extent that it provided for the appoint-
ment of election commissioners by the legisla-
ture, an invasion of the powers of the execu-
tive, and therefore unconstitutional.-Pratt v.
Breckinridge (Ky.) 136.

The legislature has the power to enact any
law not prohibited by the constitution.-Ex
parte Roberts (Mo.) 726.

§ 4. Personal, civil, and political rights.
Act April 10, 1899, requiring a coal mining
corporation, mining or selling coal and paying
by weight, to weigh the same before it is
screened, held not an unlawful restriction on cor-
Parol evidence of consideration in written in- poration's right to contract.-Woodson v. State

Of release, see "Release," § 1.

strument, see "Evidence," § 9.

CONSPIRACY.

Evidence of acts and declarations of conspir-
ators, see "Criminal Law," § 12.
Liability of co-conspirator for crime not includ-
ed in conspiracy, see "Criminal Law," § 2.

CONSTABLES.

See "Sheriffs and Constables."

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Protection of civil rights, see "Civil Rights."

(Ark.) 465.

Person desiring to contract with corporation
cannot complain because its powers to contract
are limited.-Woodson v. State (Ark.) 465.

It seems that the attempt of the legislature to
confer the power of contest on the election
commissioners is in violation of Const. § 2. subd.
2, providing that "absolute and arbitrary power
over the lives, liberty, and property of free-
men exists nowhere in a republic, not even in
the largest majority."-Pratt v. Breckinridge
(Ky.) 136.

§ 5. Obligation of contracts.

Where a turnpike road company had power
under its charter, granted 1834-35, to acquire
title to lands for toll houses and to sell them, a
general law thereafter enacted forbidding such

corporations from selling lands to any person,
except the owner of adjacent land, was void as
to that company.-Foster v. Frankfort, L. & V. 1. Acts or conduct constituting con-
Turnpike Road Co. (Ky.) 840.

A statute requiring sales under deeds of trust Of election, see "Elections," § 5.
to be made on a certain day of the month is
unconstitutional, as applied to a deed executed
before its passage and providing for sale "at
any time" after default.-Thompson v. Cobb
(Tex. Sup.) 1090.

In criminal prosecution, see "Criminal Law,"
§§ 14, 27.

Retrospective and ex post facto In will contest, see "Wills," § 3.

9. Due process of law.

Rev. St. Mo. 1899, § 7890, does not deprive
insurance companies of property without due
process of law.-Schuermann v. Union Cent.
Life Ins. Co. (Mo.) 723.

Rev. St. 1889, § 1892, held not violative of
Bill of Rights, § 30, declaring that no person
shall be deprived of his liberty without due
process of law.-Ex parte Roberts (Mo.) 726.

Gen. Laws 1899, c. 128, regulating the run-
ning at large of stock, is not unconstitutional
as working a deprivation of property without
due process of law.-Graves v. Rudd (Tex. Civ.
App.) 63.