udicial, unless the contrary is shown.-Elder v.¦
State (Ark.) 938.
Any error in instructing to find defendant
guilty if he had sold liquor "in any quantity,"
instead of specifying the retail quantity, was
harmless. where the only proof was that de-
fendant had sold one-half pint of liquor.
Taylor v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 450.
In a prosecution for assault with intent to
commit rape, an instruction held properly re-
fused, as immaterial.-State v. Huff (Mo.) 256.
Where, on a trial for murder, defendant
claimed that he acted in self-defense, and
eight witnesses have testified to threats made
by deceased, it is not reversible error to ex-
clude further testimony of the same charac-
ter.-State v. Smith (Mo.) 270.
Where an objection to a question is errone-
ously sustained, the error is cured by the ques-
tion being subsequently answered.-State v.
Brennan (Mo.) 325.
Accused could not complain of evidence
brought out by himself.-Guinn v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 376.
A prosecution for robbery held barred by
limitations, where the transcript showed the
offense was committed more than five years
before the indictment was presented.-John-
son v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 522.
cution for murder held harmless error.-Driver
A remark by a district attorney on a prose-
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 528.
On a prosecution for murder, the accused
will not be deemed prejudiced in not being
present when his attorney presented a motion
for a new trial and argued the same, where
he was present on a subsequent day when
the order overruling the motion was entered.
-Morris v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 531.
On appeal from a conviction for murder, the
accused cannot urge as error the failure to
give an instruction which would have been
prejudicial to him.-Morris v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 531.
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2576, an order deny-
ing a change of venue will not be reversed A charge that the records showing conviction
when there is no evidence in the record to of the principal were conclusive proof of his
establish the prejudice alleged.-State v. North-guilt was harmless in a prosecution of an ac
way (Mo.) 331.
Where the verdict of a jury in a criminal case
evidently results, not from calmly weighing the
evidence, but from passion or prejudice, the
court on appeal will set it aside.-State v. Pren-
dible (Mo.) 559.
The exclusion of material evidence in a prose-
cution for homicide held not cured by the ad-
mission of certain testimony.-State v. Nelson
(Mo.) 749.
The erroneous admission of testimony in a
prosecution for murder held cured by its sub-
sequent withdrawal from the jury.-Hatcher
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 97.
In a prosecution for theft and for receiving
stolen property, an erroneous charge as to
theft is harmless, where defendant was ac-
quitted of that offense.-Polin v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 183.
On a prosecution for carrying a pistol per-
mitting the state to show that the accused
was connected with a theft held not prejudi-
cial, when already shown by defendant. Ram-
sey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 187.
Where the accused was found guilty of man-
slaughter, he cannot complain of instructions
as to such crime on the ground that he was
guilty, if at all, of murder.-Eredia v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 188.
Evidence and remarks of counsel as to the
physical condition of a witness at the time her
house was burglariously entered by defendant
held not erroneous.-Cleland v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 189.
cessory, where no evidence was introduced to
controvert the principal's guilt.-Dent v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 627.
Admission of confession of a defendant, tend-
ing to embody his defense, and rather favorable
to him than otherwise, held harmless.-Solo-
mon v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 915.
Where the evidence as to defendant's guilt is
conflicting, a conviction will not be disturbed on
appeal. Cooper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 916.
In a prosecution for murder, where defendant
failed to offer certain testimony a second time.
the objection thereto having been withdrawn, he
could not assign the exclusion as error.-Bass
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 919..
In a prosecution for murder, where there is
direct evidence to prove the crime and no evi-
dence of flight, the exclusion of testimony show-
ing defendant's voluntary surrender to an offi
cer, if error, was harmless.-Bass v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 919.
Instruction as to accidental killing held not
prejudicial error.-Johnson v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 1071.
Error in the admission of testimony held not
cured by striking it out at the closing argu-
ment.-Faulkner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1093.
Exemption of crops grown on homestead, see
"Homestead." § 2.
Laborer's lien on crops, see "Agriculture."
Liens on crops for rent, see "Landlord and Ten-
ant," § 3.
Admission of evidence pertinent to some of
the counts in an indictment held not error,
where from the bill of exceptions the court
could not determine the bearing such evidence See "Witnesses," § 2.
had on the case.-Chambers v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 192.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the
appellate court will presume that the verdict See "Guardian and Ward," § 3.
was supported by the evidence.-Chambers v.
State (Tex. Or. App.) 192.
The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be con-
sidered, where there is the evidence to support
the verdict.-Gobea v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
374.
Order for change of venue on the judge's
motion, under White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc.
art. 613, will not be reviewed, unless prejudice
or injury is shown.-Gray v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 375.
A man has no estate by curtesy in land of
which a former wife, divorced through her own
fault, dies seised of an estate of inheritance.
-Doyle v. Rolwing (Mo.) 315.
An antenuptial agreement, providing that the
property of the intended wife, which she then
had or might acquire, should be "her separate
property, apart from her husband, unaffected
by the marriage," with power to sell, held not
to confer upon the wife the power to sell her
lands without her husband joining therein.
Kennedy v. Koopman (Mo.) 1020.
Where an antenuptial agreement did not cre-
ate a trust, the appointment of a trustee by a
court and the joinder of the trustee in a deed'
by the wife to convey her lands held of no
effect.-Kennedy v. Koopman (Mo.) 1020.
Of jury, see "Criminal Law," § 22.
Compensation for property taken for public use,
see "Eminent Domain," § 1.
Release of claim, see "Release."
Remission of part of recovery on appeal,
"Appeal and Error," § 14.
Reversal for inadequacy, see "Appeal and
ror," § 14.
Damages for particular injuries.
amination of the wheat.--Commerce Milling &
Grain Co. v. Morris (Tex. Civ. App.) 1118.
3. Measure of damages.
Verdict for $3,000 in favor of infant for loss
of a leg held not excessive.-Ornamental Iron
& Wire Co. v. Green (Tenn.) 399.
In an action by a father for personal injuries
to his son, evidence held to show an actual
loss resulting from such injury.-Central Mfg.
Co. v. Cotton (Tenn.) 403.
A contention that no loss was shown to have
resulted from an injury necessitating the am-
putation of three fingers held untenable.-Cen-
tral Mfg. Co. v. Cotton (Tenn.) 403.
§ 4. Inadequate and excessive damages.
A verd for $2,500 for personal injuries held
not excessive.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Cooper
(Ky.) 795.
Damages in an action against a railroad com-
see
pany for injuries to a passenger held excessive.
Er-Chitty v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Mo.)
See "Death," § 1; "Fraud." § 1; "Malicious
Prosecution," § 1; "Trespass," § 1.
Breach by buyer of contract for sale of goods,
see "Sales," § 4.
Breach by seller of contract for sale of goods,
see "Sales," § 5.
Breach by vendee of contract for sale of land,
see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 4.
Breach of covenant, see "Covenants," § 3.
Detention of separate estate of married woman,
see "Husband and Wife," § 3.
Failure to deliver telegram, see "Telegraphs and
Telephones," § 2.
Injuries caused by trespassing animals, see "An-
Injuries for overflows and leakage from public
water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours-
es," § 3.
Injuries resulting from repair of highway, see
"Highways," § 3.
Injuries to cattle in shipment, see "Carriers,"
$3.
Negligent levy in distress
"Landlord and Tenant," § 3.
Obstructions in water courses, see "Waters and
Water Courses."
Personal injuries from defects in highways, see
"Highways," § 4.
Personal injuries to passenger, see "Carriers,"
$ 5.
Recovery in particular actions or proceedings.
See "Ejectment," § 4; "Injunction," § 5.
Action for breach of contract of master to fur-
nish medical attendance, see "Master and
Servant," § 1.
§ 1. Grounds and subjects of compen-
satory damages.
For breach of a contract to deliver logs, the
measure of damages is the difference between
the market value of the logs at their respective
points of delivery at the time of delivery and
the contract price.-Asher v. Stacy (Ky.) 603.
The question of plaintiff's employment or of
his accident policies could not be proved for the
purpose of defeating or diminishing a recovery.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Carothers (Ky.)
Element of damage in an action for breach of
Covenant to lease held too remote.-Greer v.
Varnell (Tex. Civ. App.) 196.
§ 2. Liquidated damages and penalties.
In an action for breach of warranty of the
grade of wheat, held, that the plaintiff was not
estopped from claiming more damages than
those reserved by agreement after a partial ex-
A verdict of $15,000 held not excessive, where
a railroad drawbridge tender, 37 years old, in
good health and earning $50 per month, had
one foot amputated and the other broken and
painful.-Galveston, H. & N. Ry. Co. v. New-
port (Tex. Civ. App.) 657.
Evidence in an action for personal injuries
by a locomotive fireman held to show that a
verdict of $5,000 was not excessive.-Galves-
ton, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Sanders (Tex. Civ.
App.) 889.
Pleading, evidence, and assessment.
In an action to recover for personal injuries,
defendant was properly allowed to prove that
plaintiff was employed by the government and
attended to his business to such an extent as
to receive his salary.-Louisville & N. R. Co.
v. Carothers (Ky.) 833.
In ejectment, the damages awarded cannot
exceed the claim of the petition.-Smith v.
Royse (Mo.) 994.
In an action for injuries to a child, rendering
her a cripple for life, held not error, under the
pleading and proof, to permit evidence of the
ordinary compensation to household servants.-
San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Skidmore (Tex.
Civ. App.) 215.
The wife and children of a deceased person
held to have the right, in preference to his
brothers and sisters, to select the place of burial
of his body and to change it at pleasure.—
Neighbors v. Neighbors (Ky.) 607.
Of drawer as revocation of check, see "Banks
and Banking," § 2.
Of party to action ground for abatement, see
"Abatement and Revival," § 1.
1. Actions for causing death.
Under Ky. St. § 6, an engineer and fireman,
through whose negligence in running a train
at a high rate of speed another was killed,
may be sued jointly with the railroad company
to recover damages for the killing.-Winston's
Adm'r v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Ky.) 13.
In an action by a widow, under Ky. St. § 4,
to recover for the careless killing of her hus-
band, the defenses of shooting in self-defense
and of accidental shooting are inconsistent, and
defendant should be required to elect upon
which he would rely.-Hollingsworth v. War-
nock (Ky.) 163.
Evidence as to deceased having drunk liquor
at various times during the day of the killing
held irrelevant.-Hollingsworth
(Ky.) 163.
V. Warnock § 1. Nature and requisites.
Plaintiff having introduced evidence of an
ambiguous remark of defendant just before the
killing, it was proper to permit him to explain
the remark and to prove the whole conversa-
tion.-Hollingsworth v. Warnock (Ky.) 163.
An imperfect dedication of land in a public
street by one who did not own the land dedi
cated held ratified by the real owners.-Long
worth v. Sedevic (Mo.) 260.
A dedication of land to use as a public street
held to have been accepted by the town author
ities.-Longworth v. Sedevic (Mo.) 260.
Evidence of threats by deceased to the effect
that he would kill somebody before morning, The opening as a street of a portion of land
which were never communicated to defendant, dedicated to a city for street purposes, pur-
were too general to be admissible for any pursuant to an ordinance ordering such opening,
pose.-Hollingsworth v. Warnock (Ky.) 163.
and the execution of a map by the city laying
off such land as a street, held sufficient to es-
Dallas v. Gibbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 81.
tablish acceptance of the dedication.-City of
§ 2. Operation and effect.
Where land has been dedicated to a city for
street purposes, and the dedication has been
duly accepted, failure or delay in completing
the opening of such street will not defeat the
dedication.-City of Dallas v. Gibbs (Tex. Civ.
App.) 81.
It was proper to admit evidence of declara-
tions by deceased on the day of the shooting,
in the presence of defendant, to the effect that
he "would cut a man all to hell," and also evi-
dence that he had been discharged from certain
railroad yards because he was going to cut!
the yardmaster with a knife.-Hollingsworth v. Acknowledgment of execution, see "Acknowledg-
Warnock (Ky.) 163.
The court properly instructed the jury, if they
found for plaintiff, to find such sum as would
"fairly compensate the loss sustained in his
death, the criterion of which is the power of
deceased to earn money, had he lived."-Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. v. Tucker's Adm'r (Ky.) 453.
In an action for death of plaintiff's son, an
instruction that, if they were entitled to re-
cover, they should recover such sum as the
jury helieved from the evidence they would
have had a reasonable expectation of receiv-
ing from their son, had he not been killed, held
erroneous. International Light & Power Co.
v. Maxwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 78.
Damages awarded in an action for death of
brakeman held excessive.-San Antonio & A.
P. Ry. Co. v. Waller (Tex. Civ. App.) 210.
In an action for wrongful death, the measure
of damages is such a sum of money as, if paid
now, would fairly compensate plaintiffs for the
pecuniary loss sustained.-San Antonio & A. P.
Ry. Co. v. Waller (Tex. Civ. App.) 210.
In an action for death by wrongful act, where
deceased left a widow and four minor children,
a verdict of $17.000 held not excessive.-Gal-
veston. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ.
App.) 217.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=5C4LAAAAYAAJ&hl=el&output=html_text&pg=PA1166&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:LCCN19018339&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0cMxZWrsrIsFGS8RQXzICkMcW43A&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=79,1077,449,431)
As evidence, see "Evidence," § 8.
Best and secondary evidence of deed, see "Evi-
dence, § 4.
Covenants in deeds, see "Covenants."
Estoppel by deed, see "Estoppel," § 2.
In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Convey-
In trust, see "Trusts," § 3.
Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence,"
Reformation, see "Reformation of Instruments.”
Sufliciency of title under deed to support eject-
ment, see "Ejectment." § 1.
Tax deeds, see "Taxation," § 5.
Deeds by or to particular classes of parties.
See "Husband and Wife," § 1; "Infants," § 2;
"Insane Persons," § 4.
Married women, see "Husband and Wife," § 3.
Deeds of particular species of property.
See "Homestead,” § 4.
Separate property of married women, see "Hus-
band and Wife," § 3.
Water rights, see "Waters and Water Courses,"
$ 2.
Particular classes of deeds.
Of trust, see "Mortgages."
§ 1. Requisites and validity.
In an action to set aside a deed, the court
held to have properly refused to allow "defend-
ant's claim for improvements; there being no
allegation that they enhanced the value of the
property.-Combs v. Combs (Ky.) 13.
Petition in action to set aside deed held suf-
ficient. Combs v. Combs (Ky.) 13.
A deed held not to have been delivered by the
grantor.-Mudd v. Dillon (Mo.) 973.
The parting by a grantor with his dominion
over a deed is essential to a delivery thereof.-
Mudd v. Dillon (Mo.) 973.
Deed held to have been a forgery.-Abee v.
Bargas (Tex. Civ. App.) 489.
§ 2. Construction and operation.
A writing described as a "deed of convey-
ance" between father and son, and which re-
cited that the father, "for and in considera-
tion of heirship," did "will and convey" to the
son certain property described with covenant
of general warranty, was a conveyance, not
revocable by the father.-Pennington v. Law-
son (Ky.) 120.
Deed to certain persons "and their bodily
neirs," with a provision that, if they should
have no living bodily heirs, the land should go
back to the grantor's bodily heirs, construed.
--Davis v. Davis (Ky.) 122.
A deed conveying land, with power to the
grantee to sell and convey, passes the absolute
fee, notwithstanding a clause that, if the gran-
tee shall die without any child, the land or the
proceeds thereof shall revert to the grantor.-
Ray v. Spears' Ex'r (Ky.) 867.
A deed of an heir construed as conveying the
grantor's interest in the land, instead of an
interest in her mother's dower. Linville v.
Greer (Mo.) 579.
A contract by one having a franchise to oper-
ate a gas plant, to sell such plant and transfer
a franchise to operate it, held complied with
by a deed conveying such plant, "with all rights,
privileges, and appurtenances thereunto belong-
ing."-Lawrence v. Hennessy (Mo.) 717.
The description of particular tracts in a deed
of trust and a subsequent deed to the same
grantee held not to restrict or limit general
clauses conveying all grantor's property in C.
county. Lauchheimer v. Saunders (Tex. Civ.
App.) 500.
§ 3. Pleading and evidence.
A grantor's depositions held admissible in an
action for the recovery of land brought by him
and revived by his heirs after his death.-Cum-
mings v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 1113.
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
See "Curtesy"; "Dower"; "Executors and Ad-
ministrators"; "Homestead," § 5.
Descent of property after equitable conversion,
see "Conversion.'
Of community property, see "Husband and
Wife," § 4.
81. Rights and liabilities of heirs and
distributees.
In an action to determine the interests of
heirs in their father's estate, land given an heir
by his father held an advancement.-Goodwin
v. Parnell (Ark.) 427.
Names of individuals, see "Names."
Of property conveyed, see "Boundaries," § 1;
"Deeds," § 2.
Property covered by chattel mortgage,
"Chattel Mortgages," § 1.
Where land conveyed by a father to his son
had been the home of the son and his family See "Wills."
for years, the law will presume an acceptance
without clear proof to the contrary.-Penning-
ton v. Lawson (Ky.) 120.
Judgment by, see "Judgment," § 2.
In delivery of telegram, see "Telegraphs and
Telephones," § 2.
DELIVERY.
Of deed, see "Deeds," § 1.
In pleading, see "Pleading," § 3.
DIRECTING VERDICT.
In civil actions, see "Trial," § 5.
See "Infants," § 1; "Insane Persons," § 1.
From indebtedness, see "Accord and Satisfac-
tion"; "Release."
From liability as surety, see "Principal and
Surety," § 2.
Of judgment, see "Judgment," § 12.
DISCRETION OF COURT.
Amendment of pleading, see "Pleading," § 4.
Review in civil actions, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," §§ 9-13.
Application of doctrine of idem sonans to wit- Dismissal on appeal in criminal prosecutions,
ness giving deposition, see "Names."
see "Criminal Law," § 26.
Dismissal of appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-
peal and Error," §§ 4, 6, 8.
In an action to recover usury, in which an
order was entered directing the master com-
missioner to consider such depositions as might
be taken and filed before a given date, deposi-
tions in the record, which were taken, but not Of judge, see "Judges," § 3.
filed. before the time limited, should have been
considered, both by the commissioner and the
court.-Equitable Loan & Investment Co. v.
Smith (Ky.) 609.
The indorsement on the envelope containing Of corporation, see "Corporations." § 6.
depositions held sufficient under the statute. Of partnership, see "Partnership," § 3.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lyman (Tex. Civ.
Conduct of defendant in opening envelope
containing depositions and obtaining benefit of For rent, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 3.
some of them held a waiver of any objection
to the indorsement on the envelope.-Gulf, C.
& S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lyman (Tex. Civ. App.) 69.
It was not error to exclude testimony im-
peaching a notary who had taken deposition
used on the trial.-Chicago, R. I. & T. Ry. Co.
. Long (Tex. Civ. App.) 882.
Of assets of partnership on dissolution, see
"Partnership," § 3.
Of estate assigned for creditors, see "Assign-
ments for Benefit of Creditors," § 2.
Of estate of decedent, see "Descent and Dis-
tribution"; "Executors and Administrators,"
§ 5.
Of proceeds of property fraudulently conveyed,
see "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 2.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
See "Constitutional Law." § 9.
DISTRICT AND PROSECUTING AT- See "Homicide," § 5.
Argument and conduct at trial, see "Criminal
Law," § 18.
The practice of prosecuting attorneys acting
as inquisitors, and extorting admissions or con-
fessions from persons accused of crime, criti-
cised.-State v. Hagan (Mo.) 249.
DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP.
Ground of jurisdiction of United States courts,
see "Removal of Causes." § 1.
EASEMENTS.
See "Dedication"; "Highways."
§ 1. Creation, existence, and termina-
tion.
Where tenants in common had for many
years used a passway over the land, upon a
partition, each owner was entitled to the use
of the passway over the existing route; its use
being reasonably necessary.-O'Daniel v. Bax-
ter (Ky.) 805.
§ 2. Extent of right, use, and obstruc-
tion.
Under a deed conveying a passway, to be so
located as not to unnecessarily injure the gran-
Effect on right to estate by curtesy, see "Cur- tor's land, where the evidence is conflicting as
tesy."
to the reasonableness of the route, the chancel-
lor's judgment refusing an injunction will not
§ 1. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re- be disturbed.-Devine v. McRohan (Ky.) 799.
Where an absolute divorce was granted to the
wife, she is estopped, after the lapse of more
than 25 years, and after the remarriage and
death of the husband, to attack the judgment as
void for want of jurisdiction.-Asbury v. Pow-
ers (Ky.) 605.
§ 2. Alimony, allowances, and disposi-
tion of property.
In a suit for divorce, jurisdiction to enforce
certain claims of the husband's creditors out
of property delivered to the wife pending in-
vestigation held to attach as incidental to the
main suit, regardless of amount or value.-
Bradley v. Ramsey (Tex. Civ. App.) 1112.
In a suit for divorce, held error to strike out
certain pleas of the husband's creditors as for-
eign to the issues in the suit.-Bradley v. Ram-
sey (Tex. Civ. App.) 1112.
Of causes for trial, see "Trial," § 2.
Of disorderly persons from saloons, see “In-
toxicating Liquors," § 3.
Of passenger, see "Carriers," § 7.
See "Trespass to Try Title."
Adverse possession as defense, see "Adverse
Possession," § 1.
Correction of judgment in ejectment on appeal,
see "Appeal and Error," § 14.
Damages in ejectment, see "Damages," § 5.
Damages in ejectment for detention of separate
estate of married woman, see "Husband and
Wife," § 3.
1. Right of action and defenses.
Where a railroad company purchased land
for a right of way and depot grounds, taking
a deed, "to have and to hold so long as used
for railroad purposes, and no longer," it has
exclusive right of possession.-Graham v. St.
Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (Ark.) 1048.
An answer alleging an agreement between
As evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence," defendant and plaintiffs' vendor fixing a divid-
§ 8.
ing line between him and defendant stated a
good defense.-Taylor v. Davis (Ky.) 7.
In ejectment, defendant could not defend his
Evidence held sufficient to show that a testa-wife's alleged homestead rights, where she was
tor had never acquired a domicile in the state, not a necessary party.—Bank of Aurora v. Lin-
and his widow was not entitled to the home: zee (Mo.) 785.
stead and exemptions allowed by law.-Hascall
v. Hafford (Tenn.) 423.
See "Curtesy."
Rights of widow on accepting homestead in
lieu of dower, see "Homestead," § 5.
In ejectment, evidence of a third person's out-
standing equitable interest, held inadmissible.-
Bank of Aurora v. Linzee (Mo.) 735.
§ 2. Pleading and evidence.
Defendant in ejectment held not entitled to
deny plaintiff's right to damages for detention
after the death of her husband on the ground
that there was no evidence of a denial of title
since the husband's death.-Smith v. White
(Mo.) 1013.
3. Trial, judgment, enforcement of
judgment, and review.
1. Rights and remedies of widow.
Where the question whether the land in con-
Where a widow united with a part of the troversy was included in the deed to plain-
heirs in selling land allotted to her as dower, tiffs depended entirely upon the location of a
the other heirs had no right to interfere with certain tree, and the testimony was conflict-
the purchaser during the widow's lifetime.-ing, the question was for the jury.-Taylor v.
Eakins v. Eakins (Ky.) 811.
|