EXECUTION.

See "Attachment"; "Garnishment"; "Judicial
Sales."

Exemptions, see "Exemptions"; "Homestead."
Parol evidence to vary return, see "Evidence,"
$ 9.

§ 1. Lien, levy or extent, and custody
of property.

Judgment creditor, levying on one part of
property in possession of defendant, must do so
by actual seizure.-Hunstock v. Roberts (Tex.
Civ. App.) 675.

§ 2. Stay, quashing, vacating, and re-
lief against execution.

Petition alleging judgment to be void on cer-
tain grounds held to admit its validity in other
respects.-Loan & Deposit Co. of America V.
Campbell (Tex. Civ. App). 65.

Abstract of a judgment on which execution
was subsequently issued held admissible to
show that one purchasing subsequent to the
judgment did so in bad faith.-Loan & Deposit
Co. of America v. Campbell (Tex. Civ. App.)
65.

3. Sale.

Evidence considered, and held sufficient to
justify a finding that a purchaser of property
on execution sale against a guardian had no-
tice that the property was purchased with
money belonging to the ward.-Norton v. Kel-
ler (Tex. Civ. App.) 490.

In an action by an execution purchaser of an
undivided interest in a certain lot of cattle,
evidence as to whether a "loan" of the same
had been made to the debtor within Rev. St.
art. 2517, held sufficient to require the submis-
sion of such issue to the jury.-Hunstock v.
Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 675.

3. Allowances to surviving wife, hus-
band, or children.

Mansf. Dig. § 3, providing for the assignment
of estates not exceeding $300 in value to the
widow or children of deceased, was repealed by
the act approved April 1, 1887.-Wilson v. Mas-
sie (Ark.) 942.

An order of the county court under Rev. St.
arts. 2046, 2049, setting apart the exempt
property of a deceased for the benefit of the
widow and children, does not affect the rights
of those owning the property.-Simms v. Hix-
on (Tex. Civ. App.) 36.

§ 4. Allowance and payment of claims.
Proceedings in the circuit court on appeal
from the probate court held the same as though
instituted in the circuit court, and the de-
interposed on the trial of the appeal.—McFaul
fenses available in an original action may be
v. Haley (Mo.) 995.

§ 5. Distribution of estate.

Personalty of decedent held subject to parti-
tion.-Sims v. Hixon (Tex. Sup.) 35.

§ 6. Sales and conveyances under order
of court.

Statements of the commissioner making judi-
cial sale did not bind the parties in interest.-
Norris v. Williams (Ky.) 439.

Rents accruing after the death of the owner
go to the heirs and devisees until they are de-
vested of the title and right to possession of
the land by a judgment of court.-Norris v.
Williams (Ky.) 439.

A purchaser at a judicial sale is not entitled
to the rents until the sale is confirmed.--Nor-
ris v. Williams (Ky.) 439.

7. Accounting and settlement.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 232, fixing the time
of making final settlement by an administrator
and prescribing the manuer of giving notice,
a notice published March 24th and 31st and
April 7th and 14th is sufficient for the May
term of court.-Ratliff v. Magee (Mo.) 713.

EXEMPLIFICATIONS.

As evidence, see "Evidence," § 8.

EXEMPTIONS.

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. See "Homestead."

See "Wills."

Testamentary trustees, see "Trusts."

§ 1. Appointment, qualification,

tenure.

and

A kinsman of a decedent, though not enti-
tled to administration, had such an interest as
entitled him to appeal from void order placing
estate in hands of public administrator.-Un-
derwood v. Underwood's Adm'r (Ky.) 130.

From taxation, see "Taxation," § 2.

Liabilities for garnishing exempt property, see
"Garnishment," § 3.

Setting aside exempt property for benefit of
surviving wife and children, see "Executors
and Administrators," § 3.

1. Nature and extent.

An exemption of personal property from for-
ced sale while the debtor has a family does
not continue in his favor after the other mem-
bers of the family are dead.-Allen v. Ashbura
(Tex. Civ. App.) 45.

EXPERT TESTIMONY.

An order, made the next day after the death
of an intestate, placing his estate in the hands
of the public administrator, held void.-Under-
wood v. Underwood's Adm'r (Ky.) 130.
Where, after an administrator has been duly In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 13.
discharged, assets belonging to the estate and
which have not been administered are discov-
ered, the former administration cannot be re-
vived, but the court will appoint an adminis-
trator de bonis non.-Ratliff v. Magee (Mo.)
713.

§ 2. Collection and management of es-

tate.

An action to set aside a conveyance should
not have been brought by an administrator in
his fiduciary capacity, and it was error to allow
him an attorney's fee in such action.-Thomp-
son v. Thompson (Ky.) 457.

EX POST FACTO LAWS.
Constitutional restrictions, see "Constitution-
al Law," § 6.

EXTRADITION.

proceedings which are void.-Ex parte Baker
(Tex. Cr. App.) 91.

FOLLOWING TRUST PROPERTY.

FORCIBLE DEFILEMENT.

An affidavit before a county judge in Ne- See "Trusts," § 5.
braska held a sufficient compliance with the
act of congress relating to the requisition of
fugitives from justices, though accused was
subsequently placed under bond to answer be- See "Rape."
fore the district court.-Ex parte Martin (Tex.
Cr. App.) 910.

FACTORS.

See "Principal and Agent."

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

See "Malicious Prosecution."

FALSE PRETENSES.

Where the alleged false pretense charged
against defendant was that he had stated that

FORECLOSURE.

Of lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," § 4.

Of mortgage, see "Chattel Mortgages," 8 4;
"Mortgages," §§ 3, 4.

Of vendor's lien, see "Vendor and Purchaser,"
$ 4,

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

See "Corporations," § 7.

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.

the costs in a certain suit had all been arranged, See "Judgment," § 11.
evidence that he said that either the costs "had
been" or "would be" arranged was not suffi-
cient to sustain conviction.-Mitchell v. State
(Ark.) 935.

FALSE SWEARING.

See "Perjury."

FEES.

Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client," § 2.

FELLOW SERVANTS.

See "Master and Servant," § 4.

FENCES.

Cost of fence as element of damages to abut-
ting owner on laying out road, see "Eminent
Domain," § 1.

Due process of law as applied to fence and
stock laws, see "Constitutional Law," § 9.

FILING.

Criminal information or complaint, see "In-
dictment and Information," § 2.
Record on appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal
and Error," § 6.

FINAL JUDGMENT.

Appealability, see "Appeal and Error," § 1.

FINDINGS.

On reference, see "Reference," § 2.
Review on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 12.

FIRES.

Caused by operation of railroad, see "Rail-
roads," & 2.

FIXTURES.

The question of the intention of the parties
to a deed of trust, where there was doubt as to
whether certain fixtures were intended to be
covered thereby, was one of fact for the jury.
-British & American Mortg. Co. v. Scott (Ark.)
936.

FORFEITURES.

Of homestead, see "Homestead," 8 6.
Of leases, see "Landlord and Tenant," & 2.
Of payments on land sold, see "Vendor and
Purchaser," § 5.

Of right of way, see "Railroads," § 1.

FORGERY.

Where defendant was on trial, charged with
having possession of a forged deed with intent
to defraud by uttering it, it was error to charge
that, if the deed was found to be a forgery, the
unexplained possession was evidence tending to
prove his possession was with knowledge of
its false character and for an unlawful purpose..
-State v. Hathhorn (Mo.) 756.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2012, punishing for-
gery, an actual uttering of the forged instru-
ment held unnecessary.-State v. Hathhorn
(Mo.) 756.

An indictment under Rev. St. 1899, § 2012,
for having possession, with knowledge and in-
tent to defraud by uttering, of an instrument
the description of which clearly shows that it
is not within the class described in section
2001, need not note the exception of such class
from section 2012.-State v. Hathhorn (Mo.)

Conveyance by one who furnished price orig-
inally paid for land conveyed held not fraudu
lent as to creditors.-Fehlig v. Busch (Mo.)
542.
Where husband takes title of property in the
name of his wife, having property remaining
The guardian of an insane person may main-sufficient to pay all his debts, the transaction
is not fraudulent.-Lang v. Williams (Mo.)
tain an action against a person who induced
1012.
the ward to convey her property to him before
she was adjudicated insane, and sold the same,
to recover the purchase price and damages there-
for, even though the guardian is entitled to
repudiate the sale.-Lack v. Brecht (Mo.) 976.

Evidence held sufficient to support the finding 2. Remedies of creditors and purchas-
of a referee, in an action for fraudulently pro-
curing a deed to certain property and selling the
same to an innocent purchaser, that the prop
erty owner had been damaged in the sum of
$2,500, in addition to the selling price of the
land.-Lack v. Brecht (Mo.) 976.

A conveyance of land, absolute in form, with-
out any consideration, by an insolvent debtor
to one who was the cashier of a bank, under
an understanding that it should be for the bene-
fit of the bank, which was a creditor of the See "Carriers," § 2.
grantor in a sum largely in excess of the value
of the land conveyed, held founded upon a suf-
ficient consideration.-Meyer Bros. Drug Co.
v. White (Mo.) 295.

In suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudu-
lent, a contention that a conveyance rendered
the grantor insolvent held without merit.-
Fehlig v. Busch (Mo.) 542.

In suit to subject to plaintiff's judgment cer
tain real estate conveyed by the judgment debt-
or, a contention that the conveyance was with-
out_consideration held not meritorious.-Fellig
v. Busch (Mo.) 542.

1. Persons and property subject to
garnishment.

Where two separate corporations operated
railroads, the line of the one commencing at
the terminus of the other, one of such corpo-
rations could not be garnished on a justice's
judgment against an employé of the other.-St.

an accused charged with felony to be present
at the impaneling of a special grand jury
summoned while he was in custody.-State v.
Warner (Mo.) 584.

GRANTS.

Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Gate City Co-op. Gro- Of public lands, see "Public Lands.”

cery Co. (Ark.) 706.

2. Writ or summons and notice, serv-
ice, and return.

Under Act April 19, 1895, constructive serv-
ice on defendant and personal service of a writ
of garnishment on the garnishee give the court
jurisdiction to ascertain the amount due from
the garnishee to defendant, and to apply such
amount to plaintiff's claim.-Johnson v. Foster
(Ark.) 105.

3. Wrongful garnishment.

Plaintiff in garnishment and officer serving
writ held liable in conversion for levying on ex-
empt fund.-Coursey v. Cornwell (Tex. Civ.
App.) 73.

GAS.

Under Rev. St. 1889, § 1519, expressly giv-
ing power to city councils to give the exclusive
privilege of erecting gas works and furnishing
gas to light the streets and alleys in their city,
the consent of the people of a city to such
franchise was not required.-Lawrence v. Hen-
nessy (Mo.) 717.

1.

Inter vivos.

GIFTS.

The provision of the Revised Statutes requir-
ing possession to accompany a gift of goods or
chattels does not apply to a gift of a chose in
action.-Lord v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.) 699.

Delivery of a life insurance policy as a gift
may be proved by circumstantial evidence.-
Lord v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 699.

Evidence held sufficient to support a finding
of a valid gift of a life insurance policy.-Lord
v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)
699.

A recital in a judgment discharging a guard-
ian that the person under guardianship was of
age is conclusive until set aside, though the
petition contain recitals indicating that she was
not.-Stewart v. Robbins (Tex. Civ. App.) 899.

The finding of a county court, on an appli-
cation for guardian's discharge, that the person
under guardianship was not a minor, is con-
clusive until duly set aside.-Stewart v. Rob-
bins (Tex. Civ. App.) 899.

Under Rev. St. arts. 2692-2695, a judgment
discharging a guardian is not absolutely void
because the person under guardianship was a
minor and under disabilities as such.-Stewart
v. Robbins (Tex. Civ. App.) 899.

§ 2. Sales and conveyances under order
of court.

Where a guardian's sale is authorized and
confirmed by the court, the decrees are conclu-
sive in a collateral proceeding that the sale

Of purchaser, see "Bills and Notes," § 2; "Ven- was for a lawful purpose, in the absence of evi-
dor and Purchaser," § 3.

GRAND JURY.

See "Indictment and Information."

dence to the contrary.-Taffinder v. Merrell
(Tex. Sup.) 177.

Where the order confirming a guardian's sale
is entered before the expiration of the time re-
quired by statute after filing the report, such

Violation of civil rights as to constitution of action does not render the order void.-Taflin-
grand jury, see "Civil Rights."

Error of court under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 2487,
2488, in not permitting accused to be present
on impaneling of a special grand jury, held not
cured by a subsequent hearing on motion to
quash the indictment.-State v. Warner (Mo.)
584.

Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 2487, 2488, and Bill
of Rights, § 22, the fact that an accused per-
son, at the impaneling of a special jury sum-
moned subsequent to his arrest, might not
make challenges thereto, or that the same
might be ineffectual, held not to detract from
his right to be present.-State v. Warner (Mo.)

584.

Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 2487, 2488, and Bill
of Rights, § 22, held error to refuse to permit

der v. Merrell (Tex. Sup.) 177.

The validity of a guardian's sale cannot be
questioned in a collateral proceeding because
of his failure to state the price in his report
of the sale.-Taffinder v. Merrell (Tex. Sup.)
177.

Where a guardian reported the sale of a lot
to one person, when one-half had been sold to
one and the other half to another, and the sale
was confirmed as reported, the conveyance to
the actual purchasers of their respective shares
should be sustained.-Taffinder v. Merrell (Tex.
Sup.) 177.

§ 3. Actions.

A curator in an action to recover property
of his ward must sue in the name of the latter.
-Webb v. Hayden (Mo.) 760.

aside a judgment discharging a guardian must See "Descent and Distribution."
be brought within four years.-Stewart v. Rob-
bins (Tex. Civ. App.) 899.

On a prosecution for obstructing a public
road, that accused had been advised by coun-
sel that the order creating the road was void
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," did not constitute a defense.-Skinner v. State
§ 11.