Where, in garnishment proceedings, the debt-
or is not cited to appear, and does not appear,
and the garnishee fails to show that the debt
garnished is exempt, and judgment is rendered
against him for the full amount thereof, such
judgment is not conclusive against the debtor
in an action against the garnishee.-Texarkana
& Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.) 85.
12. Payment, satisfaction, merger, and
discharge.

Under Rev. St. c. 103, § 6797, held, that Laws
1895, p. 221, substituting a 10-year limitation
for actions on judgments for the 20-year period
prescribed by Rev. St. c. 103, § 6796, did not
affect a judgment in existence at the time of
its enactment.-McFaul v. Haley (Mo.) 995.

Circuit court has jurisdiction to set aside and
correct nunc pro tunc a satisfaction of judg-
ment which the clerk had made a mistake in
entering.-Wand v. Ryan (Mo.) 1025.

§ 13. Pleading and evidence of judg-

ment as estoppel or defense.
Under Rev. St. 1899, 598, res judicata can-
not be invoked by demurrer.-Beattie Mfg. Co.
v. Gerardi (Mo.) 1035.

JUDICIAL NOTICE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 1.

JUDICIAL SALES.

Of homesteads, see "Homestead," § 4.
Of infant's property, see "Infants," § 2.
Of lands held adversely, see "Champerty and
Maintenance."

Of property of decedent, see "Executors and
Administrators," § 6.

Of property of infant, see "Guardian and
Ward," § 2.

Of wife's property for debts of husband, see
"Husband and Wife," § 1.

On execution, see "Execution." § 3.

JURY.

See "Grand Jury."
Custody and conduct, see "Criminal Law," § 22.
Instructions in civil actions, see "Trial," $$
Instructions in criminal prosecutions, see
"Criminal Law," § 20.

6-9.

Necessity that challenge to array appear in rec-
ord for purpose of review, see "Criminal
Law," § 27.
Questions for jury in civil actions, see "Trial,"
§ 5.

Questions for jury in criminal prosecutions, see
"Criminal Law," § 19.
Taking case or question from jury at trial, see
"Trial," § 5.
Trial by jury of issues in equity, see "Equity,"
§ 3.
Verdict in civil actions, see "Trial," § 10.
Verdict in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal
Violation of civil rights as to constitution of
Law," § 23.
jury, see "Civil Rights."

1. Right to trial by jury.

Answer in an action on life insurance policy,
setting up misrepresentations, held to not set
up an equitable defense, calling for its trial by
the court.-Schuermann v. Union Cent. Life Ins.
Co. (Mo.) 723.

Rev. St. 1899, § 1838, making punishment for
rape discretionary with the court, held a viola-
tion of Const. art. 2, § 28, preserving the right
of trial by jury.-State v. Hamey (Mo.) 946.

Gen. Laws 1889, c. 128, regulating the run-
ning at large of stock, is not unconstitutional
as an invasion of the right of trial by jury.-
Graves v. Rudd (Tex. Civ. App.) 63.

2. Summoning, attendance, discharge,
and compensation.

Evidence held to show that a sheriff failed
to exercise diligence in attempting to summon

and Purchaser," § 4.

Pending suit, see "Lis Pendens."

Where property was sold to satisfy several
different liens, an agreement between two of
the lienholders to buy the property and to
hold it in proportion to their respective debts
was not improper.-Jolly v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co. (Ky.) 440.

Mere inadequacy of price is not ground for
setting aside a judicial sale.-Jolly v. Mutual
Life Ins. Co. (Ky.) 440.

JURISDICTION.

Amount in controversy, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," § 1.

Jurisdiction of particular actions or proceedings.
See "Divorce," § 1; "Garnishment," § 2; "Ha-
beas Corpus," § 2; "Mandamus," § 1.
Actions against corporations, see "Corpora-
tions," § 4.

Actions for injunctions, see "Injunction," § 3.
Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 3.
Election contest, see "Elections," § 5.
Probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 3.

Jurisdiction of particular subjects.
Correction of judgments, see "Judgment," & 5.
Correction of satisfaction of judgment, see
"Judgment," § 12.
Estates of insane persons, see "Insane Per-
sons," § 1.

Special jurisdictions.

See "Equity," § 1.

912.

Return of a sheriff that out of a special
venire of 50 jurors some 14 were not found for
want of time, without stating the diligence
used, was insufficient.-Brown v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 912.

A person accused of murder, not exhausting
his peremptory challenges, will not be deemed
prejudiced, under Code Cr. Proc. art. 677, by
the absence of two special veniremen at the
impaneling of the jury, for whom attachments
had issued and whom the sheriff could not find.
-Greer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1075.

3. Competency of jurors, challenges,
and objections.

Exclusion of questions on juror's voir dire
examination held not error.-State v. Garth
(Mo.) 275.

Where no evidence is offered in support of a
motion to quash the panel of jurors on the
ground that they were not taken from the body
of the county, and that, of 55 jurors summoned
as a special venire, 43 were from the town
in which deceased lived, the order denying such
motion cannot be held erroneous.-State v.
Craft (Mo.) 280.

A juror in a criminal case held not disquali-
fied simply because he has read newspaper ac-
counts of the matter, or heard it spoken of, if
he has formed no opinion as to defendant's
guilt.-State v. Craft (Mo.) 280.

Where, in a criminal case, a juror states that
he has formed an opinion as to the guilt or
innocence of defendant, and it appears that
such opinion is founded only on newspaper

the Peace," § 2.

Particular courts, see "Courts."

juror, it is proper, under Rev. St. 1899, § 2616,
to swear him.-State v. Brennan (Mo.) 325.

A challenge to the array of jurors, to avail,
must be in writing.-State v. Brennan (Mo.)
325.

Juror held competent.-Smith v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 186.

Where an accused failed to question a juror,
the fact that he was not qualified held not
ground for reversal.-Corley v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 1073.

$ 4. Impaneling for trial and oath.
A juror held to have been in fact sworn as
a member of the jury, in a prosecution for mur-
der.-State v. Nelson (Mo.) 749.

§ 2.

Civil jurisdiction and authority.
In an action in justice court to recover less
than $100 for farm labor and to foreclose a
laborer's lien, a plea that the crop is worth $250
does not show want of jurisdiction.-Allen v.
Glover (Tex. Civ. App.) 379.

It was not error to refuse to quash garnish-
ment proceedings because the affidavit there-
for stated that the justice's judgment on which
they were based was for $211.38, besides in-
terest and costs of suit.-Brandt v. Moore
(Tex. Civ. App.) 1124.

3. Procedure in civil cases.
Where a tenant sublet the premises without
the landlord's consent, an action by the land-
lord against the sublessee for removing wood
from the premises sounded in tort, and was
triable, under Rev. St. art. 1556, in the county
where the injury occurred.-Brown v. Pope
(Tex. Civ. App.) 42.

4. Review of proceedings.
Under Rev. St. art. 1670, bond on appeal
from a justice court held valid.-San Antonio &
A. P. Ry. Co. v. Addison (Tex. Civ. App.) 38.
Relator held to have sustained an injury en-
titling him to a writ of certiorari to review
a judgment.-Reed v. Sieckenius (Tex. Civ.
App.) 487.

Facts alleged in application for writ of cer-
tiorari will be taken as true on appeal from
judgment dismissing the same.-Reed v. Sieck-
enius (Tex. Civ. App.) 487.

JUSTIFICATION.

Of homicide, see "Homicide," § 3.

LACHES.

Defeating right to injunction, see "Injunction,"
§ 3.
Defeating stockholder's action for restoration
of corporate property, see "Corporations," § 4.
In foreclosure of mortgage, see "Mortgages,"
$4.

In suing to set aside foreclosure sale, see
"Mortgages," § 3.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.

§ 1. Landlord's title and reversion.

A person assisting the lessee of a farm can-
not deprive him of his right of possession by
giving up possession to an adverse claimant dur-
ing the temporary absence of the lessee.-Stew-
art v. Miles (Mo.) 754.

2. Terms for years.

Under Rev. St. art. 3250, a lease is forfeited
by a subletting without the landlord's consent.
-Brown v. Pope (Tex. Civ. App.) 42.

3. Rent and advances.

A landlord who consented that part of the
crop be delivered to third persons furnishing
supplies under an agreement to protect his
right held entitled to enforce his lien for rent
against another part of the crop mortgaged to
third parties.-Bigham v. Cross (Ark.) 101.

A landlord who consents that third persons
furnishing supplies to his tenant to make a
crop shall dispose of the same held not to waive
his lien on the crop.-Bigham v. Cross (Ark.)
101.

A plea reconvening for damages for wrong-
fully and maliciously suing out a distress war-
rant, and also claiming compensation for clear-
ing land under contract, is not subject to ex-
ception as declaring on two causes of action.-
Hurst v. Benson (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

Damages sustained from the negligence of an
officer levying on property in distress proceed-
ings held properly reconvened in a suit for
rent.-Hurst v. Benson (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

Under Rev. St. art. 751, a counterclaim in a
suit for rent held insufficient.-Hurst v. Ben-
son (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

Evidence held inadmissible under a plea of
reconvention in a suit for rent.-Hurst v. Ben-
son (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

Under a plea in a suit for rent claiming dam-
ages for injuries to property by reason of a
wrongful levy thereon in distress proceedings,
evidence of such injuries was admissible.-Hurst
v. Benson (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

Under a plea in a suit for rent claiming dam-
ages for the wrongful and unjust suing out of
a distress warrant, it was error to refuse a
charge that defendant could not recover unless
the warrant was "illegally and unjustly sued
out."-Hurst v. Benson (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

In proceedings under the statute relating to
trial of right of property, judgment against the
claimant and sureties on his bond, on his failure
to establish his claim, may be recovered on a
cross bill filed in the action in which the bond
is given, without citation to such claimant or
notice to the sureties.-St. Louis Type Foundry
v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.) 677.

Where a claimant under the statute relating
to trial of right of property abandons his claim,
he thereby fails to establish his right to the
property, and judgment may be recovered on
his bond.-St. Louis Type Foundry v. Taylor
(Tex. Civ. App.) 677.

§ 2. Prosecution and punishment-In-

dictment and information.

LEGISLATIVE POWER.

LEVY.

Evidence.

On a prosecution for theft, a certified copy
of a chattel mortgage executed by the accused
on the alleged stolen article held admissible
in evidence.-Swanner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
186.

On trial for horse theft, held not error to
allow evidence of a conversation in which de-
fendant spoke of his alleged accomplice as a
notorious thief, and in which witness warned
defendant to have nothing to do with him.
Chambers v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 192.

Evidence considered and held not insufficient
to justify a verdict of guilty of theft.-Jack
son v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 520.

In a prosecution for hog theft, the ownership
of the stolen animals may be proved by the
owner's mark, though unrecorded.-Lee
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 540.

V.

In a prosecution for hog theft, an objection
that the record of the owner's mark was in-
admissible, because not shown to have been
made prior to the theft, held untenable.-
Lee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 540.

Evidence held to sustain a conviction for theft
of a mule.-Roberson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
910.

Trial and review.

Where, on a trial for theft of a mule, it is
shown that after the theft the mule was sold
and paid for with a draft, evidence that de-
fendant was the pavee of the draft is admis-
sible.-Hargrove v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1070.
§ 4.
On prosecution for theft, certain instruction
held erroneous, as assuming facts not in evi-
dence.-Homer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 371.
Instruction, in prosecution for theft, that,
if defendant did not take property with intent
to steal, there could be no theft, held improp-
erly refused.-Grogan v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
376.

On prosecution, under Pen. Code, art. 879,
for theft from the person, an instruction held
not erroneous as a submission of issue not sug-
gested by the evidence.-Mathis v. State (Tex.
-Cr. App.) 523.

Under Pen. Code, art. 861, held proper to in-
struct, in a prosecution for theft, that the theft
was complete if the money, though obtained
lawfully, was taken with any intent to deprive
the owner of it.-Harris v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 921.

On a prosecution for theft of two bales of
cotton, in which it did not affirmatively appear
that both were taken in the same transaction,
failure to charge as to what would be separate
taking and what the same transaction held er-
ror.-Barnes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 922.

Of attachment, see "Attachment," § 3.
Of execution, see "Execution," § 1.
Of taxes, see "Taxation," § 3.

LICENSES.

For sale of intoxicating liquors, see "Intoxicat-
ing Liquors," § 2.
Municipal licenses, see "Municipal Corpora-
Peddlers' licenses,
tions," § 6.
see "Hawkers and Ped-
dlers."
To practice law, see "Attorney and Client,"
§ 1.

LIENS.

On homesteads, see "Homestead," § 4.
Rights of lien creditors in property assigned
for benefit of creditors, see "Assignments for
Benefit of Creditors," § 2.

Liens acquired by particular remedies or pro-
ceedings.
See "Judgment," § 10.

Particular classes of liens.
See "Mechanics' Liens."
Laborers' liens, see "Agriculture."
Landlord's lien for rent, see "Landlord and
Tenant," § 3.

Mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 2.
Of parol purchaser of land for price paid, see
"Vendor and Purchaser," § 5.

Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client," § 2.
Pledge, see "Pledges."
Vendor's lien on lands sold, see "Vendor and
Purchaser," § 4.

LIFE ESTATES.

See "Curtesy"; "Dower."
Accrual of limitations against remainder-men
on death of life tenant, see "Limitation of
Actions," § 2.

Rev. St. 1899, § 4268, relating to adverse pos-
session, does not apply to the possession of
lands by right of a life tenancy, as against the
remainder-man.-Hall v. French (Mo.) 769.

A person having the right of possession of
premises during an estate for life acquires no
rights as against the remainder-man by payment
of the taxes.-Hall v. French (Mo.) 769.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.

See "Adverse Possession."
Judicial notice of commencement of prior ac-
tion tolling limitations, see "Evidence," § 1.

Particular actions or proceedings.
Action for contribution between co-obligors,
see "Contribution."
Actions on judgments, see "Judgment," § 12.
Action to set aside judgment discharging
guardian, see "Guardian and Ward," §§ 1, 4.
Foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 4.
Prosecution for robbery as shown by record on
appeal, see "Criminal Law," § 28.

1. Statutes of limitation.

Where a son assumed the payment of his
father's note, he is estopped to plead a want
of consideration; having failed to notify plain-
tiff of such a defense until after his father's
note was barred by limitations.-Davis v. Ram-
age (Ky.) 310.

Mandatory injunction, see "Injunction," § 1.

1. Nature and grounds in general.
Under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, arts. 3934,
3935, 3946b, appeal to state superintendent of
public instruction held unnecessary to give dis-
trict court jurisdiction to compel county treas-
urer to pay over school funds to authorities of
joint district of adjoining county.-Lawhon v.
Haas (Tex. Civ. App.) 48.

§ 2. Subjects and purposes of relief.
Where an insufficient levy for school pur-
poses has been made by a city at the time fixed
by law, the city may be compelled by manda-
mus, at any time before the tax books go into
the hands of the collector, to make an addi-
tional levy.-City of Lexington v. Board of
Education of City of Lexington (Ky.) 827.

Where the justices of a county court have re-
fused to draw a warrant to pay a bill of costs
taxed against the county, mandamus will issue
to compel the issuance of such warrant.-State
ex rel. Baker v. Fraker (Mo.) 720.

Mandamus will not lie to compel the comp-
troller to sue to collect the tax on the gross
receipts of passenger travel of railroads or
steamships operated within the state, imposed
by Rev. St. art. 5049, subd. 42.-Lewright v.
Love (Tex. Sup.) 1089.

Under Rev. St. arts. 3946, 3959, 3959a, 3961,
the power exercised by school trustees in em-
ploying a teacher was judicial, and could not be
questioned in proceedings to compel approval
of vouchers issued in payment under the con-
tract.-Singleton v. Austin (Tex. Civ. App.) 686.
§ 3. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-
lief.

A judgment awarding mandamus, from which
an appeal has been granted, may be suspended
by the execution of a supersedeas bond.-
Wyatt v. Ryan (Ky.) 129.

ington v. Board of Education of City of Lex-
ington (Ky.) 827.

A petition for mandamus held to show prima
facie the validity and corrections of such bills
of costs against county.-State ex rel. Baker v.
Fraker (Mo.) 720.

Where a petition for mandamus to compel
the issuance of a warrant against a county
alleges that bills were duly presented to the
county court, it need not be alleged that they
were presented by the clerk.-State ex rel.
Baker v. Fraker (Mo.) 720.

Persons whose interests are separate cannot
be joined as relators in mandamus.-State ex
rel. Baker v. Fraker (Mo.) 720.

In mandamus to compel the issuance of a
warrant to pay a bill of costs taxed against a
county, that a person other than relator had a
fee in the bill is no defense.-State ex rel.
Baker v. Fraker (Mo.) 720.

A taxpayer cannot maintain mandamus to
compel the state comptroller to sue to collect
a tax imposed on the gross receipts from the
passenger travel of railroads and steamships
operating within the state.-Lewright v. Love
(Tex. Sup.) 1089.

Entry of judgment by court of civil appeals
awarding writ of mandamus held under facts
a proper disposition of an appeal, on which
judgment determining insufficiency of petition
for the writ is reversed.-Singleton v. Austin
(Tex. Civ. App.) 686.

Where a petition to compel approval of vouch-
ers issued to a school teacher alleged that they
were duly certified, but the notarial seal was
not affixed, but no objection was made below.
the petition will not be held bad therefor on
appeal. Singleton v. Austin (Tex. Civ. App.)
686.

Where a petition to compel the approval of
vouchers issued to a school teacher alleged that
the vouchers which were attached were sworn
to according to law, but the notarial seal was
not affixed, the petition was good against a gen-
eral demurrer.-Singleton v. Austin (Tex. Civ.
App.) 686.

See "Mandamus."

MANDATE.

MANSLAUGHTER.

See "Homicide," § 2.

MARRIAGE.

See "Divorce"; "Husband and Wife."
False oath of applicant for marriage license as
perjury, see "Perjury," § 1.
MARRIED WOMEN.

See "Husband and Wife."

MASTER AND SERVANT.
Admissions by servant, see "Evidence," § 5.
Excessive damages for injuries to servant, see
"Damages," § 4.