may only dismiss the appeal.-Arkansas Valley [it was based, whether the failure to give chargTrust Co. v. Corbin, 179 S. W. 484.

(J) Conclusiveness and Effect, Impeach-730 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where an assignment of ing and Contradicting.

671 (Ky.) Where there is no bill of evidence in the record, the court can only determine whether the pleadings support the judgment.-742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Mere recital in motion Vasa Co. v. Ohio Valley Banking & Trust Co., 179 S. W. 1045.

688 (Tex. Civ.App.) Statement of defend-—Id. ant's counsel in his argument that plaintiff was 743 (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiff's contention a liar cannot be said to be error in the absence of a statement of facts.-Pulkrabeck v. Griffith & Griffith, 179 S. W. 282.

747 (Tex.) Where plaintiff did not on de- 835 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to instrucfendant's appeal assign as error the denial of tions, not contained in appellants' brief, but complete relief, the question will not be re- attempted to be set up in a motion for rehearviewed.-Owosso Carriage & Sleigh Co. v. Mc-ing, held waived.-Levy v. Dunken Realty Co., Intosh & Warren, 179 S. W. 257. 179 S. W. 679.

XVI. REVIEW.

748 (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignments of error not in conformity to the Courts of Civil Appeals rules for briefing and submitting cases will not be considered on appeal.-Allen v. Reed, 179837 (Ky.) Where inadmissible testimony S. W. 544.

XII. BRIEFS.

(A) Scope and Extent in General.

was unobjected to, it must be allowed to stand for what it is worth, on appeal, as part of the evidence of the party whom it favors.-Hatfield's Adm'r v. Hatfield, 179 S. W. 832.

Under Civ. Code Prac. § 589, appellee's incompetent testimony on former trial embodied in deposition, to which no exception was pressed below, could not be disregarded on appeal; any error in its admission having been waived.

758 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under the rules for briefing, Rev. St. 1911, art. 1612, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 136 (Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612), making grounds assigned in a motion for new trial assignments of error, the assignments in the brief must be true copies of such grounds, and not reconstructions-Id. thereof.-J. B. Farthing Lumber Co. v. Illig,

179 S. W. 1092.

842 (Tex.Civ.App.) An erroneous construction of the law applicable to the facts found is error apparent on the face of the record.-Carroll v. Evansville Brewing Ass'n, 179 S. W. 1099.

Where assignments of error are grounds assigned in a motion for new trial, they, as given in the brief, must, as required by Rule 25 (142 S. W. xii), refer to the portion of the motion 846 (Mo.App.) In an action tried to the in which they are complained of.-Id. court, the erroneous admission of evidence will be disregarded, unless it appears to have affected the decision.-Pickel v. Pickel, 179 S. W. 949.

766 (Ark.) Where a brief fails to abstract the complaint sufficiently to show whether a demurrer was properly sustained, under Supreme Court rule 9, the case will be affirmed.-866 (Ark.) Where each side requested a diUssery v. Ussery, 179 S. W. 996.

767 (Tex.Civ.App.) Brief of defendant abusing the trial court and opposing counsel, and a motion by plaintiff to strike it containing abusive language in reference to opposing counsel, stricken from the files on the court's own motion. Mossop v. Zapp, 179 S. W. 685.

rected verdict, and neither requested any other instruction, the court on appeal must treat the cause as before them on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.Swift v. First Nat. Bank of Lewisville, 179 S. W. 810.

770 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under court rule 40 (C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error. (142 S. W. xiv) an appellant's brief may be ac-877 (Ky.) In an action to recover balance cepted as a proper presentation of the case, without examination of the record, where appellee files no brief.-Occident Fire Ins. Co. v. Linn, 179 S. W. 523.

773 (Ky.) Failure of appellant to file brief 20 days before date set for hearing on appeal, as required by rule 3 (154 S. W. vii), does not warrant dismissal, where cause was not properly docketed because appellee had never been summoned.-Doherty v. First Nat. Bank, 179 S. W. 602.

advanced on a timber contract, cross-defendants could not complain of instructions having no bearing on the verdict from which they appealed.-Ramey v. Ironton Lumber Co., 179 S. W. 207.

880 (Tex.Civ.App.) In action against corporation on its notes, and against its president as surety thereon, where the surety sought no relief against the corporation, he could not question the validity of the default judgment against it because the record showed no service on it.773 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $$ Bonner Oil Co. v. Gaines, 179 S. W. 686. 2047-2049, and Courts of Appeals Rules 15, 18882 (Ky.) Where one party demurs to the (169 S. W. xxi, xxii), the court may not affirm the judgment for failure of appellant to serve and file briefs in time, but may only dismiss the appeal.-Arkansas Valley Trust Co. v. Corbin, 179 S. W. 484.

petition for want of a necessary party, he is estopped from afterwards alleging error in bringing in such party, as the error, if any, is invited. Carrick v. Garth, 179 S. W. 609.

882 (Tex.) Defendant cannot complain of 773 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where appellants failed submission as ground of recovery of act of negto file briefs within the time provided in aligence, though not the proximate cause of instipulation, and no error in law was apparent on the record, judgment held to be affirmed. Richardson v. Peden Iron & Steel Co., 179 S. W. 544.

XIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR

ABANDONMENT.

781 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the controversy between the parties has been settled pending appeal, the appeal will be dismissed.-A. A. Fielder Lumber Co. v. Gamble, 179 S. W. 522.

784 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2084, appellant, whose notice of appeal was not given before the last day of the term, and who filed no appeal bond, did not perfect his appeal so as to give the Court of Civil Appeals jurisdiction, and it will be dismissed.-Elkins v. Houlihan, 179 S. W. 894.

XV. HEARING AND REHEARING.

833 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where appellee's motion for rehearing contains much abusive and vituperative language referring to appellant, it will be dismissed with leave to file another.-Pye v.

jury, where its own requested charges submitted the same issue.-Paris & G. N. R. Co. v. Flanders, 179 S. W. 263.

(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and Trial of Cause Anew.

895 (Ark.) Case tried in chancery without objection held to come before the Supreme Court for trial de novo with a presumption in favor of the chancellor's finding of fact, unless against the preponderance of the evidence.Mays v. Blair, 179 S. W. 331.

(E) Presumptions.

907 (Ark.) In the absence of a bill of exceptions, it will be presumed that the court's finding, in an action to set aside a judgment, that the attorney who confessed it was authorized to do so, was sustained by evidence.— Smith v. Minter, 179 S. W. 341.

907 (Ky.) In the absence of a transcript of the evidence, it will be presumed that the evidence supported the judgment.-Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 179 S. W. 199.

907 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the record of a

hibiting horses and other animals from running at large was in force, the court on appeal will presume that it was not in force.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Lovell, 179 S. W. 1111. 909 (Ky.) Where the evidence is not in the record, it will be presumed in an action on an insurance policy that the premiums were paid; judgment going for plaintiff.-Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 179 S. W. 199.

969 (Ky.) Trial together of action for libel against newspaper and action against reporter thereon involving same issues held within discretion of court, and not to be disturbed on appeal, except for abuse.-Reid v. Nichols, 179 S. W. 440.

977 (Ky.) The discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial will not be interfered with unless it appears to have been abused, or unless it appears that the court transcended its authority under the Code.-Gnau v. Ackerman, 179 S. W. 217.

922 (Ky.) Where the facts disclosed in a motion to quash the panel were not established other than by the motion, they cannot be assumed to be true, and the denial cannot be reviewed. -Trosper Coal Co. v. Rader, 179 S. W. 1023.977 (Mo.App.) Trial court's discretion to 927 (Ark.) In determining the correctness grant new trial should not be interfered with of directed verdict, view of evidence most favor- by appellate court, unless that discretion has able to party against whom it is directed held been clearly abused; but where no verdict in to be taken.--Barrentine v. Henry Wrape Co., favor of the party to whom the new trial is 179 S. W. 328. granted could be allowed to stand, the order granting the new trial will be reversed.-Powell v. Batchelor, 179 S. W. 751.

927 (Ark.) In reviewing the direction of a verdict for defendant, the evidence for plaintiff must be given its highest probative force.982 (Ky.) The action of lower court in setCook v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 179 S. ting aside verdict as excessive will not be reW. 501. viewed on appeal, in the absence of abuse of discretion by the trial court.-Beall v. Louisville Home Telephone Co., 179 S. W. 251.

927 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where there are both valid and invalid grounds for dismissal, it will be presumed on appeal that the dismissal was upon valid grounds only.-H. J. Murrell & Co. v. Edwards, 179 S. W. 532.

928 (Tex. Civ.App.) In the absence of any information enabling it to determine error in the refusal to charge, the presumption must be in support of the judgment.-First State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 295.

(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings.

1001 (Mo.App.) Jury's finding on ample evidence that railroad rail, which struck plaintiff, was turned by another employé as directed, and not thrown at the foreman for the purpose of assaulting him, held to be respected.-Hellriegel v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 763.

930 (Tex. Civ.App.) In an action for delay in the shipment of live stock an assignment of error that the verdict was insufficient in failing 1001 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the evidence is to find weight and market value, or what the sufficient to raise the issue, the finding of the jucattle sold for, will be overruled, under Ver- ry that assured was in good standing at the non's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1985, time of his death is conclusive on appeal.where the issue was not requested and the mar-Knights of the Maccabees of the World v. Parket value was sufficiently proven.-Quanah, A. sons, 179 S. W. 78. & P. Ry. Co. v. Collier, 179 S. W. 96.

931 (Tex.Civ.App.) When a special answer 1001 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the verdict is does not find all the facts necessary to form the not supported by the evidence, the case will be basis of a judgment, but does answer all the reversed.-Blair & Hughes Co. v. Watkins & questions submitted, the court is presumed to Kelley, 179 S. W. 530. have found the omitted facts necessary to sup-1002 (Ark.) Where a judgment was for a port the judgment.-International & G. N. Ry. less sum than the only testimony as to the damCo. v. Berthea, 179 S. W. 1087. ages, held, that it would not be disturbed on the ground that it was contrary to the uncontradicted evidence; the credibility of the witness being involved.-Hall v. Gage, 179 S. W. 508.

933 (Ky.) New trial held not to be assumed to have been granted for inadequacy of the damages contrary to Civ. Code Prac. § 341.Gnau v. Ackerman, 179 S. W. 217.

934 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, §1002 (Ky.) Where evidence was conflicting, 1985, as to presuming finding by court to sup- verdict for plaintiff not flagrantly against the port judgment, assignment that court erred in evidence is conclusive.-Shelby v. Grabble, 179 decreeing foreclosure of lien because jury made S. W. 1. made no finding on that issue held to be over-1002 (Mo.App.) Conflict between plaintiff's ruled.-King v. Collins, 179 S. W. 899. statement of the facts and his affirmative an934 (Tex. Civ.App.) On appeal from district swers to carefully-worded questions on crosscourt of T. county, to which sequestration suit examination held a matter for the jury.-Hellhad been taken by certiorari, held that, in the riegel v. Dunham, 179 S. W. 763. absence of the writ of certiorari from the rec-1002 (Tex. Civ.App.) In an action on life inord, it would be presumed to support the judg-surance policies, the finding of assured's death ment, that claimant residing in D. county had held conclusive on the appellate court where the admitted that the property was in defendant's evidence is conflicting.-Knights of the Maccapossession when levied on.-Josey v. Masters, bees of the World v. Parsons, 179 S. W. 78. 179 S. W. 1134.

1002 (Tex.Civ.App.) A verdict fully supported by the evidence, though conflicting, will not be reversed.-Hughes v. Colbert, 179 S. W. 443; Same v. Butler, Id.

936 (Mo.App.) An award of a lump sum for attorney's fees must, where there were numerous items, be presumed to have been only for those services for which compensation could be awarded.-Pickel v. Pickel, 179 S. W. 949.1003 (Ky.) Verdict held not to be set aside, unless clearly and palpably against the weight of the evidence.-Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Whaley, 179 S. W. 840.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court.

959 (Mo.App.) The allowance of amend-1004 (Ky.) Damages for personal injuries. ments to pleadings is a matter not entirely with- held to be left to the judgment and discretion of in the discretion of the trial court; its action the jury, which will not be interfered with unbeing reviewable in case of abuse.-Jennings v. less unreasonable or influenced by passion or National American, 179 S. W. 789. prejudice.-Gnau v. Ackerman, 179 S. W. 217.

1009. A chancellor's findings of fact will amendment.-City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, not be disturbed on appeal, unless against the 179 S. W. 1107. clear preponderance of the evidence. -(Ark.) Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Garner, 179 S. W. 160; Vaughan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Id. 165; Louis Werner Sawmill Co. v. Sessoms, Id. 185; Barker v. Lack, Id. 493;

1046 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under rule 31 for district and county courts (142 S. W. xx), including the provision of Rev. St. art. 1953, held, on the pleadings in an action on a note, that the granting to defendants of the right to open and close was reversible error.-First State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 295.

(Ky.) Gambill v. Grigsby, 179 S. W. 822. 1009 (Ky.) In an action to set aside a con-1046 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in permitting veyance, the evidence being conflicting, the defendant to open and conclude the argument chancellor's finding of the grantor's mental ca- was material and necessitated a reversal.-J. pacity must be accepted on appeal.-Meece v. W. Carter Music Co. v. Bailey, 179 S. W. 547. Colyer, 179 S. W. 579.

1050 (Mo.App.) In an action for injuries re1009 (Ky.) Where the evidence is conflict- ceived by one who fell on a defective sidewalk, ing and the mind left in doubt, and it is not the erroneous admission of evidence of the conreasonably certain that the chancellor has erred, dition of the walk subsequent to the action the appellate court will affirm his decision-held prejudicial.-Morgan v. City of Kirksville, Cole v. Collins, 179 S. W. 607. 179 S. W. 755.

1009 (Ky.) Where the evidence is conflict-1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Erroneous admission ing, and on the whole case the court on appeal of hearsay evidence could not be said to be cannot determine with reasonable certainty that harmless, though there was other competent the chancellor erred, his finding will not be evidence, where there was no statement of facts. disturbed.-Gover v. Williams, 179 S. W. 1047.-Pulkrabeck v. Griffith & Griffith, 179 S. W. 1010 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where an issue of fact 282. was not requested to be submitted to the jury, 1050 (Tex. Civ.App.) It is harmless error to but was determined by the court, the Court of admit testimony that witness did not hear of Civil Appeals could only inspect the evidence a train's not running on Sunday, over the obto ascertain whether the finding was support- jection of the defendant that the evidence is ed thereby.-Harper v. Stewart, 179 S. W. 277. immaterial.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Tex1010 (Tex.Civ.App.) The question for an as v. Dale Bros. Land & Cattle Co., 179 S. W. appellate court is not whether findings of the 935. trial court complained of are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, but whether or not there is any evidence to support them. International Fire Insurance Co. v. Black, 179 S. W: 534.

1015 (Ark.) Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the action of the trial court, in granting new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, is not reviewable.-Johnson v. Mantooth, 179 S. W.

175.

(H) Harmless Error.

1027 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of testimony of witness that he did not know or hear of plaintiff's ownership of the land in controversy, if error held harmless, where it appeared that the same verdict and judgment would have been rendered had the evidence been excluded. -Hall v. Ray, 179 S. W. 1135.

1033 (Ky.) Where defendants were entitled to the whole of timber on land, plaintiffs cannot complain that the judgment awarded them only a one-half interest.-Wilson v. Marsee, 179 S. W. 410.

1050 (Tex. Civ.App.) The admission of testimony as to whether a railroad track was fenced at a point other than the place of the accident is harmless, in an action for the killing of cattle.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co., 179 S. W. 1104.

1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Though testimony of president of bank suing on note as to extent of his powers might be objectionable, held, that the inquiry as to his powers was not apparently material.-Bolt v. State Savings Bank of Manchester, Iowa, 179 S. W. 1119.

testi

1050 (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of mony over objection that it was a conclusion held harmless, where the witness had already given substantially the same testimony without objection.-Hall v. Ray, 179 S. W. 1135.

Admission of defendant's testimony that prior to the date of the general partnership the existence of which was in controversy he and plaintiff had made a number of land trades together and divided the profits on same, if error, was harmless, where plaintiff had testified to similar transactions.-Id.

1051 (Tex. Civ.App.) Admission of opinion evidence given after positive showing upon the same question, although error, is harmless.Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

1033 (Mo.App.) In an action for breach of marriage promise, where defendant's answer admitted plaintiff's legal capacity to marry, an instruction submitting that question to the jury was harmless as to defendant, casting an un-1052 (Tex.Civ.App.) In a proceeding for the necessary burden on plaintiff.-Chapman V. appointment of a receiver, the admission of secBrown, 179 S. W. 774. ondary evidence as to the contents of the books 1040 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action on note, of defendant was cured by the production of the error, if any, in overruling exception to answer, books in court.-Hart-Parr Co. v. Alvin-Japaheld harmless, where the subsequent pleadings nese Nursery Co., 179 S. W. 697. raised such issue and the case was tried there-1058 (Ky.) The on.-First State Bank of Amarillo v. Cooper, 179 S. W. 295.

1040 (Tex. Civ.App.) Defendant cannot complain of court's refusal to rule on a general demurrer, unless it is well taken.-City of Brownsville v. Tumlinson, 179 S. W. 1107.

1041 (Ky.) Defendant held not prejudiced by filing of amended petition after impaneling of jury; it merely making more definite some of the allegations of the original petition.Hodge Tobacco Co. v. Whaley, 179 S. W. 840.

1041 (Tex. Civ.App.) Refusal to permit defendant to withdraw its announcement of ready, to file a supplemental answer, held harmless, where the answer was actually an amendment,

which was supplied by the testimony of later exclusion of evidence witnesses is harmless, though erroneous.-Roberts v. Sandy Valley & Elkhorn Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 228.

1060 (Tex.Civ.App.) Argument of plaintiff's counsel based on defendant's failure to have present as witnesses the engineer and fireman of train causing the injury held not to require a reversal.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Aston, 179 S. W. 1128.

1062 (Ark.) Error in directing verdict against plaintiff, who sued for wrongful attachment, was harmless, where plaintiff, who bought in other attached property with her own, profited in the transaction.-Webb v. Van

DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
SITION OF CAUSE.

(B) Affirmance.

1062 (Tex. Civ.App.) Submitting special is- XVII. sue of whether parties were defendants' agents, the controversy being as to their authority, held immaterial; another issue having been submitted as to their authority.-King v. Collins, 1791140 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a verdict allows S. W. 899. an excessive amount for medical attendance, the error may be cured by plaintiff's filing a remittitur so as to conform the amount to that supported by the evidence.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

1064 (Ky.) In a servant's action for injury, error in an instruction as to assumption of risk from a defective appliance held harmless, where plaintiff testified that he knew of the alleged defect.-Phillips v. Corbin & Fannin, 179 S. W. 1144 (Mo.App.) Judgment, in action to dis

586.

1064 (Tex. Civ.App.) It must appear that an erroneous charge calculated to mislead the jury did not have that effect, or the judgment will be reversed.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Somerville, 179 S. W. 671.

Erroneous instruction as to defendant's right to prevail under five-year statute of limitations. held not immaterial under rule 62a (149 S. W. x), unless she was entitled to a peremptory instruction under the ten-year statute.-Id.

affirm contract, entered into in infancy, open in that it provided for the appointment of a receiver if money award was not paid, would be remanded, so that court below might adjust it to meet the situation as changed by the appeal.-Moser v. Renner, 179 S. W. 970.

(D) Reversal.

1170 (Ky.) In view of Civ. Code Prac. § 134, prohibiting reversal for harmless errors, a judgment which is a correct decision will not an erroneous be disturbed because based on 179 S. W. 411. reason. Commonwealth v. McCauley's Ex'r,

1066 (Ky.) Under Civ. Code Prac. §§ 134, 338, 756, in mining trip brakeman's action for injuries through negligence of motorman, his superior servant, charge erroneously authorizing1170 (Ky.) In view of Civ. Code Prac. §§ recovery for mere ordinary negligence held not 135, 335, 756, the error in an instruction allowprejudicial where gross negligence was shown.- ing recovery for ordinary negligence, where the Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baldridge, 179 S. W. charge was gross negligence, held harmless.-Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Shamblen, 179 S. W. 837.

18.

1170 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for destruction of plaintiff's house by fire from defendant's locomotive, admission of a conductor's report not shown to be correct held harmless error, under rule 62 for the Court of Civil Appeals (149 S. W. x).-Moose v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas, 179 S. W. 75.

1066 (Tex.Civ.App.) That petition was based on quantum meruit, and charge authorized recovery of balance due under contract, held not to require reversal, where there was no question of the reasonable value of the work and material.-King v. Collins, 179 S. W. 899. 1067 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where the court erroneously denied a motion to strike incompetent evidence, the refusal of a charge to dis-1177 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where amended petiregard such evidence was material error.Occident Fire Ins. Co. v. Linn, 179 S. W. 523. 1068 (Tex. Civ.App.) Refusal of an instruction that an agreement was not binding was harmless, it being clear that the jury did not consider the agreement.-Bankers' Trust Co. of 1180 (Mo.App.) Appellant, appealing withAmarillo v. Cooper, Merrill & Lumpkin, 179 S. out giving a stay bond, may, on reversal of the judgment, recover back money he has been 1068 (Tex.Civ.App.) In trespass to try title, compelled to pay on judgment pending appeal. refusal of instruction to find against one defend--Arkansas Valley Trust Co. v. Corbin, 179 ant under certain circumstances held immate- S. W. 484. rial, because jury, by finding for the other defendant, found against such defendant.-Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Somerville, 179 S. W. 671.

W. 541.

1068 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in refusing a requested instruction was harmless, where the verdict shows that the jury found adversely to the one requesting the instruction.-Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Winkler, 179 S. W. 691.

tion shows an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, but the record does not show the amount originally sued for, the cause will be remanded, instead of dismissing it.-San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Schaeffer, 179 S. W. 540.

(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower

Court.

1195 (Tex.Civ.App.) The answers to questions propounded by the Court of Civil Appeals to the Supreme Court are conclusive upon the Court of Civil Appeals.-Masterson v. Harris, 179 S. W. 284.

XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND

UNDERTAKINGS.

1070 (Ky.) In an action for setting fire by sparks from a locomotive, failure of the jury to say whether the company owning the road or the company operating a train thereon started 1230 (Mo.App.) An appellant who fails to the fire was not prejudicial, where the first perfect his appeal, or who asks its dismissal, company was liable for the negligence of the violates his appeal bond.-Arkansas Valley latter. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Feeney, 179 S. Trust Co. v. Corbin, 179 S. W. 484.

W. 826.

(K) Subsequent Appeals.

APPELLATE COURTS.

See Courts, 207.

APPLIANCES.

1099 (Ky.) In action in equity for use of a judgment creditor against father of judgment debtor, to whom he had fraudulently turned See Master and Servant, 101-129. over several jacks, language of Court of Appeals on former appeal held not conclusive as to the number of jacks living when the suit was commenced.-Commonwealth v. Filiatreau, 179 See Executors and Administrators, 11.

S. W. 20.

1099 (Ky.) Where the evidence
evidence on new

APPOINTMENT.

APPORTIONMENT.

APPRAISEMENT.

trial after appeal is substantially the same as See Eminent Domain, 157.
on the first trial, the court will not review a
verdict directed in accordance with opinion on
first appeal.-Swann's Adm'x v. Cincinnati, N.
O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 179 S. W. 391.

See Taxation, 895.