THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
II. ANOTHER ACTION PENDING.
17 (Mo.) Demurrer goes only to face of
pleading.-Missouri Bridge & Iron Co. v. Pa-
cific Lime & Gypsum Co., 797.
3 (Ark.) Possession of street since be-
fore 1907 bars right of town.-Town of Hoxie v.
Gibson, 490.
II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT.
12 (Ky.) Evidence held sufficient to sup--Town of Hoxie v. Gibson, 490.
port conviction.-Sweazy v. Commonwealth, 753.
4 (Ark.) Right in streets of purchasers
of platted lots barred by adverse possession.
2 (Tex.Civ.App.) Rule of title as to acces-
sions to property wrongfully in possession
stated.-Ochoa v. Rogers, 693.
Purchaser of stolen auto, converting it into
truck, liable only for market value at time
of purchase.-Id.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Compromise and Settlement.
(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Acceptance and cash-
ing of check an accord and satisfaction.-Payne
& Tippin v. W. E. Stewart Land Co., 254.
12(1) (Ky.) Receipt in full presumptive
evidence of settlement.-Rogers v. Rogers'
Adm'r, 278.
IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.
(E) Duration and Continuity of Pos-
44 (Ark.) Change in contemplated use does
not affect possession.-Town of Hoxie v. Gib-
son, 490.
(F) Hostile Character of Possession.
~60(5) (Ark.) Possession of street under
ordinance held adverse.-Town of Hoxie v. Gib-
son. 490.
63 (5) (Ky.) Possession under bond for ti-
tle is amicable.-Blair v. Meade, 433..
66(2) (Mo.) Encroachment without intent
adverse.-Diers v. Peterson, 792.
71(1) (Tex.Com.App.) Illegal contract to
defendants is inadmissible to sustain plea of
limitations.-Stone v. Robinson, 1094.
85(1) (Mo.) Burden on lot owners to show
that encroaching wall was not constructed sub-
ject to future ascertainment of true line.-Diers
v. Peterson, 792.
62(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether grantors ap-5 (Tenn.) Petition may be sworn to before
peared before notary held for jury.-Reese v.
Mayfield Co., 248.
See Abatement and Revival; Dismissal and
Nonsuit.
II. NATURE AND FORM.
28 (Ky.) Petition for conversion of coal
waives tortious entry and relies on implied
contract.-Ward v. Guthrie, 955.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA-
TION, AND SEVERANCE.
50(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Joinder of company
and individual in suit to restrain interference
with irrigation ditch held proper.-Barstow
Town Co. v. Carr, 555.
See Executors and Administrators.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
294(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) To review sufficien-
cy of evidence, motion for new trial necessary.
-Taylor v. Davis, 104.
For review of rulings in particular actions or
302(6) (Mo.App.) Motion for
proceedings, see also the various specific top-held not sufficiently definite to preserve ques-
ics.
See Certiorari: Courts, 207-246; Crimi-
nal Law, 1036-1186; Exceptions, Bill of.
23 (Mo.) Supreme Court will determine its
jurisdiction although not challenged.-Mike Ber-
niger Moving Co. v. O'Brien, 807.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(D) Finality of Determination.
66 (Mo.) Writ of error issues only to re-
view final judgment.-Missouri Bridge & Iron
Co. v. Pacific Lime & Gypsum Co., 797.
70(2) (Mo.) Order sustaining motion to
strike motion to confirm award not appealable.
-Missouri Bridge & Iron Co. v. Pacific Lime
& Gypsum Co.. 797.
70(2) (Mo.) Order sustaining demurrer
to motion to vacate award not appealable.
Missouri Bridge & Iron Co. v. Pacific Lime &
Gypsum Co., 797.
71(3) (Ark.) Decree extending a tempo-
rary injunction held not final and appealable.
Road Improvement Dist. No. 1 of Hot Spring
County v. Cooper, 623.
79(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment of fore-
closure held final though all defendants were
not named.--Creosoted Wood Block Paving Co.
v. McKay, 587.
IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW.
(A) Persons Entitled.
148 (Tex.Civ.App.) One not a party to the
suit had no right to file writ of error.-Most
Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge v.
Mitchell, 687.
V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVATION
IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
OF REVIEW.
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
194(1) (Ky.) Objection to form of defense
cannot be first raised on appeal.-Ashcraft v.
Bowling, 945.
194(1) (Ky.) Objection allegations are not
definite cannot be first raised on appeal.-Slone
v. Johnson, 970.
197(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Variance must be
taken advantage of in lower court.-Lancaster
v. Sayles, 227.
tion as to sufficiency of evidence.-Fitzroy v.
People's Bank of Cardwell, 865.
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS
FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
351 (2) (Ark.) Where appeal is not per
fected, no questions presented for review.-
McLaughlin v. Morris, 259.
(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds
or Other Securities.
376 (Tex.Civ.App.) Bond of plaintiff ap-
pealing from judgment denying foreclosure
should be payable to all defendants opposed
to foreclosure.-Creosoted Wood Block Paving
Co. v. McKay, 587.
391 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellant who has
filed insufficient bond may file proper bond with-
in a specified period.-Creosoted Wood Block
Paving Co. v. McKay, 587.
391(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Motion to dismiss
overruled on tender of proper bond.-~-Turner v.
First Nat. Bank, 928.
X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN
(A) Matters to be Shown by Record.
494 (Tex.Civ.App.) Ruling on exceptions
not reviewable when shown only by bill of
exceptions.--Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
499 (3) (Mo.App.) Admission of incompe-
tent evidence not considered, in absence of
objection in record.--Phelps v. Dockins, 1022.
499 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Record must show
that objections to charge were presented be-
fore charge was read.-Lamar v. Panhandle &
S. F. Ry. Co., 605.
500 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Record must show
ruling on exceptions to petition.-Lancaster v.
Sayles, 227.
(B) Scope and Contents of Record.
527 (2) (Mo.App.) Findings
sions not incorporated in judgment or bill of
exceptions are not reviewable.-City of Web-
ster Groves, to Use of Eddie, v. Hunt, 1006.
536 (Ark.) Skeleton bill signed by judge
not part of record.-Ft. Smith, S. & R. I. R.
Co. v. Lovelady, 634.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts.
204 (3) (Ark.) Objection to parol evidence
must be made below.-Cohn v. Chapman, 42.
216(1) (Ark.) Failure to give instruction 544 (1) (Ark.) Bill of exceptions necessary
not reviewable where no request was submitted. to review rulings requiring examination of
-Leehy v. Fullerton, 472.
evidence and instructions.-Ft. Smith, S. & R.
I. R. Co. v. Lovelady, 634.
216(1) (Mo.App.) Instructions failing to
limit damages to reasonable compensation held 544(1) (Ky.) Contention that verdict is
reversible error, though no request made.- flagrantly against evidence not considered in
Simmons v. Murray, 1009.
absence of bill of exceptions and transcript of
C216(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Request for proper evidence.-Yates v. Stevenson, 747.
charge necessary as to matters of omission.544(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Record must show
Ritz v. First Nat. Bank, 425.
217 (Tex.Civ.App.) Misconduct of jury not
considered unless first presented to trial court.
-Peters v. Graham, 566.
230 (Tex.) Error in instruction not con-
sidered where not included in objections to
charge in time and manner required.-Ft.
Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Houston, 385.
that objections to charge were presented be-
fore charge was read, but bill of exceptions not
necessary-Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry.
Co., 605.
544(2) (Ky.) Errors occurring during trial
other than those relating to sufficiency of plead-
ings not considered in absence of bill of excep
tions and evidence.-Yates v. Stevenson, 747.
230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objection to charge on 553(1) (Ark.) No bill of exception neces-
weight of evidence waived by failure to proper-
ly object.-Lancaster v. Sayles, 227.
231 (9) (Ark.) Specific objection should be
made in trial court to instruction erroneously
submitting an issue.-Cohn v. Chapman. 42.
242(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Misconduct of jury
not considered unless first presented to and
acted upon by trial court.-Peters v. Graham,
sary in chancery court except where oral tes
timony is taken and not written out.-McMil
lan v. Brookfield, 621.
No bill of exceptions necessary where oral
testimony is reduced to writing and made part
of the record.--Id.
555 (Ky.) Matter before the court after
striking transcript of evidence.-Bullitt County
v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co., 609.
(D) Contents, Making, and Settlement of correct charge.-Gulf Production Co. v. Gibson,
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Case or Statement of Facts.
569 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court must de-753(2) (Mo.) Appeal dismissed in absence
termine whether letter in statement of facts of assignment of errors. State v. Bailey, 824.
had been introduced in evidence.-Pavey v.
McFarland, 591.
573 (Tex.Civ.App.) Statement of facts not 758 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of er-
examined nor agreed to by appellee will be ror complaining of finding that attorney was
stricken.-Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Slo- defendant's attorney held not properly briefed.
man, 602.
-E. F. Elmberg Co. v. Dunlap Hardware Co.,
700.
760 (1) (Mo.) Appellate court need, not
search record to find rulings complained of.--
Nevins v. Gilliland, 818.
(E) Abstracts of Record.
586 (3) (Mo.App.) Abstract should enable
court to understand matters in controversy
without extended study of documents filed by
stipulation.-City of Weston ex rel. Maley &
Kelly Contracting Co. v. Chastain, 350.
592(1) (Mo.) Appeal dismissed in absence
of abstract of record.-State v. Bailey, 824.
(F) Making, Form, and Requisites of
Transcript or Return.
608(1) (Ark.) Transcript held not to dis-
close what was the bill of exceptions.-Ft.
Smith, S. & R. I. R. Co. v. Lovelady, 634.
773(2) (Mo.) Appeal dismissed in absence
of briefs.-State v. Bailey, 824.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
854(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment sustained
if supported by evidence on any issue in ab-
sence of findings of fact or conclusions of law.
-Ireland v. Abbott, 552.
863 (Tex.Civ.App.) On appeal from injunc-
tion protecting trial court's custody of seized
car until final hearing, questions of constitu-
tionality of seizure not determined.-Neill v.
Johnson, 147.
(B) Interlocutory, Collateral, and Supple-
mentary Proceedings and Questions.
870 (3) (Mo.App.) No complaint of motion
to set aside first judgment on appeal from
second judgment.-Herwig v. Business Men's
Acc. Ass'n of America, 853.
672 (Tex.Civ.App.) Fundamental error of
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
record held presented.-Boyd v. Johnson, 235.882(12) (Ark.) Giving erroneous instruc-
683 (Tex.Civ.App.) Injury by admission of
deposition not shown, in absence of evidence
contained therein.-Crossland v. Hart, 558.
692(1) (Ky.) Exclusion of evidence not
reviewable in absence of avowal.-Ashcraft v.
Bowling, 945.
~~694 (!) (Tex.Civ.App.) Trial court's find-
ing conclusive on appeal, in absence of state-
ment of facts.-Hutchison v. Robert Hamil-
ton & Son, 417.
695(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Bill of exceptions,
not purporting to be a full statement of facts.
not considered as such.-Hutchison v. Robert
Hamilton & Son, 417.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
tion waived by requesting similar instruction
on same issue.-Leehy v. Fullerton, 472.
882(12) (Ark.) Defendants may not com-
plain of conflict in instructions due to error
in their requests.--Troop v. Dew, 992.
882(12) (Mo.App.) Defendant's instruc-
tions, not submitting breaches of contract by
plaintiff in specific terms, held not invited.-
City of Weston ex rel. Maley & Kelly Con-
tracting Co. v. Chastain, 350.
882 (12) (Mo.App.) Conflict in instructions
because of instruction erroneously given at ap-
pellant's request not ground of complaint.-
Rhodes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 1026.
882(14) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error, if any, in
instruction on contributory negligence invited.
719(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Only fundamental-Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
errors considered when not assigned as error.
-McGrew v. Hoy, 686.
719(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections without
assignment of error ineffectual.---Boyd v. John-
son, 235.
733 (Mo.App.) Assignment that judgment
is against the law is too general.-Phelps v.
Dockins, 1022.
900 (Ark.) Rulings of trial court presum-
ed correct.-Ft. Smith, S. & R. 1. R. Co. v.
Lovelady, 634.
901 (Tex.Civ.App.) Burden on appellant to
show propriety of rejected issues.-Baker v.
Sparks, 1109.
736 (Tex.Civ.App.) Multifarious assign-907 (3) (Mo.App.) Without bill of excep-
ment not considered.-Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. tions, judgment presumed correct.-Thompson
Diaz, 919.
v. Stearns, 1059.
742(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Proposition not 912 (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings presumed in
followed by statement not considered.-Reader support of judgment overruling plea of privi-
v. Christian, 155.
lege.-Grainger v. Gottlieb, 604.
Assignment of error not followed by proposi-
tion or statement cannot be considered.-Id.
742(6) (Tex.Civ.App.) By court rule, only
questions reviewed that are presented fully
and fairly.-Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
926 (8) (Tex.Civ.App.) Presumed to aid
deposition that it was properly certified.-Cross-
land v. Hart, 558.
927 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence viewed
most favorably for party against whom per-
emptory instruction is given.-Charles v. El
Paso Electric Ry. Co., 695.
927 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence of losing
party taken as true in reviewing peremptory
instruction.-Spark v. Lasater, 717.
930(3) (Tex.) Issue not presented to jury
deemed as found by court so as to support judg-
ment. O'Neil v. Quilter, 528.
930(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issues not submit-
ted to jury resolved in support of judgment.-
Raney & Hamon v. Hamilton & White, 229.
930(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issues not submit-1050 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of im-
ted presumed found in favor of prevailing material testimony held harmless.--Crossland
party.--Freeman v. Wooten, 415.
v. Hart, 558.
931 (5) (Tex.Civ.App.) General judgment
presumed founded on only such evidence as le-
gally authorized it, in absence of findings of
fact.-Campbell Co. v. Watson, 929.
933 (4) (Mo.App.) Trial court presumed to
have overruled motion for new trial as to
grounds not assigned.-Crocker
V. Barron,
1032.
1052(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of testi-
mony harmless in view of judgment.-Crossland
v. Hart, 558.
1052(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of evi
dence hell harmless in view of determination
of jury.-Taylor v. Davis, 104.
1052(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of tes-
timony held harmless, in view of theory ou
which judgment was rendered.- Ireland v. Ab-
bott. 552.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
954(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether temporary
injunction should be granted discretionary.-1053(7) (Mo.App.) No error in admitting
Pavey v. McFarland, 591.
evidence as to allegations subsequently with-
drawn.-Huckshold v. United Rys. Co. of St.
Louis, 1072.
1060(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Conduct of attor-
ney in presence of jury held prejudicial.-Wies-
er v. Oates, 553.
966(!) (Ky.) Court's ruling on application
for continuance in proceeding against person
in military service not disturbed, in absence of
abuse of discretion.-Fennell v. Frisch's Adm'r,
969 (Mo.App.) Trial of issues separately 1060 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction to dis-
is discretionary and not reviewable unless dis- regard argument held harmless in view of ver-
cretion abused.-Sexton v. Anderson Electric diet.-Raney & Hamon v. Hamilton & White,
Car Co., 358,
1064(1) (Ark.) Instruction held not prej-
udicial.-Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Dy-
er, 50.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-
1001 (1) (Mo.App.) Verdict not disturbed 1064(1) (Mo.App.) Instructions as to ab-
where based on substantial evidence.-Nash v. solute duty of electric light company to pre-
St. Joseph Gas Co., 360; Schreiber v. Andrews, vent escape of current not prejudicial where it
862.
took no precaution.-Hudson v. Union Electric
Light & Power Co., 869.
1002 (Ark.) Verdict on conflicting evidence
not disturbed, where supported by sufficient evi-1064 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction exclud-
dence-Payne v. Orton, 469.
ing testimony not harmful.-Lamar v. Pan-
1003 (Mo.App.) Verdict overturned as handle & S. F. Ry. Co., 605.
against weight of evidence only where result1064(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Erroneous instruc-
of bias and prejudice, passion or misconduct.- tion on burden of proof prejudicial.-Holliday
Schreiber v. Andrews, 862.
v. Bradley, 941.
Verdict for defendant not overturned as 1066 (Ark.) Error in instruction as to ex-
against weight of evidence because plaintiff's emptions of defendant appellant from liability
testimony corroborated, while defendant's harmless, though not sustained by evidence.
stands alone.-Id.
-Payne v. Orton, 469.
1009(1) (Ky.) Court of Appeals on appeal
from chancellor weighs and judges evidence.-
Taber v. McGregor, 194.
1019(3) (Ky.) If correctness of chancel-
lor's judgment is in doubt, finding on conflict-
ing evidence is not disturbed. -Williams v.
Harvey, 315.
1009 (3) (Ky.) Finding of chancellor on
conflicting evidence not disturbed.-Lewis v.
≈1068(1) (Ky.) Instruction not followed by
jury held not prejudicial.-Fix's Ex'r v. Cook,
(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.
1094 (2) (Tex. Com. App.) Finding of jury
approved by Court of Civil Appeals is final.-
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v.
Riggs, 875.
(K) Subsequent Appeals.
1009 (4) (Ark.) Chancellor's fact findings
will not be disturbed, unless against prepon-1099(6) (Ky.) Opinion as to sufficiency of
derance of evidence.-Satterwhite v. Bledsoe, pleadings law of case on subsequent appeal.—-
1010(1) (Mo.) Findings of trial court con-
clusive on appeal.-Nevins v. Gilliland. 818.
~1011(1) (Mo.App.) Finding on conflicting
evidence conclusive.-Petition of Elliott, 520.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
SITION OF CAUSE.
(A) Decision in General.
1024 (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Finding of fact
binding on appeal.-Grainger v. Gottlieb, 604.114 (Tex.) Cause reversed and remanded
for ruling on assignment not passed on by
Court of Civil Appeals.--Wison v. Southern
Traction Co., 663.
1033 (5) (Mo.App.) Instruction on burden
of proof on court's motion not prejudicial to
defendant.-Tate v. Tyzzer, 1038.
1040(16) (Tex.Civ.App.) No error in over-
ruling exception when issue not submitted to
jury.-Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
1048(6) (Mo.) Exclusion of testimony held
cured by later answer.-McMillan v. Bausch,
$35.
1050(1) (Mo.App.) Offer in evidence of
subpoena for witness, present but not called,
and not changing facts. harmless.-Munsill v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Rv. Co., 376.
121 (Tex.Com.App.) Judgment reformed
and affirmed without prejudice, in view of
pleadings.-Barnett v. Eureka Paving Co.,
(B) Affirmance.
≈1135 (Tex.Civ.App.) Judgment
affirmed
where no error shown.-Spark v. Lasater, 1108.
1140(1) (Mo.App.) Plaintiff permitted to
remit portion of amount awarded in view of
erroneous instruction on measure of damages.
-Warren v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 1029.
(D) Reversal.
1050(1) (Tex.) Evidence of unauthorized
declarations of agent, though error, held harm-1164 (Mo.App.) Where defendant commit
less.-Edward Thompson Co. v. Sawyers. 873. ted reversible error, plaintiff not denied new
1050(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Admission of im- trial for amendable' defect of pleading.-City
material evidence held harmless.-Raney & of Weston ex rel. Maley & Kelly Contracting
Hamon v. Hamilton & White, 229.
1050(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Rulings on evi-1166 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where amount plain-
dence as to immaterial issues harmless.-Free- tiff may recover is insufficient to confer juris-
man v. Wooten, 415.
diction, trial court's judgment as to such
|