191 (10) (Mo.) Instruction held not to as-
sume mine roof was unsafe.-McMillan v.
Bausch, 835.
Instruction held to assume plaintiff relied on
assurance of foreman.-Id.
192 (Mo.) Evidence held to warrant as-
sumption mine roof was unsafe.-McMillan v.
Bausch, 835.
(E) Requests or Prayers.
256(13) (Mo.App.) Instructions
sonal injuries held sufficient, in absence of re-
quest for more definite instructions.-Kuhn v.
City of St. Joseph, 353.
260 (1). Requests covered by instructions
given properly refused.
192 (Mo.App.) Assumption of issuable fact
conceded by other party, or about which there
can be no reasonable controversy, not erro-
neous. Warren v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 1029.(Ky.) Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Turley,
194 (17) (Tex.Com.App.) Charge on rail-
road's negligence in leaving car door open held
erroneous, as invading province of jury.-St.
Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Ris-
tine. 1086.
(Mo.App.) Maher v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry.
Co. 1034; Huckshold v. United Rys. Co. of
St. Louis, 1072;
(Tex.Civ.App.) Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.,
v. Bailey, 412.
199 (Mo.App.) Instruction leaving jury to
construe a contract held error.-City of Weston
ex rel. Maley & Kelly Contracting Co. v. Chas-held
tain, 350.
(B) Necessity and Subject-Matter.
219 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court required to de-
fine technical terms used in charge.-Peters v.
Graham, 566.
covered by given charge.-Lamar v. Pan-
260 (8) (Tex. Civ. App.) Requested charge
handle & S. F. Ry. Co., 605.
260(9) (Ark.) Requested instruction held
sufficiently covered by the general charge.—
Addington v. Jones, 24.
pendent investigation of title held substantially
260(9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Charge as to inde-
covered.-Hester v. Shuster, 713.
219 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court did not err in 261 (Tex.Civ.App.) Submission of incorrect
refusing to define misrepresentation in action to charge on damages does not require correct
rescind.-Hester v. Shuster, 713.
charge.-Gulf Production Co. v. Gibson, 906.
219 (Tex.Civ.App.) Definition of term not
used by special issues not required.-Baker
v. Sparks, 1109.
(F) Objections and Exceptions.
278 (Ark.) Specific objection to instruc-
tion necessary.-Cohn v. Chapman, 42.
(G) Construction and Operation.
(C) Form, Requisites, and Sufficiency,
228(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction on gen-295(10) (Ark.) Instruction construed as a
eral rules of law on homestead issue held not
erroneous for omitting instruction on burden of
proof. Ritz v. First Nat. Bank, 425.
234(4) (Tex.) Instruction on discovered
peril in conjunction with other elements held
erroneous as misleading and imposing too great
burden on defendant.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry.
Co. v. Houston, 385.
whole not objectionable as assuming fact.-Cohn
v. Chapman, 42.
296 (3) (Ky.) Instruction passenger could
sole cause of accident held not misleading in
not recover if third person's negligence was
view of other instruction.-Fitzgerald v. South
Covington & C. St. Ry. Co., 738.
234 (7) (Ark.) Instruction burden on
rier to prove damage caused by act of God,
car-
public enemy, etc., held not to impose burden
of proving goods undamaged when delivered 296(8)
to carrier.-Payne v. Orton, 469.
235(4) (Ark.)
party to establish an issue beyond a reason-
able doubt, held erroneous.-Cloar V. Earle
Compress Co., 272.
296(3) (Mo.App.) Instruction not mislead-
coal digger to be a miner of general expe-
ing where jury understood term experienced
rience.-Way v. Rupp, 515.
(Ark.) Instruction inherently
wrong, is not cured by another in direct con-
flict.-Cloar v. Earle Compress Co., 272.
IX. VERDICT.
(D) Applicability to Pleadings and Evi- plaintiff disposes of cross-action.-Cudd
343 (Tex.Civ.App.) General verdict for
Whippo, 706.
248 (Tex.Civ.App.) Abstract instruction
properly refused.-Gulf Production Co. v. Gib-
son, 906.
248 (Tex.Civ.App.) Abstract instruction as
to minimizing damages properly refused.-
Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
251 (2) (Mo.App.) Instruction, allowing
finding for defendant in a particular not within
the issues, is erroneous.-City of Weston ex rel.
Maley & Kelly Contracting Co. v. Chastain, 350.
251 (8) (Mo.App.) Failure to submit un-
contested issue not error.-Warren v. Curtis &
Co. Mfg. Co., 1029.
251 (9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction as to
minimizing damages properly refused when not
raised by pleadings.-Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
252 (9) (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruction on neg-
ligence of party riding in auto approaching a
railroad crossing properly refused.-Baker v.
Sparks. 1109.
253(3) (Ark.) Instruction failing to make
warehouseman liable for the acts of third per-
sons which he could have prevented through
ordinary care erroneous.-Cloar v. Earle Com-
press Co., 272.
253(3) (Ark.) Instruction held erroneous
in ignoring question of liability for concurring
negligence.-Ft. Smith, S. & R. I. R. Co. v.
(B) Special Interrogatories and Findings.
349(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court erred in not
submitting case on special issues.-Wieser v.
Oates, 553.
349(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Submission of cause
upon general charge, and also upon special is-
sues error.-Stark v. Slack. 687.
350 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Requested
issue submitting question of law properly re-
special
fused.-Samworth v. Hudson, 423.
350 (4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Special issues as to
revocation of agency held supported by the evi-
dence-Taylor v. Davis, 104.
350 (7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Special questiors
raising only evidentiary issues properly re-
fused.-Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
351(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Party not entitled to
general submission and special submission of
same issue.-Baker v. Sparks, 1109.
352(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Special issue on
contributory negligence held not to impose ex-
cessive burden.-Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Diaz,
919.
352(1) (Tex. Civ.App.) Special issue as to
proximate cause held proper.-Baker v. Sparks,
1109.
352(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Requested issue on
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
mate cause properly refused.-Texas & N. O. R. [
Co. v. Diaz, 919.
356(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Entry of judgment See Army and Navy; Treaties.
without answer to special issues error.-Stark
v. Slack, 687.
356(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issue held eliminat-
ed by express and implied Endings.-Raney &
Hamon v. Hamilton & White, 229.
356(7) (Tex.Civ.App.) Court should send
jury back for further deliberations after con-
flicting findings.-Mayo v. Ft. Worth & D. C.
Ry. Co., 937.
359(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Findings of jury on
special issues not set aside.-Taylor v. Davis,
362 (Tex.Civ.App.) Court should not indi-
cate inconsistency in answers to issues when
sending jury back to reconsider findings.-
Union Painless Dentists v. Guerra, 688.
XI. WAIVER AND CORRECTION OF IR-
REGULARITIES AND ERRORS.
418 (Mo.App.) Demurrer to evidence waiy-
ed by introduction of testimony.-Kuhn v. City
of St. Joseph, 353.
1. USURIOUS CONTRACTS AND
TRANSACTIONS.
(A) Nature and Validity.
56 (Ark.) Commission does not render loan
usurious unless paid to lender or agent.-Mc-
Henry v. Vaught, 995,
(B) Rights and Remedies of Parties.
117 (Ark.) Evidence held to show that
commission was paid to lender's agent.-Mc-
Henry v. Vaught, 995.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON-
TRACT.
3(4) (Ark.) Contract held agreement of
purchase and not mere option.-Lane v. Rolfe,
180.
418 (Mo.App.) No estoppel by requested
instructions after one in nature of demurrer 21 (Tex.Civ.App.) Instrument in form of
to evidence is overruled.-Andrews v. Bank of receipt held a contract.-Samworth v. Hudson,
Buchanan County, 518.
423.
33 (Tex.Civ.App.) One who assumes spe-
cial knowledge perpetrates fraud by making
misrepresentation as to value.-Hester v. Shus-
ter, 713.
I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND VALIDITY.
(A) Express Trusts.
44(1) (Ark.) Evidence held insufficient to
establish beneficial ownership under parol con-
tract.-Hall v. Hall, 173.
(B) Resulting Trusts.
89(2) (Ark.) Evidence held insufficient to
establish beneficial ownership under parol con-
tract.-Hall v. Hall, 173.
35 (Tex.Civ.App.) Sale set aside by reas-
on of oil lease on land.-Hester v. Shuster, 713.
Whether representation was expression of
opinion held immaterial in action to rescind.
Purchaser need not take land with voidable
oil lease thereon not filed; "void."-Id.
Inquiry as to whether plaintiff would have
entered into contract without inducement of
false representation not necessary.-Id.
37(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Purchaser may rely
on misrepresentation rather than independent
89(5) (Ark.) Resulting trust by parol in
opposition to written instrument must be clear-investigation made.-Hester v. Shuster, 713.
ly established.-Hall v. Hall, 173.
37(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Verdict properly di-
rected for defendant in action to rescind sale
of land.-Spark v. Lasater, 717.
44 (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of fraudulent
102(2) (Ark.) Purchase by guardian of representation need not preponderate.-Hester
ward's estate creates estate for use and bene.
v. Shuster, 713.
fit of ward.-McLaughlin v. Morris, 259.
V. EXECUTION OF TRUST BY TRUSTEE
OR BY COURT.
274(1) (Ky.) Fee of architect for building
to be constructed from corpus may be paid
from corpus.-Akers v. Fidelity & Columbia
Trust Co., 725.
280 (Ky.) Payment of interest and insur-
ance premiums by trustee held proper.-Akers
v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 725.
Remaindermen cannot complain of payments
from income by trustee having discretion to
pay all to life tenant.-Id.
VII. ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCE-
MENT OF TRUST.
(B) Right to Follow Trust Property or
Proceeds Thereof.
357(1) (Tenn.) Bank lending money on
bonds has rights of innocent purchaser.-Mc-
Dowell v. McDowell, 319.
358(1) (Tenn.) Proceeds of trust proper-
ey must be identified.-McDowell v. McDowell,
UNIONS.
III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION
OF CONTRACT.
(B) Rescission by Vendor.
97 (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendor guilty of fraud
is not entitled to rescind and recover posses-
sion until it does equity.-Gustafson v. Amer-
ican Land Co., 244.
(C) Rescission by Purchaser.
119 (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendee must disaffirm
promptly on discovery of fraud, though failure
to rescind does not waive right to damages.-
Gustafson v. American Land Co., 244.
IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
(A) Title and Estate of Vendor.
144(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendor need not
be in position to perform at time contract is
entered into.-Long v. Martin, 91.
V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
PARTIES.
(A) As to Ench Other.
196 (Ark.) Conveyance without reserva-
tion carries right to collect rents.-Barfield
Mercantile Co. v. Connery, 481.
(C) Bona Fide Purchasers.
230(3) (Ky.) Purchaser from nominal
grantees under mortgage deed held not inno-
cent purchaser for value.-Moore v. William-
son's Ex'r, 732.
231(1) (Ark.) Purchaser affected with no-
tice of infirmity in chain of title.-McLaughlin
v. Morris, 259.
231(12) (Ky.) Recording of oil lease con-
structive notice, though not indexed.-Great
Western Petroleum Corporation v. Samson,
727.
232(5, 6) (Ky.) Occupation by mortgagor
giving absolute deed is notice.-Lewis v. Wil-
liams, 317.
239(1) (Ky.) Good-faith purchaser takes
property free from claim of reversion.-Slone
v, Methodist Episcopal Church South, 287.
239(4) (Ky.) That deed was mortgage
cannot be shown against innocent purchaser.-
Lewis v. Williams, 317.
VI. REMEDIES OF VENDOR.
(A) Lien and Recovery of Land.
269 (Tex.Civ.App.) Remedies of vendor
reserving lien stated.-Gustafson v. American
Land Co., 244.
279 (Ark.) Mortgagee held necessary party
to suit to divest vendee's title, and not bound
by decree.-Imboden v. Talley, 991.
maker
279 (Tex.Com.App.) Nonresident
of vendor's lien note who had parted with in-
terest in property not necessary party to ac-
tion to foreclose lien.-Sewell v. Spitzer, 1083.
289 (Ark.) Subsequent mortgagee's only
right to redeem from the lien.-Imboden v.
Talley, 991.
Subsequent mortgagee's rights not enlarged
by improper relief in vendor's suit.-Id.
299 (1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Vendee may set up
fraud by cross-action in vendor's suit to recov-
er title.-Gustafson v. American Land Co., 244.
VII. REMEDIES OF PURCHASER.
(A) Recovery of Purchase Money Paid.
334(7) (Ky.) Purchaser cannot recover
back portion of price for deficiency in land,
where neither contract nor deed states quan-
tity.-Beckley v. Gilmore, 459.
(B) Actions for Breach of Contract.
351(1) (Ark.) Allowance for delay in per-
formance by vendor held grossly excessive.-
Lane v. Rolfe, 180.
See Criminal Law, 112–134.
11(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Driver of automo-
bile to city 40 miles distant and back on same
day held not a "traveler."--George v. State, 87.
al knucks held sufficient.-State v. Masner, 474.
17(1) (Ark.) Indictment for carrying met-
17(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held to sus-
tain conviction for carrying pistol.-George v.
State. 87.
17(5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Whether defendant
George v. State, 87.
was a traveler question for jury or trial court.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
8 (Tex.Civ.App.) Before the act of 1919
unofficial weighers could follow business.-
Martin v. Foy, 698.
Under act of 1919 unofficial weighers may fol-
low business after giving bond.-Id.
See Descent and Distribution; Executors and
Administrators.
III. CONTRACTS TO DEVISE OR BE-
QUEATH.
58(2) (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to
show contract sued on, or that plaintiffs per-
formed their part.-Wilds v. Readnour, 208.
V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND
1. NATURE OR SUBJECT OF ACTION,
(Tex.Civ.App.) Action against purchaser
and bank with which purchaser had deposited 400 (Ky.) Instruction that if will and cod-
liquidated damages held properly brought in
county in which bank was situated.-Long v.
Martin, 91.
7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Sales contract held per-
formable in county in which shipment was re-
ceived, permitting suit there.-Pittman & Har-
rison Co. v. Sanders, 412.
7 (Tex.Civ.App.) For purpose of venue
contract in writing need not be signed by both
parties.-Grainger v. Gottlieb, 604.
ici are rational on their face presumption
arises that testatrix was of sound mind held
not ground for reversal.-Wood v. Corcoran,
440.
Instruction defining "sound mind" held not
ground for reversal.-Id.
VI. CONSTRUCTION.
(A) General Rules,
7 (Tex.Civ.App.) Must be determined by 440 (Ky.) Testator's intention, unless con-
the contract provisions as to place of perform-trary to law or public policy, must govern.-
ance in an action for breach.-Pittman & Har- Wood v. Wood, 20.
rison Co. v. B. F. Robey & Co., 1114.
Negotiations resulting in letter of confirma-
tion acted upon by the parties held to consti-
tute "written contract."-Id.
II. DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE OF PAR-
22(2) (Ark.) Liability of indorsers and
maker to an accommodation maker held not
joint, and they were not suable in county other
449 (Ky.) Rule against partial intestacy
not absolute.-Sledd v. Rickman, 610.
450 (Ky.) Effect given to every word and
clause if not inconsistent with general intent
of whole will.-McCormick v. Reinberger, 300.
455 (Ky.) Unambiguous meaning of words
used not defeated by conjecture.-McCormick
v. Reinberger, 300.
466 (Ky.) When "and" will be substituted
for "or."-McCormick v. Reinberger, 300.
472 (Ky.) Latter of repugnant clauses pre-
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
487(3) (Ky.) Declarations of testator as
to intended disposition cannot be considered.
-Martin v. Palmer, 742.
489 (2) (Ky.) Family relations and proper-
ty of testator may be considered to aid am-
biguous will.-Martin v. Palmer, 742.
WITNESSES.
See Depositions; Evidence.
Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-
tle or Interest of Persons Deceased
or Incompetent.
141 (Mo.) Agent may testify as to trans-
actions with deceased person.-Orthwein v.
Nolker, 787.
542(2) (Ky.) Devise of son's share if son
died "unmarried and without lawful issue" not
effective if son left either surviving wife or
surviving child.-McCormick v. Reinberger, 300.159(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Testimony of exec-
utors held incompetent.-Dunn v. Vinyard, 99.
(E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre-159(7) (Ky.) So much of plaintiff's testi-
(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfac-
tion, and Lapse.
mony as to services to decedent as tended to
sustain claim of gift from him held incompe-
tent.-Anderson's Adm'r v. Darland, 205.
159(8) (Ky.) Statute held not to prevent
heirs from testifying in behalf of administra-
tor.-Sisk's Adm'r v. Sisk's Adm'r, 296.
(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged
Communications.
(A) Taking Testimony in General.
240(2) (Mo.) Leading question largely dis-
cretionary.-State v. Wells, 825.
240(5) (Ark.) Admitting leading questions
as to matters already testified held not abuse
of discretion.-Hammett v. Dye, 29..
244 (Mo.) Proper to allow prosecutor to
ask leading questions of a recalcitrant state's
witness.--State v. Wells, 825.
254 (Mo.) Withdrawal of witness from
stand to refresh memory held not error.-State
v. Henson, 832.
Refreshing memory of witness in presence of
third parties not error.-Id.
255 (9) (Mo.) Recollection may be refresh-
ed by previous testimony.-State v. Henson,
832.
269(1) (Mo.) Cross-examination of wit-
nesses as to matters covered by direct exami-
nation held proper.-State v. Flis, 845.
275(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) Cross-examination
as to experience of plaintiff seeking rescission
properly excluded.-Hester v. Shuster, 713.
277(4) (Mo.) Cross-examination of de-
fendant as to matters covered by direct exam-
ination held proper.-State v. Ellis, 845.
759(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Executors of hus-283 (Ark.) Recall of accused for further
band need not account for advancements made cross-examination is in discretion of court.-
by husband to children in his lifetime.-Dunn v. Shinn v. State, 636.
Vinyard, 99.
782 (13) (Tex.Civ.App.) Relative to right
of election, will held to show an intention to
deal with entire homestead.-Caddell v. Lufkin
Land & Lumber Co., 138.
As respects election, will is construed against
disposing of wife's property.-Id.
792(1)(Tex.Civ.App.) To constitute elec-
tion, will must give wife new right.-Caddell
v. Lufkin Land & Lumber Co., 138.
792(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Facts held not to
show election to take under will where widow
had no knowledge of value of estate or right of
election.-Dunn v. Vinyard, 99.
793 (Tex.Civ.App.) Wife's declaration that
will was just disposition of homestead held an
election.-Caddell v. Lufkin Land & Lumber
Co., 138.
800 (Mo.App.) Widow electing to take un-
der will excluding her homestead rights loses
them.-Jenkins v. Jenkins, 365.
(C) Privilege of Witness.
297 (Tex.Civ.App.) Refusal to require wit-
answer question as to whether he
would have shot unarmed man held not error.
-Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Bailey, 412.
Court's question to
302 (Tex.Civ.App.)
witness, "Do you claim your protection?"
held not ground for reversal.-Sovereign Camp,
W. O. W., v. Bailey, 412.
308 (Tex.Civ.App.) Good faith in refusing
to answer question for fear testimony might in-
criminate him may be inquired into.-Sovereign
Camp, W. O. W., v. Bailey, 412.
321 (Tex.Cr.App.) Party may impeach own [ "Culpable negligence."-State v. Miller (Mo.)
witness who states an injurious affirmative fact 813.
in the nature of a surprise.-Bryan v. State, "De facto officer."- Odem v. Sinton Independent
83.
School Dist. (Tex. Com. App.) 1090.
Evidence sought to be elicited from party's "Dependent."-Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n
own witness cannot be supplied by other wit- v. Warner (Tex. Civ. App.) 545.
ness under guise of impeachment.-Id.
"Dollar."-Thompson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
338 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bad character of asso-
ciates of witness inadmissible.-Thompson v.
State, 401.
340 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Reputation for chas-
tity inadmissible to impeach.-Hays v. State,
898.
344(2) (Ark.) Specific instances of immo-
rality inadmissible to affect credibility.-Davis
v. State, 482.
"Estate by the entirety."-McGhee v. Henry
(Tenn.) 509.
"Estimated cost of the improvement."-Mor-
ris v. Drainage Dist. No. 24 of Craighead
County (Ark.) 980.
"Extended insurance."-Milburn v. Royal Union
Mut. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 378.
"Fit."-Logan v. State (Ark.) 493.
"F. o. b."-Von Harten & Clark v. Nevels
(Tex. Civ. App.) 676.
"Food."-Harkey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
221.
"Forgery."-Smith v. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.)
690.
v. Martin
"Fraudulent concealment."-Long
(Tex. Civ. App.) 91.
"Good."-Raney & Hamon v. Hamilton & White
(Tex. Civ. App.) 229.
"Guardrail."-Hake v. Buck's Stove & Range
Co. (Mo. App.) 1081.
"Immediate."-Herwig v. Business Men's Acc.
Ass'n of America (Mo. App.) 853.
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. "Immediately."-Bell v. Kilburn (Ky.) 730.
344 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Specific acts of im-
morality cannot be shown as affecting credi-
bility.-Hays v. State, 898.
380(!) (Mo.) Wife testifying for husband
may be impeached by her testimony taken be-
fore coroner.-State v. Allen, 837.
383 (Tex.Cr.App.) State, having adopted
defendant's witness as its own, could not on
failure to elicit certain fact impeach witness
by testimony of statement of witness.-Bryan
v. State, 83.
388 (2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Predicate for im-
peaching testimony necessary.-Taylor v. Davis,
104.
388 (5) (Tex.Cr.App.) Predicate for im-
peaching evidence held proper.-Grace v. State,
389 (Tex.Cr.App.) False statement by de-
fendant's mother as to his whereabouts the
morning after the crime held admissible for
impeachment.-Grace v. State, 541.
Prior statements of character witness as to
contrary views expressed by others competent
to impeach him after his denial.-Id.
"Basis middling."-Von Harten & Clark v.
Nevels (Tex. Civ. App.) 676.
"Boiler."-Cambria Coal Mining Co. v. Travel-
ers' Indemnity Co. (Tenn.) 323.
"Call patent."-Kentucky Union Co. v. Shep-
herd (Ky.) 10.
"County or other political subdivision."-Mike
"Jeopardy."-Runyon v. Morrow (Ky.) 304.
"Jurisdiction."-Neill v. Johnson (Tex. Civ.
App.) 147.
"Knowing."-State v. Ehrenberg (Mo.) 829.
"Legitimate business."-Cree v. Associates Co.
(Ky.) 288.
"Loss."-Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Stubbs
(Tex. Com. App.) 1099.
"Man."-Harper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 909.
"Merchantable."-Raney & Hamon v. Hamilton
& White (Tex. Civ. App.) 229.
"Paid-up insurance."-Milburn v. Royal Union
Mut. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 378.
"Physical disability."-Hillert v. Schweppe (Tex.
Civ. App.) 152.
"Property."-Thompson v. State (Tex. Cr.
"Public corporation."-State ex. inf. McAllister
App.) 406.
ex rel. Manion v. Albany Drainage Dist.
"Pummy."-Cudd v. Whippo (Tex. Civ. App.)
(Mo.) 339.
"Quo warranto."-State ex inf. McAllister ex
rel. Cole v. Norborn Land Drainage Dist.
Co. of Carroll County (Mo.) 344.
"Reasonable doubt."-State v. Johnson (Mo.)
"Renew."-Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co.
794.
"Rent."-Turner v. First Nat. Bank (Tex.
(Ky.) 213.
Civ. App.) 928.
"Said."-Murry v. State (Ark.) 485.
"Set apart."-Nashville Ry. & Light Co. v.
State (Tenn.) 327.
"Sound."-Raney & Hamon v. Hamilton &
White (Tex. Civ. App.) 229.
"Sound mind."-Wood v. Corcoran (Ky.) 440.
"Street light fixtures."-Mays V. Barnett
(Ark.) 488.
"Supplemental petition." Creosoted Wood
Block Paving Co. v. McKay (Tex. Civ. App.)
587.
"To abandon."-Millar v. Mauney (Ark.) 498.
"Traveler."-George v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
"Unlawful intercourse."-Carter v. State, (Tex.
Cr. App.) 535.
"Unmarried and without issue."-McCormick v.
Reinberger (Ky.) 300.
"Void."-Hester v. Shuster (Tex. Civ. App.)
713.
"Woman."-Harper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
909.
"Written contract."-Pittman & Harrison Co.
|