Page images
PDF
EPUB

363

Page

Page San Antonio St. R. Co. v. Muth (Tex. Civ. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co., App.)

752 Paris Electric Light & Railway Co. v. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Barnett

(Tex. Civ. App.).

902 (Tex. Civ. App.) 676 Speer, Dwyre v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

585 San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Long (Tex. Spellman, Bowden v. (Ark.).

602 Sup.) 113 Sperry, Wells v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

900 San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Peterson Spillane, Marshall v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 162 (Tex. Civ. App.). 969 Stafford v. Blum (Tex. Civ. App.).

12 San Antonio & A. P. R. Co., Sanchez v. Stafford v. State (Ark.)..

495 (Tex. Civ. App.)... 922 Stafford, Curdy v. (Tex. Civ. App.)

823 Sanchez v. Goldfrank (Tex. Civ. App.). 204 Stafford, McKinzie v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .. 790 Sanchez v. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. Stagg Co. v. Taylor (Ky.).

247 (Tex. Civ. App.) 922 Staggs, Oxley Stave Co. v. (Ark.).

241 Sandmeyer v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.). 284 Stanberry's Adm'r v. Robinson (Ky.). 973 Sanford, State v. (Mo.).. .1099 Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney (Ky.).

983 Sanger v. Noonan (Tex. Civ. App.). .1056 Stanley v. Jones (Ky.).

992 Sanger, Collins v. (Tex. Civ. App.)...... 500 Starr v. Kennedy (Tex. Civ. App.).

26 Sanger, Noyes v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. .1022 Starr, Hamilton v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 587 Santo Tomas Coal Co., Studebaker Bros. Startz, International & G. N. R. Co. v. Manuf'g Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 787 (Tex. Civ. App.)..

759 Sappington v. Sappington School Fund State ex rel. Barricelli v. Noonan (Mo.). .. 329 Trustees (Mo.)

356 State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Seibert Sappington School Fund Trustees, Sapping- (Mo.)

624 ton v. (Mo.).

336 State ex. rel. Donham v. Yancy (Mo.). 380 Saunders v. Ireland (Tex. Civ. App.). 880 State ex rel. Hirni v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. Scherpe & Koken Architectural Iron Co., (Mo.)

367 Boettger v. (Mo.).....

466 State ex rel. Kane v. Johnson (Mo.). 399 Schoelkopf, Hopson v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 283 State ex. rel. Walbridge v. Valliant (Mo.) 379 Schoen, Midland Nat. Bank v. (Mo.). 547 State ex rel. Walker v. Corkins (Mo.). Schorr v. Etling_(Mo.). .

395 State ex rel. Walker v. Talbot (Mo.)..... 366 Schultz, City of Dallas v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 292 State ex rel. Wyatt v. Hoyt (Mo.). 382 Schwingle, Randolph v. (Tex. Civ. App.). . 955 State v. Alfray (Mo.)....

.1097 Scott, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. State v. Collins (Mo.).

1109 Civ. App.) 827 State v. Dawson Mo.).

.1104 Scottish Mortg. & Land Inv. Co. of New State v. Dettmer Mo.).

.1117 Mexico, Warner v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .... 817 State y. Duffy (Mo.).

358 Seay v. Hesse (Mo.).. 633 State v. Fischer (Mo.).

.1109 Seay, Hopkins v. (Tex. Civ. App.). . 899 State v. Flynn (Mo.).

.1105 Security Mortgage & Trust Co.' v. Gill State v. Gesell (Mo.).

1101 (Tex. Civ. App.). 835 State v. Jackson (Mo.).

. 1097 Security Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Haney State v. Johns (Mo.).

.1115 (Tex. Civ. App.). . 215 State v. Jones (Mo.),

. 1102 Seibert, State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. State v. Marshall (Mo.).

..1107 (Mo.) 624 State v. Nickens (Mo.).

339 Seley, Compton v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. . 1077 State v. Owens (Mo.).

.1097 Shackelford v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 8 State v. Parsons (Mo.)..

. 1102 Shafer, Ware v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 764 State v. Patterson (Mo.)..

. 1097 Shall, Little Rock Granite Co. v. (Ark.).. 502 State v. Pennington (Mo.). Shaver, Reynolds v. (Ark.). 78 State v. Punshon (Mo.)...

..1111 Shelbyville Water & Light Co., City of State y. Rosenberg (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 Shelbyville v. (Ky.).... 85 State v. Russell (Mo.)....

.1107 Shelton v. Paul (Tex. Civ. App.). 172 State v. Sanford (Mo.).

..1099 Sikemeier v. Galvin (Mo.). 551 State v. Simmons (Mo.).

.1108 Silliman, Mariposa Land & Cattle Co. v. State v. State Board of Dental Examiners (Tex, Civ. App.).. 773 (Tenn.)

..1019 Simmang v. Braunagel (Tex. Civ. App.). .1032 State v. Stephens (Mo.).

.1100 Simmang v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.). 7.6 State v. Stinson (Mo.).

.1098 Simmons v. Rhodes (Tex. Civ. App.). 903 State v. Winingham (Mo.).

.1107 Simmons Hardware Co. v. Davis (Tex. State v. Woods (Mo.).

1114 Sup.) 62 State v. Wray (Mo.).

.1100 Simmons Hardware Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. State v. Wyatt (Mo.)..

.1096 App.) 426 State, Bennett v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

135 Simmons, State v. (Mo.)...

.1108 State Board of Dental Examiners, State v. Slade v. Le Page (Tex. Civ. App.). 952 (Tenn.)

. 1019 Slayden, Farmers' & Merchants Bank of State, Brewer v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

139 Blooming Grove v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 424 State, Brooks v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

141 Smith v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.). 775 State, Brown v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

137 Smith v. Bates (Tex. Civ. App.). . 1044 State, Butler v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

128 Smith v. City of St. Joseph (Mo.). 344 State, Childers v. (Tex, Cr. App.).

133 Smith v. Commonwealth (Ky.).. 852 State, Cline v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

128 Smith v. Estill (Tex. Sup.). 581 | State, Crook v. (Ark.)..

229 Smith v. Perkins (Mo.). 574 State, Dalton v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

259 Smith v. Snowden (Ky.).. 855 State, Damron v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

7 Smith v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 137 State, Dickey v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

140 Smith, Commonwealth v. (Ky.). 810 State, Donohoo v. (Ark.)...

226 Smith, Underwood v. (Tenn.). . 1008 State, Ellis v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

135 Smoot v. Richards (Tex. Civ. App.). 967 State, Gebhardt v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

136 Snelling v. Koerner (Tex. Civ. App.). 887 State, Gill v. (Ark.).

598 Snowden, Smith v. (Ky.).. 855 State, Grant v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

127 Sorrenson, Davis v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 209 State, Green V. (Ark.).. Southern Pac, Co. v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. State, Hollis v. (Ark.).

73 App.) .. 194 State, Holmes v. (Ark.).

245 Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. State, Jones v. (Ark.).

601 v. Crank (Tex. Civ. App.). 38 State, Lenhart v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

260 Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. State, McArthur v. (Ark.).

628 v. Dale (Tex. Civ. App.).

.1059 | State, Peevehouse v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 142

...1106 258

Page

Page State, Radford v. (Tex. Cr. App.). ....... 143 Texas & P. R. Co., Allen v. (Tex. Civ. State, Richardson v. (Tex. Cr. App.)... 139 App.)

943 State, Robinson v. (Ark.).

233 Texas & P. R. Co., Martin v. (Tex. Civ. State Sav. Bank of St. Joseph v. Buck App.)

267 (Mo.)

341 Texas & P. R. Co., Watson v. (Tex. Civ. State, Shackelford v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 8 App.)

924 State, Smith v. (Tex. Cr. App.). . 137 Thomas, Benoist v. (Mo.).

609 State, Stafford v. (Ark.).

495 Thomas, St. Louis S. W. R. Co. of Texas State, Strey v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 137 v. (Tex, Civ. App.).

419 State, Sturdivant v. (Ark.).

6 Thompson, Coles v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 46 State, Swartz v. (Tex. Cr. App.).

136 Thompson, Pfouts v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 904 State, Ware v. (Ark.). 485 Thrasher, Young v. (Mo.).

326 State, Wolf v. (Ark.).

77 Thurmond v. Bank of the State of Georgia Stearns, Ellis v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 222 (Tex. Civ. App.)...

317 Steger v. Davis Tex. Civ. App.). 1068 Tierney, Standard Oil Co. v. (Ky.). 983 Stephens, Cruzen v. (Mo.). 557 Tittle v. Vanleer (Tex. Civ. App.).

736 Stephens, State v. (Mo.). .1100 Tittman, Green v. (Mo.).

391 Stevens, Nichols v. (Mo.). 613 Town of Trenton, Haynes v. (Mo.).

622 Stewart v. Gracy (Tenn.).

664 Traders' Nat. Bank of Ft. Worth v. Day Still v. Lombardi (Tex. Civ. App.). 815 (Tex. Civ. Apr.). ..

264 Stine v. Berry (Ky.).... 809 Travis Commonwealth (Ky.)...

863 Stinson, State v. (Mo.).

.1098 Troutman v. McCleskey (Tex. Civ. App.).. 173 Stone, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Tex. Trube v. Montgomery (Tex. Civ. App.)... 19 Civ. App.). 144 Tufts y. Volkening (Mo.).

522 Storrie v. Marshall (Tex. Civ. App.).. 221 Turner, City of Belton v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 831 Stowe v. Banks (Mo.)....

317 Turner, Texas Produce Co. v. Tex. Sup.) 583 Strauss v. Dundon (Tex. Civ. App.). 503 Tuttle, Patterson v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 758 Strayhorn, Jansen v. (Ark.).

230 Strey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).

137 Ulmer v. Frankland (Tex. Civ. App.).... 766 Stricklin, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. Umlang, Knippa v. (Tex. Civ. App.). ..... 915 Civ. App.) .1093 Underwood v. Smith (Tenn.)...

1008 Studebaker Bros. Manuf'g Co. v. Santo Underwood, Lipscomb v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 155

Tomas Coal Co. (Tex. Civ. App.). 787 Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Lipscomb Sturdivant v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. (Tex. Ciy. App.)

307 (Tex. Civ. App.)...,

170 United States Ins. Co., Collins & ArmSturdivant v. State (Ark.) 6 strong Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

147 Sullivan, Garza v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 1032 United States Mut. Acc. Ass'n of City of Survant, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.).. 999

New York, McFarland v. (Mo.)..... 436 Sutherland, Hagerman v. (Ky.)...

982 Swan v. Rainey (Ark.)..

240 Valliant, State ex rel. Walbridge v. (Mo.) 379 Swartz v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 136 Vanleer, Tittle v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

736 Swayne, Texas Loan Agency v. (Tex. Civ.

Vann, Leon County v. (Tex. Sup.). App.) 183 Varila, Coffin v. (Tex. Civ. App).

956 Verdin v. City of St. Louis (Mo.).

447 Talbot, State ex rel. Walker v. (Mo.). ... 366 Volkening, Tufts v. (Mo.)...

522 Tandy v. Norman (Ky.)..

861 Tarver v. Land Mortgage Bank of Texas Wabash Western R. Co., Browning v. (Mo.) 614 (Tex. Civ. App.).

40 Wabash Western R. Co., Hudson v. (Mo.) 717 Taylor v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.).

911 Waco State Bank, Meier v. (Tex. Civ. Taylor v. Callaway (Tex. Civ. App.). . 934 App.)

881 Taylor v. Crockett (Mo.)..

620 Waco Water & Light Co. v. City of Waco Taylor y. Louisville & N. R. R. (Tenn.).:: 603 (Tex. Civ. App.)

675 Taylor, Burden v. (Mo.).. 319 Wagner v. Jennings (Tex. Civ. App.).

888 Taylor Commission Co., Florsheim Bros. Wagner, Barelli v. (Tex. Civ. App.)..... 17 Dry-Goods Co. v. (Ark.). 79 Walcott v. Hand (Mo.).

331 Taylor, George T. Stagg Co. v. (Ky.). 247 Waldstein, Jackson v. (Tex. Civ. App.).. 26 Teague, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Tex. Walker v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.).

832 Civ. App.)

958 Walker v. Geo. D. Barnard & Co. (Tex. Terry v. Johnson (Ky.). 984 Civ. App.)

726 Texarkana Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Walker v. Kerr (Tex. Civ. App.).

299 Orr (Ark.)

66 Walker, Wentzville Tobacco Co. v. (Mo.).. 639 Teras Loan Agency v. Swayne (Tex. Civ. Wall, McGiirry v. (Mo.).

327 App.)

183 Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Mach. Texas Loan Agency, Fleming v. (Tex. Sup.) 126 Co., Hilderbrand v. (Tes. Civ. App.).. 826 Texas Loan Agency, Whiteselle v. (Tex. Walton v. Kendrick (Mo.)..

872 Civ. App.)

309 Wamble, Womack v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 1.54 Texas Produce Co. v. Turner (Tex. Sup.). . 583 Ware v. Shafer Tex. Civ. App.).

76+ Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Echols (Tex. Sup.) 60 Ware v. State (Ark.). Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bailey (Tex. Civ. Warner v. Scottish Mortg. & Land Inv. App.)

302 Co. of New Mexico (Tex. Civ. App.). ... 817 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Black (Tex. Sup.).... 118 Waterberry, Harrison v. (Tex. Sup.)..... 109 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bryant (Tex. Civ. Waterberry, Harrison v. (Tex. Civ. App.). . 430 App.) 825 Watkins v. Griffith (Ark.).

234 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gaines (Tex. Civ. Watkins' Ex'rs, Butler v. (Ky.).

995 App.)

266 Watson v. Texas & P. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gay (Tex. Civ. Anp.) 742 App.)

924 Texas & P. R. Co. v. McDowell (Tex. Civ. Watts v. Corner (Tex. Civ. App.). . 1087 App.)

177 Wayne County, Wm. Brown Estate Co. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Moore (Tex. Civ. v. (Mo.)

322 App.) 962 Weaver, Davis v. (Tex. Civ. App.)

902 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Ross (Tex. Civ. App.) 728 | Weingartner, Commonwealth v. (Ky.). .. 815 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Young (Tex. Civ. Welch, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. App.) 145 Civ. App.)..

166 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Zachery (Tex. Civ. Wells y. Sperry (Tex. Civ. App.).

900 App.)

221 Wentworth, International & G. N. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .

680

485 Page

Page Wentzville Tobacco Co. v. Walker (Mo.)..639 Williams, Gipson v. (Tex. Civ. App.). ..... 824 Western Mortgage & Investment Co., Gar- Williamson, Commonwealth v. (Ky.).... 812 za v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

. 1090 Williford, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Tex. Western Union Tel. Co. v. De Jarles (Tex.

Civ. App.): .

700 Civ. App.) 792 Willis v. Burke (Tex. Civ. App.).

217 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Elliott (Tex. Willis' Adm'r v. Roberts (Ky.).

976 Civ. App.) 219 Wilson v. Creekmore (Ky.)..

803 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ferguson (Tex. Wilson v. Linville (Ky.).

857 Civ. App.)... .1048 / Wilson v. Orr (Mo.).

394 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Henry (Tex. Windham, Hester v. (Tex. Civ. App.). ...1078 Sup.) 63 Winingham, State v. (Mo.).

.1107 Western Union Tel. Co. v. May (Tex. Civ. Winston v. Masterson (Tex. Civ. App.). 691 App.) 760 Winston v. Masterson (Tex. Sup.).

768 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Motley (Tex. Wisbey v. Boyce (Tex. Civ. App.).

590 Civ. App.) 51 Witte, Leahey v. (Mo.)..

402 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Motley (Tex, Wolf v. State (Ark.).

77 Sup.)

52 Womack v. Wamble (Tex. Civ. App.). 154 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reeves (Tex. Wood v. Adler-Goldman Commission Co. Civ. App.) 318 (Ark.)

490 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Stone (Tex, Civ. Wood v. Wood (Ark.).

641 App.).

144 Wood, Dillingham v. (Tex. Civ. App.). ..1074 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Teague (Tex. Wood, First Nat. Bank of Brunswick v. Cir. App.) 958 (Mo.)

554 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Williford (Tex. Wood Mowing & Reaping Mach. Co., HilCiv. App.) 700 derbrand v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

826 Wharton, Odell v. (Tox. Sup.).

123 Woods' Adm'r, Wright v. (Ky.). . 979 Wheeler, Moran v. (Tex. Sup.). 54 Woods, State v. (Mo.).

.1114 Whitaker v. Commonwealth (Ky.). 83 Woodsides, Dowell v. (Ky.).

853 Whitaker. Allen v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 507 Worthington, North Side R. Co. v. (Tex. White v. City of Quanah (Ter, Civ. App.) 839 Civ. App.)

746 White v. Rosser Tex. Civ. Anp.). . .1062 | Worthy, Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. White, Huggins v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .. 1066 ('Tex. Civ. Apn.).

426 White, Johnson v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 174 Wray, State v. (Mo.).

1100 Whiteselle v. Texas Loan Agency (Tex. Wren v. Kiedel (Tex. Civ. Anp.).

$45 Civ. App.)

309 Wright v. Macdonell (Tex. Civ. App.)....1024 Whitney v. Krapf (Tex. Civ. Ann.).. 813 Wright v. Woods' Adm'r (Kv.)...

979 Wichita Val. R. Co. v. Peery (Tex. Civ. Wright, Commonwealth v. (Ky.).

81.7 App.) 751 Wright, Cox v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

294 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co. Wulff, Cornwell v. (Mo.)....

639 Mo.) 568 Wyatt, State v. (Mo.)...

. 1096 Wilbanks, Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.)

302 Vancy, State ex rel. Donham v. (Mo.). 380 Wilkinson, Mansfield v. (Ky.).

808 Yoakum v. Kroeger (Tex. Civ. App.). 953 Wm. Brown Estate Co. v. Wayne County Young v. Thrasher (Mo.)...

326 (Mo.) 322 | Young, Lary v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

908 Williams v. City Nat. Bank of Quanah Young, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex, Civ. (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 App.)

145 Williams v. Ford (Tex. Civ. Ann.).

723 Williams v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. (Mo.) 387 Zachery, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ.

App.)

221

[ocr errors]

REHEARINGS DENIED.

(Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original op nions in 22, 24 and 25 S. W. This list does not include cases where an opinion has been filed on the denial of the rehearing.)

Berry y. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) 25 S. W. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Shirley (Tex. Cir. 229.

App.) 24 S. W. 809. Brown v. Keye (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 988.

Lyle v. Horstman (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. Dawson v. McLeary (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 802. 705.

Michelson v. White (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. Fugler v. Bothe (Mo.) 22 S. W. 1113.

S01. Goetz v. Flanders (Mo.) 22 S. W. 945.

Reynolds v. Weinman (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W.

33.

See End of Index for Tables of Southwestern Cases in State Reports.

+

THE

SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER.

VOLUME 27.

DOOLIN et al. v. COMMONWEALTH. refused instructions were properly refused. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. June 16, 1894.) The evidence authorized the verdict. We HOMICIDE-DYING DECLARATIONS.

see no error in the record. The judgment is Deceased had been told by the physician

affirmed. that there was no hope for him, and his dying declaration, which was reduced to writing, read, “Believing myself to be now on my death- CITY COUNCIL OF RICHMOND V. bed,” etc. Held, that it was admissible in evi

POWELL. dence, as it sufficiently expressed his belief of "impending dissolution."

(Court of Appeals of Kentucky. June 14, 1891.) Appeal from circuit court, Pulaski county. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LIMITATION OF INDEBTED"Not to be officially reported."

NESS or MUNICIPALITIES. W. R. Doolin and George Cope were con

Const. $ 157, restricts the rate of taxa

tion for cities and towns of less than 10,000 popvicted of manslaughter, and appeal. Af- ulation to 75 cents on the $100, and provides firmed.

that no city, town, or municipality shall be

come indebted “in any manner, or for any purW. 0. Bradley, for appellants. W. J. Hen.

pose," to an amount exceeding, in any year, the drick, for the Commonwealth.

income and revenue of such year, without the

assent of two-thirds the voters thereof, voting BENNETT, C. J. The appellants were

at an election to be held for that purpose. Held, convicted of the crime of manslaughter, for

that such provisions apply to an indebtedness

for school purposes as well as strictly municipal killing W. S. Watson. It seems that Doolin

purposes. was a constable, and tried to arrest Watson

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county. for a misdemeanor, and summoned Cope to

“Not to be officially reported." help him; that.Watson ran, and, in the pur

Action by C. S. Powell against the city suit, Doolin shot him, from the effect of

council of Richmond. From a judgment for which the jury found that Watson died. The

plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. jury also found Cope guilty, as aider and abettor. The material facts of this case will

P. H. Sullivan and C. H. Breck, for appelbe found in 23 S. W. 663, the case having

lant. C. S. Powell, in pro. per. been tried once before. Doolin claims that he shot Watson in self-defense. He does not

PRYOR, J. The board of education of the claim that he had the right to shoot him to

city of Richmond and the city council leased prevent his escape. Upon the trial of the

a lot of ground for the purpose of erecting case the court permitted the dying declara

a public school building upon it at a cost of tion of Watson to go to the jury. The decla

about $22,000. The mode of payment conration, as written, reads, "Believing myself to

templated is in city bonds, payable in 20 be now on my deathbed," etc. It is contended

years, but redeemable in 5 years; the interthat this is but the expression of an opinion, est to be paid annually, and a tax of 13 cents etc., and is not certain enough to make it a levied for that purpose, and to create a sinkdying declaration. But it seems to us that ing fund with which to pay the principal. it does express the belief of "impending dis. The proceeding on the part of the board of solution,” for it means that the deceased education and the council is authorized by was then in bed, wounded, and that he be- an act of the general assembly for the govlieved he would die upon that bed, of that

ernment of cities and towns of the fourth wound. Besides, he bad, not long before, class, found in Acts 1891-92 and 1893. The been told by his doctors that there was no levy for any one year for maintaining schools, hope for him. The declaration was proper

constructing buildings, etc., is limited, or ly allowed to go to the jury. The court cannot exceed 50 cents on each $100 of value gave the jury eight instructions, which cov- of taxable property, etc. After the ground ered the whole law of the case. The appel- had been leased, and a contract entered into lants objected to the fourth instruction only. for the erection of the building, the appellee, We think that instruction is correct. The | a taxpayer, is insisting that no such debt can

v.278. w.no.1-1

be created by the council without a submis- is confided to maintain schools wben the insion of the question to the popular vote, as debtedness about to be created exceeds the required by section 157 of the constitution, sum the council would have the right to apand the court below so held, in which conclu- propriate without regard to the voice of the sion we concur. That section provides that people. "the tax rate of cities, towns, counties, tax- Nor does the fact that the interest on this ing districts and other municipalities, shall indebtedness, and the amount going to the not at any time exceed the following rates;" | sinking fund for the liquidation of the princirestricting the burden to be imposed for pal, are within the income or revenue for each towns and cities having less than 10,000 pop- year affect the question. It is an indebtedulation to 75 cents on the $100, with this ness assumed, although payable in installfurther provision: “No county, city, town, ments, that exceeds the income, and is protaxing district, or other municipality, shall hibited in express terms by the constitution. be authorized or permitted to become indebt- If an indebtedness can be created for $22,ed, in any manner, or for any purpose to an 000, payable in 20 years, an indebtedness amount exceeding, in any year, the income for $500,000 would be justified if the proviand revenue provided for such year, without sion of the constitution is construed as conthe assent of two thirds of the voters there- tended for by appellant. The very purposes of, voting at an election to be held for that of the constitution would be disregarded purpose, and any indebtedness contracted in

with such a construction, and heavy burdens violation of this section shall be void-nor placed upon the property within the municishall such contract be enforceable by the palities, that caused much complaint prior person with whom made, nor shall such mu- to the adoption of the present constitution, nicipality ever be authorized to assume the and to remove which mischief the section in same."

question was adopted. The judgment below The contention by the appellant is that this is affirmed. Beard v. City of Hopkinsville, section of the constitution applies alone to 24 S. W. 872. an indebtedness for strictly municipal purposes, and the qualification "for other than school purposes" left the matter of taxation

ST. LOUIS, I., M. & S. RY. CO. V. alone to the legislature when the means to

B'SHEARS. be raised are to be applied solely to the purposes of education under our common-school

(Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 9, 1894.)

RAILROAD COMPANIES STOPPAGE OF TRAINS AT system. If this construction is given the

Towx-MAXDAMUS. constitution, then we find unlimited power in

Under Mansf. Dig. $$ 5501, 5502, which the legislature on this subject, and the city

provide that before a town can compel the council, when for school purposes, may be stoppage of trains within its corporate limits, vested with the power to impose any burden as provided by section 5500, the authorities

shall tender the company the reasonable exby way of taxation or indebtedness that in

penses of grading a switch or sidetrack at such its discretion may be deemed necessary for place, and that mandamus may issue at the maintaining schools and erecting buildings suit of any citizen of the town to compel the for that purpose. While it is made the duty

company to stop its trains as provided by section

5500, such tender must be made before manof the board of education and the council to

damus will lie, though the company has already provide suitable school buildings, they must constructed all the switches and sidetracks regard the constitutional limit placed upon

necessary for the stopping of trains. Battle and

Wood, JJ., dissenting. their action in creating a municipal indebtedness for that purpose, and the section of the

Appeal from circuit court, Hempstead counconstitution quoted in express terms prohibits

ty; Rufus D. Hearn, Judge. the creation of a municipal indebtedness, “in

Petition by H. L. B'Shears for mandamus

to compel the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & any manner or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding in any year the income and rev

Southern Railway Company to stop a fast enue provided for such year, without first ob

train, known as the "Cannon Ball," at the taining the consent of two-thirds of the voters

incorporated town of Fulton, of which petiof the municipality.” The qualification, "oth

tioner was a citizen. Mandamus was granter than for school purposes," was inserted to

ed, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and leave that question to legislative control, but

petition dismissed. when the city council proposes, in any man- Dodge & Johnson, for appellant. Scott & ner or for any purpose, to create an indebted- Jones, for appellee. ness exceeding the income or revenue for the year, the wish of the voters must be con

Statement. sulted, and their assent obtained, before the HUGHES, J. This is an appeal from a obligation is created. Schools must be main- judgment of the circuit court of Hempstead tained and school buildings erected, and it is county, granting a mandamus to compel the the duty of those authorized by law to see appellant to stop its fast train known as the that the provisions of the school law in this "Cannon Ball" at the incorporated town of respect are carried out; and to first require Fulton, upon the line of the road in said the assent of the voter is one of the means county. The petition states that petitioner required to enable those to whom this duty was the mayor of Fulton, an incorporated

« PreviousContinue »