an equitable action, will not prejudice the merits of the case, being at most cause for transferring it to the equity docket.-Philadelphia Veneer & Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 169 S. W. 714. III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLI DATION, AND SEVERANCE. $53 (Ky.) Where railroad company by blasting threw into a river débris which could not be removed, causing the river to wash away land on the opposite bank, held that there was a permanent injury and the court improperly limited a recovery to the damages up to the date of the trial.-Wasioto & B. M. R. Co. v. Blanton, 169 S. W. 589. ADJOINING LANDOWNERS. See Boundaries. ADMINISTRATION. house thereon, the chain of adverse holding was broken by the interval of nearly a year between the adverse holding of the original occupant and that of a subsequent grantee.-Hellard v. Hubbard, 169 S. W. 727. session of land attempted to obtain conveyance § 50 (Ky.) Where defendants in adverse posfrom the children of the holder of the legal title, such attempt did not show an abandonment of their adverse claim.-Belgey v. Valentine, 169 S. W. 1026. § 57 (Ky.) Proof that defendant's grantor had possession of the land in controversy by his tenant for a short time about 20 years before the action will not support a claim of adverse title.-Gatliff v. Carson-Muse Lumber Co., 169 S. W. 504. (F) Hostile Character of Possession. 884 (Mo.) A claim of right under color of title includes good faith, which is destroyed when the color of title is adjudged worthless in See Executors and Administrators; Receiv- a litigation between the parties.-Stone v. Kaners, § 92. ADMISSIONS. See Evidence, §§ 213-265. ADOPTION. See Insurance, §§ 771, 793. § 5 (Tex.Civ.App.) An adult may be validly adopted as the legal heir of another.-Mellville v. Wickham, 169 S. W. 1123. ADVERSE CLAIM. See Quieting Title. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Champerty and Maintenance, § 7; Taxation, § 855. I. NATURE AND REQUISITES. (A) Acquisition of Rights by Prescription in General. $13 (Ky.) Possession, to defeat title, must be actual, adverse, and continuous, to a defined boundary, for as much as 15 years before an action by the holder of the legal title. -Gatliff v. Carson-Muse Lumber Co., 169 S. W. 504. (B) Actual Possession. sas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88. $ 100 (Mo.) One in possession of a strip under a judgment decreeing title in him does not thereby hold constructive possession of an adjacent strip not actually occupied by him or others.-Stone v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88. A railroad company obtaining a judgment decreeing title to it in a 20-foot strip does not thereby obtain color of title outside the strip, and, where its actual possession is confined to the strip, it acquires no title to an additional adjoining strip, though it is entitled to a right of way 100 feet wide.-Id. § 101 (Ky.) Where two adjoining tracts, one containing 100 acres and the other 20, were well-conveyed to A.'s grantor by a deed describing both by courses and distances in 1872, and the closed by a fence and all of the property used large tract and part of the small one were incontinuously thereafter by A. and his grantor, A. acquired title to the whole by adverse possession. Ferrell v. Bauer Cooperage Co., 169 S. W. 479. § 24 (Ky.) Mere acts of trespass, such as cutting timber, taking coal, and planting two or three crops during a period of 20 years, are insufficient to establish adverse possession.Smith v. Chapman, 169 S. W. 834. (D) Distinct and Exclusive Possession. 835 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the actual possession of plaintiffs in trespass to try title, claiming separate and distinct tracts of 160 acres out of a survey, entitled each to an undivided 160 acres, the fact that a location for one, made without regard to the other's claim, but with regard to the shape of the survey, would cover a portion claimed by the other, held not to destroy the right of each to title to 160 acres.Davis v. Collins, 169 S. W. 1128. (E) Duration and Continuity of Posses sion. § 43 (Mo.) Where one in possession ceased, on a designated date, to make any claim to the land, his subsequent possession under a claim of right could not be tacked onto the possession under a claim of right prior to the designated date because of the break in the claim.-Stone v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88. § 46 (Ky.) Where one adverse occupant sold his rights to another, who did not enter upon the land, and whose tenant merely repaired the § 101 (Ky.) Actual occupancy of a junior title holder of that part of a tract, which does not interfere with an elder grant, does not give adverse possession of the interference, though the elder patentee has never actually entered on the land within his grant.-Smith v. Chapman, 169 S. W. 834. § 102 (Mo.) A sale of part of a tract to satisfy a tax judgment conveys to the purchaser no color of title as to the land not sold.-Russ v. Sims, 169 S. W. 69. III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, § 110 (Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiffs, in trespass to try title to tracts of 160 acres each, specifically described, failing to show a prescriptive claim to those identical tracts, but establishing their claim under their alternative pleading to 160-acre tracts out of the survey, held entitled to the land specifically described, where its allotment was a fair and equitable partition.Davis v. Collins, 169 S. W. 1128. § 112 (Mo.) One asserting title by adverse possession has the burden of proving it.-Stone v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88. $114 (Ky.) Certain facts held to establish the adverse title of defendant railroad company to a AFFIDAVITS. III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE. (B) Nature of Subject-Matter and Character of Parties. § 38 (Ky.) Where defendants denied plaintiff's ownership of land from which defendants cut logs which plaintiff sought to recover, but did not set up title in themselves, title to the land was not in issue and, plaintiff having obtained judgment for $50 only, it was not appealable.Cook v. Rockhouse Realty Co., 169 S. W. 480. (C) Amount or Value in Controversy. § 56 (Ky.) The cause of action being a contract to pay for coal mined on plaintiff's land, See Criminal Law, §§ 386, 1169; Injunction, & title to the land being conceded, the amount in 145; Witnesses, § 392. controversy, on appeal from a judgment for plaintiff for less than $200, is insufficient to give jurisdiction.-Burk Hollow Coal Co. v. Lawson, 169 S. W. 695. (D) Finality of Determination. § 80 (Ark.) In a suit by taxpayers of a drainage district, a decree requiring the attorney of the district to repay an excessive fee permanently enjoining employment of the acting engineer of the district, and referring to a special master the accounts between the district and the contractors, with instructions to report, is final and appealable as to the attorney and the engineer, but not as to the contractors.-Seitz v. Meriwether, 169 S. W. 1175. § 80 (Tex.Civ.App.) A judgment which fails to dispose of all the issues raised by the pleadings is not a final judgment.-Bryant v. Moore, 169 S. W. 395. In an action for several years' rent and for money due for the sale of personalty, a judg ment based on a directed verdict for a small amount, not in controversy, which did not dispose of the other issues, cannot be held a final judgment on the theory that the verdict, being for only part of the amount in suit, was an implied finding against plaintiff's other claims. Id. (E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision. $100 (Tex.Civ.App.) An order entered upon motion to dissolve a temporary injunction held appealable.-Collier v. Smith, 169 S. W. 1108. § 206 (Mo.) A party cannot take advantage of the exclusion of evidence, where no offer of proof was made in the court below.-Holzemer v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 102. $213 (Tex.Civ.App.) Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, declaring that objections or exceptions to the charge of the court not made in the trial court shall be deemed to be waived, held not to apply to peremptory instructions, such as the direction of a verdict.-Owens v. Corsicana Petroleum Co., 169 S. W. 192. § 215 (Mo.) Objection that an instruction is a comment on the evidence cannot be made for the first time on appeal.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135. § 216 (Ky.) A party cannot complain on appeal that an instruction, which was admittedly correct so far as it went, did not cover all the issues, where he did not request an additional instruction.-Henry Clay Fire Ins. Co. v. Barkley, 169 S. W. 747. See Bail, 94; Certiorari; Costs, § 254; Courts, $$ 37, 91, 202, 223, 231; Criminal Law, $$ 1037-1186; Divorce, § 286; Elec- § 216 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in failing to tions, $305; Eminent Domain, § 167; Equi- charge that plaintiffs could not recover for ty, 430; Exceptions, Bill of; Executors wrongful attachment if either ground of atand Administrators, § 510; Homicide, $tachment set out in the affidavit were true held 338, 340; Insane Persons, §§ 29, 38; Justices waived by failing to request a special charge.of the Peace, § 143; Taxation, § 597; Wills, Brady-Neely Grocer Co. v. De Foe, 169 S. W. §§ 396, 400. 1135. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER 8230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments complaining of the giving and refusing of instructions cannot be considered, where appellant did not object before the instructions were read to the jury. Schubert v. Voges, 169 S. W. 409. § 231 (Mo.) Objection that the instructions were unnecessarily long will be overruled; appellant not pointing out and a careful reading not disclosing such evils.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, | 169 S. W. 135. $232 (Ark.) A general objection to argument of plaintiff's counsel held not sufficient to raise an objection, that it might in some parts mislead the jury.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 169 S. W. 940. § 232 (Mo.) Error in permitting an expert witness to answer an hypothetical question, which was not based upon all the facts shown by the evidence, cannot be taken advantage of on appeal, where that ground of objection was not made at trial.-Holzemer v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 102. $232 (Tex.Civ.App.) An objection to a charge held not sufficient to sustain a proposition under an assignment on appeal, complaining of the overruling of the objection, and hence, the charge not being fundamentally erroneous, the assignment must be overruled.-Eldridge' v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375. § 233 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to the giving of erroneous charges cannot be made by the medium of special requests, though if special requests are erroneously refused, error may be predicated thereon.-Eldridge v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375. (C) Exceptions. 8263 (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of a bill of exceptions, rulings on instructions are to be regarded as approved, and an assignment of error, based thereon, is without merit; Rev. St. 1911, art. 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, § 3, providing such rulings shall be regarded as approved, "unless excepted to as provided in the foregoing articles."-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. 217. $ 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Despite Court Rule 62a (149 S. W. x), the failure of the trial court to prepare and read its charge to the jury before argument held prejudicial, though no exceptions to the charge given were given or reserved.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. 397. § 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a refused instruction was not excepted to, as provided by Rev. St. 1911, art. 1974, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, it would be presumed to have been approved under section 2061, as amended, and it was not sufficient that the refusal was assigned for error in defendant's motion for a new trial, and that the denial of such motion was duly excepted to.-Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Love, 169 S. W. 922. § 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, arts. 1974, 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, and despite article 2062, the refusal of instructions cannot be reviewed on appeal, unless duly excepted to.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Battle, 169 S. W. 1048. § 273 (Ark.) A general exception to the refusal to give several instructions, requested collectively, will not be considered on appeal if any of them was properly refused.-Hastings Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. 1185. (D) Motions for New Trial. $ 301 (Ark.) No other grounds than those alleged in the motion for a new trial can be considered by the Supreme Court on anneal. Hastings Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. 1185. § 301 (Ky.) Alleged errors as to instructions cannot be reviewed, where no specific objection was made to them in the motion for a new trial.-Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Peel, 169 S. W. 689. § 302 (Mo.) Where the court on its own motion modified plaintiff's instruction, the instruction is that of the court, and defendant, to review the propriety thereof, must in his motion for new trial assign as error the giving of instructions by the court.-Scrivner v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 83. VI. PARTIES. § 334 (Ky.) On motions to dismiss appeal, where one defendant had died, and for an order of revivor, held that, the administrator being before the court, an order of revivor might be entered, and no service of the order was neces sary.-Gish Banking Co. v. Leachman's Adm'r, 169 S. W. 481. VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. (A) Time of Taking Proceedings. § 338 (Ark.) Where plaintiff files his transcript and obtains an appeal from the clerk of the Supreme Court, the whole record is before the court, and defendant may, under the statute, obtain a cross-appeal at any time before submission of the case.-Cowling v. Britt, 169 S. W. 783. § 347 (Ky.) The time does not begin to run until the judgment is signed.-Interstate Petroleum Co. v. Farris, 169 S. W. 535. (C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds or Other Securities. 383 (Ark.) The word "circumstances," as used in Kirby's Dig. § 1198, authorizing security for costs against a nonresident appellant, held to apply to the fact of nonresidence referred to in section 959, and not to the terms of the bond, so that the only bond that can be required of a nonresident appellant is for costs.-Chambers v. Ogle, 169 S. W. 795. § 395 (Tex.Civ.App.) That appellants, were personally enjoined, filed a personal bond, though, as agents of the commissioner of insur ance, they could appeal under Rev. St. 1911, art. 2105, without bond, is no ground for dis missal.-Collier v. Smith, 169 S. W. 1108. X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN RECORD. who (A) Matters to be Shown by Record. $499 (Ky.) Instructions cannot be reviewed on appeal, where the bill of exceptions fails to show that they were objected to.-Gardner v. Alexander, 169 S. W. 466. The refusal of a peremptory instruction cannot be reviewed, where the bill of exceptions fails to show that such instruction was requested, or refused, or that its refusal was excepted to.-Id. $499 (Tex.Civ.App.) A bill of exceptions complaining of the admission of testimony must state the grounds of the objection.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. 397. com. $499 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment plaining of an instruction given could not be considered, where the record, though containing written objections to the general charge, failed to show whether such objections were presented before or after the main charge was delivered to the jury.-Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Chumbley, 169 S. W. 1107. An assignment complaining of the giving of a' special charge requested by plaintiff could not be considered, where the record failed to show that objections were made to such charge when it was presented to defendant's counsel for examination and objection, in accordance with Rev. St. 1911, art. 1973.-Id. § 501 (Ky.) Errors in rulings on testimony cannot be reviewed, where the transcript fails to show any exceptions.-Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Peel, 169 S. W. 689. $501 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg., c. 59, the appellate court will not review the refusal to instruct, where the record contains no bill of exception showing that the refusal was duly excepted to.-Crow v. Childress, 169 S. W. 927. § 501 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error as to the instructions will not be considered, where no bill of exceptions was taken to the charges.Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Beaird, 169 S. W. 1050; Same v. Moody, Id. 1057; Same v. Hubbard, Id. 1058. (B) Scope and Contents of Record. § 525 (Ky.) Instructions cannot be reviewed on appeal, where neither those given nor those refused are identified by, or made a part of, the bill of exceptions.-Gardner v. Alexander, 169 S. W. 466. (C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case, or Statement of Facts. § 547 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error assigned as to a question alleged to have been propounded by the jury to the court, and answered, not supported by bill of exceptions taken as provided by law, cannot be considered.-Copeland v. Porter, 169 S. W. 915. (H) Transmission, Filing, Printing, and Service of Copies. $624 (Ky.) Under Court of Appeals rule 12 (154 S. W. viii) and established practice, a motion for an extension of time to file a transcript on appeal, entered during a vacation of the court, will be treated as made in court on that day. Creech v. Brock, 169 S. W. 483. A clerk's certificate that a transcript could have been procured within the 30 days prescribed by Ky. St. § 1596a, subsec. 12, was not evidence of the fact, in resistance of a motion to extend the time for filing a transcript on appeal.-Id. On an application for an extension of time to file the transcript on appeal, evidence of the clerk, in resistance, that the transcript could have been procured within the time fixed by law, should have been presented by affidavit. On appeal from a judgment in an election contest, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to extend the time specified by Ky. St. § 1596a, subsec. 12, for filing the transcript, for cause. Id. -Id. A motion to extend the time for filing a transcript on appeal in an election contest, based only on an affidavit that appellant believed a transcript could not be obtained within the time, and that the record would amount to over 1,400 pages, in the absence of any proof of diligence, would be denied.-Id. Where, on an appeal in an election contest, it appears that the transcript cannot be completed within the prescribed 30 days, appellant should file so much of the transcript as can be completed within the time, in connection with a motion to extend the time for completion.-Id. (I) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and Correction. § 644 (Tex. Civ.App.) Under rules 40 and 41 for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xiv), held that, where a party did not object, in his brief or before motion for rehearing, that there were no bills of exception in the record to the action of the court complained of in the assignments, he would be deemed to have waived such objection.-Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Adams & Peters, 169 S. W. 1143. § 653 (Ark.) The Supreme Court has no authority to require a circuit court stenographer to file a transcript of the testimony in order that it may be incorporated in a bill of exceptions, and such relief must be sought in the circuit court.-Dent v. People's Bank of Imboden, 169 S. W. 821. Where stenographer's notes and transcript had been lost and could not be incorporated in skeleton bill of exceptions authorized by Sp. Acts 1911, p. 927, and the time for preparing a bill containing appellant's recital of the testimony had expired, held that relief could not be granted, except possibly by a suit in equity for a new trial.-Id. issue to bring up original records to the Court § 659 (Ky.) A subpoena duces tecum will not of Appeals, unless they are so bulky that copying them would cause great expense and delay, or it is important that the court inspect the originals to arrive at a correct decision.-Smith v. Berry, 169 S. W. 478. (K) Questions Presented for Review. § 692 (Ky.) Errors in rulings on testimony cannot be reviewed, where the transcript fails to show any statement as to what a witness would have testified, where he was not permitted to answer.-Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Peel, 169 S. W. 689. § 692 (Tex.Civ.App.) A bill of exceptions to the exclusion of evidence must show, what the witness would have testified if permitted to do so.-Woods v. Eberling, 169 S. W. 932. second trial was rendered against plaintiff upon a di- (L) Matters Not Apparent of Record. §715 (Ky.) Alleged prejudicial remarks of counsel should be authenticated in the bill of exceptions by the lower court, before the Court of Appeals can consider whether they were prejuonly by affidavits of counsel not mentioned in dicial, and cannot be considered when presented the bill of exceptions.-Pine Mountain Mfg. Co. V. Bishop, 169 S. W. 1010. XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. $719 (Tex.Civ.App.) The action of the trial court in directing a verdict is an error apparent upon the face of the record, which the appellate court will consider as fundamental error, without an assignment of error.-Owens v. Corsicana Petroleum Co., 169 S. W. 192. § 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Though the assignment raising the question that the judgment below was not final, and hence not appealable, because it did not dispose of all the issues raised, was not properly briefed, the question will be disposed of, being a jurisdictional one.-Bryant v. Moore, 169 S. W. 395. § 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) The refusal to submit a particular defense could not be held erroneous on appeal, where there was no statement from the record, following defendant's assignment of error, indicating that there was any testimony to support such defense.-Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Meadors, 169 S. W. 1106. § 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error, grouped and presented together, but raising different questions, do not require consideration.Davis v. Collins, 169 S. W. 1128. $751 (Tex.Civ.App.) Grounds of objection to evidence stated in the assignments of error other than those alleged in the bills of exception, will not be reviewed.-Sanford v. John Finnigan Co., 169 S. W. 624. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER $230 (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignments complaining of the giving and refusing of instructions cannot be considered, where appellant did not object before the instructions were read to the jury.-Schubert v. Voges, 169 S. W. 409. § 231 (Mo.) Objection that the instructions were unnecessarily long will be overruled; appellant not pointing out and a careful reading not disclosing such evils.—Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 S. W. 135. § 232 (Ark.) A general objection to argument of plaintiff's counsel held not sufficient to raise an objection, that it might in some parts mislead the jury.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 169 S. W. 940. § 232 (Mo.) Error in permitting an expert witness to answer an hypothetical question, which was not based upon all the facts shown by the evidence, cannot be taken advantage of on appeal, where that ground of objection was not made at trial.-Holzemer v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 102. $232 (Tex.Civ.App.) An objection to a charge held not sufficient to sustain a proposition under an assignment on appeal, complaining of the overruling of the objection, and hence, the charge not being fundamentally erroneous, the assignment must be overruled.-Eldridge' v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375. § 233 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to the giving of erroneous charges cannot be made by the medium of special requests, though if special requests are erroneously refused, error may be predicated thereon.-Eldridge v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375. (C) Exceptions. § 263 (Tex. Civ.App.) In the absence of a bill of exceptions, rulings on instructions are to be regarded as approved, and an assignment of error, based thereon, is without merit; Rev. St. 1911, art. 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, § 3, providing such rulings shall be regarded as approved, "unless excepted to as provided in the foregoing articles."-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. 217. $263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Despite Court Rule 62a (149 S. W. x), the failure of the trial court to prepare and read its charge to the jury before argument held prejudicial, though no exceptions to the charge given were given or reserved.—International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. 397. § 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a refused instruction was not excepted to, as provided by Rev. St. 1911, art. 1974, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, it would be presumed to have been approved under section 2061, as amended, and it was not sufficient that the refusal was assigned for error in defendant's motion for a new trial, and that the denial of such motion was duly excepted to.-Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Love, 169 S. W. 922. trial.-Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Peel, 169 S. W. 689. § 302 (Mo.) Where the court on its own motion modified plaintiff's instruction, the instruction is that of the court, and defendant, to review the propriety thereof, must in his motion for new trial assign as error the giving of instructions by the court.-Scrivner v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 83. VI. PARTIES. § 334 (Ky.) On motions to dismiss appeal, where one defendant had died, and for an order of revivor, held that, the administrator being before the court, an order of revivor might be entered, and no service of the order was neces sary.-Gish Banking Co. v. Leachman's 'Adm'r, 169 S. W. 481. VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. (A) Time of Taking Proceedings. § 338 (Ark.) Where plaintiff files his transcript and obtains an appeal from the clerk of the court, and defendant may, under the statthe Supreme Court, the whole record is before ute, obtain a cross-appeal at any time before submission of the case.-Cowling v. Britt, 169 S. W. 783. until the judgment is signed.-Interstate Pe8 347 (Ky.) The time does not begin to run troleum Co. v. Farris, 169 S. W. 535. (C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds or Other Securities. as 8383 (Ark.) The word "circumstances," used in Kirby's Dig. § 1198, authorizing security for costs against a nonresident appellant, held to apply to the fact of nonresidence referred to in section 959, and not to the terms of the bond, so that the only bond that can be required of a nonresident appellant is for costs.-Chambers v. Ogle, 169 S. W. 795. $395 (Tex.Civ.App.) That appellants, who were personally enjoined, filed a personal bond, though, as agents of the commissioner of insur ance, they could appeal under Rev. St. 1911, art. 2105, without bond, is no ground for dis missal.-Collier v. Smith, 169 S. W. 1108. X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN RECORD. (A) Matters to be Shown by Record. $499 (Ky.) Instructions cannot be reviewed on appeal, where the bill of exceptions fails to show that they were objected to.-Gardner v. Alexander, 169 S. W. 466. The refusal of a peremptory instruction cannot be reviewed, where the bill of exceptions fails to show that such instruction was requested, or refused, or that its refusal was excepted to.-Id. § 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, $499 (Tex.Civ.App.) A bill of exceptions comarts. 1974, 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. plaining of the admission of testimony must c. 59, and despite article 2062, the refusal of in-state the grounds of the objection.-Internationstructions cannot be reviewed on appeal, unless duly excepted to.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Battle, 169 S. W. 1048. § 273 (Ark.) A general exception to the refusal to give several instructions, requested collectively, will not be considered on appeal if any of them was properly refused.-Hastings Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. 1185. (D) Motions for New Trial. 8 301 (Ark.) No other grounds than those alleged in the motion for a new trial can be considered by the Supreme Court on anneal.Hastings Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. 1185. 8301 (Ky.) Alleged errors as to instructions cannot be reviewed, where no specific objection was made to them in the motion for a new al & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. 397. $499 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment com. plaining of an instruction given could not be considered, where the record, though containing written objections to the general charge, failed to show whether such objections were presented before or after the main charge was delivered to the jury-Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Chumbley, 169 S. W. 1107. An assignment complaining of the giving of a' special charge requested by plaintiff could not be considered, where the record failed to show that objections were made to such charge when it was presented to defendant's counsel for examination and objection, in accordance with Rev. St. 1911, art. 1973.-Id. § 501 (Ky.) Errors in rulings on testimony cannot be reviewed, where the transcript fails |