Page images
PDF
EPUB

an equitable action, will not prejudice the mer- | house thereon, the chain of adverse holding was its of the case, being at most cause for trans- broken by the interval of nearly a year between ferring it to the equity docket.-Philadelphia the adverse holding of the original occupant Veneer & Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 169 s. w. and that of a subsequent grantee.-Hellard v. 714.

Hubbard, 169 S. W. 727. III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLI- session of land attempted to obtain conveyance

8 50 (Ky.) Where defendants in adverse posDATION, AND SEVERANCE.

from the children of the holder of the legal $ 53 (Ky.) Where railroad company by blast- title, such attempt did not show an abandoning threw into a river débris which could not be ment of their adverse claim.-Belgey v. Valenremoved, causing the river to wash away land | tine, 169 S. W. 1026. on the opposite bank, held that there was a per- $ 57 (Ky.) Proof that defendant's grantor manent injury and the court improperly limited had possession of the land in controversy by a recovery to the damages up to the date of his tenant for a short time about 20 years bethe trial.-Wasioto & B. M. Ř. Co. v. Blanton, fore the action will not support a claim of ad169 S. W. 589.

verse title.-Gatliff v. Carson-Muse Lumber

Co., 169 S. W. 504.
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.

(F) Hostile Character of Possession. See Boundaries,

$ 84 (Mo.) A claim of right under color of ADMINISTRATION.

title includes good faith, which is destroyed

when the color of title is adjudged worthless in See Executors and Administrators; Receive a litigation between the parties.--Stone v. Kaners, & 92.

sas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88.

$ 85 (Ky.) Where the record failed to show ADMISSIONS.

how a railroad company acquired a siding, it See Evidence, 8213–265.

cannot be presumed that the railroad company's use of the siding was merely permissive. - Win

ston v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 169 S. W. 597. ADOPTION. See Insurance, 88 771, 793.

II. OPERATION AND EFFECT. § 5 (Tex.Civ.App.) An adult may be validly

(A) Extent of Possession. adopted as the legal heir of another.-Mellville $ 100. (Mo.) One in possession of a strip unv. Wickham, 169 S. W. 1123.

der a judgment decreeing title in him does not

thereby hold constructive possession of an adADVERSE CLAIM.

jacent strip not actually occupied by him or

others.-Stone v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., See Quieting Title.

169 S. W. 88.

A railroad company obtaining a judgment de ADVERSE POSSESSION. creeing title to it in a 20-foot strip does not See Champerty and Maintenance, 8 7; Taxa- thereby obtain color of title outside the strip, tion, $ 855.

and, where its actual possession is confined to

the strip, it acquires no title to an additional I. NATURE AND REQUISITES. adjoining strip, though it is entitled to a right (A) Acquisition of Rights by Prescription of way 100 feet wide.-Id. in General.

$ 101 (Ky.) Where two adjoining tracts, one § 13 (Ky.) Possession, to defeat title, must containing 100 acres and the other 20, were be actual, adverse, and continuous, to a well- | conveyed to A.'s grantor by a deed describing defined boundary, for as much as 15 years be- both by courses and distances in 1872, and the fore an action by the holder of the legal title. closed by a fence and all of the property used

large tract and part of the small one were in--Gatliff v. Carson-Muse Lumber Co., 169 S. continuously thereafter by A. and his grantor, W. 504.

A. acquired title to the whole by adverse pos(B) Actual Possession.

session.-Ferrell v. Bauer Cooperage Co., 169 8 24 (Ky.) Mere acts of trespass, such as cut- S. W. 479. ting timber, taking coal, and planting two or $ 101 (Ky.). Actual occupancy of a junior three crops during a period of 20 years, are in- title holder of that part of a tract, which does sufficient establish adverse possession.- not interfere with an elder grant, does not give Smith v. Chapman, 169 S. W. 834.

adverse possession of the interference, though (D) Distinct and Exclusive Possession.

the elder patentee has never actually entered on

the land within his grant.-Smith v. Chapman, $35 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the actual posses- 169 S. W. 834. sion of plaintiffs in trespass to try title, claim

$ 102 (Mo.) A sale of part of a tract to satising separate and distinct tracts of 160 acres out fy a tax judgment conveys to the purchaser no of a survey, entitled each to an undivided 160 color of title as to the land not sold.-Russ v. acres, the fact that a location for one, made Sims, 169 S. W. 69. without regard to the other's claim, but with regard to the shape of the survey, would cover

III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, a portion claimed by the other, held not to

AND REVIEW. destroy the right of each to title to 160 acres.Davis v. Collins, 169 S. W. 1128.

$ 110 Tex.Civ.App.) Plaintiffs, in trespass

to try title to tracts of 160 acrés each, specifi(E) Duration and Continuity of Posses- cally described, failing to show a prescriptive sion.

claim to those identical tracts, but establishing $ 43 (Mo.) Where one in possession ceased, on their claim under their alternative pleading to a designated date, to make any claim to the 160-acre tracts out of the survey, held entitled land, his subsequent possession under a claim of to the land specifically described, where its alright could not be tacked onto the possession lotment was a fair and equitable partition.under a claim of right prior to the designated Davis v. Collins, 169 S. W. 1128. date because of the break in the claim.-Stone $112. (Mo.) One asserting title by adverse v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88. possession has the burden of proving it.--Stone

$ 46 (Ky.) Where one adverse occupant sold v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 88. his rights to another, who did not enter upon $ 114 (Ky.) Certain facts held to establish the the land, and whose tenant merely repaired the adverse title of defendant railroad company to a

to

siding and to show that plaintiff's grantors had III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE. no such title.- Winston v. Louisville & N. R.

(B) Nature of Subject-Matter and CharacCo., 169 S. W. 597.

ter of Parties. 8114 (Mo.) One claiming title by adverse pos

$ 38 (Ky.) Where defendants denied plaintiff's session must show adverse possession by a pre ownership of land from which defendants cut ponderance of the evidence.-Chilton v. Nickey, logs which plaintiff sought to recover, but did 169 S. W. 978.

not set up title in themselves, title to the land $115 (Ark.) It is for the jury or court trying was not in issue and, plaintiff having obtained the case to determine the effect of the evidence judgment for $50 only, it was not appealable.

in support of the presumption of a grant from Cook v. Rockhouse Realty Co., 169 S. W. 480. • long-continued possession.-Carter v. Goodson, 169 S. W. 806.

(C) Amount or Value in Controversy.

$ 56 (Ky.) The cause of action being a conAFFIDAVITS.

tract to pay for coal mined on plaintiff's land, See Criminal Law, $8 386, 1169; Injunction, 8 title to the land being conceded, the amount in 145; Witnesses, 8 392.

controversy, on appeal from a judgment for

plaintiff for less than $200, is insufficient to 85 (Tex.Cr.App.) A justice of the peace is au- give jurisdiction.-Burk' Hollow Coal Co. v. thorized to take affidavits.- Millner 1. State, Lawson, 169 S. W. 695. 169 S. W. 899. AGENCY.

(D) Finality of Determination. See Principal and Agent.

8 80 (Ark.) In a suit by taxpayers of a drain

age district, a decree requiring the attorney AGRICULTURE.

of the district to repay an excessive fee per

manently enjoining employment of the acting See Counties, 88 15312, 162.

engineer of the district, and referring to a

special master the accounts between the disAIDERS AND ABETTORS. trict and the contractors, with instructions to

report, is final and appealable as to the atSee Criminal Law, 88 69, 80.

torney and the engineer, but not as to the con

tractors.--Seitz v. Meriwether, 169 S. W. 1175. ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. $ 80 (Tex.Civ.App.) A judgment which fails See Husband and Wife, &$ 325, 333.

to dispose of all the issues raised by the pleadings is not a final judgment.—Bryant v. Moore,

169 S. W. 395. ALIMONY.

In an action for several years' rent and for See Divorce, 88 238–286.

money due for the sale of personalty, a judg

ment based on a directed verdict for a small AMBIGUITIES,

amount, not in controversy, which did not dis

pose of the other issues, cannot be held a See Deeds, 88 95–101.

final judgment on the theory that the verdict,

being for only part of the amount in suit, was AMENDMENT.

implied finding against plaintiff's other

claims.-Id. See Indictment and Information, $ 159; Pleading, 88 236, 258.

(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision.

$ 100 (Tex.Civ.App.) An order entered upon AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. motion to dissolve a temporary injunction held See Appeal and Error, $ 56.

appealable.-Collier v. Smith, 169 S. W. 1108.

V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVA. ANIMALS.

TION IN LOWER COURT OF See Appeal and Error, $ 1004; Carriers, se

GROUNDS OF REVIEW. 209–230, 314; Municipal Corporations, 8(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings 604; Principal and Agent, § 123; Railroads,

Thereon. 88 440–447.

$ 206 (Mo.) A party cannot take advantage of 16 (Ark.) One who furnishes the service of the exclusion of evidence, where no offer of proof a male animal for breeding purposes is held_to

was made in the court below.-Holzemer v. Metordinary care to prevent injury. -Cotton v. In- ropolitan St. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 102. gram, 169 S. W. 967.

$ 213 (Tex.Civ.App.) Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, de

claring that objections or exceptions to the ANNULMENT.

charge of the court not made in the trial court

shall be deemed to be waived, held not to apSee Wills, 88 260–400.

ply to peremptory instructions, such as the di

rection of a verdict.–Owens y. Corsicana PeANSWER.

troleum Co., 169 S. W. 192.

8215 (Mo.) Objection that an instruction is a See Pleading.

comment on the evidence cannot be made for the

first time on appeal.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, 169 ANTI-TRUST ACT.

S. W. 13). See Monopolies.

$ 216 (Ky.) A party cannot complain on ap

peal that an instruction, which was admittedly APPEAL AND ERROR.

correct so far as it went, did not cover all the

issues, where he did not request an additional See Bail, $ 94; Certiorari; Costs, $ 254; instruction.-Henry Clay Fire Ins. Co. v. Bark

Courts, 88 37, 91, 202, 223, 231; Criminal | ley, 169 S. W. 747. Law, $$ 1037–1186; Divorce, 8 286; Elec $ 216 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in failing to tions, $ 305 ; Eminent Domain, 167; Equi- charge that plaintiff's could not recover for ty, § 430; Exceptions, Bill of; Executors wrongful attachment if either ground of atand Administrators, $ 510 ; Homicide, $stachment set out in the affidavit were true held 338, 340; Insane Persons, $$ 29, 38; Justices waived by failing to request a special charge. of the Peace, 8 143; Taxation, 597; Wills, Brady-Neely Grocer Co. v. De Foe, 169 S. W. $8 396, 400.

1135.

an

$ 230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments complaining ! trial.-Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. of the giving and refusing of instructions can- | Peel, 169 S. W. 689. not be considered, where appellant did not ob- 8 302 (Mo.) Where the court on its own moject before the instructions were read to the tion modified plaintiff's instruction, the instrucjury.-Schubert v. Voges, 169 S. W. 409. tion is that of the court, and defendant, to re

$ 231 (Mo.) Objection that the instructions view the propriety thereof, must in his motion were unnecessarily long will be overruled ; ap- for new trial assign as error the giving of inpellant pot pointing out and a careful reading structions by the court.-Scrivner v. Missouri not disclosing such evils.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, Pac. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 83. 169 S. W. 135. 8 232 (Ark.) A general objection to argument

VI. PARTIES. of plaintiff's counsel held not sufficient to raise $ 334 (Ky.) On motions to dismiss appeal, an objection, that it might in some parts mis- where one defendant had died, and for an order lead the jury.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. of revivor, held that, the administrator being beBrown, 169 S. W. 940.

fore the court, an order of revivor might be en$ 232 (Mo.) Error in permitting an expert wit- tered, and no service of the order was neces. ness to answer an hypothetical question, which sary.-Gish Banking Co. v. Leachman's 'Adm'r, was not based upon all the facts shown by the 169 S. W. 481. evidence, cannot be taken advantage of on appeal, where that_ground of objection was not VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS made at trial.-Holzemer v. Metropolitan St. FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 102.

(A) Time of Taking Proceedings. $ 232 (Tex.Civ.App.) An objection to a charge held not sufficient to sustain a proposition un

8338 (Ark.) Where plaintiff files his trander an assignment on appeal, complaining of the script and obtains an appeal from the clerk of overruling of the objection, and hence, the charge the Supreme Court, the whole record is before not being fundamentally erroneous, 'the assign the court, and defendant may, under the statment must be overruled.--Eldridge v. Citizens' ute, obtain a cross-appeal at any time before Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375.

submission of the case.-Cowling v. Britt, 169

S. W. 783. $ 233 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to the giving of erroneous charges cannot be made by the until the judgment is signed. - Interstate Pe

$ 347 (Ky.) The time does not begin to run medium of special requests, though if special requests are erroneously refused, error may be troleum Co. v. Farris, 169 S. W. 535. predicated thereon.-Eldridge v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375.

(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds

or Other Securities. (C) Exceptions.

8 383 (Ark.) The word "circumstances," as $ 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of a bill used in Kirby's Dig. § 1198, authorizing secuof exceptions, rulings on instructions are to be șity, for costs against a nonresident appellant, regarded as approved, and an assignment of held to apply to the fact of nonresidence re error, based thereon, is without merit; Rev. St. ferred to in section 959, and not to the terms 1911, art. 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. of the bond, so that the only bond that can be c. 59, $ 3, providing such rulings shall be re- required of a nonresident appellant is for garded as approved, "unless excepted to as pro- costs.-Chambers v. Ogle, 169 S. W. 795. vided in the foregoing articles.”—Texas & P. Ry. $ 395 (Tex.Civ.App.) That appellants, who Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. 217.

were personally enjoined, filed a personal bond, $ 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Despite Court Rule 62a though, as agents of the commissioner of insur. (149 S. W. x), the failure of the trial court to ance, they could appeal under Rev. St. 1911, prepare and read its charge to the jury before art. 2105, without bond, is no ground for dis. argument held prejudicial, though no exceptions missal.-Collier v. Smith, 169 S. W. 1108. to the charge given were given or reserved.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT 397.

IN RECORD. $ 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a refused instruc- (A) Matters to be shown by Record. tion was not excepted to, as provided by Rev. 8 499 (Ky.) Instructions cannot be reviewed St. 1911, art. 1974, as amended by Acts 33d on appeal, where the bill of exceptions fails to Leg. c. 59, it would be presumed to have been show that they were objected to.--Gardner v. approved under section 2061, as amended, and Alexander, 169 S. W. 466. it was not sufficient that the refusal was as- The refusal of a peremptory instruction cansigned for error in defendant's motion for a not be reviewed, where the bill.of exceptions new trial, and that the denial of such motion fails to show that such instruction was request. was duly excepted to.- Missouri, O. & G. Ry. ed, or refused, or that its refusal was excepted Co. of Texas v. Love, 169 S. W. 922.

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 al & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. 397. duly excepted to.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Battle, 169 S. W. 1048.

$ 499 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment com

plaining of an instruction given could not be $ 273 (Ark.) A general exception to the reconsidered, where the record, though containing fusal to give several instructions, requested col. written objections to the general charge, failed lectively, will not be considered on appeal if to show whether such objections were presented any of them was properly refused.--Hastings before or after the main charge was delivered to Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. 1185. the jury.-Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Chum

bley, 169 S. W. 1107. (D) Motions for New Trial.

An assignment complaining of the giving of a' $ 301 (Ark.) No other grounds than those special charge requested by plaintiff could not alleged in the motion for a new trial can be be considered, where the record failed to show considered by the Supreme Court on anneal.- that objections were made to such charge when Hastings Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. it was presented to defendant's counsel for ex1185.

amination and objection, in accordance with 8 301 (Ky.) Alleged errors as to instructions Rev. St. 1911, art. 1973.-Id. cannot be reviewed, where no specific objection $ 501 (Ky.) Errors in rulings on testimony was made to them in the motion for a new cannot be reviewed, where the transcript fails

to show any exceptions.--Kentucky Traction & that it may be incorporated in a bill of excepTerminal Co. v. Peel, 169 S. W. 689.

tions, and such relief must be sought in the 8 501 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, art. circuit court.-Dent v. People's Bank of Im2061, as amended by Acts 330 Leg., c. 59, the boden, 169 S. W. 821. appellate court will not review the refusal to in

Where stenographer's notes and transcript struct, where the record contains no bill of ex- had been lost and could not be incorporated in ception showing that the refusal was duly ex- skeleton bill of exceptions authorized by Sp. cepted to.-Crow v. Childress, 169 S. W. 927. Acts 1911, p. 927, and the time for preparing 8501 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error as timony had expired, held that relief could not be

a bill containing appellant's recital of the testo the instructions will not be considered, where granted, except possibly by a suit in equity no bill of exceptions was taken to the charges.- for a new trial.-Id. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Beaird, 169 S. W. 1050; Same v. Moody, Id. 1057; Same v. Hubbard, issue to bring up original records to the Court

$ 659 (Ky.) A subpæna duces tecum will not Id. 1058.

of Appeals, unless they are so bulky that copy. (B) Scope and Contents of Record.

ing them would cause great expense and delay,

or it is important that the court inspect the $ 525 (Ky.), Instructions cannot be reviewed originals to arrive at a correct decision.-Smith on appeal, where neither those given nor those v. Berry, 169 S. W. 478. refused are identified by, or made a part of, the bill of exceptions.-Gardner v. Alexander, 169

(K) Questions Presented for Review. S. W. 466.

8 692 (Ky.) Errors in rulings on testimony

cannot be reviewed, where the transcript fails (C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case, to show any statement as to what a witness or Statement of Facts.

would have testified, where he was not permit$ 547 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error assigned as to a ted to answer.--Kentucky Traction & Terminal question alleged to have been propounded by the Co. v. Peel, 169 S. W. 689. jury to the court, and answered, not supported 8 692 (Tex.Civ.App:) A bill of exceptions to by bill of exceptions taken as provided by law, the exclusion of evidence must show, what the cannot be considered.--Copeland y. Porter, 169 witness would have testified if permitted to do S. W. 915.

so.-Woods v. Eberling, 169 S. W. 932. (H) Transmission, Filing, Printing, and trial was rendered against plaintiff upon a di

$ 706 (Ky.) Where judgment on a second Service of Copies.

rected verdict, and plaintiff appealed only from 8 624 (Ky.) Under Court of Appeals rule 12 such judgment, and the record of the first trial (154 S. W. viii) and established practice, a mo- was not complete, the setting aside of the first tion for an extension of time to file a transcript verdict for plaintiff cannot be reviewed. -Doton appeal, entered during a vacation of the son v. Delorme Lumber Co., 169 S. W. 503. court, will be treated as made in court on that day.--Creech v. Brock, 169 S. W. 483.

(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record. À clerk's certificate that a transcript could have been procured within the 30 days prescrib- mortgage, the chancellor heard oral testimony,

$715 (Ark.) Where, in a suit to set aside a ed by Ky. St. § 1596a, subsec. 12, was not evi- which was not brought into the record, it could dence of the fact, in resistance of a motion to not be considered on appeal.- Tedford v. Chick, extend the time for filing a transcript on ap- 169 S. W. 769. peal.-Id. On an application for an extension of time

8715 (Ky.) Alleged prejudicial remarks of to file the transcript on appeal, evidence of the counsel should be authenticated in the bill of exclerk, in resistance, that the transcript could ceptions by the lower court, before the Court of have been procured within the time fixed by Appeals can consider whether they were prejulaw, should have been presented by affidavit. only by affidavits of counsel not mentioned in

dicial, and cannot be considered when presented --Id.

On appeal from a judgment in an election the bill of exceptions.-Pine Mountain Mfg. Co. contest, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction v. Bishop, 169 S. W. 1010. to extend the time specified by Ky. St. $ XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. 1596a, subsec. 12, for filing the transcript, for cause.-Id.

$ 719 (Tex.Civ.App.) The action of the trial A motion to extend the time for filing a tran- court in directing a verdict is an error apparscript on appeal in an election contest, based ent upon the face of the record, which the appelonly on an affidavit that appellant believed a late court will consider as fundamental error, transcript could not be obtained within the without an assignment of error.-Owens v. time, and that the record would amount to over Corsicana Petroleum Co., 169 S. W. 192. 1,400 pages, in the absence of any proof of dili- $742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Though the assignment gence, would be denied.-Id.

raising the question that the judgment below Where, on an appeal in an election contest, was not final, and hence not appealable, beit appears that the transcript cannot be com- cause it did not dispose of all the issues raised, pleted within the prescribed 30 days, appellant was not properly briefed, the question will be should file so much of the transcript as can be disposed of, being a jurisdictional one.-Bryant completed within the time, in connection with a v. Moore, 169 S. W. 395. motion to extend the time for completion.-Id. 8 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) The refusal to submit a

particular defense could not be held erroneous (1) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and on appeal, where there was no statement from Correction.

the record, following defendant's assignment of $ 644 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under rules 40 and 41 error, indicating that there was any testimony for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xiv), to support such defense.-Houston & T. C. Ry. held that, where a party did not object, in his Co. v. Meadors, 169 S. W. 1106. brief or before motion for rehearing, that there 8 742 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error, were no bills of exception in the record to the grouped and presented together, but raising difaction of the court complained of in the assign- ferent questions, do not require consideration.ments, he would be deemed to have waived such Davis v. Collins, 169 S. W. 1128. objection.-Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co.

$ 751 (Tex.Civ.App.) Grounds of objection to v. Adams & Peters, 169 S. W. 1143.

evidence stated in the assignments of error oth$ 653 (Ark.) The Supreme Court has no au- er than those alleged in the bills of exception, thority to require a circuit court stenographer will not be reviewed.-Sanford v. John Finnito file a transcript of the testimony in order | gan Co., 169 S. W. 624.

$ 230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments complaining ! trial.-Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. of the giving and refusing of instructions can- | Peel, 169 S. W. 689. not be considered, where appellant did not ob- 8 302 (Mo.) Where the court on its own moject before the instructions were read to the tion modified plaintiff's instruction, the instrucjury.-Schubert v. Voges, 169 S. W. 409. tion is that of the court, and defendant, to re

$ 231 (Mo.) Objection that the instructions view the propriety thereof, must in his motion were unnecessarily long will be overruled ; ap- for new trial assign as error the giving of inpellant pot pointing out and a careful reading structions by the court.-Scrivner v. Missouri not disclosing such evils.-Andrew v. Linebaugh, Pac. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 83. 169 S. W. 135. $ 232 (Ark.) A general objection to argument

VI. PARTIES. of plaintiff's counsel held not sufficient to raise $ 334 (Ky.) On motions to dismiss appeal, an objection, that it might in some parts mis- where one defendant had died, and for an order lead the jury.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry, Co. v. of revivor, held that, the administrator being beBrown, 169 S. W. 940.

fore the court, an order of revivor might be en$ 232 (Mo.) Error in permitting an expert wit- tered, and no service of the order was neces. ness to answer an hypothetical question, which sary::-Gish Banking Co. v. Leachman's Adm'r, was not based upon all the facts shown by the 169 S. W. 481. evidence, cannot be taken advantage of on appeal, where that_ground of objection was not VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS made at trial.-Holzemer v. Metropolitan St. FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 102.

(A) Time of Taking Proceedings. $ 232 (Tex.Civ.App.) An objection to a charge held not sufficient to sustain a proposition un

8338 (Ark.) Where plaintiff files his trander an assignment on appeal, complaining of the script and obtains an appeal from the clerk of overruling of the objection, and hence, the charge the Supreme Court, the whole record is before not being fundamentally erroneous, 'the assign- the court, and defendant may, under the statment must be overruled.-Eldridge v. Citizens ute, obtain a cross-appeal at any time before Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375.

submission of the case.-Cowling v. Britt, 169

S. W. 783. $ 233 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to the giving of erroneous charges cannot be made by the

8 347 (Ky.) The time does not begin to run medium of special requests, though if special re- until the judgment is signed. - Interstate Pequests are erroneously refused, error may be troleum Co. v. Farris, 169 S. W. 535. predicated thereon.-Eldridge v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 169 S. W. 375.

(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds

or Other Securities. (C) Exceptions.

$ 383 (Ark.) The word "circumstances," as § 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of a bill used in Kirby's Dig. $ 1198, authorizing secuof exceptions, rulings on instructions are to be rity, for costs against a nonresident appellant, regarded as approved, and an assignment of held to apply to the fact of nonresidence reerror, based thereon, is without merit; Rev. St. ferred to in section 959, and not to the terms 1911, art. 2061, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. of the bond, so that the only bond that can be C. 59, § 3, providing such rulings shall be re- | required of a nonresident appellant is for garded as approved, "unless excepted to as pro- costs.-Chambers v. Ogle, 169 S. W. 795. vided in the foregoing articles."- Texas & P. Ry. § 395 (Tex. Civ.App.) That appellants, who Co. v. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. 217.

were personally enjoined, filed a personal bond, $ 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Despite Court Rule 62a though, as agents of the commissioner of insur. (149 S. W. x), the failure of the trial court to ance, they could appeal under Rev. St. 1911, prepare and read its charge to the jury before art. 2105, without bond, is no ground for disargument held prejudicial, though no exceptions missal.-Collier v. Smith, 169 S. W. 1108. to the charge given were given or reserved.-International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. / X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT 397.

IN RECORD. 8 263 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a refused instruc- (A) Matters to be shown by Record. tion was not excepted to, as provided by Rev. 8 499 (Ky.) Instructions cannot be reviewed St. 1911, art. 1974, as amended by Acts 33d on appeal, where the bill of exceptions fails to Leg. c. 59, it would be presumed to have been show that they were objected to.-Gardner v. approved under section 2061, as amended, and Alexander, 169 S. W. 466. it was not sufficient that the refusal was as- The refusal of a peremptory instruction cansigned for error in defendant's motion for a not be reviewed, where the bill of exceptions new trial, and that the denial of such motion fails to show that such instruction was request was duly excepted to.- Missouri, O. & G. Ry.ed, or refused, or that its refusal was excepted Co. of Texas v. Love, 169 S. W. 922.

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 al & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Parke, 169 S. W. 397. duly excepted to.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Battle, 169 S. W. 1048.

$ 499 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment com

plaining of an instruction given could not be $ 273 (Ark.) A general exception to the reconsidered, where the record, though containing fusal to give several instructions, requested col- written objections to the general charge, failed lectively, will not be considered on appeal if to show whether such objections were presented any of them was properly refused.-Hastings before or after the main charge was delivered to Industrial Co. v. Copeland, 169 S. W. 1185.

the jury.--Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Chum

bley, 169 S. W. 1107. (D) Motions for New Trial.

An assignment complaining of the giving of a' 8 301 (Ark.) No other grounds than those special charge requested by plaintiff could not alleged in the motion for a new trial can be be considered, where the record failed to show considered by the Supreme Court on anneal. - that objections were made to such charge when Hastings Industrial Co. v, Copeland, 169 S. W. it was presented to defendant's counsel for ex1185.

amination and objection, in accordance with $ 301 (Ky.) Alleged errors as to instructions Rev. St. 1911, art. 1973.-Id. cannot be reviewed, where no specific objection 8 501 (Ky.) Errors in rulings on testimony was made to them in the motion for a new cannot be reviewed, where the transcript fails

« PreviousContinue »