Page images
PDF
EPUB

scribed in the will, but does own another tract which it is thought he intended to describe.

In the very recent case of Cook v. Worthington, supra, we said:

the intention of the maker by transposition to other parts of the instrument without destroying the sense, or where there is an obvious omission of a word or words, shown by reference to the other words used, then the rules of construction will permit the court to transpose or to supply these in order to effectuate the manifest purpose of the maker of the instrument, when ascertained from the instrument taken as a whole. But further than this the court will not go."

Another tract in controversy is the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 5 in township 1 south, range 8 west, which the court holds was intended to an

remain in the will to identify the person or thing, the court will so deal with it, or, if it is an obvious mistake, will read it as if corrected." The case has been frequently cited, and more often criticized than approved; but it is, to say the least of it, very doubtful wheth"Where there is an obvious clerical misprision er the facts of the case warranted the appli- in the use of a word, or where the words, by cation of the principle stated above. How-reference to the context, can better effectuate ever, that principle has no application to the facts of the present case, at least as to two of the tracts of land involved in the controversy. I agree that there is sufficient description to uphold the decree as to the tract referred to as the Baker's Bayou tract, but as to the other two tracts in controversy it seems clear to me that to substitute a correct description for the improper ones used in the will amounts to nothing short of reformation of the will to conform to what the oral testimony shows to have been the real intention of the testator. We have before us nothing to explain or alter the imperfect de-swer the description in the will of "the northscriptive words used by the testator, except the bare fact that he did not own the lands answering the descriptive words of the will, but did own other lands which he doubtless intended to describe. The only fact stated in the opinion of the majority as affording a basis for upholding the decree is that the testator did not own the 100-acre tract described in the will as being in range 9 west, but did own a tract in range 8 west answering the description except as to the township range. It is difficult to understand how it can be said that there can be a substitution of descriptive words for the purpose of conforming to the tract that the testator owned, unless the court resorts to the remedy of reformation or permits oral testimony to vary the terms of the will. There is no escape from the conclusion, it seems to me, that when the court undertakes to substitute words it applies a remedy which is in effect a reformation of the terms of the will or permits oral testimony to vary them. This is not a case like Patch v. White, where the property devised is described in two methods in the will, one of which is correct and the other incorrect, and the court can disregard the incorrect description, for we have only one description here, and when that is discarded there is nothing left. The process of the court is therefore substitution pure and simple, based upon oral testimony. Nor is this a case where you can treat the error as an obvious mistake, for it will not do to change a description merely because the testator does not own the land which he de

east quarter of the northwest quarter of section 5." The only reason for concluding that the testator, when he described the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, meant the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, is that he owned the southeast quarter, but did not own the northeast quarter. This is, I think, merely a substitution which amounts to a reformation of the will merely upon the ground that the description should be altered so as to include the tract which the testator owned and which the oral testimony is sufficient to show that he intended to devise. The cases cited on appellant's brief demonstrate very clearly the fallacy of the position taken by the majority in holding that the words of description used by the testator can be wholly discarded and other words substituted merely because it is shown that he owned property answering to the substituted words of description and does not own land which is described by the words employed in the will.

It is a dangerous thing, I think, to tamper with the unambiguous words of a last will and testament, for to do so is to set aside what the testator himself did for the purpose of substituting what the court conceives to be the thing intended by the testator. The safe rule is to follow the language, which is clear and unambiguous, even though the acceptance of it results in an ineffectual attempt on the part of the testator to dispose of his property.

KIRBY, J., concurs.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 174

INDEX-DIGEST

/KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

ABANDONMENT.

See Husband and Wife,

ment and Information,

17 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for an ac-
counting, petition held to state a cause of ac-
308, 313; Indict- tion as alleging collection and retention by de-
110.
fendant of commissions jointly earned by the
parties. Harless v. Haile, 174 S. W. 1020.

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.

II. ANOTHER ACTION PENDING.
4 (Tex.Civ.App.) A prior suit between the
same parties, involving the same cause of ac-
tion, abates a subsequent suit when properly
interposed by plea in abatement.-Blassingame
v. Cattlemen's Trust Co., 174 S. W. 900.

ACCOUNT, ACTION ON.

6 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 1832,
a statement of account attached to the petition
becomes a part thereof, and evidence of items
contained in the statement is admissible.-Reed
v. Kansas Condensed Milk Co., 174 S. W. 110.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

17 (Tex.Civ.App.) A plea of pending ac-
tion between the same parties, involving the
same cause of action, is available only as in See Vendor and Purchaser, 239.
abatement.-Blassingame v. Cattlemen's Trust
Co., 174 S. W. 900.

IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE.

VI. WAIVER OF GROUNDS OF ABATE- 62 (Ark.) A married woman denying that

MENT AND TIME AND MANNER

OF PLEADING IN GENERAL.

80 (Tex.Civ.App.) Defendant, who did not
appear and who did not prosecute writ of er-
ror, cannot defeat affirmance of the judgment
on certificate by showing prior suit by him to
cancel the note.-Blassingame v. Cattlemen's
Trust Co., 174 S. W. 900.

ABSTRACTS OF TITLE.

See Vendor and Purchaser, ~140.

ACCEPTANCE.
69.

See Bills and Notes,

ACCIDENT INSURANCE.
See Insurance, 449, 454, 646.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Trial, 296.

27 (Mo.App.) Whether the acceptance of
clothes damaged in cleaning on payment of less
than the original cleaning charges was an ac-
cord and satisfaction of the claim for injury to
the clothes held for the jury.-Murphy v. Lung-
strass D. & C. Co., 174 S. W. 114.

[blocks in formation]

she signed a deed or acknowledged it as evi-
denced by a certificate of acknowledgment in
due form has the burden of proving that she did
not sign or acknowledge it.-Polk v. Brown, 174
S. W. 562.

Evidence held not to show that a wife did not
sign and acknowledge a deed as evidenced by a
certificate of acknowledgment in due form.-Id.

ACTION.

See Abatement and Revival; Dismissal and
Nonsuit.

III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLI-
DATION, AND SEVERANCE.

50 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action by plaintiff
against two defendants, with one of whom he had
been associated under an agreement to share
commissions on the sale of stock, such defend-
ant's cross-petition against his codefendant
held not to cause a misjoinder of causes of action.
-Harless v. Haile, 174 S. W. 1020.

57 (Ark.) Actions by mortgagor and mort-
gagee on several insurance policies protecting
the mortgagee held properly consolidated.-Fi-
delity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 174
S. W. 215.

ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.

See Boundaries.

ADMINISTRATION.

See Executors and Administrators.

ADMISSIONS.

See Criminal Law, 406-420; Evidence,
211-265; Stipulations, 14.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
16 (Tex.Civ.App.) In an action for an ac-
counting by an agent against another agent,
both being interested in commissions on the sale
of stock, joinder of another agent as defendant,
who had been brought into the transaction by
the first defendant after plaintiff had left the 20 (Tex.) An adoption merely places the
country, held proper.-Harless v. Haile, 174 S. adopted child on the same footing as the foster
W. 1020.
parent's other children, leaving such parent

ADOPTION.

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

free to dispose of his property by will as he | sented to the assignment, and not to authorize
may desire.-Masterson v. Harris, 174 S. W.
570.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See Champerty and Maintenance, 7; Ten-
ancy in Common, 15; Trespass, 78.

I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
(D) Distinct and Exclusive Possession.

37 (Tenn.) While one in possession of land
can, even as against the true owner, maintain
unlawful entry and detainer, his possession,
where he acquiesces in the owner's entry, must
be deemed concurrent.-Sequatchie & South
Pittsburg Coal & Iron Co. v. Tennessee Coal,
Iron & R. Co., 174 S. W. 1122.

(F) Hostile Character of Possession.

63 (Ky.) Where the interest which plaintiff
and his wife attempted to convey was only a
remainder to take effect after the death of the
wife's mother, the life tenant, possession of
grantee did not become adverse until death of
life tenant.-Parsons v. Justice, 174 S. W. 725.
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.

(A) Extent of Possession.
100 (Tenn.) The possession of the record
owner held constructive possession of the en-
tire tract, except that held by defendant, whose
possession, not having continued for the stat-
utory period, after the owner left, did not ripen
into adverse title.-Sequatchie & South Pitts-
burg Coal & Iron Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron
& R. Co., 174 S. W. 1122.

III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL,
AND REVIEW.

112 (Tex.Civ.App.) In trespass to try title,
where plaintiff connected himself with the sov-
ereignty by a regular chain of title, the burden
of establishing title by limitation rested upon
defendant.-Nunez v. McElroy, 174 S. W. 829.
114 (Mo.) In ejectment by city to recover
alleged street or alley, evidence held to support
findings for defendants on the issue of adverse
possession.-City of Harrisonville v. Foster, 174
S. W. 413.

115 (Ark.) In ejectment, held on the evi-
dence that whether defendant had been in pos-
session prior to a specified date within the pe-
riod of limitations so as to have acquired title
by adverse possession was for the jury.-Slater
v. Alford, 174 S. W. 225.

AFFIDAVITS.

See Corporations, 503; Criminal Law,
612, 956, 958, 1139; New Trial, 143;
Pleading, 301; Public Lands, 173;
Venue, 70.

8 (Mo.) Regarding venue, it is enough that
the seal and words following the officer's signa-
ture to an affidavit show the oath was adminis-
tered by a notary of a certain state and coun-
ty.-Hambel v. Lowry, 174 S. W. 405.

AGENCY.

See Principal and Agent.

ALIENATION.

See Deeds, 149.

ALIMONY.

See Divorce, 240.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

2 (Ky.) The alteration of an assignment
for benefit of creditors by the debtor's wife held
not prejudicial to an attaching creditor, who as-

him to enforce his attachment.-Glascock v. Peo-
ple's Deposit Bank, 174 S. W. 496.

2 (Tenn.) An immaterial change, unaccom-
panied by fraudulent design, will not invalidate
an instrument.-Columbia Grocery Co. v. Mar-
shall, 174 S. W. 1108.

(Tenn.) A material change by a stranger
will not invalidate an instrument.-Columbia
Grocery Co. v. Marshall, 174 S. W. 1108.

23 (Tenn.) The intent with which an in-
the instrument, but is important in determining
strument is altered is immaterial as affecting
whether recovery can be had upon original ob-
ligation.-Columbia Grocery Co. v. Marshall,
174 S. W. 1108.

Alteration by holder of notes in respect to
the time of payment is a constructive fraud,
which destroys the notes and extinguishes the
account for which they were given.-Id.

[blocks in formation]

44 (Tex. Civ.App.) In an action for poisoning
stock, evidence that a tin bucket was found on
defendant's premises containing a mixture of
sulphur and white powder, similar to that found
in plaintiff's pasture, held admissible.-Sands v.
Sedwick, 174 S. W. 894.

In an action for poisoning stock, evidence that
tracks were seen leading from defendant's prem-
ises to plaintiff's pasture, where stock was
found dead, and returning, held admissible.-Id.
In an action for poisoning stock, evidence was
admissible that defendant called plaintiff a
Jew, and a
rascal, when first in-
formed that plaintiff charged him with commit-
ting the act.-Id.

In an action for poisoning stock, evidence
held sufficient to sustain judgment for plaintiff.

-Id.

ANSWER.

See Pleading, 78.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See Abatement and Revival,
260; Courts, 202, 231;
1018-1184; Divorce,

80; Costs,
Criminal Law,
184, 197; Drains,

14; Eminent Domain, 262; Excep-
tions, Bill of; Infants, 16; Justices of
the Peace, 174; Master and Servant,
80; Wills, 367.

I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.

(Mo.App.) Unless the right of appeal is
given to the appellant by Rev. St. 1909, § 2038,
he has no standing.-Nathan v. Planters' Cotton
Oil Co., 174 S. W. 126.

II. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF AP-
PELLATE JURISDICTION.

20 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the amount de-
manded by plaintiff in justice's court exceeds
its jurisdiction, the county court is without
jurisdiction, and an appeal from the county
court must be dismissed.-Vicars v. Tharp, 174
S. W. 949.

21 (Tenn.) Appellate jurisdiction cannot
be conferred by stipulation.-Barnes v. Noel,
174 S. W. 276.

III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(D) Finality of Determination.
70 (Ark.) An order quashing service of sum
mons, but not dismissing the action or render-
ing any judgment for costs, is not a final order
from which an appeal may be taken, under

Kirby's Dig. § 1188.-Harlow v. Mason, 174 S. |
W. 1163.

78 (Ark.) An order sustaining a demurrer
being only an interlocutory judgment, an ap-
peal therefrom will be dismissed.-Davis v.
Biddle, 174 S. W. 1196.

216 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911,
art. 1971, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59,
refusal of special charges held not reviewable
T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Skeen, 174 S. W. 655.
because not objected to at the time.-Atchison,

230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Objections to the gener
al charge not presented to the court before the
charge was delivered will not be considered on
appeal.-Fuller v. El Paso Live Stock Commis-
sion Co., 174 S. W. 930.

80 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where, in an action by
assignee against debtor and assignor, as guaran-
tor, the issue was whether the debtor was liable
to the assignee, a judgment not determining
that issue was not final.-Carver Bros. v. Mer-231 (Ark.) Admission of husband's testi-
rett, 174 S. W. 929.

V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVA-
TION IN LOWER COURT OF
GROUNDS OF REVIEW.

mony partially proper held not error as against
general objection that he was an incompetent
witness for the wife.-Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins.
Co. v. Friedman, 174 S. W. 215.

232 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignments of error,
which do not present the same objections to the
appellate court as were presented to the court's
charge below, cannot be considered.-Hovey v.
Sanders, 174 S. W. 1025.

(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
171 (Mo.App.) Where a case is tried on one
theory below, the defeated party cannot on
appeal change his theory and raise new ques-237 (Mo.App.) A party held not entitled to
tions.-Hawkins v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., complain on appeal of the admission of the tes-
timony of the witness as to the value of serv-
ices of housekeeper, where he did not move to
strike out the testimony.-Schwanenfeldt v.
Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 174 S. W. 143.

174 S. W. 129.

173 (Mo.) Where a former adjudication
was not pleaded, it was not properly before the
Supreme Court on appeal.-City of Harrison-
ville v. Foster, 174 S. W. 413.

173 (Mo.App.) In an action for injuries to
a street car passenger, objection on appeal of
want of proof that the car belonged to the de-
fendant held without merit; the case having
been tried below on the theory that there was
no issue on that point.-Schwanenfeldt v. Met-
ropolitan St. Ry. Co., 174 S. W. 143.

(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
Thereon.

193 (Mo.) While an objection to the suf-
ficiency of the complaint must be considered at
any time, it will be considered with greater
favor if raised by motion or answer than when
interposed after trial.-Carter v. Butler, 174
S. W. 399.

In action on note by person suing as trustee
under an agreement authorizing him to sue on
behalf of the owners of the note, petition held
sufficient as to his title to the note, where ob-
jection was not raised by motion or answer.
-Id.

193 (Mo.) A pleading not stating a good
cause of action may be attacked for the first
time in the Supreme Court.-Titus v. North
Kansas City Development Co., 174 S. W. 432.

204 (Tex. Civ.App.) Where a party failed to
object to a question asked a witness before an-
swer, he could not, on appeal, urge his objec-
tion to the answer.-Glens Falls Ins. Co. of
Glens Falls, N. Y., v. Melott, 174 S. W. 700.

204 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where there was no ob-
jection below that hypothetical question did not
correctly present the evidence, error therein, if
any, was not ground for reversal.-Texas & P.
Ry. Co. v. White, 174 S. W. 953.

In an action for damages to shipment of
cattle, any error in allowing witness to testify
as to condition of market, based on a telegram
not originally admissible in evidence, held not
ground for reversal.-Id.

207 (Ky.) The impropriety of counsel's ar-
gument cannot be reviewed where not objected
to below.-Ross v. Kohler, 174 S. W. 36.

[blocks in formation]

273 (Tex.Civ.App.) Bills of exception to the
giving and refusal of charges held to present
matters for review, though grounds of objection
are not stated, where the trial court understood
the grounds of objection.-Eaton v. Klein, 174
S. W. 331.

273 (Tex.Civ.App.) One general exception to
the refusal to give several requested instructions
held not entitled to consideration on appeal,
where any one of them was properly refused.-
Hovey v. Sanders, 174 S. W. 1025.

(D) Motions for New Trial.

281 (Tenn.) Errors which can be made to
appear by bill of exceptions only must be pre-
sented to the trial court on motion for new
trial before relief can be had on appeal.-
Barnes v. Noel, 174 S. W. 276.

291 (Mo.App.) Where demurrers were sus-
tained to the evidence under two counts of the
petition, but plaintiff, who had a verdict below,
did not make the ruling ground for motion for
new trial, he cannot, on appeal from an order
207 (Tex.Civ.App.) Remarks of counsel arresting judgment, question the sustaining of
held not to be considered on appeal in absence the demurrers.-McWilliams v. Workers' Print-
of request for instructions thereon.-Missouri, ing Co., 174 S. W. 464.

329.

K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Long, 174 S. W.291 (Tenn.) The direction of a verdict must
be challenged by a motion for a new trial to
215 (Ky.) Where no objection to instruc- be raised on appeal.-Barnes v. Noel, 174 S. W.
tions was made before new trial, the propriety
thereof cannot be reviewed.-Ross v. Kohler,
174 S. W. 36.

215 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error cannot be predi-
cated upon charge of court, where no objection
was made.-Sands v. Sedwick, 174 S. W. 894.

276.

301 (Ark.) Assignments of error to the giv-
ing of instructions will not be discussed, where
the record shows that the appellant did not
make them grounds of its motion for a new
trial, as it will be deemed to have waived

them.-Railways Ice Co. v. Howell, 174 S. W.

241.

(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice.

396 (Tex.Civ.App.) Notice of appeal in the
court below and a motion for a new trial there-
in are not required, where the case is brought
up by petition and writ of error.-McPhaul v.
Byrd, 174 S. W. 644.

301 (Tex. Civ.App.) An assignment of error
not contained in the motion for new trial, which
under Acts 33d Leg. c. 136 (Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612), constitutes the
assignments of error on appeal when such a
motion is filed, cannot be considered.-Watson X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT
IN RECORD.
v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632.

301 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 1607, 1612, and Court
of Civil Appeals rules 23, 24 (142 S. W. xii),
appellant, filing a motion for new trial, held
confined to the assignments therein on appeal,
except for error of law apparent upon the rec-
ord.-Zmek v. Dryer, 174 S. W. 659.

302 (Mo.) Where defendant in its motion
for new trial abandoned many asserted de-
fenses, they were waived, and need not there-
after be considered.-State ex rel. City of St.
Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 174 S. W. 73.
302 (Mo.App.) On refusal of an injunction,
failure of the court to take an accounting held
not open to review, under the grounds stated
in the motion for new trial.-Holmes v. Webb
City Building & Loan Ass'n, 174 S. W. 122.

[blocks in formation]

(A) Matters to be Shown by Record.
499 (Tex. Civ.App.) Assignments of errors
to instructions and refusal of instructions, in
the absence of bill of exceptions showing com-
pliance with Acts 33d Leg. c. 59, cannot be
considered.-Capps v. Johnson, 174 S. W. 294.

499 (Tex.Civ.App.) An assignment of error
to the giving and refusing of charges will be
overruled where there are no bills of exception
in the record as provided by Revised Statutes
as amended in 1913 (Acts 33d Leg. c. 59).—
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Graham & Price, 174
S. W. 297.

499 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where there is nothing
in the record showing any objection to charge
before submitted to jury, nor any exception re-
served thereto, assignments complaining of
charge will not be considered.-St. Louis, B. &
M. Ry. Co. v. Dawson, 174 S. W. 850.

499 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the bill of excep-
tions taken to the exclusion of evidence fails to

state the objection made, the action of the trial
court cannot be reviewed.-Fuller v. El Paso
Live Stock Commission Co., 174 S. W. 930.

499 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911,
art. 1971, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 59,
assignment of error will be considered waived
by failure of the record to show any objection
below to the portions of the charge on which
they were based.-Reed v. Missouri, K. & T.
Ry. Co. of Texas, 174 S. W. 956.

336 (Tex.Civ.App.) When a party adverse-
ly interested to plaintiff in error is not joined499 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the record did
in the petition, failure to file a motion to dis-
miss does not necessarily confer jurisdiction,
as the court may dismiss of its own motion.
McPhaul v. Byrd, 174 S. W. 644.

[blocks in formation]

not show that an exception was ever presented
and ruled upon in trial court, it would not be
considered on appeal.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. King, 174 S. W. 960.

(B) Scope and Contents of Record.

516 (Mo.App.) Rendition of judgment, fil-
ing motion for new trial, ruling thereon, filing

of bill of exceptions, or making the same a part
allowance of appeal must be shown by the
of the record, filing affidavit for appeal, and
record proper to present any question for re-
view.-Mangan v. Woodward, 174 S. W. 121.

522 (Ark.) Oral testimony can only be pre-
served by a recital in the original record or by
bill of exceptions or by reducing it to writing
at the time and filing it, with permission of the
court, as part of the record.-Phillips v. Jo-
kische, 174 S. W. 520.

361 (Tex.Civ.App.) A mistake in the descrip-
tion of land specified in the judgment in a peti-532 (Ark.) Record brought before circuit
tion in error held not ground for dismissal of
the writ.-McPhaul v. Byrd, 174 S. W. 644.

365 (Ark.) A court cannot enter an order
granting an appeal nunc pro tunc, when no or-
der was in fact made within statutory time.-
Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Drainage Dist.
No. 15, Mississippi County, 174 S. W. 566.

(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds
or Other Securities.

387 (Tex.) Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 2084,
appellate court and Supreme Court held with-
out jurisdiction where appeal bond was filed
more than 20 days after the term.-Dilworth
v. Ed Steves & Sons, 174 S. W. 279.

court,, on appeal form probate court, by cer-
tiorari and not before the circuit court when
the case was pending, held not to be considered
by the Supreme Court in determining whether
an affidavit for appeal was filed in the probate
court.-Huffman v. Sudbury, 174 S. W. 1149.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts.

544 (Tex. Civ.App.) Error cannot be predi-
cated upon charge of court, where no bill of ex-
ceptions was reserved thereto.-Sands v. Sed-
wick, 174 S. W. 894.

544 (Tex. Civ.App.) Error in denying con-
tinuance cannot be considered in the absence of
a bill of exceptions showing the ruling on the
application.-American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Bird,
174 S. W. 939.

390 (Tex. Civ.App.) Under Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2104, held that, on fil-
ing of defective appeal bond giving Court of Civil 548 (Tex.Civ.App.) In the absence of a bill
Appeals jurisdiction, appellee should have filed of exceptions, the admission of evidence cannot
timely motion pointing out defect, whereupon be reviewed.-Nunez v. McElroy, 174 S. W.
appellant might have amended.--Crawford V.
829.
Wellington Railroad Committee, 174 S. W. 555 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the statement of
1004.
facts and bills of exception were stricken from

« PreviousContinue »