(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Standard encyclopædia of procedure .."

Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 



s 



I 



STANDARD 

ENCYCLOPAEDIA of 

f 

PROCEDURE 



EDWARD W. TUTTLB 

EDITOR 



FIRST SUPPLEMENT 

Including 

SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS 

and 

TEMPORARY INDEX 



LOS ANGELES 

L. D. POWELL COMPANY 

CHICAGO 



COFTBiaHT, 1916 
BT If. D. POWELL OOMPAUT 



L 2F05 



EXPLANATORY NOTE 



The words and figures at the top of each page refer to the volume 
and title to which the page relates. The black figures at the left in 
each column — thus 213-35 — represent respectively, the page and note 
number of the original volume to which supplementary matter relates. 

In examining a proposition in any one of the volumes the in- 
vestigator should always be sure to turn to the Supplement to ascer- 
tain what, if any, decisions directly in point have been made since the 
original article was written. To illustrate : Suppose you are examin- 
ing, authorities bearing on the rule stated in the article on ''Con- 
clusions of Law," volume 5, page 213, note 35, to the effect that an 
allegation that it was the duty of a party to do or not to do a thing, 
is a mere conclusion of law. Run through this supplement until you 
see the guiding terms ''Vol. 5" at the top of the page in the margin; 
turn until you come to the running title "Conclusions of Law;" then 
glance down the columns and turn until you see at the left of the 
column the black figures "213-36." Following this will be found the 
authorities supplementing the original work on this point. 

Always glance over all the pages supplementing the original article 
for any new matter. Such matter is placed under the page and note 
number nearest to which it logically would have fallen but may be 

readily and quickly distinguished by the black letter catch lines. 



TABLE OF TITLES 



Abatement, Pleas of 1 

AbbreTiations 6 

Abduction 5 

Abortion 6 

Aecessories and Aeeomplices 6 

Aeeord and Satisfaction 8 

Aeeonnt and Accounting 9 

Adjoining Landowners 13 

Admiralty 14 

Adulteration 19 

Adultery 19 

Adverse Possession 20 

Affidavits of Merits and Defense. . 21 

Aifray 24 

Agreed Case 24 

AUenating Affections 24 

Aliens 26 

Alteration of Instruments 26 

Amendments and Jeofails 28 

Amicable Actions 89 

Amicus Curiae 39 

Animals 89 

Annuitiea 40 

Another Action Pending 41 

Answers 46 

Appeal Bonds 49 

Appeals 51 

Appearances 123 

Apprentices 131 

Arbitration 131 

Architects and Builders 133 

Arguments 134 

Arraignment and Plea 168 

Arrest in Civil Cases 172 

Arrest of Judgment 172 

Arson 176 

Assault and Battery 176 

Assignment for the Benefit of 

Creditors 177 

Assignments 178 

Assistance, Writs of 179 

Associations 179 

Assumpsit 179 

Attachment 181 

Attorneys 205 

Audita Querela 210 

Bankruptcy Proceedings 210 

Banks and Banking 223 

Bastardy Proceedings 225 

Beneficial Association^ 227 

Bigamy 227 

Bills and Answers 228 

Bills and Notes 230 

Bills of Exceptions 235 

Bills of Particulars 248 



Bills of Review 252 

Bills To Enforce Decrees 255 

Bills To Impeach Judgments and 

Decrees 255 

Bonds 255 

Breach of Promise 256 

Breach of the Peace 256 

Bribery 257 

Briefs 257 

Burglary 263 

Case (The Action of Trespass on 

the) 264 

Case and Question Certified, Be- 

served or Reported 264 

Case on Appeal 265 

Cause of Action 269 

Certainty in Pleading 271 

Certificate of Probable Cause and 

of Reasonable Doubt 273 

Certiorari 274 

Champerty 285 

Change of Venito 285 

Chattel Mortgages 292 

Choice and Election of Remedies. 297 

Civil Rights 301 

CoUision 301 

Commerce Court , 301 

Composition With Creditors 301 

Compounding Crime 302 

Compromise and Settlement 302 

Conclusions of Law 302 

Confession and Avoidance 307 

Consolidation of Actions 308 

Conspiracy 309 

Construction and Theory of Plead- 
ings 310 

Contempt 314 

Continuances 323 

Contribution 334 

Copyright Proceedings 335 

Coroner's Inquest 335 

Corporations 335 

Costs 361 

Counterfeiting 376 

Courts 376 

Courts Martial 381 

Covenant, Action of 382 

Creditors' Suits 382 

Criminal Conversation 383 

Cross-Bill 383 

Cross-Complaint 385 

Cruelty to Animals 386 

Customs and Usages 386 

Customs Duties 386 

Death by Wrongful Act 387 



TABLE OF TITLES 



Debt 398 

Decedents' Estates 399 

Declaration and Complaint 410 

Decrees 415 

Default 420 

Demurrer 429 

Demurrer to Evidence 439 

Denials 441 

Departure 444 

Deposit in Court 445 

Depositions 445 

Detinue 451 

Disclaimer 453 

Discovery 453 

Dismissal, Discontinuance and Non- 
suit 458 

Disorderly Conduct 466 

Disorderly House 467 

Disturbing Public Assembly 468 

Divorce 468 

Dower, Proceedings To Becover . . . 486 

Due Process of Law 488 

Duplicity 490 

Duress 491 

Easements 491 

Ejectment 492 

Elections ^ 494 

Electricity 499 

Embezzlement 502 

Eminent Domain 504 

Equity Jurisdiction and Procedure 516 

Errors, Assignment of 525 

Escheat 537 

Estoppel 538 

Estrays 540 

Executors and Administrators .... 540 

Exhibits 544 

Extortion 545 

Extradition 545 

Factors and Brokers 547 

False Imprisonment 549 



False Personation 563 

Filing 663 

Findings and Conclusions 653 

Forcible Entry and Detainer .... 657 

Forgery 559 

Forms of Action 661 

Forthcoming Bonds 661 

Fraud and Deceit 661 

Frauds, Statute of 664 

Fraudulent Conveyances 665 

Freight Carriers 568 

Frivolous and Sham Pleadings .... 570 

Game and Fish 671 

Gaming 671 

Garnishment 673 

Gifts 681 

Grand Jury 681 

Guaranty 682 

Guardian Ad Litem 582 

Guardian and Ward 686 

Habeas Corpus 688 

Hawkers and Peddlers 699 

Health 699 

Hearing 600 

Highways, Streets and Bridges.... 600 

Homesteads and Exemptions 601 

Homicide 604 

Husband and Wife 606 

Illegality, How Pleaded 607 

Immigration 607 

Implied and Express Agreements . . 609 

Incompetents 611 

Indemnity 611 

Indians 611 

Indictment and Information 611 

Inducement 613 

Infants 613 

Information and Belief 615 

Inheritance 615 

Injunctions 615 



FIRST SUPPLEMENT 



TO THE 



STANDARD 
ENCYCLOPAEDIA 



OF 



PROCEDURE 



(VOLS. 1-12) 



>«'i:-*0 



\ PLEAS OF 



29-B Linam v. Anderson, 12 6a. App. 
735, 78 a E. 424; Pittsburgh, C. C. & 
8t. L. B. Go. V. Schmuck, 181 Ind. 323, 
103 N. B. 325; National Live Stock 
Ins. Co. V. Wolfe (Ind. App.), 106 N. 
E. 390; Immel v. Herb, 50 Pa. Super. 
241. 

SO-a Matbifl v, S., 94 Ind. 562; S. r. 
Vincent, 91 Md. 718, 47 A. 1036; Lind- 
sey V. 8., 69 O. St. 215, 69 N. E. 126; 
8. r. Thomas, 61 O. St. 444, 56 N. E. 
276; Corthell v, 8., 5 O. €. D. 123; 8. 
r. Intoxicating Liquors, 44 Yt. 208; 
Cook V. Ter., 3 Wyo. 110, 4 P. 887. 

A question going to the legal existence 
of the indictment cannot be raised by 
plea in abatement. Beynolds v. 8., 1 
Ala. App. 24, 55 8. 1016. 

Misjoinder of counts cannot be taken 
advantage of by plea in abatement. 
United States v. Jones, 69 Fed. 973. 
Objections to petit Jurors drawn for 
the term are not available by plea in 
abatement. State v, Thomas, 19 Minn. 
484. 

Kon-indorsement of names of witnesses 

on the indictment. Dietzel r. S. (Tenn.), 
177 S. W. 47. 



Disqualification of Judge. — Matters 
which go to the competency of the 
trial judge cannot be set up by plea 
in abatement. Wright v, 8., 3 Ala. 
App. 24, 58 8. 68. Such plea is not 
a proper method of questioning the 
title of the presiding judge to his of- 
fice. Davis V. 8. (Miss.), 67 8. 178. 
But where the court is illegally held, 
a plea in abatement and not a demur- 
rer is proper method of attacking in- 
dictment framed during the sitting of 
such court. McBae r. 8., 71 Ga. 96. 

30-12 Bogers v, 8., 32 O. C. C. 389, 
13 O. 0. C. (N. 8.) 362. 

30-13 S. V. Barr, 7 Penne. (Del.) 
340, 79 A. 730; 8. V. Finley, 6 Kan. 
366; McDaniel v. 8., 8 Okla. Cr. 209, 
127 P. 358; 8. t?. McGinley, 153 Wis. 
5, 140 N. W. 332. 

31-19 8. V. Pile, 5 Ala. 72; Hale v, 
8., 10 Ala. App. 22, 64 8. 530; Will- 
iams V. 8., 60 Ga. 88; P. 17. Miller, 264 
HI. 148, 106 N. E. 191, Ann. Gas. 1915B, 
1240; Ford v. 8., 112 Ind. 373, 14 N. E. 
241; 8. r. Vincent, 91 Md. 718, 47 A. 
1036; Goldsberry i?. 8., 92 Neb. 211, 
137 N. W. 1116; 8. i?. Haywood, 73 N. 
C. 437; Rsher r. U. 8., 1 Okla. 352, 
31 P. 195; S. V. Maloney, 12 B. L 



Vol. 1 



ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF 



251; Chairs v. &,, 124 Tenn. 630, 139 
S. W. 711; fcvera f>. S., 117 Tenn. 235, 
96 S. W. 956; Brannigan v. P., 3 Utah 
488, 24 P. 767; Cook v. Ter., 3 Wyo. 
110, 4 P. 887. 

Maimer of selecting Juroxs. — ^U. S. v. 

Nevin, 199 Fed. 831. See also infra, 
58-63. 

Must diow ftaud. — ^No objection to the 
qualifications of the grand jury can 
be taken by plea in abatement except 
for fraud in the drawing of the jury. 
Wright V. S., 3 Ala. App. 24, 58 So. 
68. 

32-20 U. S. V. Rockefeller, 221 Fed. 
462; Tompkins v, S., 138 Ga. 465, 75 
S. E. 594; Ford r. S., 112 Ind. 373, 14 
N. E. 241; Donahue v, S., 165 Ind. 148, 

74 N. E. 996; Pontier V, S., 107 Md. 
384, 68 A. 1059; Huling t?. S., 17 O. St. 
583; Brannigan v. P., 3 Utah 488, 24 
P. 767; S. V. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147, 
1 S. E. 225. 

Prior expressions of opinion on part of 
grand juror is not ground for abatement 
of the indictment. S. v, Hamlin, 47 
Conn. 95, 36 Am. Bep. 54. 
That the grand Jurors had already 
served at one regular term of the 
grand jury may be pleaded in abate- 
ment. Tompkins v. S., 138 Ga. 465, 

75 8. E. 594. 

That a grand juror was a partner in 
the burglarized firm is not ground for 
plea in abatement. Garnett v, S., 10 
Ga. App. 109, 72 S. E. 951. 
Juror not drawn at any time, good 
ground. Crandall v. S., 2 Ala. App. 112, 
56 S. 873. 

Bias of grand Juror. — Objection that a 
grand juror was related to the person 
whom defendant is alleged to have as- 
saulted, cannot be taken by plea in 
abatement. Collins v. S., 3 Ala. App. 
64, 58 S. 80. 

Kot drawn in presence of proper of- 
ficers. — The only available objection to 
the indictment on the ground of dis- 
qualifications of grand jurors is that 
the grand jury was not drawn in the 
presence of the officer designated by 
law. Spivey i?. S., 172 Ala. 391, 56 
S. 232. 

32-22 Donahue 17. S., 165 Ind. 148, 
74 N. E. 996. 

33-23 Mizell v. S., 184 Ala. 16, 63 
S. 1000; Bluett v. S., 151 Ala. 41, 44 
S. 84; Curtis v. S., 9 Ala. App. 36, 63 
S. 745; Mathes r. S., 3 Ala. App. 7, 57 
S. 390. 



33-25 Omission of prosecutor's en- 
dorsement good ground. Bodes v. S., 
10 Lea (Tenn.) 417. 

Evidence presented before grand Jury. 
In the federal courts an issue of . fact 
as to *what evidence was presented to 
the grand jurors may be raised by a 
plea in abatement. U. S. v. Swift, 186 
Fed. 1002. 

Erroneous endorsement. — An indict- 
ment endorsed by one who is not a 
member of the grand jury may be at- 
tacked by plea in abatement. Deitz v. 
S., 123 Ind. 85, 23 N. E. 1086. 

Presence of unauthorised persons. — ^U. 

S. t?. Cobban, 127 Fed. 713; U. S. v. 
Terry, 39 Fed. 355; Wilson v, S., 70 
Miss. 595, 13 S. 225, 35 Am. St. 664; 
Durr V. S., 53 Miss. 425. 

33-26 U. S. V. Cobban, 127 Fed. 713; 
Sparrenberger v. S., 53 Ala. 481, 25 
Am. Bep. 643. 

That no vote was taken by the grand 
jury is not proper ground for abate- 
ment. Creek r. S., 24 Ind. 151. 

The rejection of evidence exonerating 
the accused is not ground for abate- 
ment. U. S. V, Terry, 39 Fed. 355. 

Hatters calling for Juror's testimony. 
Matters which if true are provable only 
by the testimony of the jurors may not 
be set up by plea in abatement. XJ. S. 
V. Greene, 113 Fed. 683; XJ. S. v, Jones, 
69 Fed. 973; TJ. S. v. Terry, 39 Fed. 
355. 

The presence of a stranger in the grand 
jury room, does not render the indict- 
ment vulnerable to attack by plea in 
abatement. State v. Gilliam, 62 Or. 
138, 124 P. 266. 

Illegal testimonyjL — ^Beception of ille- 
gal testimony is ground for abatement. 
U. S. V, Jones, 69 Fed. 973; U. S. t?. 
Kilpatrick, 16 Fed. 765; Perkins v, S., 
66 Ala. 457; State v. Dayton, 23 N. J. 
L. 49, 53 Am. Dec. 270; Hope 17. P., 83 
N. Y. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 460. 

Insufficiency of evidence before grand 
Jury not a ground, etc. — Creek v. S., 24 
Ind. 151; S. t?. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49, 
53 Am. Dec. 270. 

33-28 Merlette v. S., 100 Ala. 42, 14 
S. 562; Munkers v. S., 87 Ala. 94, 6 S. 
357; Diggs v, S., 49 Ala. 311; Thomas 
V, S., 9 Ala. App. 67, 64 S. 192; White 
V. S., 7 Ala. App. 69, 61 S. 463; Harper 
r. S., 1 Ala. App. 232, 55 S. 258; Pull- 
iam 17. Donaldson, 140 Ga. 864, 80 S. E. 
I 315; Jordan v. S., 60 Ga. 656; Johnson 

2 



ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF 



Vol. 1 



V. S., 7 Ga. App. 551, 67 S. E. 224; S. 
V. Bishop, 15 Me. 122; S. r. McGregor, 
41 N. H. 407. But see N. J. Comp. 
Laws, 1910, p. 1831; W. Va. Code, 1913, 
S5559. 

TiiltlalH — ^It is not ground for abate- 
ment that the accused was described by 
the initials of his first and middle name 
instead of setting them out in full. 
Eaves r. S., 113 Ga. 749, 39 S. E. 318. 
But see Gardner r. S., 4 Ind. 632. 

A middle name being regarded as en- 
tirely immaterial, neither a mistake in 
inserting it, nor its omission will sup- 
port a plea of this character. Rooks 
r. S., 83 Ala. 79, 3 So. 720; Smith v. S., 
8 Ala. App. 187, 62 S. 575. 
Immateilal variance. — The names 
Books and Bux, if not strictly idem 
aonans, are so nearly the same accord- 
ing to the rules of English pronouncia- 
tion that the variance will not sup- 
port a plea in abatement on the ground 
of misnomer; and the court may so 
decide, without evidence, and without 
submitting the question to the jury. 
Rooks i\ S., 83 Ala. 79, 3 8. 720. 

36-47 Longmore v. Puget Sound T. 
L. & P. Co., 78 Wash. 468, 139 P. 191. 
See also vol. 1, p. 1034, n. 39. 

37-48 Michelin Tire Co. v. Webb, 
143 Mo. App. 679, 127 S. W. 948. 

AiBdavit in natnre of plea In abate- 
ment. — An objection that defendant is 
not sued in its proper name cannot be 
interposed by demurrer, but should be 
presented by answer or affidavit in the 
nature of a plea in abatement. Stude- 
baker Corp. of America 17. Dodds, 161 
Ky. 542, 171 S. W. 167. See also vol. 
1, p. 711, n. 23. 

38-50 Adler Goldman C. Co. v. Will- 
iams, 211 Fed. 530. 

A plea in abatement is Improper under 
a statute which authorizes only three 
kinds of pleas to an indictment; a plea 
of (1) guilty; (2) not guilty; (3) a 
former judgment of conviction or ac- 
quittal. S. V. Gilliam,' 62 Or. 136, 124 
P. 266. 

3^57 Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. V. 
Milbra, 173 Ala. 658, 55 S. 890; Car- 
roll r. Bowen, 113 Md. 150, 77 A. 128; 
Scholl 17. Belcher, 63 Or. 310, 127 P. 
968; Dufur Oil Co. 17. Enos, 59 Or. 528, 
117 P. 457; Baflferty v. Davis, 54 Or. 77, 
102 P. 305; Chamberlain v, Hibbard, 26 
Or. 428, 38 P. 437; Hopwood 17. Pat- 
terson, 2 Or. 49. 



40-68 Brake t*. Lewis, 13 Ga. App. 
276, 79 S. E. 167; Cook 17. Cook, 159 
N. O. 46, 74 S. E. 639. 

41-60 The seauence la immaterial if 

defendant causes the plea in abate- 
ment to be disposed of first. Brake 
V. Lewis, 13 Ga. App. 276, 79 S. E. 
167. 

46-1 Verification is mmeceaeary 
where the matters called to the court's 
attention are apparent from the plead- 
ings* Fields & Co. 17. Allison (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 274. 

Signature to plea. — ^A plea in abate- 
ment may be signed by the prisoner's 
attorney. If so signed and verified by 
the prisoner it is sufficient. Bohanan 
V. S., 15 Neb. 209, 18 N. W. 129. 

46-2 A Yerlfication on information 
and belief is bad. Bank v. Jones, 1 
Swan (Tenn.) 391. 

InsolBcient verification. — A verification 
in the following words is not sufficient: 
''Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this 2d day of June, 1910. Wm. Crea- 
gan. Notary Public." Chairs v. S., 
124 Tenn. 630, 139 S. W. 711. 

Substance of verification. — The affidav- 
it verifying a plea in abatement must 
be positive as to the truth of every 
fact contained in the plea and should 
leave nothing to be collected by infer- 
ence, it must state that the plea is 
true in substance and fact. Chairs v. 
S., 124 Tenn. 630, 139 S. W. 711; Bank 
V. Jonesi 1 Swan ( Tenn.) 391. 
46-8 Hyde r. U. S., 225 U. S. 347, 32 
Sup. Ct. 793, 56 L. ed. 1114. 

''Manifest injury.*' — An averment that 
the action of the court in summoning 
the jurors was to the ''manifest in- 
jury" of the defendant is not suffi- 
cient; it must be shown in what way 
such action was injurious. U. S. v. 
Merchants' & Miners Transp. Co., 187 
Fed. 355. 

46-5 XT. S. V. Rockefeller, 221 Fed. 
462; Cannon f. S., 62 Fla. 20, 57 S. 
240; Priest r. S., 10 Neb. 393, 6 N. 
W. 468; Torres r. Ter. (N. M.) 121 P. 
27; Cox f. P., 19 Hun (N. Y.) 430; 
Ashby 17. S., 124 Tonn. 684, 139 S. W. 
872; Chairs r. S., 124 Tenn. 630, 139 
S. W. 711. 

Setting up irregularities in selection of 
Jurors. — Pleas in abatement setting up 
mere irregularities in the selection of 
jurors, should be drawn with the 
greatest accuracy and precision, and 



Vol 1 



ABATEMENT, PLEAS OF 



must be certain to every intent. When 
it affirmatively appears that no pos- 
sible injury could accrue to a defend- 
ant by an irregularity, not amounting 
to a substantial departure from the 
requirements of law, in the selection 
and impaneling of jurors an objecfibn 
thereto should not avail. Young v. S., 
r>3 Fla, 55, 58 S. 188. 
Amendable defects. — A failure of the 
plea to allege that there was not am- 
ple evidence before the grand jury, 
sufficient to warrant the indictment 
other than defendant's books and pa- 
pers, if a defect at all, will not cause 
a reversal, for the court will permit 
an amendment. XT. S. v. Halstead, 38 
App. Cas. (D. O.) 69. 
Facta constltating a defense. — A plea 
in abatement is not required to state 
facts sufficient to constitute a defense. 
S. t\ Tam, 178 Ind. 313, 99 N. E. 424. 

47-7 Torres v. Ter. (N. M.), 121 P. 
27; Wagner t?. S., 42 O. St. 537. 

48-9 National Live Stock Ins. Co. v, 
Wolfe (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 390. 

51-20 Neb. Rev. St., 1913, §9089; 
Wyo. Comp. St., 1910, §6191. 

51-22 Bright V. S., 76 Ala. 96; Wren 
V. S., 70 Ala. 1; Thomas v, S., 9 Ala. 
App. 67, 64 S. 192. 

51-23 Thus baptized. — ^It is not nec- 
essary to allege that he was baptized 
by the name set out as his true name. 
Bright V. S., 76 Ala. 96. 

62-33 Kamp r. Bartlett, 164 HI. App. 
338; Leslie r. Bartlett, 164 HI. App. 
346; Rosenberg v. Oupersmith, 240 Pa. 
162, 87 A. 570, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 312, 
47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 706. 

54-38 Self t\ Bull, 149 HI. App. 546; 
Carroll v, Bowen, 113 Md. 150, 77 A. 
128. 

56-52 Mullikin v. Cleveland, C. C. & 
St. L. R. Co., 164 HI. App. 37; Immel 
f. Herb, 50 Pa. Super. 241; Burlew v. 
Smith, 68 W. Va. 458, 69 S. E. 908. 

56-53 Ross V, Berry, 17 N. M. 48, 
124 P. 342. 

. 56-54 Brown's Est. v. Stair, 25 Colo. 
App. 140, 136 P. 1003; Harvey v. Provi- 
dent Inv. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 156 S. W. 
1127; Keator v. Whittaker (Tex. Civ.), 
147 S. W. 606. 

57-56 At first term at which indict- 
ment is found if accused has been ar- 
rested and, if nol^ then at the first 
practicable term after his arrest. How- 
ell V. S., 10 Ala. App. 1, 64 S. 522. 



57-57 Hyde v. U. S., 225 XT. S 347, 
32 Sup. Ct. 793, 66 L. ed. 1114; Chairs 
r, S., 124 Tenn. 630, 139 S. W. 711; 
Ransom v. S., 116 Tenn. 355, 96 S. W. 
953. 

Ten days after return of indictment 
is too late to file a plea in abatement 
for non-indorsement on indictment of 
names of witnesses. Dietzelr. S (Tenn.), 
177 S. W. 47. 

57-58 Dowdell t?. U. S.> 221 U. S. 
325, 31 Sup. Ct. 590, 55 L. ed. 753; 
Moore-Mansfield Co. v. Marion, etc. Co., 
52 Ind. App. 548, 101 N. E. 15. 

58-63 IT. S. t?. Nevin, 199 Fed. 831; 
Spivey v. S., 172 Ala. 391, 56 S. 232. 

58-64 Before arraignment. — Such a 
plea may be filed after indictment and 
before arraignment. Pulliam v. Don- 
aldson, 140 Ga. 864, 80 S. E. 315; Tomp- 
kins t?. S., 138 Ga. 465, 76 S. E. 694. 

58-65 Lawrence v. S., 59 Ala. 61; 
Linam v, Anderson, 12 Ga. App. 735, 
78 S. E. 424. 

59-70 Newman v. S., 14 Wis. 426. 
By statnte this power is sometimes 
withdrawn from trial courts. Morgan 
V, S., 8 Ala. App. 172, 63 S. 21. 
60-72 Crawford v. S., 112 Ala. 1, 21 
S. 214; Wright <?. S., 3 Ala. App. 24, 
58 S. 68; S. f?. Pace, 159 N. C. 462, 74 
S. E. 1018. 

Conditions may be imposed. — ^But see 
Cochrane v. S., 6 Md. 400, wherein it 
was held that the right to withdraw the 
plea of not guilty and to demur to the 
indictment, belong to the prisoner un- 
conditionally, and is not a matter of 
favor to be granted by the court upon 
such terms as it may think proper to 
impose, the court saying: "By allow- 
ing the interposition of the demurrer, 
the time of the court is saved, and if 
on it, the indictment be quashed, the 
prisoner could be re-indicted. We 
think the prisoner has the right to 
withdraw his plea of not guilty and 
put in his demurrer; and this^ was the 
decision in the case of Hume r. Ogle, 
1 Croke Elizabeth, 196." 
61-84 Crandall v. S., 2 Ala. App. 112, 
56 S. 873. 

64-96 Garnett v. S., 10 Ga. App. 109, 
72 S. E. 951. See Hart v, Springfield 
Ins. Co., 136 La. 114, 66 S. 558. 
64-99 National Live Stock Ins. Co. 
V. Wolfe (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 390. 
A demurrer for want of facts constitut- 
ing a defense, etc. S. v. Tam^ 178 Ind. 
313, 99 N. E. 424. 



t"^ 



4 



ABORTION 



Vol. 1 



65-1 Bookt V. S., 83 Ala. 79, 3 S. 
720; Beetor V. 8., 11 Ala. App. 333, 66 
S. 857 (demurrer to amended plea); 
Bamesciotta v. P., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 137; 
Stahl V. 8., 11 O. C. C. 23. 

Foim of d emui tg r. -— The demniter 
should state that the plea does not 
state faets sufficient to ^uash the in- 
dictment, information or writ, or to 
abate the action. 8. v. Tarn, 178 Ind. 
313, 99 N. £. i24. 

65-2 Ifizell r. S., 184 Ala. 16, 68 S. 
1000; Spivey v. S., 172 Ala. 391, 56 8. 
232; Curtis c. 8., 9 Ala. App. 36, 63 8. 
745. 

6e-10 An unlntemglble plea will be 
stricken out on motion. Parris f). 8., 
175 Ala. 1, 57 8. 857. 

70-32 Harper r. 8., 1 Ala. App. 232, 
55 S. 258. 



ABBREVIATIONS 

75-13 That words "B. L. D.'* as 

used in the records of the collector of 
internal revenue mean ''Retail Liquor 
Dealer" will be judicially noticed. 
Billingsley r. 8., 4 Okla. Cr. 597, 113 
P. 241. 

78-14 Meyer v. Everett Pulp ft 
Paper Co., 193 Fed. 857, 113 C. C. A. 
643, t* e meaning of abbreviations as- 
certained from the correspondence of 
the parties. 

Ovdinary trade abbxevlatloiis may be 
explained by parol. Louisville & N. B. 
Co. r. 8outhern Plour & G. Co., 136 Ga. 
538, 71 8. £. 884; Wilson-Beheis-Bolfes 
Lumb. Co. V. Ware, 158 Mo. App. 179, 
138 8. W. 690. 

"H" and ••L*\— That "H'' and "L" 
mean "high" and "low" may 'be 
shown. Halbrook v. Quinlan & Co., 84 
Vt. 411, 80 A. 339. 

"Div."— It may be shown that "Biv." 
means "dividend." Halbrook t?. Quin- 
lan ft Co., 84 Vt. 411, 80 A. 339. 
As to coqilftinlng abbravlatioiifl in con- 
tracts see 1 Ency. of Ev. 29. 

70-18 8hillman v. Clardy, 256 Mo. 
297, 165 8. W. 1050. 



79-5 McKev v. C, 145 Ky. 450, 140 
8. W. 658. 

81-12 8. V, Demarco, 81 N. J. L. 
43, 79 A. 418. 

88-37 Absence of consent. — Instruc- 
tion must not omit the words "against 
her will." McKey v. C, 145 Ky. 450, 
140 8. W. 658. 

88-30 Joining divorced husband as 
plaintiff. — A divorced wife having cus- 
tody of child and supporting it, may 
sue without joining divorced husband 
as plaintiff. Magnuson r. O'Dea, 75 
Wash. 574, 135 P. 640, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 
1230, 48 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 327. 
80-40 Vogt 17. Aldrich (8. D.), 151 
N. W. 428. 



ABDUOTIOH 

78-2 Mere abduction of a female, 
without more, is not indictable at com- 
mon law nor under Act, April 4, 1901. 
C. r. Franciet, 53 Pa. Super. 278. 



ABOBTIOir 

04-3 8. 17. Harris, 90 Kan. 807, 136 
P. 264, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 580; 8. r. 
Shields, 230 Mo. 91, 130 8. W. 298. 

04-4 S. V, Brown, 3 Boyee (Del.) 
499, 85 A. 797, defining ** procuring a 
miscarriage." 8ee 8. v. Shields, 230 
Mo. 91, 130 8. W. 298. 

06-0 DeliTery in another connty. — A 
physician who attempts to procure an 
abortion in one county cannot be con- 
victed in county where delivery takes 
place. C. r. Bingaman, 51 Pa. Super. 
336. 

101-38 S. 17. 8hields, 230 Mo. 91, 
130 8. W. 298. 

106-61 P. r. Guaragna, 23 Cal. App. 
120, 137 P. 279. 

105-62 Ccmp. P. v. Wah Hing, 15 
Cal. App. 195, 114 P. 416; 8. v. Brown, 
3 Boyce (Del.) 499, 85 A. 797. 

An allegation that the instruments em- 
ployed were used 'Mn and about and 
within the body" of the person suffi- 
ciently indicates the manner in which 
the offense was committed. P. t\ Guar- 
agna, 23 Cal. App. 120, 137 P. 279. 

106-64 A derieal omission from 
part of a count of the name of the 
woman operated upon will not render 
the count insufficient. 8. i?. Brown, 3 
Boyce (Del.) 499, 85 A. 797. 

108-81 8. 17. Casto, 231 Mo. 398, 132 
8. W. 1115. 

100-87 ^There nse of drugs alonie 
is charged in the indictment, proof that 
an instrument caused the death is not 
admissible. 8. 17. Sonner, 253 Mo. 440, 
161 8. W. 723. 



Vol 1 



ACCESSORIES AND ACCOMPLICES 



111-2 Adylce of pbysiclan, etc.— €. 
V. De Groat, 259 Mo. 364, 168 S. W. 
702. 

112-3 S. V, Massey, 2 Boyce (Del.) 
501, 82 A. 243. 

112-5 S. r. Brown, 3 Boyce (Del.), 
499, 85 A. 797. 

112-8 S. r. Brown, 3 Boyce (Del.) 
499, 85 A. 797. 

117-38 Oonfosliig ''administer" and 

"give." — An instruction telling the 
jury that to ' ' administer ' * drugs means 
to **give" them to a person, is erron- 
eous, since to "give" may include the 
idea that the drugs are taken into the 
stomach. S. v. Stapp, 246 Mo. 338, 151 
8. W, 971. 



A00E880BIES AND AOOOMPUOES 

125-1 C. r. Barton, 153 Ky. 465, 156 
8. W. 113. 

To constitate an accomplice one most 
be 80 connected with a crime that at 
common law he might himself have 
been convicted either as principal or 
an accessory before the fact. P. v, 
Sweeney, 213 N. Y. 37, 106 N. E. 913; 
P. t?. Bright, 203 N. T. 73, 96 N. E. 
362, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 771. 

126-2 Mere presence at the scene of 
a killing without more does not con- 
stitute guilt. 8. V. Larkin, 250 Mo. 218, 
157 8. W. 600, 46 L. E. A. (N. 8.) 13. 

126-5 Ackley v. TJ. S., 200 Fed. 217, 
118 C. C. A. 403; Eaton v. 8., 8 Ala. 
App. 136, 63 8. 41; 8. v. Wakefield, 
88 Conn. 164, 90 Atl. 230; Bexley v. 8., 
141 Ga. 1, 80 8. E. 314; 8. v, Hoerr, 
88 Kan. 573, 129 P. 153- 8kiles r. 8., 
85 Neb. 401, 123 N. W. 447; P. v. 
Sweeney, 161 App. Div. 221, 146 N. Y. 
8. 637; P. V. Pisano, 142 App. Div. 524, 
127 N. Y. 8. 204, 25 N. Y. Or. 460; 8. 
V. Eobertson, 166 N. C. 356, 81 8. E, 
689; 8. V. 8tart, 66 Or. 178, 132 P. 612; 
8. V. Wedemeyer, 65 Or. 198, 132 P. 
518; Bragg v, 8., 73 Tex. Cr. 340, 166 8. 
W. 162; Ollre v, 8., 57 Tex. Cr. 520, 
123 8. W. 1116. 

<<Ald" and ''abet" differentiated. 
To "aid" does not imply guilty knowl- 
edge 0¥ felonious intent, while to 
"abet" includes knowledge of the 
wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, 
and counsel and encouragement of the 
crime. P. v. Bond, 13 Cal. App. 175, 
109 P. 150. 

127-6 Cooper r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 
8. W. 989. 



127-7 S. r. Bobbitt, 228 Mo. 252, 
128 8. W. 953. 

128-11 Montgomery i?. 8., 169 Ala. 
12, 53 8. 991; McMahan v. 8., 168 Ala. 
70, 53 So. 89. 

128-12 8. r. Newman (8. C), 80 
8. B. 482. 

129-15 Buftanan v, 8., 4 Okla. Cr. 
645, 112 P. 32, 36 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 83. 
130-19 8. V. Lee, 228 Mo. 480, 128 
8. W. 987; Buck r. C, 116 Va. 1031, 83 
8. E. 390. 

130-20 Harrison v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
153 8. W. 139; Figaroa v. 8., 58 Tex. 
Or. 611, 127 8. W. 193. 

132-28 Bichardson v, TJ. 8., 181 Fed. 
1, 104 C. C. A. 69; P. t?. Hyde, 156 App. 
Div. 618, 141 N. Y. 8. 1089; Pierce t*. 
8., 130 Tenn. 24, 168 8. W. 851; Espin- 
oza V. 8., 73 Tex. Cr. 237, 165 8. W. 
208; Silvas t\ 8. (Tex. Cr.), 159 8. W. 
223; Cooper t\ 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 8. 
W. 989; Davis v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8. 
W. 1094; Powers v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 
S. W. 909; Davis v 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 611, 
136 8. W. 45. 

Accomplice, not iirincipaL — Pendley r. 
Sj (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 811. 

182-29 Bichardson v. U. 8., 181 Fed. 
1, 104 C. C. A. 69; U. 8. v. Martin, 176 
Fed. 110; Gratton v. 8., 4 Ala. App. 172, 
59 8. 183; Deal v. 8.. 14 Ga. App. 121, 
80 8. E. 537; 8trickland v. 8., 14 Ga. 
App. 591, 81 8. E. 819; De Freese c. 
Atlanta, 12 Ga. App. 201, 76 8. B. 1077; 
Christian v. 8., 9 Ga. App. 61, 70 8. L. 
258; Harbuck v. Atlanta, 7 Ga. App. 
441, 67 8. E. 108; Shorter v. 8., 179 
Ind. 527, 101 N. E. 821; C. v. Bottom, 
140 Ky. 212, 130 8. W. 1091; 8. t?. 
Treweilder, 103 Miss. 859, 60 8. 1015, 
suggestion of error, over., Id. 1039; Rey- 
nolds V. Publishers, 155 Mo. App. 612, 
135 8. W. 103 ; 8. t?. Warady, 78 N. J. L. 
687, 75 A. 977, aff. 77 N. J. L. 348, 72 
A. 37; 8. v. Davenport, 156 N. C. 596, 
72 8. E. 7; 8. v. Boland Lumb. Co., 153 
N. O. 610, C9 8. E. 58; Condron t?. 8., 62 
Tex. Cr. 485, 138 8. W. 594; Albright 
r. 8., 73 Tex. Cr. 116, 164 S. W. 1001. 
Violation of municipal ordinances. — ^By 
analogy to the rule in misdemeanor 
cases, all who participate either di- 
rectly or accessorily in the violation 
of a municipal ordinance may be held 
as principals. Morse v, Macon, 9 Ga. 
App. 829, 72 8. E. 284. 
Violating liquor law. — Where a person 
rents a house to another knowing that 
he intends to use it for the illegal sale 



6 



ACCESSOniES AND ACCOMPLICES 



Vol 1 



or storage of intoxicating liquors, he 
may be convicted as principal. Moody 
V. 3., 14 Ga. App. 523, 81 S. £. 588. 

133-32 McMahan v, S., 168 Ala. 70, 
53 S. 89; Henderson v, S., 11 Ala. App. 
37, 65 8. 721; Tucker v. S., 110 Ark. 
633, 162 S. W. 1086; Beagan v. P., 49 
Colo. 316, 112 P. 785; S. v. Brown, 2 
Boyce (Del.) 405, 80 A. 146; S. 17. Mc- 
Callister, 7 Penne. (Del.) 301, 76 A. 
226; Lewis v. 8., 13C Ga. 355, 71 S. E. 
417; P. V. Barrett, 261 111. 232, 103 
N. E. 969; P. v. Archibald, 258 lU. 383, 
•101 N. E. 582; P. t?. Van Bever, 248 111. 
136, 93 N. E. 725; Anderson v. C, 144 
Ky. 215, 137 8. W. 1063; S. v. Gow, 235 
Mo. 307, 138 8. W. 648; 8. v, Ostman, 
147 Mo. App. 422, 120 8. W. 961; 8. v, 
Mangana, 33 Nev. 511, 112 P. 693; 8. 
17. 8pence, 81 N. J. L. 265, 79 A. 1029; 
S. 17. Wilson, 79 K. J. L. 241, 75 A. 
776; P. 17. Katz, 154 App. Div. 44, 139 
N. Y. 8. 137; Walker v, 8., 10 Okla. 
Cr. 533, 139 P. 711; Metcalf v. 8., 10 
Okla. Cr. 77, 133 P. 1130; Howard v. 
S., 9 Okla. Cr. 337, 131 P. 1100; Bhea 
r. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 220, 131 P. 729; 
Walker r. 8. (Okla. Cr.), 127 P. 895; 
Bowes V. 8., S Okla. Cr. 277, 127 P. 
883; Wishard v, 8., 5 Okl. Cr. 610, 115 
P. 796; Morris f?. 8., 4 Okl. Cr. 233, 111 
P. 1096; Moore v. 8., 4 Okl. Cr. 212, 111 
P. 822; Greenwood t;. 8., 3 Okl. Cr. 
247, 105 P. 371; Cox 17. 8., 3 Okl. Cr. 
129, 104 P. 1074, rehear, denied, 105 P. 
369; 8. V. Cline, 27 8. D. 573, 132 N. 
W. 160; Drysdale v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 156 
S. W. 685; Bass v. 8., 59 Tex. Cr. 186, 
127 8. W. 1020; Goode 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
123 S. W. 597. 

Kot a principal nnlafls present aiding 
and abetting. — ^Friend 17. 8., 109 Ark. 
498, 160 8. W. 384. 

If present^ aiding and assisting one 
is responsible for a homicide whether 
he iSred the fatal shot or not. Butler 
r. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 133, 134 S. W. 230. 
Though in manslaughter there can be 
no accomplices, the law of principals 
may apply to that offense. Burnam 17. 
S., 61 Tex. Cr. 616, 135 8. W. 1175. 
Where a murder Is committed in the 
perpetration of a robbery by two per- 
sons acting in concert, both are guilty 
of the murder, though the killing be 
the act of one only. O. 17. De Leo, 242 
Pa. 510, 89 A. 584. 
All persons present aiding and abet- 
ting a murder are regarded as princi- 
pals and equally guilty. 8. 17. Davis, 88 
S. C. 204, 70 8. B. 417. 



133-33 A person who stands by and 

aids or abets or takes part in a scheme 
to get possession of a property at tho 
cost of human life, is guilty of murder, 
even though he does not himself fire 
the fatal shot. 8. 17. Orrayo, 84 N. J. 
L. 556, 87 A. 121. 

137-46 Pierce v. S., 130 Tenn. 24, 
168 8. W. 851; Kaufman v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 159 8. W. 58. 

Oonvictien of principal necessary. — Tho 
party who actually committed the fel- 
ony must be proved guilty before evi- 
dence is admissible of the guilt of the 
accessories before tho fact, though 
they are charged as principals. Os- 
borne 17. 8., 99 Miss. 410, 54 8o. 450, 
55 8. 52. 

137-47 Booney r. TJ. S., 203 Fed. 
928, 122 C. C. A. 230. 

137-48 Cooper 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 
8. W. 989; Harrison v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
153 8. W. 139; Davis 17. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 
611, 136 8. W. 45. 

138-50 Merrill 17. 8., 175 Ind. 139,' 93 
N. E. 857; Brunaugh 17. 8., 173 Ind. 
483, 507, 90 N. E. 1019; P. 17. Katz, 209 
N. Y. 311, 103 N. E. 305, 154 App. Div. 
44, 139 N. Y. 8. 137. 

138-SC Hunter a 8., 104 Ark. 245, 
149 3. W. 99; P. v. Trumbley, 252 111. 
29, 96 N. E. 573; P. V. Van Bever, 248 
111. 136, 93 N. E. 725; P. 17. Lucas, 244 
111. 603, 91 N. B. 659; Burnett 17. P., 
204 ni. 208, 68 N. E. 505. 

139-57 If an accessory is charged 
as principal without showing his rela- 
tions to the crime according to the 
facts, the charge must be as full and 
specific as a charge against one who 
commits the criminal act. P. 17. Trum- 
bley, 252 m. 29, 96 N. E. 573. 

141-62 P. 17. Cryder, 6 Cal. 23: P. 
V. Bigler, 5 Cal. 23. 

141-63 P. 17. Jordan, 244 HI. 386, 
91 N. E. 482. 

146-80 P. 17. Jordan, 244 HI. 386, 91 
N. E. 482. 

147-82 Indictment must allege facta 
sufficient to constitute the offense by 
the principal. Ex parte Griffin, 33 Nev. 
490, 111 P. 939; Ex parte Smith, 33 
Nev. 466, 111 P. 930. 

167-43 August 17. 8., 11 Ga. App. 
798, 76 8. E. 164. 

158-44 Where there was evidence 
that defendant's son did the shooting, 
instructions assuming that actual firing 



Vol 1 



ACCORD AND SATISFACTION 



of the gun by defendant was essential 
to conviction were properly refused; 
there being evidence of conspiracy. 
Smith V. 8., 8 Ala. App. 187, 62 S. 
675. 

158-48 At common law it was nec- 
essary to convict accessories of a fel- 
ony of the same species as the prin- 
cipal. P. V. Jordan, 244 HI. 386, 91 
N. E. 482. 



AOOOBD AND 8ATI8FA0TI0N 

163-1 Eggland v. South, 22 S. D. 
467, 118 N. W. 719. 

164-2 Houston Bros, v, Wagner, 28 
Okla. 367, 114 P. 1106. 

164-3 B. & W. Engineering €o. v. 
Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164 137 P. 624. 
165-8 Brooklyn B. Co. v. Railroad, 
151 App. Div. 465, 135 N. Y. S. 999; 
Kochman v. Earp, 130 N. Y. S. 175, 
duress. 

165-9 Worcester C. Co. f7. Wood's 
Sons Co., 209 Mass. 105, 95 N. E. 392; 
Houston Bros. c. Wagner, 28 Okla. 367, 
114 P. 1106. 

165-11 See Marsh v. Fricke, 1 Ala. 
App. 649, 56 S. 110. 

Waiver. — ^Accord and satisfaction may 
be waived. White Walnut C. Co. v. 
Min. Co., 162 HI. App. 353, aff, 254 HI. 
368, 98 N. E. 669. 

165-12 Bell V. Pitman, 143 Ey. 521, 
136 S. W. 1026; Houston Bros. v. Wag- 
ner, 28 Okla. 367, 114 P. 1106. 
165-13 See Galowitz v, Hendlin, 150 
N. Y. S. 641. 

166-14 Agreement must be exe- 
cuted. — ^Brooklyn R. Co. v. Railroad, 151 
App. Div. 465, 135 N. Y. S. 990. 
Acceptance of new agreement.— Bell 
r. Pitman, 143 Ey. 521, 136 S. W. 1026, 
35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820. 

167-15 Fuller v. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 
77 A. 706. 

167-17 Abercrombie r. Qoode (Ala.), 
65 S. 816; Forrester v. Linebaugh, 95 
Ark. 623, 128 S. W. 855; De Vaughn v, 
Rothchild, 14 Ga. App. 660, 82 S. E. 
152; Fuller t?. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 77 
A. 706; Scheffenacker v, Hoopes, 77 
Md. Ill, 77 A. 130; Scott v. Imp. Co., 
241 Mo. 112, 145 S. W. 48; Brady t?. N. 
J. Fidelity Ins. Co., 180 Mo. App. 214, 
167 S. W. 1171; Brooklyn B. Co. v. 
Railroad, 151 App. Div. 465, 135 N. 
Y. S. 990; Slocum Co. v. St. Clair, 52 
Pa. Super. 98; Philadelphia B Ss W. B. 



Co. r. Walker, 45 Pa. Snper 524; Siegele 
V. Ins. Assn., 28 S. D. 142, 132 N. W. 
697; Hagen v. Townsend, 27 S. D. 457, 
131 N. W. 512; Smoot V, Checketts, 41 
Utah 211, 125 P. 412. 

167-19 Valne recalTdd does not af- 
fect validity. Beebe v. Worth, 146 N. 
Y. S. 146. 

168-20 Alabama City By. Co. v. 
Gadsen, 185 Ala. 263, 64 S. 91; West- 
em By. Co. V, Foshee, 183 Ala. 182, 62 
S. 500; Cunningham C. Co. 17. Grain 
Co., 98 Ark. 269, 135 S. W. 831; Meyer 
V. Cement Co., 21 Cal. App. 602, 132 P. 
611; Walliter v. Chicago Traction Co., 
245 HI. 148, 91 N. E. 1053; Day Lumb. 
Co. V. Serrell, 177 HI. App. 30; Eunz 
V, Ginocchio, 166 HI. App. 531; Anson 
€7. Ins. Co., 162 HI. App. 505, af,, 252 
HI. 369, 96 N. E. 846, 37 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
555; Sparks v. Spaulding Mfg. Co., 158 
la. 491, 139 N. W. 1083; Chapin v. 
Little Blue School, 110 Me. 415, 86 A. 
838; Fuller r. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 77 
A. 706; Scheffenacker 17. Hoopes, 77 Md. 
Ill, 77 A. 130; Olson 17. Parnsworth, 
97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 260; Rose v, 
American Paper Co., 83 N. J. L. 707, 

85 A. 354; Castelli v. Jerrissati, 80 N. 
J. L. 295, 78 A. 227; Post v. Thomas, 
212 N. Y. 264, 106 N. E. 69; Dunn r. 
Lippard Motor Car Co., 144 N. Y. S. 
349; Metropolitan Shirt Waist Co. v. 
Earmmer, 138 N. Y. S. 1067; McEenty 
V. Oceanus Mfg. Co., 123 N. Y. S. 983; 
Seeds, etc. Co. v. Conger, 83 O. St. 169, 
93 N. E. 892, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 380; 
Polin V, Weisbrot, 52 Pa. Super. 312, 

86 A. 838; Hollinger 17. Granite Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 603; Bergman 
Produce Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ.), 172 
S. W. 554; Olson 17. Burton (Tex. Civ.), 
141 S. W. 549; Cristler i?. Williams 
(Tex. Civ.), 130 S. W. 608. 

Must be dispute as to amount due. 
White Walnut C. Co. 17. Min. Co., 162 
HI. App. 353, aff, 254 HI. 368, 98 N. E. 
669. Must be a bona fide dispute. 
Baugh 17. Fist, 84 Ean. 740, 115 P. 
551; Ogilvie f), Lee, 158 Mo. App. 493, 
138 S. W. 926; Thayer 17. Harbican, 70 
Wash. 278, 126 P. 625. 
A dlqpnte as to matter of law as well 
as of fact will sustain an accord and 
satisfaction. So. Side Coal Co. r. 
Gross, 157 HI. App. 218. 
Betention of check containing teceipt 
in full without indorsement thereon 
does not constitute accord and sfeitisf ac- 
tion* Groh 17. Great Eastern Casualty 
Co., 155 HI. App. 18. 



8 



ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING 



Vol. 1 



The Bom recelyied 'mast W less than 
what he is entitled to receive; it must 
have been given in full satisfaction and 
the creditor must have received it as 
snch- Perin r. Cathcart, 115 la. 553, 89 
K W. 12; Seattle B. Co. t?. Power €o., 
63 Wash. 039, 116 P. 289. 

168-21 Heard r. Armstrong, 10 Ala. 
App. 657 65 S. 849; Holslag v, Morse, 
188 IlL App. 607; Worth Huskey Coal 
Co. 1?. Parker Co., 157 HI. App. 199; 
American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Baker, 
55 Ind. App. 625, 104 N. E. 524; Cun- 
ningham V, Irwin (Mich.), 148 N. W. 
786; Baccaria v. Landers, 84 Misc. 396, 
146 N. Y. 8. 158; Parker v. Mayes, 85 
8. C. 419, 67 S. E. 559, 137 Am. St. 912; 
Hagen t?. Townsend, 27 8. D. 457, 131 
N. W. 512; Smoot v. Checketts, 41 Uteh 
211, 125 P. 412; O'Connell V, Arai, 63 
Wash. 280, 115 Pac. 95. 

Boas not apply to balance claimed as 
interest by way of damages. Ben- 
nett r. Coal Co., 70 W. Va. 456, 74 S. 
E. 418, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 678, 40 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 588. 

Mistalce in amount. — ^Barber Asphalt 
Pav. Co. r. Mullen (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
978. 

As between attorney and client. — Oen. 
Fireproof Const. Co. r. Bntterfield, 143 
App. Biv. 708, 128 N. Y. 8. 407. 

169-24 See Ikard v. Armstrong, 10 
Ala. App. 657, 65 8. 849. 

171-30 Williams v. Tzzell, 108 Ark. 
241, 156 S. W. 843. 

172-36 Klair v. R. Co., 2 Boyce 
(Del.) 274, 78 A. 1085. 

Effect of not pleading. — Dickson v. 
Wainwright, 137 Ga. 299, 73 S. E. 515. 
173-37 Poer r. Johnson, 48 Ind. 
App. 596, 96 N. E. 189; Crilly v. Buyle, 
87 Neb. 367, 127 N. W. 251; First Nat. 
Bank r. Latham, 37 Okla. 286, 132 P. 
891. 

173-39 Williams v, XJzzell, 108 Ark. 
241, 156 S. W. 843; B. ft W. Engineer- 
ing Co. V. Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137 
P. 624; Grand Lodge V. Grand Lodge, 
83 Conn. 241, 76 A. 533. 



of the answer may be made 
to set up accord and satisfaction 
brought out in the evidence. Engineer- 
ing Co. V. Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137 
P. 624. 

173-40 B. ft W. Engineering Co. v. 
Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137 P. 624. 
176-48 Cahaba Coal Co. v. Hanby, 7 
Ala. App. 282, 61 S. 3% 



180-61 .iliat the claim was ih dis- 
pute when lessor amount was accepted, 
must be alleged. Louisiana Lumb. Co. 
i\ Farrior Lumb. Co., 9 Ala. App. 383, 
63 S. 788; Wilder v. Millard, 93 Neb. 
595, 141 N. W. 156. . , 

181-63 Frederick v. Moran, 90 Neb. 
96, 132 N. W. 935; Sawyer V, Haw- 
thorne (la.), 149 N. W. 512. 

184-77 Deming Inv. Co. r. McLaugh- 
lin, 30 Okla. 20, 118 P. 380. 

184-78 But see Business Men's R. 
Co. r. Comet Co., 152 App. Div. 941, 
137 N. Y. S. 823. 

187-88 Purdy v. Van Keuren, 60 
Ore. 263, 119 P. 149. 

189-2 Dana v. Gulf, etc. R. Co. 
(Miss.), 64 S. 214. 

190-9 Babcock v, Huntoon (R. L), 
93 A. 911. 

191-13 Ryan r. Progressive Retailer 
Pub. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 834; 
Fuller 17. Smith, 107 Me. 161, 77 A. 
706; Worcester C. Co. t?. Wood's Sons 
Co., 209 Mass. 105, 95 N. E. 392; Mur- 
phy r. Lungstrass Co., 187 Mo. App. 
577, 174 S. W. 114; St. Pierre v. Peer- 
less Casualty Co. (N. H.), 92 A. 840; 
Ross V. Am. Paper Co., 83 N. J. L. 707, 
85 A. 354; Castelli T. Jereissati, 80 N. 
J. L. 295, 78 A. 227; Schuller r. Robison, 
139 App. Div. 97, 123 N. Y. S. 881; 
Eng 17. Cammann, 85 Misc. 27, 147 N. 
Y. 8. 23; Babcock <?. Huntoon (R. I.), 
93 A. 911. 

Qaestion of intont for Jury. — ^Rosser v. 
Bynum (N. C), 84 S. E. 393. 
191-14 Hunnicut L. Co. V. R. Co., 
2 Ala. App. 436, 57 S. 73; Powley v. 
Thompson, 173 HI. App. 333; Scott v. 
Parkview B. & I, Co., 241 Mo. 112, 
146 8. W. 48; Brewster 17. Silverstein, 
78 Misc. 123, 137 N. Y. S. 912; Ransom 
V. Crawford, 44 Pa. Super. 592; Bab- 
cock V. Huntoon (R. L), 93 A. 911. 



ACXX>XJNT Ain> AOCOtTNTIKa 

203-5 An account stated is an ac- 
count balanced and rendered, with an 
assent to the balance, express or im- 
plied. Pox 17. Patachinkoflf, 132 N. Y. 
S. 840. 

Agreement to settle a tort at a stated 
sum is not provable as an account 
stated. Pudas v. Mattala, 173 Mich. 
189, 138 N. W. 1052, 45 L. R. A. (\. 
S.) 534. 

203-6 S. r. R. Co., 246 HI. 188, 92 
N. E. 814, 815. ^ 



9 



Vol 1 



ACCOUNT AND ACCOVNTINO 



210-31 Napolean Hill C. Co. v. Gray, 
99 Ark. 648, 137 S. W. 827; Tatrano %, 
Pedersen, 21 Cal. App. 585, 132 P. 
608; Vance v. Supreme Lodge, 15 Cal. 
App. 178, 114 P. 83; Rosenbaum v. M<!- 
Ewen, 24 Colo. App. 58, 131 P. 780; 
S. V, IllinoiB Cent. R. Co., 246 ni. 188, 
92 N. E. 814, 816; Dean k Son v. w! 
B. Conkey Co., 180 111. App. 162; 
IT. S. Health & Ace. Ins. Co. r. Batt, 
49 Ind. App. 277, 97 N. E. 195; Mc- 
Mahon v. Brown, 219 Mass. 23, 106 
N. E. 576; Thomasma V. Carpenter, 175 
Mich. 428, 141 K W. 559, Ann. Cas. 
1915A, 690, 45 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 543; 
Western Newspaper Union v. Piano 
Mfg. Co., 118 Minn. 230, 136 N. W. 
752 ; Adam Roth G. Co. t?. Hotel Monti- 
cello Co., 183 Mo. App. 429, 166 S. W. 
1125; Schultheis f?. Caughey, 146 App. 
Div. 102, 130 N. Y. 8. 373; Bauer v. 
Ambs, 144 App. Div. 274, 128 N. Y. 
S. 1024; Stein r. Stein, 140 App. Div. 
306, 125 N. Y. S. 244; Vernon v, Eng- 
lish, 124 N. Y. S. 675; Harrison v. Bir- 
rell, 58 Or. 410, 115 P. 141. 

What constitntea— Barker Auto Co. v. 
Bennett, 219 Mass. 304, 106 N. E. 990. 
Beceiver does not act as agent. — ^A re- 
ceiver, being an officer of the court, his 
failure to object to the disallowance of 
interest on the balances of trust funds 
on deposit held not to render such bal- 
ances accounts stated. Stone fJ. Trust 
Co., 183 Mo. App. 261, 166 8. W. 1091. 
211-32 Bassick G. M. Co. vl Beards- 
ley, 49 Colo. 275, 112 P. 770, 33 L. R. 
A. (N. S.) 852; MacPherson t?. Hard- 
ing, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 404; Generes 
t\ Security Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 
163 S. W. 386. 

211-33 Joshua Henry Iron Wks. v, 
Brenneman, 185 Fed. 183; Stewart f?. 
L. Lasseter & Co., 4 Ala. App. 665, 59 
S. 233; Atkinson r. Golden Gate Tile 
Co., 21 Cal. App. 168, 131 P. 107; Vance 
17. Supreme Lodge, 15 Cal. App. 178, 
114 P. 83; W. A. Parkinson Co. V, 
Tullgren, 177 111. App. 295; Rudolph 
Wurlitzer Co. t?. Dickinson, 153 111. 
App. 36, judgment a^., 247 HI. 27, 93 
N. E. 132; First Nat. Bank t?. Peck, 
180 Ind. 649, 103 N. E. 643; Graham 
& Corry t?. Work, 162 la. 383, 141 N. 
W. 428; Western Newspaper Union t?. 
Piano Mfg. Co., 118 Minn. 230, 136 
N. W. 752; Alexander v. Scott, 150 Mo. 
App. 213, 129 S. W. 991; Bradley v. 
McDonald, 157 App. Div. 572, 142 N. 
Y. S. 702; Daintrey v. Evans, 148 App. 
Div. 275, 132 N. Y. S. 126; Audley v. I 



Jester, 148 App. Div. 94, 132 N. Y. 
S. 1061; Hanan V. Sanford, 69 Or. 
204, 137 P. 772; Bailey v. Frazier, 62 
Or. 142, 124 P. 643; Miller v. Ryder, 
145 Wis. 626, 130 N. W. 518. 

Written promlBes not to dispute bill, 
accompanied by excuses for failure to 
pay it do not amount to an implied 
account stated. McDonald v. Moss- 
man, 181 Mo. App. 475, 168 S. W. 
816. 

Presumption ftom acquiescence. — Fail- 
ure to object only raises a presumption 
of assent to an account rendered, and a 
contrary conclusion may be shown. 
Kent r. Wilson, 149 App. Div. 841, 134 
N. Y. a 206. 

Mere silence by one when a bill is pre- 
sented is not in itself a ground for 
presuming acquiescence in its correct- 
ness. King V, Kahn, 157 HI. App. 251. 
An acconnt rendered and not objected 
to within reasonable time becomes an 
account stated. Carlisle v. Norris, 144 
App. Div. 690, 129 N. Y. S. 585; Har- 
rison c. Birrell, 58 Or. 410. 115 P. 
141. 

Though error exists in an account ren- 
dered it may become stated by virtue 
of retention without objection. Pick- 
ham V. Illinois, Iowa & M. R. Co., 153 
IlL App. 281. 

212^4 Toric Optical Co. f>. Bech- 
told, 138 N. Y. S. 1078. 

Dlstingulsbed ttom account stated. 

Culver V, Newhart, 18 Cal. App. 614, 
123 P. 975. 

213-36 Townsend v. Carter Const. 
Co., 165 App. Div. 973. 150 N. T. S. 
757. 

216-44 Mere conflict in claim to oil 

royalty does not assure equity jurisdic- 
tion. Peterson v. Smith (W. Va.), 84 
S. E. 250. 

220-65 Southern R. Co. <?. Grant, 136 
Ga. 303, 71 S. E. 422, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 
472. 

221-67 Rev. St., 1909, $1832; Reed v. 
Kansas, etc Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 
110. 

223-77 Stansfield v. Dunne (Ariz.), 
141 P. 736. 

227-2 Chicago Crayon Co. I?. Choate, 
102 .Ark. 603, 145 S. W. 197. 

227-4 Carpenter v. Gray, 113 Va. 

518, 75 S. E. 300. 

228-6 Rotan Grocery Co. t?. Tatum 
(Tex. Civ.), 149 g, W. 842. 



1ft 



ACCOUNT AND ACCOUNTING 



Vol. 1 



231-34 Chicago Crayon Co. r. 
Choate, 102 Ark. 603, 145 8. W. 197; 
Day r. Thomas, 2 Boyce (Del.) 488, 82 
A. 237; Continental Lumber & Tie Co. 
r. Miller (Tex. Oiv.), 145 S. W. 735. 

232-40 Becovwy limited to items 
alleged and proved. Armour & Co. v, 
Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 707, 72 S. E. 
168. 

23e-81 Smythe v. Dothan Foundry 
k Macfa. Co., 166 Ala. 253, 52 S. 398; 
Dixie Industrial Co. v. Manly, 2 Ala. 
App. 365, 57 S. 49. 

23T-9T Bergman Produce Co. v. 
Brown (Tex. Civ.), 141 S. W. 153. 

240-35 Priedman, Keller & Co. v. 
Olson (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 28. | 

242*44 Ventress v. Gunn, 6 Ala. 
App. 226, 60 S. 560. 

243-53 United States Health & Ace. 
Ins. Co. c. Batt, 49 Ind. App. 277, 97 
N. E. 195. 

243-55 Action on 1)alance agreed to. 

Davidson Grocery Co. v. Johnston, 24 
Ida. 336, 133 P. 929. 

244-58 Joshua Hendry Iron Wks. v. 
Brenneman, 185 Fed. 183. 

Effect of not averring an account 
stated. — ^Where the complaint does not 
aver an account stated, plaintiff may 
only recover money claimed to be due 
by proving the original indebtedness. 
O'LaughHn f?. Ayrault, 133 N. Y. S. 
444. 

24T-7T Murphey v. Springs & Co., 
200 Fed. 372, 118 C. C. A. 524, 45 L. 
K. A. (N. 8.) 539. 

247-T9 Defendant may diow under 
a general denial any fact destroying 
the cause of action, including payment 
of the debt. Mayer Coal Co. v. Stall- 
smith, 89 Kan. 81, 129 P. 831. 

247-81 Bremer u. Ring, 146 App. 
Div. 724, 131 N. Y. S. 487. 

Frandt accident or mistake must be 
specially pleaded. Barr I?. Lake, 147 
Mo. App. 252, 126 S. W. 755. 

249^3 Bosenbaum t?. McEwen, 24 
Colo. App. 58, 131 P. 780. 

249-94 Arkansas Fertilizer Co. f. 
Banks, 95 Ark. 86, 128 S. W. 566; 
MacPherson v. Harding, 40 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 404; Schmoker V. Miller, 89 
Kan. 594, 132 P. 158; Bumham v. 
Black, 121 N. Y. S. 616. 

250-2 Jackson r. White, 188 Fed. 
775, 110 C. O. A. 481; WillUms v. 



Rutherford Realty Co., 159 App. Div. 
171, 144 N. Y. S. 357. 

250-5 South & N. A. R. Co. v. Louis- 
ville & N. R. Co., 170 Ala. 265, 53 S. 
1018. 

250-6 S. 1?. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 246 
m. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 816. 
250-7 S. r. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 246 
111. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 816. 

250-9 United States Health & Ace. 
Ins. Co. I'. Batt, 49 Ind. App. 277, 97 
N. E. 195. 

251-19 Hodges v. Kyle, 9 Ala. App. 
449, 63 S. 761. 

Defendant not precluded from disput- 
ing any item. Jones v. University Re- 
search Extension, 157 111. App. 132. 

252-21 Treacy i\ Power, 112 Minn. 
226, 127 N. W. 936. 

252-29 Rosenbaum v, McEwen, 24 
Colo. App. 58, 131 P. 780. 

254-45 Loewer v. Lonoke Rice Mill. 
Co., Ill Ark. 62, 161 S. W. 1042. 

254-50 Generes v. Security Life Ins. 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 386. 

257-69 S. V, Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
246 m. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 817. 

258-73 Barker Auto Co. v, Bennett, 
219 Mass. 304, 106 N. E. 990. 

263-94 Chrichton r. Hayles, 176 
Ala. 223, 57 S. 696. 

263-95 Holden v. Butler, 173 Mich. 
116, 138 N. W. 1071; Title Guaranty & 
Surety Co. v, Aetna Indem. Co.^ 167 
Mich. 535, 133 N. W. 515; Clements v. 
W. S. Cooper Co., 136 N. Y. S. 93; 
Hurlburt v. Morris, 68 Or. 259, 135 
P. 531. 

268-98 Phalin v. Dearman, 181 Ala. 
320, 61 S. 941; Mitchem v, Georgia 
Cotton Oil Co., 139 Ga. 519, 77 S. E. 
627; Laubengayer v. Rohde, 167 Mich. 
605, 133 N. W. 535. 

269-99 Hattiesburg Lumb. Co. v. 
Herrick, 212 Fed. 834, 129 C. C. A. 
288; U. S. V. Harsha, 188 Fed. 759; 
Escambia County v. Blount Const. Co., 
66 Fla. 129, 62 S. 650; Ely v. King- 
Richardson Co., 265 111. 148, 106 N. E. 
619, L. R. A. 1915B, 1052; Manville v, 
King-Richardson Co., 182 111. App. 224. 
270-1 Ely V. King-Richardson Co., 
265 111. 148, 106 N. E. 619, L. R. A. 
1915B, 1052; Belcher V. Big Four Coal 
& C. Co., 68 W. Va. 716, 70 S. E. 712. 
Where the discovery prayed for is only 
in aid of an accounting, and the court 
is without jurisdiction to render an ac- 



11 



Vol. 1 



ACCOUNT AND ACCOJJNTINO 



counting, the jurisdiction will not be 
sustained on the ground that the peti- 
tion is in the nature of a bill for dis- 
covery. S. v. Denton, 229 Mo. 187, 

129 S. W. 709, 138 Am. St. 417. 

271-2 Symmers f?. Carroll, 207 N. 
Y. 632, 101 N. E. 698, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 
685, 47 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 196, af. order 
149 App. Div. 641, 134 N. Y. S. 170. 

271-4 Hicks V. Penn Mut. Life Ins. 
Co., 210 Fed. 464; Morris & Co. r. 
Whitley, 182 Fed. 286, decree rev., 183 
Fed. 764, 106 C. C. A. 206; Farrar f?. 
PUlsbury, 217 Mass. 330- 104 N. E. 
737. 

271-5 Levitan f. Houghton Nat 
Bank, 182 Mich. 30, 148 N. W. 388. 

272-13 Holmes v.. Wakelin, 48 Pa. 
Super. 643. 

273-14 Belcher v. Big Four Coal & 
C. Co., 68 W. Va. 716, 70 S. E. 712. 

273-15 Arkadelphia Mill Co. v. 
Barker, 109 Ark. 171, 159 S. W. 208; 
Excelsior Wrapper Co. V. Ynnd, 176 
Mich. 372, 142 N. W. 353. 

273-16 Hurlburt v. Morris, 68 Or. 
259, 135 P. 531. 

A railway company operattng its trains 
over the tracks of another company 

under a joint arrangement, may main- 
tain a suit in equity ^r an account- 
ing on injuries sustained by collision 
and wrecks due to the negligence of 
sueh other company; the remedy at law 
for damages being inadequate. New 
Orleans, etc. B. Co. v. New Orleans 
Great Northern B. Co. (Miss.), 65 S. 
508. 

273-17 Yaldes r. Larrinaga, 233 IT. 
S. 705, 34 Sup. Ct. 750, 58 L. ed. 704; 
Gayle v. Pennington, 185 Ala. 53, 64 
S. 572; McArthur v, Blaisdell, 159 Cal. 
604, 115 P. 52; Noble v. Burnett Co., 
208 Mass. 75, 94 N. E. 289; Graham v, 
Graham, 171 Mich. 307, 137 N. W. 153; 
Kasovits V. Hungarian, etc. Ben. Soc, 

130 N. Y. S. 72; Crennell f?. Fulton, 241 
Pa. 572, 88 A. 783. 

274-22 Morris & Co. «. Whitley, 183 
Fed. 764, 106 C. C. A. 206, rev. decree, 
182 Fed. 286. 

274-26 Cascaden v, Dunbar, 3 Alaska 
671; China & Japan Trading Co. v. 
Provand, 155 App. Div. 171, 140 N. Y. 
3. 79; Milwaukee Boston Store v, Katz, 
153 Wis. 492, 140 N. W. 1038. 
275-27 Complicated accounts. — A 
bill for accounting will lie against a 
county officer and his bondsmen, where 



the bill shows facts which would ren- 
der an accounting at law complicated, 
if not impossible, and the discovery is 
sought. Compton v. Gilder, 176 Ala. 
309, 58 S. 271. 

276-29 And vice versa.- -McNulty 
a Gilbert, 154 App. Div. 297, 138 N. 
y. S. 996. 

277-32 Ktr where there is an ade- 
quate remedy at law. Lannin v. Lynn 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 645. 

277-35 Mayfield v. Berainger, 87 S. 
C. 36i', 69 S. £. 673. 

278-37 Driver v. Brunemer, 40 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 105. 

282-44 Orieb r. Equitable Life 
Assur. Soc., 189 Fed. 498. 

282-S2 Or against ether belX8«— Two 

of the heirs of a decedent may com- 
pel an accounting by a third, whom 
they charge with having secured a 
large amount of the personal property 
by fraud and undue influence. Powell 
r. Pennock, 181 Mich. 688, 148 N. W. 
430. 

283-53 Vermeule v. Vermeule, 82 
N. J. Eq. 434, 89 A. 535. 

284-58 Poteet f. Imbaden, 73 W. 
Va. 667, 80 S. E. 958. 

286-76 Findley r. Warren, 244 Pa. 

64, 90 A. 457. 

288-84 Must negative remedy at 
law. — A complaint for an accounting in 
equity, which, fails to show that plain- 
tiff has no adequate remedy at law, is 
bad on demurrer. Stewart i?. Auer- 
bach, 148 App. Div. 222, 132 N. Y. S. 
1021. 

288-85 Tice r. Dickerson, 60 Pla. 
380, 53 S. 645. 

289-87 Setting forth fiduciary rela- 
tion. — A complaint alleging that 
money was intrusted to an attorney for 
a particular purpose, sufficiently avers 
a fiduciary relation. Tiffany r. Hess, 
122 N. Y. S. 482. 

289-90 When demand onnecessary. 
Where an account is complicated, giv- 
ing rise to an independent equity, a 
preliminary personal demand for an 
accounting before resorting to equity 
is not necessary. Chrichton v. Hayles, 
176 Ala. 223, 57 S. 696. 
An opportunity to aoconnt must be 
given to the adverse party. Alywin 
v. Morley, 41 Mont. 191, 108 P. 778. 

289-91 Degree of certainty.— The 
bill must be suflciently certain to ap- 



12 



ADJOINING LANDOWNERS 



Vol. 1 



priM the defendant of the matters as 
to which he is ealled npon to account. 
S. r. niinois Cent. B. Co., 246 111. 188, 
92 N. E. 814, 816. 

MatteiB witliin advene party's knowl- 
edge.-— Bill need not contain precise al- 
legations of matters charged to rest 
in^ the knowledge of defendant con- 
stituting the subject of a part of the 
diseovery sought. 8. v. Illinois Cent. 
R. Co., 246 111. 188, 92 N. E. 814, 816. 
29O-03 Lindsey Lumb. Co. v. Mason, 
165 Ala- 194, 51 S. 750. 

291^ Pickett v. Pearsons, 17 Vt. 
470. 



South & N. A. R. Co. V. Louis- 
vUle ft N. R. Co., 170 Ala. 265, 53 S. 
1016. 

296-27 AiipUcation of doctrine of 
laches is largely a matter of discretion. 
A court of equity will ordinarily give 
effect to the statute of limitations but 
obeys the spirit rather than the letter 
of the statute. Sullivan v. Railroad 
Co., 94 U. S. 806, 24 L. ed. 324; Mace 
r. Ship Pond Land, etc. Co., 112 Me. 
420, 92 A. 486; Lawrence v. Rokes, 61 
Me. 38. So where lapse of time has 
not changed the situation of parties 
the right to recover what is admitted 
due will not be denied. Mace v. Ship 
Pond Land, etc. Co., 112 Me. 420, 92 
A. 486; Spanlding v. Farwell, 70 Me. 

El^teen jBtoB* delay not fatal, if ex- 
plained. Briver 17. Brunemer. 40 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 105. 

300-51 O'Eelley v. Clark, 184 Ala. 
391, 63 S. 948. 

301-52 Thomas v. Turner, 157 HI. 
App. 16. 

303-64 Del Genovese v. Del Geno- 
vese, 149 App. Div. 266, 133 N. Y. S. 
765. 

304-68 Munn & Co. v. Americana 
Co. (X. J. L.), 92 A. 344. 

306-88 Patterson v. Northern Trust 
Co., 170 IlL App. 501. 

306-S9 It Is optional with the Judge 
to settle the account himself or send 
it to a master. McCarthy r. Gordon, 
211 Mass. 115, 97 N. E. 88. 

398-95 Crowley t?. McCambridge, 
154 m. App. 135. 

398-96 Pox r. Hall, 164 Cal. 287, 
128 P. 749. 

314-40 American Bonding Co. V. S., 
120 Md. 305, 87 A. 922. 



Personal Judgment.— -In a suit in equity 
for an accounting, the court may ren- 
der a personal judgment where a more 
specific remedy is not practicable. 
Title Ins. & Trust Co. v, IngersolL 158 
Cal. 474, 111 P. 360. 



ADJOINIKa LANDOWNERS 

317-1 Parker r, Hodgson, 172 A.la. 
632, 55 S. 818; Langhorne v. Turman, 
141 Ky. 809, 133 S. W. 1008, 34 L. 
R. A. (N. S.) 211; Hanrahan v. Balti- 
more. 114 Md. 517, 80 A. 312; Steeneck 
V. O'Leary, etc. Co., 80 Misc. 507, 141 
N. Y. S. 572; Bicak r. Bundle, 78 Misc. 
358, 138 N. Y. S. 413; Bloomingdale 
c. Duffy, 71 Misc. 136, 127 N. Y. S. 
1080; Cooper v, Altoona Co., 53 Pa. 
Super. 141; Walker r. Strosnider, 67 
W. Va. 39, 67 S. E. 1087. 
319-5 Walker r. Strosnider, 67 W. 
Va. 39, 67 S. E. 1087. 

319-6 Foundation of action is not 
negligence, but the violation of prop- 
erty rights. Freseman v, Purvis, 51 Pa. 
Super. 506. 

320-10 Louden r. City of Cincin- 
nati (Ohio), 106 N. £. 970. 

321-13 Elston «. McGlauflin, 79 
Wash. 355, 140 P. 396. 

322-17 Bloomingdale r. Duffy, 71 
Misc. 136, 127 N. Y. S. 1080, ajf., 130 
N. Y. S. 1105. 

322-18 Parker v. Hodgson, 172 Ala. 
632, 55 S. 818; Noceto v. Weill, 166 
Dl. App. 162; Jamison t?. Myrtle Lodge, 
158 la. 264, 139 N. W. 647; Bissell t?. 
Ford, 176 Mich. 64, 141 N. W. 860; 
Steeneck v, O'Leary, etc. Co., 80 Misc. 
507, 141 N. Y. S, 572; Weiss <?. Kohl- 
hagen, 58 Ore. 144, 113 P. 46; Cooper 
r. Altoona, etc.. Co, 231 Pa 557, 80 
A. 1047; Cooper v, Altoona Co., 53 Pa. 
Super. 141; Walker r. Strosnider, 67 
W. Va. 39, 67 S. E. 1087. 

323-19 Jamison r. Myrtle Lodge, 
158 la. 264, 139 N. W. 547; Walker 
r. Strosnider, 67 W. Va. 39, 67 S. E. 
1087. 

32S-2S Patrick r. Smith, 75 Wash. 
407, 134 P. 1076, 48 L. B. A. (N. B) 
740; Walker v, Strosnider, 67 W. Va. 
39, 67 S. E. 1087. See Lexington Ry. 
Co. V. Baker, 156 Ky. 431, 161 S. W. 
228. 

Where rock or other debris are thrown 
on adjoining land it "^mounts to tres- 
pass for which defendant is liable re- 



18 



Vol. 1 



ADMIRALTY 






gardleRS of negligence, unless an ex- 
press easement against premises has 
been acquired. Ex parte Birmingham 
Realty Co., 183 Ala. 444, 63 8. 67; 
Birmingham Co. t\ Grover, 159 Ala. 
276, 4S S. 682; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & 
Iron Co. V. Salser, 158 Ala. 511, 48 S. 
374. But "Where defendant held under 
a deed from plaintiff allowing ease- 
ment to use land in any manner neces- 
sary to quarry or blast, the mere fact 
that stones fell on plaintiff's land and 
injured his property would not render 
defendant liable in trespass for the in- 
jury. Spencer t?. Gainesville, 140 Ga. 
632, 79 S. E. 543. See Scott v. Bay, 3 
Md. 431; Casselberry v. Ames, 13 Mo. 
A pp. 575; Arthur v. Henry, 157 N. C. 
393, 73 S. E. 206. 

Use of high power explosives.— Parties 
using such are liable irrespective of 
the question of negligence or :want of 
skill. Louden v. Cincinnati (Ohio), 106 
N. E. 970. 

326-26 Deubel v. Const. Co., 80 N. 
J. L. 98, 77 A. 611; Stancourt Laun- 
dry Co. V. Lamura, 147 N. Y. S. 895. 
For the ordinary discomforts and in- 
jurious effects attendant upon lawful 
operations on his own premises, not 
constituting a nuisance, there is no 
liability except for proximate negli- 
gence in mode of operation. Ex parte 
Birmingham Bealty Co., 183 Ala. 444, 
63 S. 67. 

327-30 Eudnick v. Murphy, 213 
Mass. 470, 100 N. E. 643, Ann. Cas. 
1914 A, 538; In re Opinion of the Jus- 
tices, 208 Mass. 603, 94 N. E. 849. 

329-35 Norton r. Eandolph, 176 Ala. 
381, 58 S. 283, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 714, 
40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 129, it must be 
alleged that the structure was mali- 
ciously erected. 

329-36 Bush r. Mockett, 95 Neb. 
652, 145 N. W. 1001, 52 L. E. A. (N. 
S.) 736. 

330-37 Haitsch v, Duffy (Del.), 92 
A. 249; Smoot i\ Heyl, 34 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 480; Milton v. Puffer, 207 Mass. 
416, 93 N. E. 634, 32 L. B. A. (N. S.) 

1010. 

Landlord not liable for tenant's en- 
croachment on adjoining land. Brooks 
r. Eosenbaum, 217 Mass. 172, 104 N. 
E. 469. 

Lessor not liable for encroachment by 
sublessee. Brooks v. Eosenbaum, 217 
Mass. 172, 104 N. E. 469, 



333^2 PhiUips t^. Brittingham, 2 
Boyce (Del.) 173, 77 A. 964; Blalock 
V. Atwood, 154 Ky. 394, 157 S. W. 694. 
46 L. E. A. (N. S.) 3. 

333-44 Description of trees in com- 
plaint as '* noxious and poisonous" is 
no ground of general demurrer. Acker- 
man 1?. Ellis, 81 N. J. L. 1, 79 A. 883. 
334-46 Ackerman v. Ellis, 81 N. J. 
L. 1, 79 A. 883. 

Draiaage ftrom roofs.— Where ashes and 
dirt are deposited on his own lot near 
neighbor's line, and the eaves and 
waterspouts are so constructed that 
such ashes and dirt are carried by the 
water from eaves, the person is liable 
in damages to his neighbor. If neigh- 
bor does not make reasonable effort to 
minimize damages this goes to extent 
and not right of recovery. Wilson i?. 
McCluskey, 53 Pa. Super. 25. 



ADMIBALTT 

365-35 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 
216 Fed. 666. 

366-39 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 
216 Fed. 566. 

369-42 In exercising snch jurisdic- 
tion the court bas no power to include 
causes not within the maritime and ad- 
miralty jurisdiction, however conven- 
ient it may be. The St. David, 209 
Fed. 985. 

369-44 Aurora Shipping Co. t?. Boyce, 
191 Fed. 960, 112 O. C. A. 372; The 
Fred E. Sander, 208 Fed. 724; The 
Henry B. Smith, 195 Fed. 312. 

Workmen's Compensation Act. — A state 
act abolishing civil actions for the re- 
covery of damages by workmen for per- 
sonal injuries received on account of 
employer's negligence does not with- 
draw from workmen their remedy in 
admiralty The Fred E. Sander, 208 
Fed. 724. 

373-79 Schuede t?. Zenith S. S. Co., 
216 Fed. 566. 

No right to seek a new remedy in a 
law court is given by this clause, but 
merely the right to employ a common- 
law form, if one is found competent 
to furnish him the relief he is entitled 
to under his contract. Schuede V, 
Zenith S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 566. 
The Judicial code, §24 (Act March 3, 
1911, ch. 231, 36 St. at L. 1091 [Comp. 
St., 1913, §991]) declares substantially 
the same law. See Berton t?. Tietjen 
I & Lang Dry Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763. 



14 



ADMIRALTY 



Vol. 1 



374-81 TTodn Workmen's Oompen- 
ntiOB Aet. — ^An action under the legis- 
ktive schedule of this act, brought by 
a machinist injured while working updn 
a Tcaael in defendant's dry dock, is 
not within the exclusive jurisdiction 
of admiralty. Berton r. Tiet jen & Lang 
Diy Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763. 

374-82 Berton r. Tietjen & Lang 
Dry Dock Co., 219 Ped. 763. 

370-92 See vol. 1, pp. 401, 407, 422, 
and infroy 422-65. 

376-93 Beteiitlon of joiiadiction. 
In eases of concurrent jurisdiction be- 
tween the federal and the state courts, 
the court which first takes cognizance 
should proceed without interference to 
a finality. Berton f?. Tietjen & Lang 
Dry Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763. 

377-3 Navigation of the air.— Al- 
though the jurisdiction in a4miralty 
has been extended to meet new condi- 
tions growing out of the needs of com- 
merce, the court is not warranted in 
assuming jurisdiction over aircraft. 
The Crawford Bros. No. 2, 215 Fed. 
269. 

379-10 Ship raised from bottom.— A 
ship which after sinking has been 
abandoned to underwriters and had 
her enrollment surrendered, still re- 
tains her character as a vessel within 
admiralty cognizance, when raised a 
year later and put in dry dock to be 
refitted for service. The George W. 
Elder, 206 Ped. 268, 124 C. C. A. 332. 
379-11 Paurtleiilar instances. — A 
dredge (Bichmond Dredging Co. t*. 
Standard American Dredging Co., 208 
Fed. 862, 126 C. C. A. 20; North Amer- 
ican Dredging Co. v. Pacific Mail S. 
S. Co., 185 Fed. 698, 107 C. C. A. 620; 
Postal Tele. Cable Co. v, P. Sanford 
Boss, Inc., 221 Fed. 105); floating pile- 
driver. In re P. Sanford Ross, Inc., 
196 Ped. 921. 

A dzy-dock is not a vessel within the 
meaning of a Statute including in the 
word vessel ** every description of 
water craft or other artificial contriv- 
ance used or capable of being used, as 
a means of transportation on water." 
Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock 
Co., 219 Fed. 763, 771. 
AeroplaiieB. — Admiralty has no juris- 
dieHon of a suit to establish a lien 
for salvage on an aeroplane which had 
fallen into navigable waters. Aircraft, 
liot being of the sea or restricted in 
their activities to navigable waters, 



are not maritime. The Crawford Bros. 
No. 2, 215 Fed. 269. 

381-29 Entirely foreign. — Claims 
arising on foreign vessels, in foreign 
places, and presented by foreigners 
will not be considered. The Gloria de 
Larrinaga, 196 Fed. 590. 
382-32 Amoont must be snbstantial. 
The rule in admiralty, like that in 
equity, is that only substantial matters 
will be dealt with. Thus where the 
amount involved in a claim of recoup- 
ment is quite unsubstantial admiralty 
will not deal with it. Ely t?. Murray 
& Tregurtha Co., 200 Ped. 868, 118 
C. C. A. 620. 

383-36 Must trtend to entire con- 
tract. — ^The substance of the whole 
contract must be maritime before ad- 
miralty will take jurisdiction. Berton 
V, Tietjen & Lan« Dry Dock Co., 219 
Fed. 763. 

384-37 Contracts for building ships, 
etc. The Atlantic City (C. C. A.), 220 
Fed. 281. 

384-38 '*Port pay," or the wages 
of a seaman while the ship is in port 
may be recovered in admiralty. Schmidt 
V. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 209 Fed. 
264. 

38S-39 Bole illustrated.— A contract 
for service as a seaman, fisherman, 
beachman, trapman ''and such other 
services as might be required,'* is a 
maritime contract. North Alaska Sal- 
mon Co. V. Larsen (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 
93. 

387-50 The George W. Elder, 206 
Fed. 268, 124 C. C. A. 332. 
387-54 Stevedores' executory con- 
tract. — Admiralty has jurisdiction of 
a suit in personam for breach of an 
executory contract to do stevedoring 
services. Terminal Shipping Co. r. Ham- 
berg, 222 Fed. 1020; The AUerton, 93 
Fed. 219. 

388-57 Effect of talcing secnrity. 
The right to sue in admiralty on a debt 
for supplies furnished is not affected 
by the taking of a bond and mortgage 
to secure the debt. Bobins Dry Dock 
& Repair Co. v. Chesbrough, 216 Fed. 
121, 132 C. C. A. 365. 
389-66 Eadie v. North Pacific S. S. 
Co., 217 Fed. 662. 

391-82 The Navis, 196 Fed. 843; 
The George T. Kemp, 2 Low. 477, 10 
Fed. Cas. No. 6,341, 
Services of a watchman are not mari- 
time when rendered to vessel that is 



15 



Vol. 1 



ADMIRALTY 



disengaged and laid up for tepairs. 
The Fortura, 206 Fed. 673. And see 
The Sinus, 65 Fed. 226; The America, 
56 Fed. 1021. 

392-89 The storage of a yacbt's 
boats during winter is a maritime 
service. And the storing of the tackle, 
apparel and furniture of a yacht is as 
distinctly a maritime claim as the care 
of the yacht itself. The Kavis, 196 
Fed. 843. 

393-96 Executory contract to famish 
coaL — ^A contract to furnish all the coal 
to a certain steamship line that might 
be required by the buyer for the use 
of its ships, is, in so far as it is 
executory, not maritime. Steamship 
Overdale Co. v. Turner, 206 Fed. 339. 
A bond conditioned upon the keeping 
by the charterer of the covenants of a 
charter party, is not a maritime con- 
tract. Eadie v. North Pacific S. S. Co., 
217 Fed. 662. 

393-98 Aurora Shipping Co. v. Boyce, 
191 Fed. 960, 112 C. C. A. 372. 
394-99 The St. David, 209 Fed. 985. 
The supreme court of the United 
States was, in Atlantic Transport Co. 
r. Imbrovek, 234 U, S. 52, 34 Sup. Ct. 
733, 58 L. ed. 1209, 51 L. B. A. (N. 
S.) 1157 (and note), presented with a 
state of /acts practically identical with 
those in Campbell v, H. Hackfeld & 
Co. But the court does not say whether 
the locality test is exclusive; for 
''even if it be assumed that the re- 
quirement as to locality in tort cases, 
while indispensable, is not necessarily 
exclusive, still in the present case the 
wrong which was the subject of the 
suit was we think of a maritime na- 
ture,'* and hence admiralty had jur- 
isdiction. See 22 Case and Comment, 
p. 122. 

395-1 Hamburg-Amerikanische Pach- 
etfahrt Aktien Gesellschaft v. Gye, 207 
Fed. 247, 124 C. C. A. 517; California- 
Atlantic S. S. Co. V, Central Door & 
Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 5, 124 C. C. A. 
189. 

Injury to a vessel caused by a draw- 
bridge over a navigable river, is a 
maritime tort. Dorrington v, Detroit 
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 232. 
Injury to a submarine cable. — ^A suit 
against a vessel for injury to a cable 
resting on the bottom of a navigable 
channel, and attached to either shore, 
is within the jurisdiction of admiralty. 
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. P. Sanford 
Boss, Inc., 221 Fed. 105. 



397-22 California-Atlantic S. S. Co. 
V, Central Door & Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 
5, 124 C. C. A. 139. 

398-25 The Transfer No. 12 (C. C. 
A.), 221 Fed. 409; Monongahela Biver 
Consol. C. & C. Co. f7. Schinnerer, 196 
Fed. 375, 117 C. C. A. 193; Aurora 
Shipping Co. r. Boyce, 191 Fed. 960, 
112 C. C. A. 372. 

Ifo action in rem, etc.— The Starr, 209 
Ffed; 882. 

An action in rem for personal Ininries^ 

not resulting in death, given by state 
statute, will not be enforced in admir- 
alty. The Henry B. Snuth, 195 Fed. 
312. 

A right of ftctiOL. for death cannot be 
maintained in admiralty unless given 
by a federal or state statute. Bainey 
V. New York & P. S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 
449, 132 C. C. A. 509. 

399-27 When Uen attaches.— No lien 
exists in favor of a shipper until the 
goods are actually shipped. The Ark, 
196 Fed. 165. 

401-42 The Samuel Little (C. C. 
A.), 2^1 Fed. 308. 

403-45 Dorrington v. Detroit (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 232. 

Pumping out a yacht stationed in a 
harbor is a salvage service. The Navis, 
196 Fed. 843. 

404-47 State sUtntes.-— Extent of 
liability is regulated by the general 
admiralty law and cannot be limited 
by a local law. The Thielbek, 211 Fed. 
685. 

407-5S See vol. 1, pp. 376, 401, 422, 

and infra, 422-65. 

408-58 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 

216 Fed. 566. 

409-61 Bainey v. New York & P. S. 

S. Co., 216 Fed. 449, 132 C. C. A. 

509; California- Atlantic S. S. Co. i\ 

Central Door & Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 5, 

124 C. C. A. 139. 

409-62 It is not good practice, in 
admiralty, to borrow a different pro- 
cedure from other branches of the law, 
merely to meet the exigencies of one 
situation. Foster i;. Compagnie Fran- 
caise de Navigation a Yapeur, 219 Fed. 
351. 

413-96 Bainey v. New York & P. 
S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 449, 132 C. C. A. 
509; California- Atlantic S. S. Co. t*. 
Central Door & Lumb. Co., 206 Fed. 
5, 124 C. C. A. 139. 



16 



ADMIRALTY 



Vol. 1 



IViijtgiiattou la j^leadinss inunatarlaL 

It 18 immaterial whether the pleadings 
count on contract or on tort. Bainey 
r. New York & P. 8. S. Co., 216 Fed. 
449, 132 C. C. A. 509. 

413-1 The Fred R Sander, 208 Fed. 
724. 

BftUof obtained imdAr Woikmen's 
CompeEnaatioii Act is a bar to a suit 
in admiralty for compensation for the 
same injuries. The Fred E. Sander, 
212 Fed. 545. 



Sea Ins. Co. r. Abont 500 
Tons of Steel BaUs, 191 Fed. 250. 

422^5 Aoconnting.— Admiralty will 
entertain jurisdiction of an accounting 
which is incidental to a suit already in 
the admiralty court. The Emma B, 
140 Fed. 771; The Thomas Sherlock, 
22 Fed. 253; The John E. Mulford, 18 
Fed. 455; The L. A. Brown, 2 Low. 
464, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,118. Where, 
however, the maritime questions aris- 
ing would be purely incidental to the 
accounting, admiralty has no jurisdic- 
tion. The Zillah May, 221 Fed. 1016. 
See also voL 1, pp. 376, 401, 407. 

424-82 A Ubel filed before aU the 
. servioeB aie perfoimed, though prema- 
turely brought, may. where the cir- 
cumstances warrant it, be allowed to 
stand, and the prematureness of the 
proceeding will only affect the question 
of costs. The Lassell, 193 Fed. 539. 

42T-11 A husband may maintain a 
suit in admiralty for injuries suffered 
by his wife in a collision. New York 
k L. B. Steamboat Co., v, Johnson, 195 
Fed. 740, 115 C. O. A. 540. 
439-22 The Dawn, 212 Fed. 564. 
440-20 In ceae of a colUaion, suit 
may be in rem against one of the boats 
and in personam against the owner of 
the other. This is possible by virtue 
of rule 46 which gives courts power 
to regulate their practice in such man- 
ner as they di^em expedient to the ad- 
ministration of justice. The Sampson, 
197 Fed. 1017. 

4 48-9 4 Argo S. S. Co. v. Buffalo S. S. 
Co., 223 Fed. 581. 

459-T Monongahela Consol. C. ft C. 
Co. V, Schinnerer, ^^'^ Fed. 375, 383, 
117 C. C. A. 193. 

458-26 No pre8imi]»tiQn arises in 
favor of jurisdiction of a court of ad- 
miralty; it must appear by direct and 
positive averment. California-Atlantic 
S. 8. Co. r. Central Door & Lumb. Co., 
206 Fed. 5, 124 €. C. A. 139. 



A f ailnie to pted the state sutate 

upon which the right of action for 
wrongful death is based is not a juris- 
dictional defect and unless proper ob- 
jection is taken thereto the defect is 
waived. Monongahela Consol. C. ft C. 
Co. V, Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375, 383, 
117 C. C. A. 193. See also infra, 
450-7. 

453-27 Tort, etc. California-Atlan- 
tic S. S. Co. V, Central Door ft Lumb. 
Co., 206 Fed. 5, 124 C. C. A. 139. 

457-51 State in which collision oo- 
curred. — A failure to allege In which 
of two states the collision occurred is 
not a jurisdictional defect, since the 
court will apply the law of the state 
in which the proofs show the collision 
took place. Monongahela Biver Consol. 
C. ft C. Co. r. Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375, 
117 C. C. A. 193. 

464-0 Foster i?. ComfMignie Fran- 
caise de Navigation a Vapeur, 219 Fed. 
351. 

465-21 The SisiUna, 212 Fed. 1022. 

465-24 Bule limited to parties only. 
A rule providing that after joinder of 
issue and before trial, any party may 
by leave of court examine the opposite 
party, his agents or representatives, or 
deliver interrogatories* in writing for 
the examination of such party, etc., 
does not authorize one party to examine 
the officers and crew of the other 
party's vessel. The Sisilina, 212 Fed. 
1022. 

465-28 Oompelllng discovery. — Dis- 
covery of documents will not be com- 
pelled where the moving party can 
obtain either the originals or copies of 
such documents and where the only 
purpose of the discovery would be to 
establish facts which could be obtained 
by depositions taken on commission. 
Circumstances might exist, however, 
justifying the eonrt in compelling a 
discovery. The Eros, 224 Fed. 194. 

467-46 The Sisilina, 212 Fed. 1022. 

468-59 Bin Of partlcalarB.-'In re 
Webb, 219 Fed. 849. 

471-2 Only facts properly pleaded 
are confessed. The Fred E. Sander,- 
212 Fed. 545. 
482-126 In a rait for "port pay" 

matters of set-off arising during the 
voyage may be pleaded. Schmidt v. 
Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 209 Fed. 264. 
482-28 The amount involved in a 
claim to tecoup must be substantial 



17 



Vol. 1 



ADMIRALTY 



Ely V. Murray & Tregurtha Co., 200 
Fed. 368, 118 O. C. A. 520. 

506-80 Where libelant is a receiver 
in bankruptcy, the respondent in the 
cross-bill will not be required to give 
security. The Transit, 210 Fed. 575. 

533-75 See The Zillah May, 221 
Fed. 1016. 

522-78 A shipbuilding company's 
lien growing out of work done in the 
construction of the vessel may be thus 
asserted. The Atlantic City (C. C. 
A.), 220 Fed. 281. 

The mortgagee, ete. The Atlantic City 
(C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 281. 

524-97 Bringing In charterers.— It is 
proper within the spirit of rule 59, for 
claimant in a suit against a vessel for 
supplies to bring in charterers of the 
vessel, in order that the entire matter 
•may be settled in one suit. Tho Louis 

I)oUve,211 Fed. 783. ,^ 

In a suit for towage the claimant may 
thus by analogy to cases covered by 
rule 59 bring in a third party upon 
whose request the services were ren- 
dered. The Daylight, 206 Fed. 864. 

527-31 The Ticeline, 208 Fed. 670. 

529-51 The Bainbridge, 199 Fed. 
404, refusal to dismiss held not an 
abuse of discretion. 

536-43 Lincoln v. Cunard S. S. Co. 
(C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 622. 

562-25 The Earl K., 215 Fed. 613. 

554-52 The Transfer No. 21 (C. C. 
A.), 218 Fed. 636. 

558-96 New relief may be granted 
to parties who do not appeal. Reid 
17. Fargo, 213 Fed. 771, 130 C. C. A. 
285. 

562-48 Charts referred to % ^t*- 
nesscs in the lower court should be 
brought up with the record. The Cata- 
wissa, 213 Fed. 14, 129 C. C. A. 352. 

563-1(7 Reid v, Fargo, 213 Fed. 771, 
130 C. C. A. 285. 

567-79 The Dolbadarn Castle (O. C. 
A.), 222 Fed. 838; Stern v. Fernandez 
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 42; The A. G. 
Brewer (C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 648; New 
England S. 8. Co. t?. New York Dock 
Co., 207 Fed. 73, 124 C. C. A. 633 ; Phil- 
adelphia B. & W. B. Co. v. Southern 
Transp. Co., 205 Fed. 732, 124 C. C. 
A. 26; Monongahela Biver Consol. C. 
& C. Co. V, Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375, 
117 C. C. A. 193; Merchants & Min- 
ers' Transp Co. V, Bobinson Baxter- 



Dissoway Tow. & Transp. Co., 194 Fed. 
361, denying rehear, 191 Fed. 769, 113 
C. C. A. 427. 

TbA fact that no ^vrltten opliiion was 

filed does not alter this rule when the 
finding is obvious from the decree. 
Monongahela Biver Consol. C. & C. 
Co. 17. Schinnerer, 196 Fed. 375, 117 
C. C. A. 193. 

Where trial court omits to find nut- 
terial facts which were proved by the 
k>vidence the case will be reviewed 
on the facts unaffected by any finding 
of fact by the court below. The Ful- 
lerton, 211 Fed. 833, 128 C. C. A. 359. 

667-81 H a m b u r g-A m erikanische 
Packetfahrt Aktien Gesellschaft v. 
Gje^ 207 Fed. 247, 124 C. C. A. 517; 
Boyal Ezch. Assur. v, Graham & Mor- 
ton Transp. Co., 166 Fed. 32, 92 C. C. 

A. 66. 

568-86 The Nyack, 199 Fed. 383, 118 
O. C. A. 67. 

571-17 Double docket fee. — ^Where 
there is a libel and cross libel, and but 
one trial, a double docket fee may be 
taxed. British & South American 
Steam Nav. Co. v. Delaware L. So W. 

B. Co., 195 Fed. 984. 

572-36 IVhere witness testifies In 
open court, the proctor's fee for tak- 
ing his deposition will not be allowed. 
Eriksson v. Grandfield, 193 Fed. 296. 

Deposition nsed in more than one case. 

Where a deposition is originally taken 
and entitled in more than one case, 
with a stipulation that it shall be used 
in all cases, then a separate fee may 
be taxed, but where it is originally 
taken in one case only and subsequent* 
ly by stipulation is used in another 
case, separate fees cannot be taxed. 
British & South A. S. N. Co. v. Dela- 
ware L. & W. By., 195 Fed. 984. 

573-44 Mileage of a witness from 
Cape de Verde Islands to Boston, a 

distance of over 7000 miles, has been 
allowed, where he resided at Cape de 
Verde and was a material witness. 
Davis V. Smith, 199 Fed. 538. 

573-49 Necessity of a role, order or 
nsage. — In the absence of a statute 
allowing such costs, a general order or 
rule of court or a prevailing estab- 
lished usage, must appear to have been 
in force at the time to justify their 
taxation. The Governor v, Ames, 199 
Fed. 587. 

574-59 Milwaukee v. Kensington 3 






-iii 



\% 



ADULTERY 



Vol. 1 



8, Co, 199 Fed. 109; 120 C. C. A. 228; I 
The Gladiator, 223 Fed. 381. * 

Wliwe a decree Is rendered against a 
tliird party brought in by petition of 
a claimant, against whom the suit was 
tmsnecessful, such claimant's costs 
should be taxed against libelant. Mil* 
waukee v, Kensington 8. S. Co., 199 
Fed. 109, 120 O. C. A. 228. 

575-65 Divided damages.— The gen- 
eral rule in admiralty, binding in all 
eases, where the circumstances are not 
distinctly exceptional, is that the costs 
will he divided where the damages are 
divided. The Gladiator, 223 Fed. 381. 
578-91 The Strathleven, 213 Fed. 
979, 130 C. C. A. 385; Shoe v. George 
Craig & Co., 194 Fed. 678, 115 C. 0. V. 

ADITLTERATION 

C. c. Crowl, 52 Pa. Super. 539. 

Schraubstader t\ U. S., 199 
Fed. 568, 118 C. C. A. 42; Nave-McCord 
Merc. Co. v. TJ. S., 182 Fed. 46, 104 C. 
C. A. 486; U. S. r. Frank, 189 Fed. 195; 
U. S. r. Morgan, 181 Fed. 587; D. C. 
r. Thompson, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 420; 
a r. Closser, 179 Ind. 230, 99 N. £. 
1057; P. V, Guiton, 73 Misc. 408, 133 
N. Y.* S. 353; P. v. Bedding, 70 Misc. 
420, 126 N. Y. S. 977. 

583-10 S. r. Manrer, 255 Mo. 152, 
164 8. W. 551, rev. 174 Mo. App. 162, 
156 8. W. 991. 

584-12 ''Imitation tatter." » An 
averment that accused sold oleomar- 
garine is not tantamount to accusing 
him of selling "imitation butter." S. 
V. Shortelli 174 Mo. App. 153, 156 S. 
W. 988. 

585-24 8. V. Lief, 248 Mo. 722, 154 

S W 1133. 

586-27 P. r. Hark, 140 App. Div. 

150, 124 N. Y. S. 1023. 
Where deceit is of the gravamen of the 
offense it must be charged. S. v. Mar- 
kus, 171 Mo. App. 38, 153 S. W. 488. 

58G-20 C V. Phelps, 210 Mass. 109, 
96 N. E. 69; S. c. Thorp, 94 Neb. 310, 
143 Kev. 202, Ann. Cas. 19141), 180. 

587-33 IT. 8. v, St. Louis Coffee & 
8. Mills, 189 Fed. 191; St. Louis v, 
Ameln, 235 Mo. 669, 139 8. W. 429. 

588-41 See C. r. Graustein & Co., 
209 Mass. 38, 95 N. £. 97. 

589-51 Besnlt of wmmlnation. — In- 
structions in accordance with the re- 



sults of examination of sample taken^ 
held proper. P. v. Butler, 140 App. 
Div. 705, 125 N. Y. 8. 656. 



ADXJLTEBY* 

693-1 The gist of the crime of adult- 
ery is the danger of introducing spur- 
ious heirs into the family, whereby the 
rights of the real heirs may bo im- 
paired, and a man charged with the 
maintenance of a family not his own. 
U. 8. V, Mata, 18 Phil. Isl. 490. 
503-3 Adultery not indictable at 
common law nor by statute. Cook t\ 
8., 102 Ark. 363, 144 S. W. 221; Tur- 
ney r. 8., CO Ark. 259, 29 8. V/. 893. 

503-4 Cook V. 8., 102 Ark. 363, 144 
8. W. 221. 

503-6 Rich V. 8., 1 Ala. App. 243, 
55 S. 1022; P. v. Martin, 180 111. App. 
578; 8. V. Ling, 91 Kan. 647, 138 P. 
582; 8. V. Holland, 162 Mo. App. 678, 
145 S. W. 522; 8. v. Bigelow (Vt.), 92 
A. 978. 

595-8 8. t?. Case, 61 Or. 265, 122 P. 
304. But see Ex parte Cooper, 162 Cal. 
81, 121 P. 318; 8. v. Holland, 162 Mo. 
App. 678, 145 8. W. 522. 

506-12 Bell r. 8., 14 Ga. App. 809, 
£2 8. E. 376. 

507-13 Bell v. 8., 14 Ga. App. 809, 
82 S. E. 376; Smith t?. 8., 14 Ga. App. 
614, 81 8. £. 912. 

507-14 U. S. V. Ortiz, 19 Phil. Isl. 
174; U. 8. V. Eud, 16 Phil. Isl. 675; S. 
V, La Bounty, 64 Wash. 415, 116 P. 
1073. 

Except where persons are living in 
open and notorious adultery. Copeland 
V. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 1, 133 P. 258. 

In the Philippines no prosecution for 
adultery shall be instituted except upon 
complaint of aggrieved person, or of 
the parents, grandparents, or guardian 
of such person. (Sec. 1, Act No. 1773.) 
It is not sufficient if the prosecuting at- 
torney file the complaint at the instance 
of the offended party; the complaint 
must be made in writing by the of- 
fended party if competent, or by one 
of the persons mentioned in Act No. 
1773. U. 8. 17. Artiz, 19 Phil. Isl. 174; 
U. 8. r. Nawas, 14 Phil. Isl. 410. 

508-18 Fonnal complaint by in- 
jured spouse is necessary. S. v. La 
Bounty, 64 Wash. 415, 116 P. 1073. 
508-20 Verlflcatloii of information 
is a commencepient of the prosecution. 



19 



Vol. I 



' ADVERSE POSSESSION 



Heacock v. 8.. 4 Okla. Cr. 606, 112 P. 
049. 

598-22 8. V. Leek, 152 la. 12, 130 
N. W. 1062. 

The fact that a cedefendant dies before 
cause is brought to trial does not abate 
action against other. U. S. v, De la 
Tone, 25 PhU, Isl. 36. 

599-23 Kitchens v. S., 10 Okla. Cr. 

603, 140 P. 619; Mitchell v. S., 10 

Okla. Cr. 697, 140 P. 622; S. V, Ayles 

(Or.), 145 P. 19. 

Erratmn. — Serra v. Mortiga, cited as 

104 U. 8. 470, should be 204 U. 8. 

470. 

599-27 Alleging sex.— Affidavit for 
warrant need not allege one party was 
a man and other woman. Bich r. S., 
1 Ala. App. 243, 55 8. 1022. 
A living together must be alleged in an 
affidavit charging a person with living 
in open and notorious adultery. 8. 
v. GartreH, 14 Ind. 230. 

602-38 An indictment which does 
not allege that defendants lived in an 
open state of adultery is fatally defec- 
tive. Teston v. 3., 66 Pla. 244, 63 8. 
433. 

606-60 Safllcient allegation of in- 
tent. — ^An information alleging an il- 
licit intention between prisoner and 
particeps, te have unlawful sexual con- 
nection alleges sufficiently the intention 
of the particeps. 8. \>. Grace, 86 Vt. 
470, 86 A. 162. 

607-69 8. V. Dlugi, 123 Minn. 392, 
143 N. W. 971; 8. v. Ayleg (Or.), 145 
P. 19. 

608-73 Where there are two connts 

it may be alleged in one that accused 
was married to another person living, 
and in the other count that the para- 
mour was also married to another per- 
son. Brown v. 8. (Tex, Cr.), 154 8. 
W. 567. 

610-74 That paramour was a mar- 
ried person need not be alleged. 8. 
V. Ling, 91 Kan. 647, 138 P. 582. 

610-75 Bodkins r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 172 
8. W. 216. 

612-85 8ee Bell v. S., 14 Ga. App. 
809, 82 8. £. 376. 

613-93 But see S. v. Dietz, 162 la. 
332, 143 N. W. 1080. 



ADVERSE PO8SESSI0K 

619-5 Kinsella v. Stephenson, 265 
111. 369, 106 N. £• 950; Lambert v. 



Hemlet, 244 HI. 254, 91 N. E. 435; 
Smith V, Algona Lumb. Co. (0r.)» 143 
P. 921; Skausi v. Novak (Wash.), 146 
P. 160. 

621-12 Erp V. Tillman (Tex.), 131 
8. W. 1057, rev. 121 8. W. 547. 

In aa ejectment complaint a plaintiff 
claiming a government subdivision by 
deed and part of adjacent subdivision 
by adverse possession must include the 
latter in his complaint by an appro- J 
priate description. Oliver V, Oliver^ 
(Ala.), 65 8. 373. 

622-14 Where statate of limltatlona' 

is relied upon by defendant to show 
title, adverse possession need not be 
specially alleged. Stephenson v. Van 
BlokltfUd, 60 Or. 247, 118 P. 1026. 

628-22 Erp r. Tillman (Tex.), 131 
S. W. 1057, rev. 121 8. W. 547. 

624-24 Bnle lllnstrated.— Tn an ae* 
tion for trespass for unlawful cutting 
of trees defendant pleaded the general 
issue, and gave notice thereunder he 
would prove the trees were taken from 
his own premises. This is sufficient to 
admit proof of adverse possession. 
GrinneU v. Mayes, 167 Mich. 295, 132 
N. W. 1019, 18 Det. Leg. N. 673. 

626-85 Hill v. Cherokee ComsL Co., 
99 Ark, 84, 137 8. W. 553. 

627-41 Acton v. Colbertson, 38 
Okla. 280, 132 P. 812. 

629-66 Fleming v. Howell, 22 Colo* 
App. 382, 125 P. 551. See Folley v. 
Thomas, 46 Ind. App. 559, 93 N. £. 181« 

630-62 Oliver v. Oliver, 187 Ala. 
340, 65 8. 373; Louisiana Lumb. Co. v, 
Kennedy, 103 Tex. 297, 126 8. W. 1110. 

680-64 Fleming v. HoweU, 22 Colo. 
App. 882, 125 P. 551. 

631-73 Answer irafficient. — Hill t?.' 
Cherokee Const. Co., 99 Ark. 84, 137 
8. W, 553. 

632-80 Reynolds v. Palmer, 167 N. 
C. 454, 83 8. E. 755. 

633-81 Dodge v. Lavin, 34 R. I. 
514, 84 A. 857, denying reargument, 34 
R. L 409, 83 A. 1009. 

683-82 Watson f. Hardin, 97 Arli^ 
83, 132 S. W. 1002; Stearns Co. v. 
Newberg, 170 Mich. 324, 136 N. W. 
359; Locklear v. Savage, 159 N. C. 236, 
74 8. E. 347; Griffin V. Houston Oil 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 149 8. W. 567. 

684-84 Homaby v. Tucker, 180 Ala. 
418, 61 8. 928. 



20 



AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS AND DEFENSE 



Vol 1 



635-91 Slater r. Alford (Ark.), 174 
8. W. 225; Abeles r. Pillman, 261 Mo. 
359, 168 S, W. 1180; Bay v. Anders, 
164 N. €. 311, 80 S. R 403; Berry v, 
McPherson, 153 N. C. 4, 68 S. E. 892; 
Smith r. Jones (Tex.), 132 S. W. 469. 

e8S-92 Houston Oil Ca v, Good- 
rich, 213 Fed. 136, 129 C. C. A. 488; 
Bedsole r. Davis (Ala.), 66 S. 491; 
Walker r. Steffes, 139 Ga. 520, 77 S. E. 
580; Tyler r. Wright, 164 Mich. 606, 
130 N. W. 205, 18 Det. Leg. N. 54; 
Stokes V. Murray. 95 S. €. 120, 78 S. £. 
741. 

636-88 Bedsole «. Davis (Ala.), 66 
S. 491; Tmitt r. Osier (Del.), 90 A. 
467; Bisher v. Madsen, 94 Neb. 72, 
142 N. W. 700; Page t?. Gaskill, 84 N. 
J. L. 615, 87 A, 460; Coxe v. Carpenter, 
157 N. C. 557, 73 8. E. 113; Dunlap v, 
Bobinson, 87 S. C. 577, 70 S. E. 313; 
MeColloeh r. Nicholson (Tex. Civ.) 162 
S. W. 432; Dry den v. Makey (Tex. 
Civ.), ^W 8. W. 302. 

636-06 LeMoyne «. Meadors, 156 
Ky. 832, 162 S. W. 526. 

636-97 Pearee v. Aldrlch Min. Co., 

184 Ala. 610, 64 3. 321; Witherington 
r. White, 165 Ala. 316, 51 S. 726; Mer- 
ritt V. Westerman, 165 Mich. 535, 131 
N. W. 66; Barfleld v, HiU, 163 N. C. 
262, 79 8. E. 677; Dnnlap v. Bobinson, 
87 S. C. 577, 70 8. E. 313. 

637-08 Green «. Horn, 165 App. 
Div. 743, 151 N. Y. 8. 215. 

637-4 Jackson v, Larson, 24 Colo. 
App. 548, 136 P. 81; Sullivan v. Fant 
(Tex. Civ.), 160 8. W. 612. 

637-6 Wm. Bice Inst. v. Goolsbee 
(Tex. Civ.), 134 8. W. 397. 

637-6 Chase c. Eddy (Vt.), 92 A. 
99. 

638-8 Based on mere ponenUm. 
Where conclusions of an instruction 
were predicated on a mere possession 
and not adverse possession, the in- 
■traetion is faulty. Salter v. Fox 
(Ala.), 67 S. 1006. 

Hatore of adrene title.~It is not er- 
ror to charge that prescriptive title is 
good against the true owner. Boberts 
t. Tift, 136 Ga. 901, 72 3. E. 234. 

688-9 Hardy r. Bandall^ 173 Ala. 
516, 55 8. 997. See Jordan v. Smith, 

185 Ala. 591, 64 8. 317; Le Moyne v. 
Neal, 158 Ky. 316, 164 8. W. 964; Dry- 
den V. Makey (Tez. dv,), 160 S. W. 
302. 



638^8 Ballard c. Bank, 187 Ala. 
335, 65 S. 356. 

Must define the extent of the posses- 
sion under the evidence. Bryant v. 
Strunk, 151 Ky. 97, 151 8. W. 381. 

640-25 Harmless error. — Exceptions 
to charge on adverse possession are im- 
material where it was conceded plain- 
tiff should recover if his paper title 
covered the land in question and the 
jury so found. Pilkington r. Welch (N. 
C), 83 S. E. 801. 

640-26 No error in refusing to 
charge as to possession. Stewart r. 
Smith, 135 Ga. 390, 69 S. E. 540. 

640-28 Caldwell Land Co. i;. Cloyd, 
165 N. C. 595, 81 S. E. 752. 

641-32 See Oreen v, Horn, 165 App. 
Div. 743, 151 N. Y. S. 215. 

641-38 Cohen v. Anderson, 22 Cal. 
App. 634, 135 P. 1096. 



AFFIDAVITS OF MEBITS AKD DE- 
FENSE 

650-7 Courts of common pleas may 

establish rules requiring affidavits of 
defense from executors and adminis- 
trators. Lowenstein v. Michael, 55 Pa. 
Super. 628. 

655-42 Start v. Heinzerling (Cal. 
App.), 149 P. 50. 

656-47 Van Woert t?. New York Life 
Ins. Co. (N. D.), 151 N. W. 29, as 
where judgment was rendered in a case 
at issue upon the amended complaint 
and answer to the original complaint. 
660-72 Plea in abatement. — Affi- 
davit of merits need not be filed with 
a plea to the jurisdiction of the per- 
son in the nature of a plea in abate- 
ment. American Spirits Mfg. Co. v. 
Peoria Belt By. Co., 154 HI. App. 330. 

663-85 Southern S. S. Co. f>. Hull, 
46 Pa. Super. 299. 

663-88 Coyle v, SchruU, 49 Pa. Su- 
per. 386. 

667-10 Effect of failure to file. 
See M'Clurg v, Puter, 52 Pa. Super. 
485. 

667-24 Attacking miiBciency of 
statement — Defendant need only file a 
suggestion that a good cause of action 
is not alleged in the statement, when 
such statement of claim is insufficient. 
C. V. Acker, 53 Pa. Super. 54. 

671-57 Flat Top Fuel Co. v. Benja- 
min, 159 Bl. App. 631. 



21 



Vol 1 AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS AND DEFENSE 



674-81 InsniUclent excuse. — An affi- 
davit sworn to by a stranger, which 
merely avers ''that the said defendant, 
by reason of hie absence from the 
county, is unable personally to present 
his defense at this time,'' is insuffi- 
cient. Bushong 17. Edwards, 52 Pa. Su- 
per. 376. 

679-15 Grey t\ Cohen, 182 111. App. 
313. 

681-23 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron 
Co. r. Tacony Iron Co., 46 Pa. Super. 
164. 

684-56 Bushong v. Edwards, 52 Pa. 
Super. 376. 

685-66 Eliel v. Chamberlain, 48 Fa. 
Super. 610. 

685-67 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron 
Co. t?. Tacony Iron Co., 46 Pa. Super. 
164. 

68)S-70 Banning, Cooper & Oo. v. 
Murphy, 226 Pa. 568, 75 A. 852. 

689-90 Extent of denlaL— An adi- 
davit of defense should at least con- 
stitute a denial of liability in whole 
or in part. Woods v. Teter, 72 W. Va, 
668, 79 S. E. 658. 

689-97 Sufficient compliance. — An 

affidavit which refers to the notice of 
special matter which sets forth the nat- 
ure of the defense, sufficiently complies 
with the code. Biverside D. Co. v. 
Hartford P. Ins. Co., 105 Miss. 184, 62 
S. 169. 

691-17 Plea in abatement.-^An affi- 
davit of defense averring facts which 
furnish the necessary material for a 
formal plea in abatement is sufficient 
to prevent judgment. Speier v. Lo- 
cust Laundry, Inc., 56 Pa. Super. 323. 
692-18 Erasure in instrument sued 
on. Leber t?. Mooney, 48 Pa. Super. 
92. 

Only enough of the defense need be 
set up to prevent a summary judg- 
ment. U. S. 17. Schofield Co., 182 Fed. 
240. 

692-20 In an action on a promissory 

note where there was no averment that 
plaintiff's executive officer had no au- 
thority to make the contract, the affi- 
davit of defense is insufficient to pre- 
vent judgment, the defenses set up 
being, 1, violation of a contemporaneous 
parol agreement and, 2, a corporation 
was acting beyond its corporate pow- 
ers in discounting the note. Mutual 
Trust Co. V. Stern, 235 Pa. 202, 83 A. 
614. 



693-27 McClurg t?. Futer, 52 Pa. 
485. 

694-46 Southern S. S. Co. f?. Hull, 
46 Pa. Super. 299. 

695-67 Wentz v. Pennsvlvania Cas. 
Co., 244 Pa. 517, 90 A. 800. 

697-67 Hallowell r. Paige, 46 Pa. 

Super. 108. 

697-68 Seasonable precision and 

distinctness is all that is required. 
Baker t*. Tustin, 245 Pa. 499, 91 A. 891; 
Law r. Waldron, 230 Pa. 458, 79 A. 647; 
Markley v, Stevens, 89 Pa^ 279. 

697-69 Breach of building contract. 
In an action to recover balance due 
under a contract for construction of a 
bank building, an averment "that the 
plaintiffs failed to complete the build- 
ing . . . on or before the first day of 
January, 1910, as required and agreed 
upon . . . and did not complete the 
same until May 16, 1910,'' is sufficient. 
Price 17. People's Bank, 236 Pa. 324, 84 
A. 790. 

697-74 Loughney v, Klein, 221 Fed. 
197; National Metal Edge B. Co. f?. 
American Metal Edge B. Co., 246 Pa. 
78, 92 A. 42.- 

698-76 Columbia Laundry Co. r. 
Ellis, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 583. 

698-76 Columbia Laundry Co. v, El- 
lis, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 583; Perry v. 
Krausz, 166 111. App. 1; General E. Co. 
V. Iron Works, 239 Pa. 411, 86 A. 1012; 
Leechburg B. & L. Assn. v, Einter, 
233 Pa. 354, 82 A. 498; BergdoU v. 
Pitts, 41 Pa. Super. 257, 263, 264. 
Negativing acceptance under contract. 
An affidavit of defense alleging that 
defendant did not accept goods as be- 
ing of the quality ordered, states a 
conclusion of law, and is therefore in- 
sufficient. Fowler v. Cotton State Lumb. 
Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 220. 
Setting forth rescission. — An allegation 
"that the contract was rescinded" 
followed by the averment that plain- 
tiff, "stated that no more .iron would 
be delivered under it" is sufficient to 
support the conclusion that the con- 
tract had been rescinded. Sloss-Shef- 
field Steel & Iron Co. i?. Tacony Iron 
Co., 183 Fed. 645. 

698-80 Swartz v. Historical Pub. Co., 
55 Pa. Super. 407, 410; Vulcanite Pav- 
ing Co. V. Chester Tract. Co., 52 Pa. 
Super. 447. 

700-2 Varying ^nritten instroment. 
An affidavit of merits may be stricken 



22 



AFFIDAVITS OF MERITS AND DEFENSE 



Vol. 1 



When defengea inteiposed seek to vary 
the terms of the written contract set 
forth in plaintiff's statement. Biley 
r. International Banana Food Co., 185 
IIL App. 629. 

TOl-5 Breitweiser Lnmb. Co. v. Crick, 
55 Pa. Super. 72. 

701-6 Breitweiser Lumb. Co. v. Crick, 
55 Pa. Super. 72; Beaver Falls Plan- 
ing Mill Co. r. Whiteside, 54 Pa. Su- 
per. 475. 

701-10 Stage v. Smith, 41 Pa. Super. 
273. 

flhortagia in goods fnrnlBhed. — ^In an 
action bj a brewing company for beer 
sold during a month, an affidavit al- 
leging that defendant had purchased 
beer for a year (including month in 
question) and that all barrels were of 
uniform size, that during the month 
in question a number of the barrels 
were weighed and found two gallons 
short, each gallon being worth a stated 
price and the amount thus short should 
be set off pro tanto against plaintiffs 
claim, is sufficient. Mutual Union 
Brew. Co. v. Dithrich, 54 Pa. Super. 
560. 

701-11 Baker r. Tustin, 245 Pa. 499, 
91 A. 891; Breitweiser Lumb. Co. v. 
Crick, 55 Pa. Super. 72. 

702-28 Bole relaxed.— While rule 
requires defendant when claiming credit 
as a partial defense to set out amount 
specifically, yet it cannot prevent a de- 
fendant from availing himself of this 
defense where the amount and facts re- 
lating to the credit are in plaintiff's 
possession and can be ascertained only 
upon the trial. Prosise v, Phillips, 41 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 226. 

703-41 Before Judgment. — An affi- 
davit of defense may be filed anytime 
before judgment. Calchuff r. Driver, 
46 Pa. Super. 79. 

7<>4-53 Van Slyke i?. Books, 181 
Mich. 88, 147 N. W. 579. 

700-€5 Where leave of court not ob- 
tained. — ^But where a supplemental affi- 
davit was filed without leave of court 
and judgment had been entered with- 
out tiie court's knowledge of such fil- 
ing, it was not error to refuse to strike 
off a judgment entered for want of a 
sufficient affidavit of merits^ Bern- 
stein 19. Brown, 55 Pa. Super. 532. 

707-74 Second Nat. Bank v. Claney, 
178 IIL App. 427; Saundere V. Fox, 178 
IIL App. 009. 



707-82 A specification that affi- 
davit is "vague and uncertain in its 
terms" is sufficient upon a rule for 
judgment for want of a sufficient affi- 
davit of defense. Beaver Falls Plan- 
ing Mill Co. V. Whiteside, 54 Pa. Su- 
per. 475. 

700-4 Baker v. Tustin, 245 Pa. 499, 
91 A. 891. 

710-12 Woodoleum Flooring Co. v, 
Kayser, 45 Pa. Super. 372. 

710-18 Woodoleum Flooring Co. v. 
Kayser, 45 Pa. Super. 372. 

710-14 Woodoleum Flooring Co. v. 
Kayser, supra. 

710-17 No mle of eovrt should in- 
terfere with the office of an affidavit 
of defense as here laid down. Ameri- 
can Plate Glass Co. v, Struthers- Wells 
Co., 201 Fed. 6, 119 C. C. A. 344. 
To prevent delay to plaintiff by dila- 
tory pleas. Mumford Bkg. Co. r. Farm- 
ers' & M. Bank, 116 Va. 449, 82 S. £. 
112. 

711-22 TT. S« V. Stannard, 206 Fed. 
326. 

711-28 Speier v. Locust Laundry Co. 
Inc., 56 Pa. Super. 323. 
712-30 TT. S. V. Schofield Co., 182 
Fed. 240. 

714-52 Brieck Bros. Co. v, Baziotes, 
242 Pa. 490, 89 A. 591. 
Even if a plea and an affidavit of de- 
fense are filed at the same time, plain- 
tiff may take judgment if the affidavit 
is insufficient. Dreifus v. Logan Iron 
& S. Co., 245 Pa. 196, 91 A. 239. 
Where as a matter of law plaintiff is 
not entitled to judgment the refusal to 
enter judgment for want of a sufficient 
affidavit of defense is not error. Coates 
V. Allegheny Steel Co., 234 Pa. 199, 83 
A. 77. 

714-53 See Bernstein v. Brown, 55 
Pa. Super. 532 (where supplemental 
affidavit was filed without leave of 
court and after judgment had been en- 
tered) ; McClurg v. Futer, 52 Pa. Super. 
485. 

714-55 Good cause of action must 
be stated to entitle plaintiff to judg- 
ment for want of sufficient affidavit of 
defense. Rosenblatt t?. Weinman, 230 
Pa. 536, 79 A. 710; Breitweiser Lumb. 
Co. r. Crick, 55 Pa. Super. 72. 
715-68 When the affidavit is strick- 
en out default judgment may be en- 
tered. Keith V. Keevan, 183 HI. App. 
187. 



23 



Vol. 1 



AFFRAY 



717-82 Aggregating portions. 

Where affidavit of defense in an action 
of assumpsit admits a certain part of 
the claim to be due, and presents no 
sufficient defense to another part it is 
regular under Act of 1897 for court to 
grant judgment for the aggregate of 
both portions, with leave to plaintiff 
to proceed for the recovery of the bal- 
ance as to which court shall adjudge 
the affidavit of merits to be sufficient. 
Vulcanite Paving Co. t?. Chester Tract. 
Co., 52 Pa. Super. 447. 

Insnfflcient defense as to Interest. 
Where affidavit admits part of amount 
due but denies liability for interest and 
the affidavit is bad for uncertainty 
court will award judgment for princi- 
pal and interest. Vulcanite Pav. Co. v, 
Chester Tract. Co., 522 Fa. Super. 445. 

710-6 Thpmpson v. Donaldson, 43 
Pa. Super. 585. 

710-7 Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co. v, 
Armstrong, 245 Pa. 552, 91 A. 924; 
Dreifus v. Logan Iron & S. Co., 245 
Pa. 196, 91 A. 239. 

720-8 But see Stephens-Adamson 
Mfg. Co. V. Armstrong, 245 Pa. 552, 91 
A. 924, 

720-0 Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co. 
i;. Armstrong, supra, 

720-12 Thompson v. Donaldson, 43 
Pa. Super. 585, 

721-31 Beck v. Scheckter, 235 Pa. 
253, 83 A. 829. 



725-3 Inducing a fight.— One may 
be guilty of an affray where he uses 
such abusive language or offensive con- 
duct towards another as is calculated 
or intended to bring on a fight, and is 
struck by the other although he did 
not return the blow. S. v. Lancaster 
(N. C), 84 S. E. 529; S. r. Panning, 
94 N. C. 940, 55 Am. Rep. 653. 

727-15 S. €. Lancaster (N. C), 84 
S. E. 529. 

720-31 Defense of repelling unlawful 
attack. Bracewell v, S., 10 Ga. App. 
830, 74 S. E. 440. 



AaBEED CASE 

740-38 Lynch v. Bogers, 150 App. 
Div. 311, 134 N. Y. S. 1071. 

742-45 An effective Judgment upon 
the submission must be possible. 



Becker v. Oneida County, 157 App. Div. 
457, 142 N. Y. S. 221. 

745-64 West Chicago Park Comrs. 
V. Biddle, 245 111. 168, 91 N. E. 1060. 

747-73 Des Case r. Stiles, 161 App. 
Div. 871, 147 N. Y. S. 9. 

747-74 Bocklngham County v. 
Brown, 76 N. H. 571, 79 A. 690. 

748-73 Templeton v. Board of 
Comrs., 173 Ind. 226, 89 N. E. 880, 
transferred from appellate court, 44 
Ind. App. 381, 89 N. E. 410. 

740-83 Louisville v, Yreeland, 140 
Ky. 400, 131 S. W. 195. 

754-05 Strouse v. Nye, 53 Pa. Su- 
per. 304. 

765-1 Verbal agreement. — ^The fact 
that the agrement to submit a case 
to the circuit judge was not in writing 
in accordance with the practice act 
will not cause reversal if it appears 
that substantial justice has been done. 
Cummings v, Elsholtz, 154 111. App. 457. 

732-50 Vera v. Mercantile F. & M. 
Ins. Co., 216 Mass. 154, 103 N. E. 292; 
New York Tel. Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 
202 N. Y. 502, 96 N. E. 109, 36 L. B. 
A. (N. S.) 560, af, judgment, 137 App. 
Div. 158, 121 N. Y. S. 1033; Bradley v. 
Crane, 201 N. Y. 14, 94 N. E. 359, rev, 
judgment, 133 App. Div. 889, 117 N. 
Y. S. 1130; MuUer v. Kling, 149 App. 
Div. 176, 133 N. Y. S. 614. 

Single Iflsue agreed upon. — An agree- 
ment by the parties to the submission 
to the jury of a single issue operates 
to eliminate all other issues. Evans 
V. Thompson (Ga.), 84 S. E. 128. 

764-54 The judgment is a deter- 
mination of both facts and law. Hoff 
V. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132. 
764-56 See Leonardo v. Bunnell, 77 
Wash. 495, 137 P, 1033. 



AZJENATINa AFFEOTIONB 

770-1 Allen r. Porsythe, 160 Mo. 
App. 262, 142 S. W. 820. 
Bight is one acanired by the mar- 
riage. Hamilton 17. McNeill, 150 la. 470, 
129 N. W. 480, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 604. 
770-2 Lupton v. Underwood, 3 
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965; O 'Gorman 
f>. Pfeiflfer, 145 App. Div. 237, 130 N. 
Y. S. 77; Jenness t?. Simpson, 84 Vt. 
127, 78 A. 886. 

Malice is the gist of the cause of ac- 
tion. Hostetter v. Green, 150 Ky. 551, 
150 S. W. 652. — 



24 



ALIENATING AFFECTIONS 



IVoll 



rrO-S Hamilton v. McNeiU, 150 la. 
470, 129 N. W. 480, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 
604. Compare Miller v. Pearce, 86 Vt. 
322, 85 A. 620, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 
332; Knapp V. Wing, 72 Vt. 334, 47 A. 
1075; Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, 29 

A. 252, 44 Am. 8t. 843; Daley v. Gates, 
65 Vt. 591, 27 A. 193. 

TTl-T Lnpton r. Underwood, 3 Boyee 
(Bel.) 519, 85 A. 965; Eliason v. Draper, 
2 Boyce (Del.) 1, 77 A. 572; Golden r. 
Gartleman, 159 111. App. 338; Burch 
r. Goodson, 85 Kan. 86, 116 P. 216, 
Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1177; Clazton v. Pool, 
182 Mo. App. 13, 167 8. W. 623; Sims 
r. Sims, 79 N. J. L. 577, 76 A. 1063, 29 
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 842; Hall v. Smith, 
80 Misc. 85, 140 N. Y. 8. 796; Nieberg 
r. Cohen (Vt.), 92 A. 214; Gross v. 
Gross, 70 W. Va. 317, 73 S. E. 961, 
39 L, B. A. (N. S.) 261. 

T72-8 Living apart. Eliason v. 
Draper, 2 Boyce (Del.) 1, 77 A. 572. 

A divoioed hnslmiid may maintain the 
action. Hostetter v. Green, 159 Ky. 
611, 167 8. W. 919; Philpott f?. Kirk- 
patrick, 171 Mich. 495, 137 N. W. 232; 
De Ford v, Johnson, 251 Mo. 244, 158 
8. W. 29, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 344, 46 L. 

B. A. (N. 8.) 1083. 

T75-17 Wamock v, Moore, 91 Kan. 
262, 137 P. 959. 

77B-10 Cdmplaint sufficient. Web- 
ber 9. Benbow, 211 Mass. 366, 97 N. 
E. 758. 

770-28 Fronk v. Fronk, 159 Mo. 
App. 543, 141 8. W. 692. 

780-25 Where dadazatloii alleges 
adnlteiy as means of alleiiatlon an 
action for alienation of affections and 
one for criminal conversation are the 
same. Miller v. Pearce, 86 Vt. 322, 85 
A. 620, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 332; Daley 
r. Gates, 65 Vt. 591, 27 A. 193. See 
also Knapp r. Wing, 72 Vt. 334, 47 A. 
1075; Fratini v. Casline, 66 Vt. 275, 29 
A. 252, 44 Am. St. 843. 

780-28 Mental suffering need not be 
alleged. Frederick v. Morse (Vt.), 92 
A. 16. 

781-80 Camp. Ellsworth v. Shimer, 
128 N. T. 8. 883. 

781-88 See Wamock v. Moore, 91 
Kan. 262, 137 P. 959. 

781-86 Work v. Campbell, 164 Cal. 
343, 128 P. 943, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 
581; Lupton v. Underwood, 3 Boyce 
(Del) 519, 85 A. 965; Sims v. Sims, 79 



N. J. L. 677, 76 A. 1063, 29 L. B. A. 
(N. S.) 842. 

782-38 See Clazton v Pool, 182 Mo. 

App. 13, 167 S. W. 623. 

782-39 Bill of partlculan.-.Defend- 
ant not entitled to bill of particulars. 
Eliason v. Draper, 2 Boyce (Del.) 64, 
77 A. 769. 

Wife cannot recover if husband had no 
affection for her at time of abandon- 
ment or other causes had alienated the 
affections. Hall v. Smith, 80 Misc. 85, 
140 N. Y. 8. 796. 

782-40 Judgment of divorce no de- 
fense. De Ford v. Johnson, 251 Mo. 
244, 158 8. W. 29, Ann. Gas. 1915A, 344, 
46 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1083. But see 
Hamilton v. McNeill, 150' la. 470, 129 
N. W. 480. 

782-41 Want of affection between 
husband and wife is no defense. De 
Ford r. Johnson, 152 Mo. App. 209, 133 
S. W. 393. 

PrevlOTis unhappy relations between 
the spouses is not a defense. Lupton 
V. Underwood, 3 Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 
A. 965; Bailey v, Kennedy, 148 la. 715, 
126 N. W. 181. 

782-42 Fact of estrangement be- 
tween husband and wife is no djsfense 
but may be considered in mitigation 
of damages. Miller v. Pearce, 86 Vt. 
322, 85 A. 620, 43 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 332. 

782-43 P^oley v. Dutton (la.), 147 
N. W. 154; Heisler v. Heisler, 151 la. 
503, 131 N. W. 676. See Miller v. Miller, 
154 la. 344, 134 N. W. 1058; Cornelius 
V. Cornelius, 233 Mo. 1, 135 8. W. 65; 
Gross t?. Gross, 70 W.' Va. 317, 73 S. E. 
961, 39 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 261. 
Parent, brother, or sister may counsel 
in good faith within reasonable limits. 
Luick r. Arends, 21 N. D. 614, 132 N. 
W. 353. 

A stranger giving honest advice is not 
liable in absence of malice. Geromini 
r. Brunelle, 214 Mass. 492, 102 N. E. 
67, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 465. 

783-44 Consent of wife is no de- 
fense where husband alleges adultery 
Powell 17, Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 
S. E. 872, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 709. 

783-53 Luick v. Arends, 21 N. D. 
614, 132 N. W. 353. 
Evidence sufficient to go to Jnry, — ^Hos- 
tetter V. Green, 150 Ky. 551, 150 8. 
W. 652. 

783-54 Where aaed as co-conspirv 
torn it mast be shown that defendants 



25 



t'ot.i 



ALIENS 



acted jointly. Pronk v. Fronk, 159 
Mo. Aip. 543, 141 8. W. 692. 

Where a hnsliand saes parents of wife 

the father is not responsible for acts 
or conduct of mother unless there was 
a conspiracy to bring about the alien- 
ation. Pooley V. Dutton (la.), 147 N. 
W. 154. 

788-55 Hossfeia v. Hossfeld, 188 
Fed. 61, 110 C. C. A. 131; Greuneich v, 
Greunedch, 23 N. D. 368, 137 N. W. 
415; Phelps <?. Bergers, 92 Neb. 851, 
139 N. W. 632. 

784-58 Lupton v. Underwood, 3 
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965; Powell v. 
Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 S. E. 872. 

784-59 Poyrell v, Strickland, supra; 
Frederick v. Morse (Vt.), 92 A. 16. 

784-64 Divorce 'of wife may be 

pleaded in mitigation. McNamara v, 
McAllister, 150 la. 243, 130 N. W. 26, 
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 463, 34 L. B. A. (N. 
S.) 436. 

785-67 Lupton v. Underwood, 3 
Boyce (Del.) 519, 85 A. 965; Powell 
V, Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 S. E. 
872. 



ALIENS 

780-10 Suravitz f>. Pristasz, 201 
Fed. 335, 119 C. C. A. 573; Katalla Co. 
p. Rones, 186 Fed. 30, 108 C. C. A. 
132, aff. Bones v. Katalla Co., 182 Fed. 
946; H. J. Decker, Jr. & Co. t?. South- 
ern By. Co., 189 Fed. 224. 

800-38 Sufficient allegation that 
plaintiff is an alien. Mahoning Yal. 
By. Co. <?. O'Hara, 196 Fed. 945, 116 C. 
C. A. 495. 

800-30 Katalla Co. r. Bones, 186 
Fed. 30, 108 C. C. A. 132, af. judgment, 
Bon<>s V. ]$atalla Co., 182 Fed. 946; 
Bagenas v. Southern Pac. Co.. 180 Fed. 
887. 

A foreign corporation sued in a state 
court by an alien may remove the ac- 
tion to the federal court. H. J. Decker, 
Jr. & Co. t?. Southern By. Co., 189 Fed. 
224. 

Allen's consent to removal.— An action 
brought in a state by alien citizens and 
residents against a citizen and resident 
of another state is not removable to the 
federal district court over plaintiff's 
objection. Hall t?. Great Northern By. 
Co., 197 Fed. 488. 

Jurisdictional amount appearing^— An 
action brought by an alien in a state 



court against a non-resident who is A 
citizen of another state, is removable 
by the defendant, where the requisite 
amount is involved. Bones 17. Katalla 
Co., 182 Fed. 946. 

• 

808-64 Dependent upon statute. 
The right of an alien to a jury de 
meditate linguae, composed half of 
aliens, and half of denizens, is statu- 
tory. Wendling v. C, 143 Ky. 587, 137 
S. W. 205. 

813-8<^ Discrimination against for- 
eign labor is an undue exercise of the 
police power of a state and in viola* 
tion of fourteenth amendment. Heim 
V. McCall, 165 App. Div. 449, 150 N. 
Y. S. 933. 



ALTEBATION OF INSTBtrBONTS 

810-1 "Wicker v, Jones, 159 N. C. 
102, 74 S. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
1083, 40 L. B. a: (N. 8.) 69; Com. 
Nat. Bk. V. Baughman, 27 Okla. 175, 
111 P. 332; Barton Bank v. Stephenson, 
87 Vt. 433, 89 A. 639, 51 L. B. A. (N. 
S.) 346. 

A change In name of payee is a ma- 
terial alteration when it changes a 
conditional liability to an absolute li- 
ability. Holbart V. Lauritson, 34 S. 
D. 267, 148 N. W. 19. 

810-2 Snell f>. Davis, 149 HI. App. 
391; Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. Civ.), 133 
S. W. 941. 

Erasing name In lease.— Bryan v. Car* 
ter, 169 Ala. 515, 51 S. 999. 

Srasore of Indorsement. — Gray i?. Alt- 
man (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 760. 

820-6 Wilson v. Barnard, 10 Qa. App. 
98, 72 S. £. 943; International Bank 
V. Mullen, 30 Okla. 547, 120 Pac. 257, 
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 180; Holbart v. Laur- 
itson, 34 a D. 267, 148 N. W. 19. 

Where a note was changed by erasing 
''order of" and inserting after name 
of payee the words ''or bearer," it is 
a material alteration. Builders' Idme 
& Cement Co. ff. Weimer (la.), 151 K. 
W. 100. 

820-0 Increasing consideration by 

alteration is a material alteration. Out- 
cault Adv. Co. r. Young Hdw. Co., 110 
Ark. 123, 161 S. W. 142. 

Beductlon of amomit of note.— Wash- 
ington Finance Corp. V. Glass, 74 
Wash. 653, 134 P. 480. 46 L. B. A. (N. 

S.) 1043. 



26 



ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS 



Vol. 1 



620-10 Pry v. Jenkins, 173 HI. App. 
486; Schubert v. ocbnbert^ 168 III. App. 
419; Bodine v. Berg, 82 N. J. L. 662, 
82 A. 901, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 721, 40 L. 
B. A. (N. S.) 65; Barton Bank v. Ste- 
phenson, 87 Vt 433, 89 A. 639, 51 L. B. 
A, (N. 8.) 346. 

820-11 Waugh V Cook (Ark.), 167 
S. W. 103; Shaw v. Probasco, 139 Ga. 
481, 77 S. E. 577; Edington v. McLeod, 
87 Kan. 426, 124 P. 163, Ann. Cas. 
1913E, 315, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 230; 
Commonwealth Nat. Bk. v, Baughman, 
27 Okla, 175, 111 P. 332. 

Adding luovlsioii for interest. — Ex- 
change Bank v. Little, 111 Ark. 263, 
164 S. W. 731; Columbia Co. V. Bech, 151 
App. Div. 128, 135 N. Y. S. 206; Levy 
V. Arons, 81 Misc. 165, 142 N. Y. S. 312. 

820-13' Pensacola State Bank v, 
Helton, 210 Fed. 57. 

Aocalfirato or d^y time of payment 
Baldwin v. Nat. Bank, 104 Tex. 122, 
133 S. W. 864, rev. 124 S. W. 443, re- 
hear, and judgment mod., 134 S. W. 
1178, 

820-14 Erasure of words ''see spec- 
ial agreement" after signature to note 
18 material. Central Bank r. Efird, 91 
& a 135, 74 S. E. 136. 

821-18 Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C. 
108, 74 S. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 69. 

822-20 Hakes v. Bnss, 175 Fed. 751, 
99 C. C. A. a[27; Blenkiron Bros. v. 
Bogers, 87 Neb. 716, 127 N. W. 1062, 
31 U B. A. (N. S.) 127; S. A. Brewing 
Assn. V. Abbott Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 
129 S. W. 373; Pitt V. Little, 58 Wash. 
355, 108 P. 941. 

Marginal writing in flgnreB.~Br7ant r. 
Georgia, etc. Co., 13 Ga. App. 448, 79 
S. £. 236. 

An agent's memorandmn of fact on 
original but not on duplicate is an im- 
material alteration. Barnes-Smith M. 
Co. V. Tate, 156 Mo. App. 236, 137 S. 
W. 619. ' 

Addition of words "or bearer" to note 
is not a material alteration. Douglass 
i,. Lockhart (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 382. 
Filling in blanks not material ^Itera- 
tion. Shows r. Steiner, 175 Ala. 363, 
57 S. 700; Montgomery f?. Dresher, 90 
Neb. 632, 134 N. W. 251, 38 L. B. A. 
(N 8.) 423. Filling in blank space 
left for attorney's fees in a judgment 
note IP not a material alteration. 
8chnitzer v. Krameri 189 HI. App. 350; 



White r. Alward, 35 Hi. App. 195. But 
where blanks in a note aie filled in, 
without authority, as to terra and date 
of interest, the alteration is material 
and avoided the note as between orig- 
inal parties. Ayres v. Walker, 54 Colo. 
571, 131 P. 384; Hoopes v. CoUingwood, 
10 Colo. 107, 13 P. 909, 3 Am. St 565. 
822-21 Exchange State Bank v. 
Taber, 26 Ida. 723, 145 P. 1090; Barnes- 
Smith M. Co. V. Tate, 156 Mo. App. 236, 
137 a W. 619; Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. 
O. 102, 74 8. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 69; Interna- 
tional Bank v. Mullen, 30 Okla. 547, 120 
P. 257, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 180; Baldwin 
V. Nat. Bank, 104 Tex. 122, 133 S. W. 
864, rev. 124 S. W. 443, judgment mod. 
134 S. W. 1178; Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. 
Civ.), 133 S. W. 941. 
824-22 BlenMron Bros. v. Sogers, 87 
Neb. 716, 127 N. W. 106?, 31 L. B. 
A. (N. S.) 127; Levy v. Arons, 81 Misc. 
165, 142 N. Y. S. 312. 

825-25 Snell r. Davis, 149 Til. ApD. 
391. See Churchill v. Capen, 84 Vt. 
104, 78 A. 734. 

826-27 Phillips r. Big Sandy Co., 
149 Ky. 555, 149 S. W. 957. 
Alteration in date of mortgage. — See 

Styles r. Scotland, 22 N. D. 469, 134 
N. W. 708, 

826-28 Hess v. Schaffner (Tex. 
Civ.), 139 S. W. 1024. 
Need not plead* alteration in anticipa- 
tion.— Boberds V. Laney (Tex. Civ.), 
165 S. W. 114. 

828-38 Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. Civ.), 
133 S. W. 941. 

830-37 Taney v. Gordon, 172 Ala. 
439, 55 S. 239, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 251; 
Churchill v. Capen, 84 Vt. 104, 78 A. 
784. 

881-38 Equitable Life A. Soc. v. 
Meuth, 145 Ky. 160, 140 S. W. 157, 
Ann. Cas. 1913B, 661, judgment mod., 
145 Ky. 746, 141 S. W. 37, Ann. Cas. 
1913B, 661. 

Mnst be set up in affidavit of defense. 

Sober v. Moony, 48 Pa. Super. 92. 

831-39 Answer denying genuineness 

of signature does not raise question 

of material alteration. Hessig-Ellis D. 

Co. V. Todd Drug Co., 153 la. 11, 132 

N. W. 866. 

832-40 La Grange r. Coyle, 50 Ind. 

App. 140, 98 N. E. 75. 

835-46 Bankin v. Tygard, IdS Fed. 

795, 119 C. C. A. 591j Gulf, etc Co. 9, 



27 



Vol. 1 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



Crenshaw, 169 Ala. 606^ 53 S. 812; 
Pike County t?. Sowards, 147 Ky. 37. 
143 S. W. 745; James v. Holdam, 142 
Ky. 450, 134 8. W. 435; Ensign v. 
Fogg, 177 Mich. 317, 143 N. W. 82; 
Arnold v, Brechtel, 174 Mich. 147, 140 
N. W. 610; Carterville v, Luscombe, 
165 Mo. App. 518, 148 S. W. 966; Mus- 
ser f. MuBser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W. 
699; Anderson v. Chicago & N. W. B. 
Co., 88 Neb. 430, 129 N. W. 1008; Bay- 
lis V. Kerrick, 64 Wash. 410, 116 P. 
1082, an erasure on face of tax deed, 
there being no erasure on record of 
deed, is presumed to have been made 
before execution. 

Oonsent to tbe filing In of blanks may 
be assumed. Montgomery v. Dresher, 
90 Neb. 632, 134 N. W. 251, 38 L. B. 
A. (N. S.) 423. 

887-51 Hatfield, etc. Bist. v. Knight, 
112 Ark. 83, 164 S. W. 1137. 

837-52 Ohio Nat. Bk. v. GUI Bros., 
85 Neb. 718, 124 N. W. 152. 

837-54 Calhoun v. McKay, 64 Fla. 
226, 60 S. 182; Withers v. Hart, 96 
Miss. 453, 51 S. 714; Eisner V. Crom- 
mette, 151 N. Y. S. 3; Cornog v. Wil- 
son, 231 Pa. 281, 80 A. 174; Matson 17. 
Jarvis (Tex. Civ.), 133 S. W. 941. 

838-55 Bankin v. Tygard, 198 Fed. 
795, 119 C. C. A. 591; First Nat. Bk. 
c. Liewer, 187 Fed. 16, 109 C. C. A. 
70; Gulf, etc. Co. v, Crenshaw, 169 
Ala. 606, 53 S. 812; Hatfield, etc. Dist. 
«?. Knight, 112 Ark. 83, 164 8. W. 1137; 
Hessig Drug Co. v, Todd Drug Co., 161 
la. 535, 143 N. W. 669; Stevens v. Od- 
lin, 109 Me. 417, 84 A. 899; CarterviUe 
V, Luscombe, 165 Mo. App. 518, 148 
8. W. 966; Hatch v. Bayless, 164 Mo. 
App. 216, 146 8. W. 839; Musser v. 
MuBser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W. 599; 
Cavitt V. Bobertson, 42 Okla. 619, 142 
P. 299. 

That alteration In a deed was 
made after delivery is on party 
asserting it. Tharp v, Jamison, 154 la. 
77, 134 N. W. 583, 39 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
100; Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C. 102, 
74 3. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1083, 
40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 69. 

830-56 Calhoun v. McKay, 64 Fla. 
226, 60 8. 182; Ohio Nat. Bk. v. Gill 
Bros., 85 Neb. 718, 124 N. W. 152. 
839-57 Egymann v. Nutter, 155 HI. 
App. 390. 

839-58 Howard Piano Co. «. Glover, 
7 Ga. App. 548, 67 S. H 277; Snell v. 
DaviSi 149 HI. App. 391; Hessig Drug 



Co. 1?. Todd Drug Co., 161 la. 535, 143 
N. W. 569; Holyfield v. Harrington, 84 
Kan. 760, 115 P. 546, 39 L. B. A. (N. 
8.) 131; Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C. 
102, 74 8. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 69. 
Effect of tbe alteration. — The jury 
must determine whether v the alteration 
is such as to invalidate the instrument. 
American Trust & 8av. Bank v, Per- 
kins (Miss.), 67 8. 481. 

840-62 Wicker v. Jones, 159 N. C. 
102, 74 8. E. 801, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
1083, 40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 69; 8. A. 
Brew. Assn. v. Abbott Oil Co (Tex. 
Civ.), 129 8. W. 373. 

841-63 American Trust & Sav. Bank 
V. Perkins (Miss.), 67 8. 481. 

Batiflcation may be diown by circum- 
stances. Matson v. Jarvis (Tex. Civ.), 
133 8. W. 941. 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 

849-5 Vickery v. New London & N. 
B. Co., 87 Conn. 634, 89 A. 277. 
849-7 Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 
58 8. 29; Louisville v. Mutual Life 
Ins. Co., 147 Ky. 141, 143 8. W. 782 
(answer amended); 8. v. Webber, 177 
Mo. App. 60, 164 8. W. 184; Buehler 
V. 8taudenmayer, 146 Wis. 25, 130 N. 
W. 955, counterclaim amended. 

Attachment afOdavlt. — ^An attachment 
affidavit which fails to state the name 
of a creditor may be amended so as to 
correct the error. Greenwood G. Co. 
V, Bennett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 8. 482, 
598. 

Set-off.~Bedf ord r. Miller, 212 Fed. 
368, 129 C. C. A. 44. 

849-9 8ee Hall e, Fea^ns (la.), 151 
N. W. 481; 8. V. Nott (la.), 149 N. W. 
79. 

850-12 Distinction ImmatexlaL— ''It 
makes no kind of difference whether 
said first petition was susceptible to 
amendment or whether the second be 
considered as an amendment to the 
first or regarded as an entirely sep- 
arate or independent step in the in- 
quiry; the court was clothed with 
ample authority to proceed to the in- 
vited\investigation." Moore v, 8uperior 
Court, 22 Cat. App. 156, 133 P. 990. 

850-13 Henry v. Montezuma Water 
& Land Co., 55 Colo. 182, 133 P. 747; 
Shipman v. Portland Const. Co., 64 
Or. 1, 128 P. 989; Hughes v. Four 8tates 
Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 164 8. W. 



28 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



VoUl 



898; Keder v. Parks, 72 Wash. 255, 
130 P. 111. See MiUikan t^. McGarrah, 
164 App. IMv. 110, 149 N. Y. S. 484; 
Horowitz V, Goodman, 112 App. Div. 
13, 98 N. Y. S. 63. 

DeBignatioii ImmateilaL — ^Wkere the 
original pleading did not confer jnris- 
dietion, it is immaterial that the new 
pleading was designated "an amended 
or supplemental petition.'' It is not 
what it is called, bnt what it is that 
fixes the character of the pleading. 
Moore t?. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 
156, 133 P. 990. 

852-21 See the title '<Kew Cause 
of Action or Defense." 

853-2T Federal conrts governed by 
federal rather than by state statutes 
as to amendments. Truck ee River G. 
E. Co. t?. Benner, 211 Ped. 79, 127 C. 
C. A. 503; Van Doren v. Pennsylvania 
E. Co., 93 Fed. 260, 35 0. C. A. 282; 
Reardon v. Balaklala Const. Co., 193 
Fed. 189; McDonald v, 8., 101 Fed. 
171. See also Missouri, K. ft T. R. 
Co. V. Wulf, 226 IT. S. 670, 33 Sup. Ct. 
135, 57 L. ed. 355. 

854-31 A connterdaim not stating 
a canse of aetlon may be amended to 
conform to the proofs where no objec- 
tion is made to the evidence intro- 
duced under it and its sufficiency is not 
otherwise challenged. Buehler v. Stau- 
dcnmayer, 146 Wis. 25, 130 N. W. 955. 

855-32 Joyce v. Rubin, 23 Ida. 296, 
130 P. 793; New Cumberland S. ft T. 
Co. V. Ballentyne, 71 W. Va. 672, 77 
S. £. 282. 

That a non-snit or mistrial may be 
avoided, the court may on its own 
motion order an amendment. De Celles 
r. Casey, 48 Mont. 568, 139 P. 586. 

856-3T Walters f>, Webster, 52 Colo. 
549, 123 P. 952, Ann. Cas. 1914A. 23, 
denying defendant right to amend an- 
swer without leave of court in the ab- 
sence of an attack on the original. 
In Florida the court may disregard an 
amended bill of complaint filed with- 
out its leave. Day v. Hurchman, 65 
Fla. 186, 61 S. 445. 

In Kew York, see Milliken v. McGar- 
rah, 164 App. Div. 110, 149 N. Y. 8. 
484; Merrihew 17. Kingsbury, 150 App. 
Div. 40, 134 N. Y. S. 452. 
86<MS1 Farmers' M. Co. r. Farmers' 
Ins. Co., 161 la. 5, 141 N. W. 447. 
Failure to obtain leare of court Is 
cured by refusal of the court to strike 
lat the amended complaint. Ross f. 
Berry, 17 N. M. 48, 124 P. 342. 



Limiting the is8ae8.^A declaration in 
a^ libel suit which sets out a publica- 
tion by defendant containing several 
charges against the plaintiff, may be 
amended so as to confine the case to 
some of the charges. Aronson r. Bald- 
win, 178 Mich. 565, 146 N. W. 206. 

Part of pleading stricken ont.-— Where 
a portion of defendant's answer is 
stricken out as frivolous— it being on 
information and belief when the de- 
fendant had positive knowledge — ^the 
court should allow defendant to amend. 
Sharp V, Sharp, 145 N. Y. S. 386. 

861*52 Mumma v, Mumma, 246 Pa. 
407, 92 A. 504. 

861-55 Patterson t?. Traction Co., 178 
Mo. App. 260, 163 S. W. 955. 

862-56 San Francisco & Suburban 
H. Bldg. Soc. r. Leonard, 17 Cal. App. 
254, 119 P. 405; Cartwright v. Ruffin, 
43 Colo. 377, 96 P. 261; HaU I?. Hall, 
172 Mich. 210, 137 N. W. 536; Hudson 
V, Southwest Missouri R. Co., 173 Mo. 
App. 611, 159 S. W. 9; Philip Gruner 
& Bros. Lumb. Co. v, Hartshorn-Barber 
R. & Bldg. Co., 171 Mo. App. 614, 154 
S. W. 846; Mumma v. Mumma, 246 Pa. 
407, 92 A. 504; Wright V. Eureka Cop- 
per Co., 206 Pa. 274, 55 A. 978; Fitz- 
patrick v, Fitzpatrick (Tenn.), 173 3. 
W. 444; Bobbins v, Wyman, Partridge 
& Co., 75 Wash. 617, 135 P. 656. 

Eq^edally wbere plaintiff la in doubt 
as to whicL remedy to follow. Cor- 
bett V, B. A M. R. R., 219 Mass. 351, 
107 N. E. 60. 

864-64 Lewis v, Jerome, 44 Colo. 
459, 99 P. 562, 130 Am. St. 131; Cart- 
wright V. Ruffin, 43 Colo. 377, 96 P. 
261; McCracken v. Montezuma W. & L. 
Co., 25 Colo. App. 280, 137 P. 903. 

864-66 Markley v. Western Union 
Tel. Co., 151 la. 612, 132 N. W. 37; 
Woods V. Teter, 72 W. Va. ,668, 79 S. E. 
658. 

No reason assigned for delay. — ^Where 
at the trial and after the lapse of 
three months from the time the orig- 
inal answer was filed, defendant ap- 
plied to amend so as to plead assump- 
tion of risk, the court properly re- 
fused the application since no showing 
was made justifying the delay. Baxter 
r. Riverside Portland C. Co., 22 Cal. 
App. 199, 133 P. 1150. 

865-68 Clark v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry. 
Co., 261 111. 407, 103 N. E. 1041. 

865-69 Demple v. Carroll, 21 Wyo. 
447, 133 P. 137, 135 P, 117. 



29 



Vol 1 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



867-72 Bule in federal courts. — ^It 
has uniformly been held in the fed- 
eral courts that allowance or refusal 
of leave to amend pleadings in actions 
at law is discretionary with the trial 
court and that its action is not review- 
. able except in case of gross abuse of 
discretion. Gormley v, Bunyan, 138 U. 
a 623, 11 Sup. Ct. 453, 34 L. ed. 1086; 
Chapman t?. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 9 
Sup. Ct. 426, 32 L. ed. 800; Bedford 
V, Miller, 212 Fed. 368, 129 C. C. A. 
44; Truckee River Gen. El. Co. v, Ben- 
ner, 211 Fed. 72, 127 C. C. A. 503; 
Montana Min. Co. v, St. Louis M. & 
M. Co., 147 Fed. 897, 78 C. C. A. 33; 
Dunn V. Mayo Mills, 134 Fed. 804, 67 
C. C. A. 450; Lange v. Union Pac. E. 
Co., 126 Fed. 338, 62 C. C. A. 48. 

867-73 Morris i?. Brown, 177 Ala. 
389, 58 S. 910; Strait v. Wilkins, 23 
Cal. App. 774, 139 P. 911; Barkley f?. 
Hibernia Sav. & L. Soc, 21 Cal. App. 
456, 132 P. 467; Mills v, Jackson, 19 
Cal. App. 695, 127 P. 655; Wiggington 
f?. Denver & B. G. R. Co., 51 Colo. 377, 
118 P. 88; Guggenheimer & Co. r. 
Davidson, 62 Fla. 490 56 S. 801; Un- 
derwood t?. Fosha, 89 Kan. 768, 133 P. 
866; Lancaster v. Augusta Water Dist., 
108 Me. 137, 79 A. 463, Ann. Cas. 
1913A, 1252; Merrill v, Leisenring, 166 
Mich. 219, 131 N. W. 538; Wheelock 
V, Homes Life Ins. Co., 115 Minn. 177, 

131 N. W. 1081; American W. Co. v, 
Gordon, 40 Okla. 618, 139 P. 123; 
Joines t?. Combs, 38 Okla. 380, 132 P. 
1115; Cohee v. Turner, 37 Okla. 778, 

132 P. 1082; Drenijan t?. Warburton, 33 
Okla. 561, 122 P. 179; Robinson & Co. 
V. Stiner, 26 Okla. 272, 109 P. 238; 
Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135, 105 
P. 1012; Ricci t?. Pettaconsett Const. 
Co. (R. I.), 80 A. 276; Weatherer v. 
Herron, 27 S. D. 651, 132 N. W. 232; 
S. V. Coleman, 71 Wash. 15, 127 P. 
568. 

Extent of court's discretion. — "While 
much must necessarily be left to the 
judicial discretion of the trial judge in 
permitting additional or new pleas to 
be filed by a defendant, after pleas 
already filed by him have been ad- 
judged to be defective or insufficient, 
that discretion should be wisely exer- 
cised. There must be a limit to plead- 
ing." Seaboard A. L. Ry. v. Rentz, 
60 Fla. 429, 54 S. 13. And see Frank- 
lin P. Co. V, International H. Co., 62 
Fla. 185, 57 S. 206, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 
1247. 
Bepeat^d failures to properly amend 



a complaint which is capable of amend- 
ment, will justify the court in refus- 
ing further amendment. Relos v. Mar- 
dis, 18 Cal. App. 276, 122 P. 1091. 

868-74 Franklin P. Co. v. Interna- 
tional H. Co., 62 Fla. 185, 57 S. 206, 
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1247; Clark v. R. 
Co., 261 111. 407, 103 N. E. 1041. 

869-78 Doty r. Shepard, 92 Kan. 
122, 139 P. 1183. 

869-79 Askew v. 3^ 11 Ala. App. 
293, 66 S. 852; Lehman D. G. Co. 17. 
Lemoine, 129 La. 382, 56 S. 324; Pull- 
man Co. i\ Finley, 20 Wyo. 456, 125 
P. 380. 

871-83 Owl Creek C. Co. v. Goleb, 
210 Fed. 209, 127 C. C. A. 27. 

871-84 Faucett v. Rogers, 142 Ga. 
145, 82 S. E. 563. 

871-85 Stephenson r. Parsons, 6 
Ala. App. 615, 60 S. 592. 
Case diBmlssed on demurrer. — ^After 
the case has been dismissed on demur- 
rer, there is no petition in court to 
amend. Chisholm v. Atlantic Coast 
Line R. Co., 14 Ga. App. 166, 80 S. E. 
528. 

873-86 Markley v. Western Union 
Tel. Co., 151 la. 612, 132 N. W. 37. 
873-88 Cutler v, Allavena, 165 App. 
Div. 422, 150 N. Y. S. 790. 

873-89 Galligan t*. Luther, 54 Colo. 
118, 128 P. 1123. 

873-92 Jebeles & Colias C. Co. v. 
Hutchinson & Son, 171 Ala. 106, 54 S. 
618, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1107; SchoUe t\ 
Finnell, 167 Cal. 90, 138 P. 746. 

874-93 Tombigbee Val. R. Co. v. 
Howard, 185 Ala. 612, 64 S. 338; Isbell 
17. Anderson Carriage Co., 170 Mich. 
304, 136 N. W. 457; Lowenstein v. 
Holmes, 40 Okla. 33, 135 P. 727; Gross 
Const. Co. t?. Hales, 37 Okla. 131, 129 
P. 28; Goldman v. Broyles (Tex. Civ.), 
141 S. W, 283, a trial amendment to 
correct a clerical error allowed. 

874-94- Register tJ. Harrell, 131 La. 
983, 60 S. 638, amendment refused after 
jury chosen. 

Increasiiig damages. — ^An amendment 
offered just before trial, alleging in- 
creased damages, is properly refused 
where the plaintiff has all the time 
been conversant with the evideuoo 
upon which his right to recover the 
larger sum rests. Shellman v. Louis- 
ville R. Co., 147 Ky. 526,. 144 S. W, 
1060. 



30 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



Vol. 1 



876-95 Tombigbee Val. B. Co. t\ 
Howard, 185 Ala. 612, 64 S. 338. 
876-86 Bnrr v. United Bys., 163 Cal. 
663, 126 P. 873; Third St. Imp. Co. v. 
HcLelland, 23, Cal. App. 369, 137 P. 
1089; San FraHcisco & Suburban H. 
Bldg. See. f. Leonard, 17 Cal. App. 
254, 119 P. 405; Blumer v, Mahew, 17 
Cal. App. 223, 119 P. 202; Hartford 
P. Ins. Co. V, Brown, 60 Fla. 83, 53 S. 
838; Dumont «. Peet, 152 la. 524, 132 
N. W. 955; Darling 17. Manistee, 166 
Mich. 35, 131 N. W. 450; Downs t?. Cas- 
sidy, 47 Mont. 471, 133 P. 106, Ann. 
Cas. 1915B, 1155; Liehtenstein v, Ko- 
nig, 142 N. Y. S. 541; Wood v. Pehrsson, 
21 N. D. 357, 130 N. W. 1010; Paulsen 
V. Modem W. of A., 21 N. D. 235, 130 
N. W. 231; Lowenstein v. Holmes, 40 
Okla. 33, 135 P. 727; First State Bank 
V, Bridges, 39 Okla. 355, 135 P. 378; 
West f?. Bawdon (Okla.), 130 P. 1160; 
Merchants ft P. Ins. Co. v. Crane, 36 
Okla. 160, 128 P. 260; Herron t?. Bum- 
ley Co., 29 Okla. 317, 116 P. 952; 
Shawnee v. Slankard, 29 Okla. 133, 116 
P. 803; Domurat r. Oregon- Washington 
B. k Nav. Co., 66 Or. 135, 134 P. 313; 
Taylor i?. Carr, 125 Tenn. 235, 141 S. 
W. 745, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 155; Behne 
V. Stapish, 68 Wash. 204, 122 P. 1002. 

878-1 Cook V, Suburban Bealty Co., 
20 CaL App. 538, 129 P. 801; United 
States P. ft G. Co. v. Parker, 20 Wyo. 
29, 121 P. 531. 

878-2 Sweeney r. McKendall, 32 B. 
I. 347, 79 A. 940. 

878-5 Pell City Mfg. Co. v, Cosper, 
172 Ala. 532, 55 S. 214; Cauley v. Dunn, 
167 N. C. 32, 83 S. E. 16. 

Kot aUofwable. — ^Board of Comrs. v. 
Dowdle, 136 La. 447, 67 S. 324. 

878-6 Humphrey v. Smith, 142 6a. 
291, 82 S. E. 885; Fish ft Hunter Co. 
c. New England Homestake Co., 27 
8. D. 221, 130 N. W. 841, amendment 
aft«r evidence closed treated as de- 
nied. 

880-10 King v. Gray (Ala.), 66 S. 
643; Quinn v. St Louis ft S. F. B. 
Co., 253 Mo. 48, 161 S. W. 820. 

880-12 Board of Comrs. v, Dowdle, 
136 La. 447, 67 S. 324. 
881-13 Neal r. Sheffield Brick ft T. 
Co^ 151 la. 690, 130 N. W. 398. 

See infrat 925-62. 

Adiekes v. Chatham, 167 N. 
C. 681, 83 S. E. 748. 

Clark V, Illinois Cent. B. Co., 



134 La. 440, 64 S. 281; Fitzpatrick t\ 
Fitzpatrick (Tenn.), 173 S. W. 444. 

886-31 Denver Omnibus ft Cab Co. 
17. Gast, 54 Colo. 17, 129 P. 233; Ten- 
nessee Uent. B. Co. v. Brown, 125 Tenn. 
351, 143 S. W. 1129, amendment allowed 
after motion in arrest of judgment. 
Six months after Judgment taken by 
default in divorce proceedinff the court 
may allow an amendment of a clerical 
error in the complaint. Eadie v, Eadic, 
44 Mont. 391, 120 P. 239, Ann. Cas. 
1913B, 479. 

886-32 Canavan v, Canavan, 17 N. 
M. 503, 131 P. 493, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 
1064. 

887-34 Ft. Worth By. Co. r. Ballou 
(Tex. Civ.), 174^. W. 337. 

888-39 Where pending an appeal 

from a probate court, a rescript is sent 
down suggesting an amendment to the 
petition, the justice has jurisdiction to 
allow the amendment. Thompson v. 
Carruth (Mass.), 107 N. E. 395. 

888-40 Thompson v, Carruth, 218 
Mass. 524, 106 N. E. 159; Crockett r. 
Black Wolf C. ft C. Co. (W. Va.), 83 
S. E. 987. 

Where declaration has been Held snlll- 
dent by appellate court on remand, 
lower court cannot order pleading to 
be reformed against plaintiff^s protest. 
Davis <?. Power Co.. (Fla.), 66 8. 563. 
Demurrer sustained and affirmed may 
be amended after remand. Norris v. 
Burnett (Miss.), 66 S. 748. 

889-42 Pyatt v, Biley, 265 111. 324, 
106 N. E. 830. 

890-45 The sufficiency In law of de- 
fenses sought to be added by amend- 
ment will not be determined upon the 
hearing of motion to amend unless the 
proposed defenses are obviously friv- 
olous. State Bank v, Keshin, Blitstein 
ft Co., 165 App. Div. 974, 150 N. Y. S. 
157. 

891-46 Wiggington v, Denver ft R. 
G. B. Co., 51 Colo. 377, 118 P. 88. 

891-48 Plitt t7. Illinois Surety Co., 
165 App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 756, 
in New York the motion must be ac- 
companied with a copy of the plead- 
ing. 

892-49 Baxter v, Biverside Portland 
0. Co., 22 Cal. App. 199, 133 P. 1150; 
Johnson v. Electric Park A. Co., 150 
la. 717, 130 N. W. 807. 
Delay fataL — A motion to amend the 
complaint, made on the day the ct^sQ 



w 



Vol. 1 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



was set for trial, but a year after the 
complaint was filed, is properly denied 
because of the delay. Scholle v. Fin- 
nell, 167 Cal. 90, 138 P. 746. See also 
svpr.i, p. 67S, 

802-51 Baxter r. Riverside Portland 
C. Co., 22 Cal. App. 199, 133 P. 1150. 
Effectual character of amendment. 
That the proposed amendment would 
be effectual must be shown by the 
} tarty seeking the same. Watters v. 
Lyons (Ala.), 66 S. 436. 

In Georgia an affidavit, etc. Copeland 
V. McClelland, 12 Ga. App. 785, 78 S. 
E. 479. 

894-56 United States F. & G. Co. 
V. Nash, 20 Wyo. 65, 121 P. 541, 124 
P. 269. 

Service of a copy of an amendment 
filed by leave of the court to avoid, a 
ground for demurrer, is sufficient no- 
tice. Barnes v. Carr, 65 Fla. 87, 61 S. 
184. 

896-60 Failure to conform to the or- 
der of court by making the amendment 
in black ink when the court ordered it 
made in purple ink, is waived if the 
court accepts the amendment as made. 
Clover C: Co. v. Diehl, 183 Ala. 429, 63 
S. 196. 

896-61 King v. Gray (Ala.), 66 S. 
643; State Bank v. Eeshin, Blitstein & 
Co., 165 App. Div. 974, 150 N. Y. S. 
157; Plitt V. Illinois Surety Co., 165 
App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 756. 

897-63 Stokes v. Murray (S. C), S3 
S. £. 33. 

898-65 Aronson v. Baldwin, 178 
Mich. 565, 146 N. W. 206. 

899-67 Shellman v, Louisville By. 
Co., 147 Ky. 626, 144 S. W. 1060; Cur- 
rent V, Citizens Bank, 16 N. M. 642, 
120 P. 307; Behne 17. Stopish, 68 Wash. 
204, 122 P. 1002. 

Fallnre to ask for continuance. — No 
error can be predicated upon a fail- 
ure to grant a continuance as a con- 
dition of amendment, where the party 
did not ask for it. Aronson t>. Bald- 
win, 178 Mich. 565, 146 N. W. 206. 

899-68 Smith t\ Luckenbach, 158 
App. Div. 485, 143 N. Y. S. 592; Sharp 
V. Sharp, 145 N. Y. S. 386; Vervaeke 
r. Adams Express Co., 230 Pa. 647, 
79 A, 764. 

901-73 Bosek v, Detroit United By., 
175 Mich. 8, 140 N. W. 978.- 
902-74 American Exchange ^ank <?. 
Mitchell, 179 111. App. 612. 



902-T6 Current v. Citizens' Bank, 16 
N. M. 642, 120 P. 307. 

902-78 Sterling v. Marine Bank, 120 
Md. 396, 87 A. 697, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 
1219; Meredith v. Whillock, 173 Mo. 
App. 542, 158 S. W. 1061. 

903-84 Purser v. Bountree, 142 Ga. 
836, 83 S. E. 958. 

A construction will be given the amend- 
ment which will save it from being 
held repugnant to the original aver- 
ment. Wagner v, Brady, 130 Tenn. 554, 
171 S. W. 1179. 

Facts arising after the commencement 
of an action should not be set out in 
an amended pleading. Milliken v. Me- 
Garrah^ 164 App. Div. 110, 149 N. Y. S. 
484. 

904-85 Watters v, Lyons (Ala.), 66 
S. 436. 

904-87 Taulbee v. Lewis, 156 Ky. 
721, 161 S. W. 1100. 

905-89 Botwin v, Bose, 36 B. L 147, 
89 A. 339. 

905^90 Clark B. Co., 134 La. 440, 
64 S. 281; Jones v. Citizens' State 
Bank, 39 Okla. 393, 135 P. 373; Cotton 
t;. Bea (Tex.), 163 S. W. 2. 

905-93 Nelson v. Chittenden, 53 
Colo. 30, 123 P. 656, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 
1198. 

Not, however, where a change in the 
cause of action would result from the 
amendment. Helton v. Helton, 64 Or. 
290, 129 P. 532, 48 L. B. A. (N. 3.) 
779. 

911-17 Weinberger v. Agricultural 
Ins. Co., 81 N. J. L. 127, 79 A. 542. 

911-18 Georgia B. & B. Co. v. Au- 

chinachie, 142 Ga. 513, 83 S E. 127; 
King V. Donalson Oil Mill, 141 Ga. 46, 
80 S. E. 290; S. v. Coleman, 71 Wash. 
15, 127 P. 568; Gauf c. Milwaukee Ath- 
letic Club,, 151 Wis. 333, 139 N. W. 
207. 

911-19 Western N. Union v. Judson, 
1 Ala. App. 615, 55 S. 1026; Baxter v. 
Biverside Portland C. Co., 22 Cal. App. 
199, 133 P. 1150; Beeg c. McArthur, 17 
Cal. App. 203, 119 P. 105; Harris v, 
Woodard, 142 Ga. 297, 82 S. E. 902; 
Swift V, Moore (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 
914; France t7. Chesapeake & O. B. Co., 
156 Ky. 126, 160 S. W. 757. 
Where there is no merit to the pro- 
posed amendment the court may dis- 
allow it. Union Marine Ins. Co. v. 
Charlie's Trans. Oo., 186 Ala. 443, 65 
IS. 78. 



82 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



Yol. 1 



Hatters already adjudicated. — Defend- 
ant cannot amend so as to set out mat- 
ters already passed upon in a former 
Boit between the same parties. Miller 
r. Franklin, 14 6a. App. 180, 80 S. £. 
549. 

912-22 If amendment is inconsist- 
ent with the allegations made by the 
defendant in the answer sought to be 
amended, it is not error for the court 
to refuse the application. Engle v. 
Legg, 39 Okla. 475, 135 P.. 1058. 

912-24 Joyce v. Bubin, 23 Ida. 296, 
130 P. 793; Grace v, Floyd, 104 Miss. 
613, 61 8. 694; Stocking v. Boyer, 70 
Wash. 615, 127 P. 194. 

To sustain an instmction Court may al- 
low a pleading to be amended so as to 
obviate an objection to an instruction. 
Stuhr V. Wright County Tel. Co., 119 
Minn. 508, 138 N. W. 693. 

Proof of a parol settlement of fire in- 
surance with the insured is not a mate- 
rial variance from a petition alleging 
a written settlement, and amendment 
mav be allowed to meet it. Merchants 
& P. Ins. Co. V. Crane, 36 Okla. 160, 
128 P. 260. 

It is not error to refuse an amend- 
ment which will permit the party re- 
questing the same to introduce evi- 
dence tending to establish a usage or 
custom which contravenes a written 
contract upon which the cause of action 
is predicated. Drennan v, Warburton, 
33 Okla. 561, 122 P. 179. 
913-25 Stoking V. Boyer, 70 Wash. 
615, 127 P. 194. 

913-27 Ebner G. Min. Co. v. Alaska 
J. G. Min. Co., 210 Fed. 599, 127 C. 
C. A. 235; Armour & Co. v. Arbuckle, 
205 Fed. 273, 123 C. C. A. 435; Richey 
fT. Brinks, 100 Ark. 629, 140 8. W. 129; 
Bowman v, Wohlke, 166 Cal. 121, 135 
P. 37, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1011; Yates 
r. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. (Del.), 
82 A. 27; Trousdale v. Wagon Co., 25 
Ida. 130, 137 P. 372; Clopton V. Meeves, 
24 Ida. 293, 133 P. 907; Welsh v, 
Haleen, 157 la. 647, 138 N. W. 502; 
Mills r. Flynn, 157 la. 477, 137 N. W. 
1082 (petition in slander amended to 
conform to proofs); Malone v. Jones, 
91 Kan. 815, 139 P. 387, L. R. A. 
1915A, 328; Phillips County Bank v. 
Lowe, 91 Kan. 338, 137 P. 930; Charles 
r. Witt, 88 Kan. 484, 129 P. 140; Shad- 
wick V. Smith, 147 Ky. 159, 143 S. W. 
1027 (amendment setting up parol con- 
tract extending the time of original 



agreement); Title Guaranty & S. Co. 
u. Com., 146 Ky. 702, 143 S. W. 401; 
Davis V. Buss Mach. Works, 175 Mich. 
61, 140 N. W. 986 (amendment alleg- 
ing that plaintiff's ribs were broken, 
allowed); Bosek v. Detroit United By., 
175 Mich. 8, 140 N. W. 978 (com- 
plaint amended so as to designate the 
nature of the injury sustained): Gates 
V. Beebe, 170 Mich. 107, 135 N. W. 934; 
Nilson V, Canadian N. By. Co., 117 
Minn. 528, 136 N. W. 280; Babcock 
V, Canadian N. Ry. Co., 117 Minn. 
434, 136 N. W. 275, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
924; Merchants & F. Bank v. Smith 
(Miss.), 64 S. 970; Ridgeway v. Mis- 
souri, K. & T. R. Co., 161 Mo. App. 
260, 143 S. W. 532; Fishman V. Baum- 
stein, 150 N. Y. S. 101; Tilghman t?. 
Seaboard A. L. R. €o., 167 N. C. 163, 
83 S. E. 315, 1090; Chesapeake & 0. 
R. Co. V. Swartz, 115 Va. 723, 80 S. E. 
568. 

Both parties entitled to amend. — ^Where 
a defendant amended his answer to 
conform to the proofs he cannot object 
to the plaintiff amending the complaint 
to conform to the same proof. Elgan 
V. Frances Mohawk M. & L. Co., 34 
Nev. 469, 125 P. 693. 
Interstate commerce. — ^Where the proof 
shows that the defendant railroad was 
engaged in interstate commerce at the 
time of the accident, the plaintiff may 
amend so as to base his case on the 
interstate commerce act. Vickery v, R. 
Co., 87 Conn. 634, 89 A. 277; Gaines- 
viUe M. Ry. v. Vandiver, 141 Ga. 350, 
80 S. E. 997; Fernette V, R. Co., 175 
Mich. 653, 141 N. W. 1084, 144 N. W. 
834. 

The withdrawal of defendants from 
the case does not affect the right of 
plaintiffs to proceed with the case and 
to amend the complaint so as to con- 
form it to the proofs. Belknap Glass 
Co. t?. Kelleher, 72 Wash. 529, 130 P. 
1123. 

914-28 Merchants' & Planters' Ins. 
Co. V. Crane, 36 Okla. 160, 128 P. 260. 
915-30 Bom v. Castle, 22 Cal. App. 
282, 134 P. 347; Atchison, T. & S. F. 
B. Co. V, Baldwin, 53 Colo. 426, 128 
P. 453; Holbert V. Keller, 161 la. 723, 
142 N. W. 962; Underwood t?. Fosha, 
89 Kan. 768, 133 P. 866. 
915-31 Born v. Castle, 22 Cal. App. 
282, 134 P. 347; Phillips County Bank 
V. Lowe, 91 Kan. 338, 137 P. 930; Zelig 
17. Blue Point Oyster Co., 61 Or. 535, 



33 



Vol. 1 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



113 P. 852; 122 P. 756; Chesapeake Sb 
O. R. Co. V, Swartz, 116 Va. 723, 80 
S. £. 568. 

915-82 AtchiBon, T. ft fi. P. R. Co. 

V. Baldwin, 53 Colo. 426, 128 P. 453; 
Welsh V. Haleen, 157 la. 647, 138 N. 
W. 602. 

916-85 Stonewall v. Stone, 207 Fed. 
540, 125 C. C. A. 139; Southern B. Co. 
V. Gadd, 207 Fed. 277, 126 C. C. A. 
21; Pfoh V, Porter, 23 Cal. App. 69, 
137 P. 44; Mills v. Jackson, 19 Cal. 
App. 695, 127 P, 655; Florence O. & B. 
Co. V, Hiawatha O., G. & B. Co., 55 
Colo. 378, 135 P. 454; Dubois t?. Bowles, 
65 Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Shelinskj v. 
Foster, 87 Conn. 90, 87 A. 35, Ann. Cas. 
1914C, 1007; Hanlon v. Krammerer Glue 
Co., 53 Ind. App. 504, 102 N. E. 48; Hol- 
bert V. Keller, 161 la. 723, 142 N. W. 
962; Doty v. Shepard, 92 Kan. 122, 139 
P. 1183; Benfield v. Croson, 90 Kan. 
661, 136 P, 262; France v. Chesapeake 
& O. B. Co., 156 Ky. 126, 160 8. W. 
757; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Waller 
& Co., 154 Ky. 811, 159 S. W. 590; 
fiandeen V. Bussell Lumb. Co., 45 Mont. 
273, 122 P. 913; Blakeslee v. Van der 
Slice, 94 Neb. 153, 142 N. W. 799; 
Fulsom-Morris O. & M. Co. t?. Mitchell, 
37 Okla. 575, 132 P. 1103; Coley t?. 
Johnson, 32 Okla. 102, 121 P. 271; 
Beard. f>. Boyal Neighbors of America, 
60 Or. 41, 118 P. 171. 

916-86 Sterling <?. Marine Bank, 120 
Md. 396, 87 A. 697, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 
1219; Bobinson & Co. v. Stiner, 26 
Okla. 272, 109 P. 238; Ball v. Bankin, 
23 Okla. 801, 101 P. 1105. 

Limltatioiui on discretion. — ^The only 
limitation upon the discretion of the 
court in allowing amended pleadings 
is that they must be in furtherance of 
justice and must not change substan- 
tially the claim or defense. Moore v. 
Damron, 157 Ky. 799, 164 S. W. 103. 
916-37 Maclaren v, Kramar, 26 N. 
D. 244, 144 N. W. 85, 50 L. B. A. (N. 
S.) 714. 

916-40 Duffy v. Henderson, 155 la. 
117, 135 N. W. 573; Dudley v, Wabash 
B. Co., 238 Mo. 184, 142 S. W. 338. 

917-41 After jury has retired. 

Court may properly refuse to allow the 
answer to be amended after the jury 
has retired. Moore t?. Damron, 157 Ky. 
799, 164 S. W. 103. 

Amendment after Instructions given. 
Quinn v, St, Louis & S. F. E, Cg., 253 



Mo. 48, 161 S. W. 820. See supra, 880- 
10. ^ ' 

917-42 Elgan v. Frances Mohawk 
M. & L. Co., 34 Nev. 469, 125 P. 693 
(amendment allowed after decision 
and before judgment); Yervaeke v, 
Adams Express Co., 230 Pa. 647, 79 A. 
764; Monk 17. Hurlburt, 151 Wis. 41, 
138 N. W. 59, 42 L. B. A. (N. S.) 535. 
917-43 Winfrey v. Clapp, 86 Kan. 
887, 122 P. 1055; O 'Toole i'. Lowen- 
stein, 177 Mo. App. 662, 160 S. W. 
1016; Atlantic Mills t?. Superior Court, 
32 B. I. 285, 79 A. 677. 

918-45 Louisville, etc. Co. v. Lot- 
tich (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 903 (where 
proof does not relate to a new or dif- 
ferent cause of action, or give new 
right of recovery, or where amendment 
does not change theory of complaint); 
Shuford r. Life Ins. Co., 167 N. C. 547, 
83 S. E. 821. 

918-46 Atlantic, G. & P. Co. v. 
Woodmere Bealty Co., 156 App. Div. 
351, 142 N. Y. S. 953; Hathaway V. 
Arnold, 157 Wis. 22, 145 N. W. 780. 

919-50 Bowman v, Wohlke, 166 Cal. 
121, 135 P. 37, 1915 B, Ann. Cas. 1011; 
Born f?. Castle, 22 Cal. App. 282, 134 
P. 347; Hyer 17. Holmes & Co., 12 Ga. 
App. 837, 79 S. E. 58; Clopton V. 
Meeves, 24 Ida. 293, 133 P. 907; South- 
western P. etc. €o. V, Perkins, 90 Kan. 
725, 136 P. 324; Patterson v. Gore, 177 
Mich. 591, 143 N. W. 643; Gerkin r. 
Brown & Sehler Co., 177 Mich. 45, 143 
N. W. 48; Priebisch v. Ottenwess, 176 
Mich. 476, 142 N. W. 762; Musser t?. 
Musser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W. 599 
(answer amended so as to omit a plea 
of fraud and threats in obtaining a 
note); Adickes v, Chatham, 167 N. C. 
681, 83 S. E. 748; American W. Co. v. 
Gordon, 40 Okla. 618, 139 P. 123; Ful- 
som-Morris C. & M. Co. V, Mitchell, 
37 Okla. 575, 132 P. 1103; Merchants' 
& P. Ins. Co. V. Crane, 36 Okla. 160, 128 
P. 260; Offutt r. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 
120 P. 1018. 

An accord and satisfaction, when 
brought out in the evidence, may be 
set up in the answer by amendment. 
Engineering Co. 17. Beam, 23 Cal. App. 
164, 137 P. 624. 

* 'Claim" as used in the statute allow- 
ing an amendment to conform to the 
proof if it does not substantially change 
the claim or defense, is synonymous 
with ''cause of action." Loretto L. 



34 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



Vol 1 



& B. Soc. r. Garcia, 18 N. M. 318, 136 
P. 858. 

920-63 Nashville, etc. By. v. West- 
ern Union Tel. Co., 142 Ga. 525, 83 
S. £. 123. 

Erralum. — ^The title cross-referred to 
should have been "New Oaiiae of Ac- 
tion or Defense." J 

If no canao of action la stated, as dis- 
tinguished from a defectively stated 
cause of action, it cannot be amended. 
Arkansas L. Ins. Co. v. American N. L. 
Ins. Co., 109 Ark. 130, 161 S. W. 136; 
Vickery v. New London N, R. Co., 87 
Conn. 634, 89 A. 277. But see the title 
"New Canae of Action or Defense." 

920-54 Plitt V. Illinois Surety Co., 
165 App. Div. 973, 150 N. Y. S. 756, 
upon the imposition of proper terms, 
the court may allow an amendment 
changing the cause of action. 

921-65 Discretionary with court. 
Pritchard r. Norfolk So. R. Co., 166 N. 
C. 532, 82 S. E. 875. 

921-56 Amendments before trlaL 
Bule forbidding amendments which 
change the cause of action does not ap- 
ply to amendments made before trial. 
Bowman v. First Nat. Bank, 115 Va. 
463, 80 S. E. 95. 

In Texas a petition may be changed by 
amendment bo as to set up an entirely 
new cause of action, but the party 
amending must pay the costs up to the 
time of the amendment. Wiebusch v, 
Taylor, 64 Tex. 53; McLane v. Bel- 
vin, 47 Tex. 493, 502; Reed v. Harris, 
37 Tex. 167; Irvine V. Bastrop, 32 Tex. 
485; Connally v. Saunders (Tex. Civ.), 
142 S. W. 975. 

922-57 Dumont v. Peet, 152 la. 524, 
132 N. W. 955; Myers v. Chicago, B. 
ft Q. R. Co., 152 la. 330, 131 N. W. 
770; Trower V, Roberts, 30 Okla. 215, 
120 P. 617. 

924U58 Porter v. New York, 83 Misc. 
367, 145 N. Y. S. 938. 

924-59 Irwin 17. Coleman, 173 Ala. 
175, 55 S. 492; Southern Ry. Co. v. 
Cooper, 172 Ala. 505, 65 S. 211; West- 
cm Ry. r. McPherson, 3 Ala. App. 380, 
57 So. 396 (amended complaint held 
not to constitute a departure); Henry 
V. Phillips, 163 Cal. 135, 124 P. 837, 
Ann. Cas. 1914A, 39 (introducing an 
allegation of fraud in a complaint to 
quiet title held proper) ; Third St. Imp. 
Co. V. McLelland, 23 Cal. App. 369, 137 
P. 1089; State Bank r. Plummer, 54 



Colo. 144, 129 P. 819; Missouri Pac. 
Ry. Co. V. Atkinson, 23 Colo. App. 357, 
129 P. 5G6; Southern R. Co. v, Flem- 
ing, 141 Ga. 69, 80 S. £. 825; Western 
Union Tel. Co. v. Calhoun, 13 Ga. App. 
482, 79 S. E. 371 (correcting name of 
place where telegram received, held not 
departure); Pittman v. Hodges, 13 Ga. 
App. 25, 78 S. E. 688 (action for goods 
sold and delivered cannot be converted 
by amendment into an action for breach 
of a contract to purchase plaintiff 's in- 
terest in a partnership); Colozza v. 
Iowa Cent. Ry. Co., 182 111. App. 89; 
Bankwitz v. Northwestern Elev. Ry., 
182 XH. App. 55 (omitting a charge of 
i^egligence contained in the original 
pleading, does not change the cause of 
action); Siegel v. Thompson, 181 111. 
App. 164 (amendment to declaration in 
slander); Ramsey v. Utica Bep. Bank, 
156 Ky. 263, 160 S. W. 943 (amendment 
in action on note allowed); Christina 
V. Cusimano, 129 La. 873, 57 S. 157 
(amendment to complaint on a mort- 
gage note held not to change the sub- 
stance of the demand); Firos v, Tay- 
lor, 116 Md. 69, 81 A. 389 (amendment 
limiting the allegations of negligence 
to particular defendants); Arnold v. 
Brechtel, 174 Mich. 147, 140 N. W. 610 
(amendment reducing the amount of 
land claimed in ejectment); Leonard v. 
Leahy, 169 Mich. 406, 135 N. W. 335 
(amendment describing the accident 
more fully) ; Hudson" v. Southwest Mis- 
souri R. Co., 173 Mo. App. 611, 159 S. 
W. 9 (alleging new facts that neces- 
sitate new evidence -to support them 
does not change the cause of action); 
Adcox V. Western Union Tel. Co., 171 
Mo. App. 331, 157 S. W. 989; Knuckey 
V. Butte Elec. R. Co., 45 Mont. 100, 122 
P. 280; McCarthy v. Mullen (N. J. L.), 
82 A. 933; Duffy t?. McKenna, 82 N. J. 
L. 62, 81 A. 1101 (amendment in action 
for deceit held not to set up a new 
cause of action); Goldowitz v. Henry 
Kupfer & Co., 84 Misc. 393, 146 N. Y. 
S. 189; Pollock v. Jordon, 22 N. B. 132, 
132 N. W. 1000, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1264; 
Derr Const. Co. v, Gelruth, 29 Okla. 
538, 120 P. 253 (amendment to permit 
proof of expenses for medical attend- 
ance); Shawnee r. Slankard, 29 Okla. 
133, 116 P. 8C3; Rick V. New York, 
etc. R. Co., 232 Pa. 553, 81 A. 650 
(amendment of description of a car al- 
lowed in action for injuries from de- 
fective car) ; Hodges r. McGovem, 230 
Pa. 368, 79 A. 636; Atlantic Mills v. 



35 



Vol. 1 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



Superior Gourt, 32 E. I. 285, 79 A. 
577; Miller 17. West Texas Lumb. Co. 
(Tex. Civ,), 143 S. W. 970 (amendment 
allowed curing failure to allege con- 
tract price of attorney's services); 
Sowles V, Hartford Life Ins. Co., 85 
Vt. 56, 81 A. 98 (amendment to a dec- 
laration held to set up a new cause of 
action) ; Nowell v. Seattle Transfer Co., 
C3 Wash. 685, 116 P. 287. See title 
"New Cause of Action or Defensa." 

Defendant's character as an Interstate 
commerce carrier. — ''It was contended 
that by the allegation that the defend- 
ant was engaged in interstate com- 
merce at the time of the plaintiff's in- 
jury, the amendment changed the cause 
of action originally laid. We do not 
think 80. The cause of action was the 
injury sustained by the plaintiff in 
the negligent operation of the specific 
train described in the petition. The 
time, the place and the manner of the 
injury were not varied. No new rea- 
son was brought into the case, and the 
only added fact was the character of 
the business in which the train was en- 
gaged." Gainesville M. Ry. v. Van- 
diver, 141 Ga. 350, 80 S. E. 997. 

Judgment on one bar to recovery on 
other, etc. Southern R. Co. v. Cooper, 
172 Ala. 505, 55 So. 211; United States 
H. & Ace. Ins. Co. v, Emerick, 55 Ind. 
App. 591, 103 N. E. 435. 

A count upon an account stated may 
be added by amendment to a complaint 
in trover. Gambill v. Fox Typewriter 
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655. 

"Inconsistency of claims for liability, 
asserted in distinct counts, is not, un- 
der our statutes, the test either of the 
right to amend by interposing addition- 
al counts or of the right to effect join- 
der in one action in distinct counts. If 
the cause of action asserted in distinct 
counts is related in transaction or sub- 
ject-matter as the quoted statutes pro- 
vide, no error can he predicated of the 
allowance of amendments." Gambill v. 
Pox Typewriter Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655. 

Strlldng out one cause of action. — A 

party who has joined an action sound- 
ing in tort with an action sounding in 
contract may amend by eliminating 
cither remedy. Dowdy v. Calvi, 14 
Ariz. 148, 125 P. 87S, 

Work and labor to mechanic's Hen. 
Where plaintiff was permitted to file 
an amended complaint changing the 
action from assumpsit for work and 



labor done to one on a mechanic's lien, 
the court said: "We do not think 
that in strictness the amendment which 
was made . . . did change the cause 
of action. It only changed the rem- 
edy;^ ... 'but the cause of action,' 
or in other words the labor per- 
formed and materials furnished . . . 
were the same." Lackner v. Turn- 
bull, 7 Wis. 105. 

Bepladng creditor as plaintiff by a 
trustee in bankruptcy and adding mat- 
ter to show trustee's right to sue does 
not state a new cause of action. Van 
Camp V. McCulley (Ohio), 104 N. E. 
1004. 

Betting up estoppel. — An amendment to 
complaint setting up an estoppel 
affainst one of the defendants in re- 
plevin, is proper, where such amend- 
ment will meet the proof. Mills v. 
IJackson, 19 Cal. App. 695, 127 P. 655. 
Grounds of recovery. — Amendments 
merely tending to enlarge the grounds 
for the recovery of damages do not in- 
troduce a new cause of action. Truckee 
River G. E. Co. r. Benner, 211 Fed. 79, 
127 C. C. A. 503. 

New cause of action In counterclaim. 

A defendant may not as a matter of 
right introduce a new cause of action 
by way of counterclaim by means of a 
trial amendment, ^andelaria v, Miera, 
18 N. M. 107, 134 P. 829. 
A cause of action in partition may be 
added by amendment to a petition in 
ejectment. Hanson t?. Hanson, 86 Kan. 
622, 122 P. 100. 

Other slanderous words of the same 
general character may be charged by 
amendment in a complaint for slander. 
Trower v. Roberts, 30 Okla. 215, 120 
P. 617. 

Changing the character in which plain- 
tiff is maintaining the action is not ob- 
jectionable where the facts warrant it. 
Thus a party suing in his representa- 
tive capacity may amend so as to de- 
clare in his individual capacity. Hardy 
r. Woods, 33 S. D. 416, 146 N. W. 568. 
Proof not identicaL — Although proof 
necessary to sustain the one complaint 
is not entirely identical with that re- 
quired by the other, the amendment 
may be allowed, where both pleadings 
have the same object in view. Born 
V, Castle, 22 Cal. App. 282, 134 P. 347. 
Setting up a different contract. — Where 
the petition counts solely on the exe- 
cution and failure to pay a promissory 



36 



AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS 



Vol. 1 



note it may not be amended so as to 
coant on money had and received or 
money paid for the nse and benefit of 
defendant. Mineral Belt Bank v. Elk- 
ing Lead & Z. Go.^ 173 Mo. App. 634, 

158 S. W. 1066. 

PsrfoctiBg original complaint. — ^An 
amendment which merely perfects the 
allegations of the cause stated in the 
original complaint is not objectionable. 
Steeley v. Lumb. Co.. 165 N. C. 27. 80 
a £. 963. 

An action nnder the federal employexs* 
UaUlity act may be changed before 
trial to one nnder the state law. Mid- 
land Yal. B. Co. V. Ennis, 109 Ark. 206, 

159 8. W. 214. 

In ejectment errors in the description 
may be corrected by amendment so 
long as the amended pleading does not 
relate to different property. Brown v. 
Loeb, 177 Ala. 106, 58 S. 330. 

DUIerent prosecutiQns. — ^A complaint 
for malicious prosecution, alleging a 
prosecution before "K" a clerk, can- 
not be amended so as to set up a prose- 
cution before "O" a justice of the 
peace. Hanchey r. Brunson, 175 Ala. 
236, 56 8. 971, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 804. 

Changing description of a lot. — ^An 
amendment of a complaint charging a 
wrongful obstruction of a street, by 
changing the description of the lot 
alleged to have been damaged does not 
introduce a new cause of action. Bar- 
anco V, Birmingham Term. Co.^ 175 
Ala. 146, 57 8. 434. 

"The teet is whether the proposed 
amendment is a different matter or 
the same matter, laid in different ways, 
to meet the varying phases of the tes- 
timony and thus prevent a variance 
between the allegations and the proof. ' ' 
Elmore-Quillan & €o. v. Cunningham, 4 
Ala. App. 650, 58 8. 1004. 
An aOegatlon of residence inserted in 
a complaint for divorce substantially 
changes the cause of action and is not 
permissible. Holton v, Helton, 64 Or. 
290, 129 P. 532, 48 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 
779. 

Changing character of goods in re- 
plevin. — ^Replevin for specific property 
cannot be amended so as to set up a 
claim for a specific sum wrongfully 
collected for plaintiff. Kansas City 8. 
By. V. Tonn, 102 Ark. 20, 143 8. W. 
577. 

Changing description of parties. — ^There 
is ao new cause of action introduced 



by an amendment which describes the 
plaintiffs as co-partners, whereas the 
original complaint describes them as in- 
dividuals. Ahlers V. Smiley, 163 Cal. 
200, 124 P. 827. 

925-60 Erratum. — The title cross- 
referred to should have been "New 
Cause of Action or Defense." 

Adding new counts. — 8ee the title 
''Several Counts." 

926-61 Erratnnu — ^The title cross- 
referred to should have been "New 
Canse of Action or Defense." 

In Equity.— See the title "Bills and 
Answers." 

925-63 A count in case may by 

amendment be substituted in a declar- 
ation in assumpsit. Sanborn v. Boston 
& M. R. E., 76 N. H. 65, 79 A. 642. 
926-64 From replevin to conversion. 
"Even though the action were for re- 
covery of possession instead of conver- 
sion, yet to penalize plaintiff by dis- 
missing the action, instead of permit- 
ting an amendment, would be incon- 
sistent with the spirit of our reformed 
procedure, which demands a disregard 
of technicalities when they in no way 
affect the substantial rights of part- 
ies.'* Missouri River Transp. Co. v. 
Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 34 S. D. 
1, 147 N. W. 82. 

Money liad and received to statutory 
action. — ^A complaint against a sheriff 
for money had and received may be 
amended so as to set out an action 
under a statute which makes officers li- 
able in a certain penalty for charging 
more for any service than the law al- 
lows. Kerwin v. Albrecht, 155 Wis. 
599, 145 N. W. 205. 
Express contract to quantum meruit. 
An amendment to a complaint which 
declares on an express contract, making 
it one, counting on a quantum meruit 
states a new cause of action, and is 
not permissible. Jackson 17. Blair (Tex. 
Civ.), 165 S. W. 522. But where all 
the necessary elements of a quantum 
meruit are exhibited in the- original 
complaint counting upon an express 
contract, an amendment adding a count 
in quantum meruit, does not introduce 
a new cause of action. Merchants' C. 
Agency v. Gopcevic, 23 Cal. App. 216, 
137 P. 609. 

Reducing amount claimed in a com- 
plaint upon an express contract to that 
part of the entire compensation repre- 
sented by work actually performed does 



87 






Voll 



AMENDMEl^TS AlfD JSOPAILS 



not change the action to one on a 
quantum meruit. The contract contin- 
ues to be the foundation of the action 
and the amendment enables plaintiff to 
statd the proper measure of damages. 
Sauer i;. School Bist., 243 Pa. 294, 90 
A. 150.. 

Equity to law. — "It must be conceded 
that the plaintiff, in the first place, 
might have brought his action at law. 
The facts upon which the equity and 
the law action are founded are sub- 
stantially the same. The difference 
practically is in the prayer for relief." 
Amendment allowed. Rohrbach v. Ham- 
mill, 162 la. 131, 143 N. W. 872. But 
see Byrne r. MeKeachie, 29 S. D. 476, 
137 N. W. 343. 

Law to equity. — ^^ 'Under the statute in 
relation to amendments, we have no 
hesitation in holding that a party is 
not estopped by bringing an action at 
law from amending his pleadings be- 
fore the case has finally been submit- 
ted to the court, so as to change it into 
an action in equity. We feel confident 
that the universal practice is in accord 
with this view." Barnes t\ Hekla F. 
Ins. Co., 75 la. 11, 39 N. W. 122, 9 Am. 
St. 450. Bee also King v. Livingston 
Mfg. Co., 180 Ala. 118, 60 S. 143. 

Case to covenant. — A party who has 
mistakenly brought his action in case 
may upon motion amend the form to 
that in covenant. Eby v. Concord 
Heights Co. (Del.), 90 A. 40. 
Common counts added to trover. — ^A 
complaint containing a count in trover 
may be amended by adding the common 
counts under the statute. Gambill v. 
Pox Typewriter Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 655. 
Tort to contract. — ^Where having an 
election to sue in contract or in tort, 
plaintiff proceeds in tort, the court can- 
not change the complaint to one in con- 
tract. Frankel r. Dinitz, 83 Misc. 124, 
144 N. Y. 8. 770. 

927-65 Youngs v, Wegner, 157 Wis. 

489, 146 N. W. 803. 

927-66 Southern Ry. Co. <?. Hanby, 
183 Ala. 255, 62 S. 871; Tennessee, etc. 
R. Co. V. Barker, 6 Ala. App. 413, 60 
S. 486; Bray v. Lowery, 163 Cal. 256, 
124 P. 1004; Second Nat. Bank v, 
Clancy, 178 111. App. 427; Johnson v. 
Citizens' Bank (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 
35; Cincinnati, etc. B. Co. v, Goode, 163 
Ky. 60, 173 S. W. 329; Olivier, Voor- 
hies & Lowrey v. Majors, 133 La. 764, 
63 S. 323; McQee v. McGee, 161 Mo. 



App. 40, 143 S. W. 77; Ben Kress Nur- 
sery Co. tJ. Oregon Nursery Co., 45 
Mont. 494, 124 P. 475; Maytham t?. 
Parker, 81 Misc. 400, 142 N. Y. S. 582; 
Za^ier v. Zagier, 167 N. O. 616, 83 S. 
E. 913; gweeney v. McKendall, 32 B. 
I. 347, 79 A. 940; Catobio u. Ibello, 32 
R. I. 307, 79 A. 789; Hughes t?. Four 
States Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App,), 
164 S. W. 898; Robbins v, Wyman, 
Partridge & Co., 75 Wash. 617, 135 P. 
656. 

Abandonment of original pleadings. 
A trial amendment which omits all 
reference to the sureties on the se- 
questration bond, does not operate as 
an abandonment of former pleadings, 
so as to render the sureties no longer 
necessary parties for disposition by the 
judgment. Bushong i?. Alderson (Tex. 
CSv.), 143 S. W. 200. 

928-69 Adams 17. Georgia Ry. Co., 
142 Ga. 497, 83 8. E. 131. 

929-71 Goss V. Weiman & Co., 5 Ala. 
App. 404, 59 S. 364; Bieckmann v. 
Merkh, 20 Cal. App. 655, 130 P. 27; 
Chariton Nat. Bank t?. Whicher, 163 la, 
571, 145 N. W. 299; Cincinnati, etc. R. 
Co. t7. Goode, 163 Ky. 60, 173 S. W. 
329; Ter. V. Woolsey, 35 Okla. 545, 130 
P, 934. 

All amended answer relates back and 
takes effect as of the time the original 
answer was filed. First Nat. Bank v. 
Minge, 186 Ala. 405, 64 S. 957. 

929-78 Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. r. 
Goode, 163 Ky. 60, 173 S. W. 329. 

930-74 Implied withdrawal of ad- 
mlsslona. — Where a defendant in his 
original answer makes no reference to 
certain paragraphs in the petition, 
containing material averments, an 
amendment to the answer expressly 
denying such paragraphs is a sufficient 
joiiider of issue thereon, although 
there is in the amendment no with- 
drawal of the admissions of the para- 
graphs in the original answer, implied 
from the failure to answer them. 
Moore t?. Calvert Mtg. Co., 13 Ga. App. 
54, 78 S. E. 1097. 

930-76 Beflllng pleas^ — An amend- 
ment to a complaint striking out a 
particular count does not require the 
refiling of pleas addressed to each 
separate count left in the complaint. 
Doss V, Wadswdrth Red Ash C. Co., 185 
Ala. 597, 64 S. 341. 

Bight to answer whole petition. — An 
amendment will not authorize an an- 



88 



ANtMAZ8 



Tot. 1 



Bwer to tke whole petition unless it 
materially changes the cause of action. 
Brooke r. Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. 493, 81 
S. £. 223. 



AHIOABI.E AOnONE 

933-6 Who may submit controversy. 
West Chicago Park Oomrs. v. Biddle, 
245 ni. 168, 91 N. E. 1060. 

933-8 Scope of ixiiiniry. — Court is 
limited to the cause stated by the 
facts and what is not set forth as ad- 
mitted cannot be considered as exist- 
ing, a I. B. T. By. Co. V, Hite, 41 Pa. 
Super. 527. 

933-9 JuxlBdletioiL— Filing of agree- 
ment is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. 
West Chicago Park Comrs. v, Biddle, 
245 HI. 168, 91 N. E. 1060. 

933-13 See S. I. B. T. By. Co. v. 
Hite, 41 Pa. Super. 527. 



AMICfUS OUBIAE 

936-3 In re McClellan's Est., 27 S. 
D. 109, 129 N. W. 1037, Ann. Cas. 
1913C, 1029. 

SoggMtionB by dlsdiarged attorney* 

An attorney. in a pending suit having 
been discharged by his cUent, and the 
latter having stipulated for ft decree 
disregarding rights of minors not par- 
ties may properly suggest facts to the 
court necessary for minor's protection. 
Jones V. Hudson, 93 Neb. 561, 141 N. 
W. 141, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1182. 

936-5 See Howard v, B. Co., 207 tJ. 
S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141, 52 L. ed. 297; 
Ek parte Brockman, 233 Mo. 135, 134 
8. W. 977. 

937-10 S. f?. McDonald, 63 Or. 467, 
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201. 

937-11 S. V. McDonald, 63 Or. 467, 
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201. 

Want of eerTlce of pxocees^ — ^Amicus 
curiae may suggest to court want of 
service of process upon defendant. Chi- 
cago, etc. B. Co. V, Anderson, 105 Tex. 
1, 141 S. W. 513, rev. Chicago, etc. B. 
Co. I?. Anderson (Tex. Civ.), 130 S. W. 
182. 

937-16 See Howard v, Dlinois Cent. 
B. Co., 207 U. S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141, 
52 L. ed. 297. 

938-17 S. V. McDonald, 63 Or. 467, 
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 201; In 
re McClellan's Est.. 27 S. D. 109, 129 
N. W. 1037, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1029. 



938-19 ^S. r.'^McDonaldr^S^Or. 467,' 
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201. 

938-20 Cannot apply for vacation'of 
judgment. S. v. Steiner, 58 Wash. 578, 
109 P. 57. •* 

938-22 Muskogee Co. v. Haskell,' 38 
Okla. 358, 132 P. 1098, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 

190. 

»— 

938-23 Masing special appearance. 

Appearance of regular attorney of cor- 
poration as amicus curiae to object to 
sufficiency of service of citation is not 
an appearance. Elliott v. Standard, etc. 
Armor Co. (Tex, Civ.), 173 S. W. 616. 

939-27 S. V, McDonald, 63 Or. 467, 
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 201; Chi- 
cago, etc. B. Co. 1?. Anderson , (Tex. 
Civ.), 130 S. W. 102. I - . 

Unless JurisdictlonaL — ^Hurd v. Ingle- 
heart (Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 119. 

940-29 S. V. McDonald, 63 Or. 467, 
128 P. 835, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 201. 



ANIKALS 

946-2 PhilUps V, Gamer (Miss.), 64 
S. 735. 

946-8 Holt t?. Myers, 47 Ind. App. 
118, 93 K. E. 31, rehear, denied, 93 N. 
E. 1002; Dix v, Somerset Coal Co., 217 
Mass. 146, 104 N. E. 433; Warrick v. 
Parley, 95 Neb. 565, 145 N. W. 1020; 
Malafronte v. Milone, 35 B. I. 225, 86 
A. 146; Missio v. Williams, 129 Tenn. 
504, 167 S. W. 473, 1915A, L. B. A. 
500. See American Exp. Co. f. Par- 
carello (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926. 

948-16 Wood V. Campbell, 28 S. D. 
197, 132 N. W. 785, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
605. 

949-29 Necessity of alleging ordi- 
nance. — ^Where owner is liable . regard- 
less of provisions of city ordinance al- 
legations as to ordinance and violation 
are surplusage. Forsythe r. Kluck- 
hohn, 161 la. 267, 142 N. W. 225. 

950-31 Holt V, Myers, 47 Ind. App. 
118, 93 N. E. 31, rehear, denied, 93 N. 
E. 1002. 

960-37 Kleybolte v. Buffon, 33 O. C. 
C. 211. See Gropp t?. Tea Co., 141 App. 
Div. 372, 126 N. Y. S. 211. 
By St., 1911, |1620.~Legault v. Mai- 
acker, 156 Wis. 507, 145 N. W. 1081. 

953-63 Byan v, Marren, 216 Mass. 
556, 104 N. E. 353; Warrick v. Farley, 
95 Neb. 565, 145 N. W. 1020. 

964-61 Buchanan v. Stout, 139 App. 



89 



Vol 1 



AmviTtsa 



Div. 204, 123 N. Y. S. 724; S. v. Smith, 
156 N. C. 628, 72 S. E. 321, 36 L. B. 
A. (N. S.) 910; Low r. Barnes, 30 Okla. 
15, 118 P. 389. 

Turkeys and other fowls are animals 
within statute. Holcomb v. Van Zy- 
len, 174 Mich. 274, 140 N. W. 521, Ann. 
Caa. 1915A, 1241, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
607. 

954-63 See Ellis v. OUphant, 159 la. 
514, 141 N. W. 415. 

956-TT See Browdet-Manget Co. r. 
Calhoun Co., 138 Ga. 277, 75 S. E. 243. 

95T-S7 Scoville «. Columbia, 86 
Conn. 568, 86 A. 85. 

957-93 Financial status of town. 
Averment that town had money suffi- 
cient to pay the damages is surplusage. 
Wea Tp. t;. Cloyd, 46 Ind. App. 49, 91 
N. E. 959. 

958-97 Waiver of dalm against 
owner. — ^By presenting claim to board 
of supervisors owner waives any other 
Remedy and cannot sue owner of dogs 
for any damages. Ellis v, Oliphant, 159 
la. 514, 141 N. W. 415. 

960-14 Contra, Missouri Pac. B. Co. 
t?. Finley, 38 Kan. 550, 16 P. 951; Al- 
frey v. Shouse, 163 Ky. 333, 173 S. W. 
792; Clarendon L. I. & A. Co. v. Mc- 
Clelland, 89 Tex. 483, 34 S. W. 98, 35 
S. W. 474. 

962-37 Iteasonableness of statute as 
to the prevention of spread of com- 
municable diseases is for the court. 
Bishop V. S., 122 Tenn. 729, 127 S. W. 
698. 

965-60 U. S. V. El Paso, etc. B. Co., 
178 Fed. 846. 

968-89 8ee Harrington v. Hall, 6 
Penne. (Del.) 72, 63 A. 875; also James 
V. Tindall (Del.), 88 A. 1003. 
969-93 Johnson 17. Downing, 182 HI. 
App. 536. 

970-8 Thomas v. 8., 166 Ala. 40, 52 
S. 34; S. t?. Hakon, 21 N. D. 133, 129 
N. W. 234. 

971-21 Animal otherwise Identified. 
Kame of owner or person in possession 
need not be alleged where the animal 
is sufFiciently identified. Stokes 17. S., 
14 Ga. App. 522, 81 S. E. 595. 
972-32 But see James v. S., 170 Ala. 
72, 54 S. 494. 

972-34 But effect need not be stated 
where it is a matter of common knowl- 
edge. Moore r. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 1. 
979-9 Vaughn v. Bixby, 24 Cal. App. 
641, 142 P. 100, 



979-11 Allen v. Walden, 27 Okla. 
94, 111 P. 316. 

Statute is constitutional which author- 
izes stock law elections. Ex parte Cow- 
den (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 539. 

The police Jury of a parish has power 
to enact a ''no fence" law for a par- 
ticular ward of the parish. Miller x>, 
Bopp, 136 La. 788, 67 S. 831. 

989-19 Oliaracter of averments. 

Not necessary that averments in plead- 
ing shall be as full and specific as in 
indictment or information for viola- 
tion of criminal part of law. Lee r. 
Mclnnis (Tex. Qv.), 128 S. W. 160. See 
King f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 74 S. W. 773. 

981-21 White v. Steele, 5 Ala. App. 
532, 59 S. 713. 

981-25 An indictment alleging that 
the stock law had been adopted in a 
certain precinct when in fact it had 
not, is fatally defective. Ex parte 
Stein (Tex. Cr.), 135 S. W. 136. 

It must go even further. — ^The indict- 
ment must allege the name of the 
owner of the land trespassed upon, and 
the kind of live stock allowed to tres- 
pass. Madison v, S., 11 Ala. App. -225, 
65 So. 848. 

981-29 Gest v. Dube (Tex. Civ.), 142 
S. W. 965. 

Remedy for impounding. — ^Means v, 
Morgan, 2 Ala. App. 547, 56 S. 759. 

982-33 Bell v. San Angelo (Tex. 
Civ.), 146 S. W. 1195. 

983-44 S. t?. Clifton, 152 N. C. 800, 
67 S. E. 751, 28 L. B. A. (N. S.) 673. 
984-54 Lawrence v, S., 10 Ga. App. 
786, 74 S. E. 300. 



ANNUITIES 

987-1 Boutt t'. Newman, 253 111. 185, 
97 N. E. 208; Nehls v, Sauer, 119 la. 
440, 93 N. W. 346 (ci«. 2 Bl. Com. 40) ; 
Henry v, Henderson, 81 Miss. 743, 33 
S. 960, 63 L. B. A. 616; Wiegand r. 
Woerner, 155 Mo. App. 227, 134 S. W. 
596; Welsh t?. Brown, 43 N. J. L. 37; 
Krigbaum v, Irvine, 10 O. D. 226, 8 
O. N. P. 174; Dulaney's Admr. v, Du- 
Uney, 105 Va. 429, 54 S. E. 40. 
988-3 In re Tom's Est., 84 Misc. 
312, 147 N. Y. S. 550. 
988-4 Boutt V, Newman, 253 111. 185, 
97 N. E. 208; Nehls f?. Sauer, 119 la. 
440, 93 N. W. 346; Northern Cent. By. 
Co. f?. Hering, 93 Md. 164, 48 A. 461; 
MoBser v. Lesher, 154 Pa. 84, 22 A. 



40 



ANOTHER ACTION PENDING 



Vol. 1 



1085; Bnlaney's Admr. v. Dulaney, 105 
Va. 429, 54 S. E. 40. 

088-6 In re United States Trust Co., 
86 Misc. 603, 148 N. Y, S. 762. 

"Bent cbarge" and "annuity** dls- 
tingnlahad. — Wiegand v. Woerner, 155 
Mo. App. 227, 134 S. W. 596. 

988-7 I>lstinctlon between Income 
and an annuity. — ^The former embraces 
only the net profits, after deducting all 
necessary expenses and charges. The 
latter is a fixed amount directed to be 
paid absolutely and without conting- 
ency. Moore v, Downey, 83 N. J. Eq. 
428, 91 A. 116; Matter of Dewey, 153 
N. Y. 63, 46 N. E. 1039; In re Gurnee, 
84 Misc. 324, 147 N. Y. S. 396; Du- 
laney's Admr. v, Dulaney, 105 Va. 429, 
54 8. £. 40. 



AKOTHEB ACTION PEin>INa 

096-1 Dowdy r. Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148, 
125 P. 873; Fresno Plan. Mill Oo. V, 
Manning, 20 Cal. App. 766, 130 P. 196; 
Singletary t?. Chipstead, 142 Ga. 208, 
82 8. £. 547; Blassingame v. Cattle- 
men's Trust Co. (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 
900; Sparks 17. Nat. Bank of Commerce 
(Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 48. 

996-2 Kaplan v. Coleman, 180 Ala. 
267, 60 8. 885; Seeger v. Young, 127 
Minn. 416, 149 K. W. 735; Merriam v. 
Baker, 9 Minn. 40; Pocoke v. Peterson, 
256 Mo. 501, 165 8. W. 1017; Michelin 
Tire Co. v. Webb, 143 Mo. App. 679, 
127 S. W. 948; Compton V, Green, 9 
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 228; Bundlet & Bey- 
nolds V. Whitall, 135 N. Y. 8. 697. 

996-3 Brown v. Brown, 110 Me. 280, 
86 A. 32; Disbrow v. Creamery Pack. 
Co., 115 Minn. 434, 132 N. W. 913. 

In Texas the rule of the common law 
that a suit pending between two part- 
ies on a certain cause of action would 
be cause for abating a second suit be- 
tween the same parties on the same 
cause of action in courts of the same 
jurisdiction, does not exist. Cole v, 8. 
(Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 353; Liberty 
Milling Co. v. Continental Gin Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 132 8. W. 856; Garza v. Piano 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 126 8. W. 906. The 
plaintiff in the suit could elect which 
of the two suits he would try. Wilker- 
son V. Ft. Worth & D. C. B. Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 8. W. 1041; Pullman Co. f>. 
Hoyle, 52 Tex. (3iv. 534, 115 8. W. 315. 
The trial of the second suit, if the two 
eoita were between the same parties on 



the same cause of action, would amount 
to an election to abandon the first. Cole 
17. 8. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 353. But 
in Goggan & Bros. v» Morrison (Tex. 
Civ.), 163 8. W. 119, it was held that 
two courts of concurrent jurisdiction 
would not at the same time entertain 
a suit between the same parties over 
the same subject-matter. A similar 
rule was applied in Miller & Yidor 
Lumb. Co. V, Williamson (Tex. Civ.), 
164 8. W. 440. 

99T-4 Mullikin r. Cleveland, etc. R. 
Co., 164 111. App. 37. 

First action will be dismissed when a 
subsequent action between the same 
parties embraces more fully the sub- 
ject-matter in dispute. Schenck v. 
Yard (N. J. Eq.), 86 A. 81, 

997-9 Boone v. Boone, 160 la. 284, 
137 N. W. 1059, 141 N. W. 938. 

998-10 Most be Judicial proceedings. 

A proceeding in a county court to call 
in warrants is not judicial in character 
and consequently does not abate a sub- 
sequent action against the county to 
enforce the outstanding warrants. Falls 
City Const. Co. t?. Monroe Co., 208 Fed. 
482. 

998-11 Enforcing Judgment. — ^Where 
the purpose of the action is merely to 
enforce the judgment, a plea of an- 
other action pending cannot avail in 
the action commenced upon the judg- 
ment before the time for appeal has 
expired. 8weet8er v, Fox,^ 43 Utah 40, 
134 P. 599, 47 L. B, A. (N. S.) 145. 

Action In aid of judgmentr^-M action 
to set aside a fraudulent Conveyance, 
being in aid of judgment, will not abate 
because an appeal is pending from the 
judgment. Sewell v, Johnson, 165 Cal. 
762, 134 P. 704, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 645. 

998-12 Leyy of the attachment 
must have been made. Wrisht Merc. & 
L. Co. V. Eton Merc. Co. (Q^a.), 84 8. 
E. 442. ' 

"Where no declaration Is filed on the 
first attachment, it will not abate the 
second attachment. Drake v, Lewis, 13 
Ga. App. 276, 79 8. E. 167. 
999-15 Homrich f . Bobinson (Mass.), 
108 N. E. 1082. 

999-16 U. 8. V. Herbert, 5 Cranch C. 
C. 87, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,354; 8. v. 
Benham, 7 Conn. 414; Knight v. 8., 
42 Fla. 546, 28 8. 759; Eldridge v. 8., 
27 Fla. 162, 9 8. 448; Irwin v, 8., 117 
Ga. 706, 45 8. £. 48; Horst v. 8., 11 



41 



Vol 1 



AKOTBtlR ACTION PENDim 



Ga. App. 754, 76 S. E. 78; CabanisB v. 
8., 8 Ga. App. 129, 68 S. E. 849; Gray 
V. S., 6 Ga. App. 428, 65 S E. 191; Gan- 
non V. People, 127 111. 507, 21 N. E. 
625, 11 Am. St. 147; Hardin v. S., 22 
Ind. 347; Button v. S., 5 Ind. 533; S. 
V, McKinney, 31 Kan. 570, 3 P. 356; 
S. v. Curtis, 29 Kan. 384; C. r. Cody, 

165 Mass. 133, 42 N. E. 575; C. v. Mur- 
phy, 11 Cush (Mass.) 472; C. r. Drew, 
3 Cush. (Mass.) 279; C. v, Dunhaiii, 
Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 513; Hartley 
V, 8., 53 Neb. 310, 73 N. W. 744; 8. r. 
Lambert, 9 Nev. 321; Whiting v. 8., 48 
O. St. 220, 27 N. E. 96; Reed v. Ter., 1 
Okla. Cr. 481, 98 P. 583; Smith v. C, 
104 Pa. 339; C. r. Ramsey, 42 Pa. Super. 
25; S. r. Security Bank, 2 S. D. 538, 
51 N. W. 337; Zachary o. 8., 7 Baxt. 
(Tenn.) 1; Carter r. S., 44 Tex. Cr. 312, 
70 S. W. 971. 

Concnrrent Jurisdiction. — The rule ap- 
plies also where the prior indictment is 
pending in a court of concurrent jur- 
isdiction. Bartley v. 8., 53 Neb. 310, 
73 N. W. 744. 

999-18 8. V. Claney, 97 Neb. 721, 
151 N. W. 155. 

A pending mandamuB proceeding to 

compel a city treasurer to repay taxes 
will not bar a subsequent action against 
the city to recover the taxes. Madary 
V. Fresno, 20 Cal. App. 91, 128 P. 340. 

1000-21 Petzet v, Cflark, 153 HI. 

App. 152. 

1000-22 Mississippi Yal. Fuel Co. 
r. Watson Coal Co., 202 Fed. 122, 120 
C. C, A. 276; Southern B. Co. v. Hayes, 
183 Ala. 465, 62 8. 874; Billups v. Gil- 
bert, 180 Ala. 437, 61 8. 901; Erikson v. 
Ward, 185 111. App. 269. See Poland 
1?. Loud (Me.), 93 A. 549. 
1000-23 Early r. Ingham Cir. Judge, 

166 Mich. 517, 131 N. W. 1104; Post 
V. Bailey & Co., 68 W. Va. 434, 69 S. 
E. 910. See Cunningham v, Williams 
Co., 135 Ga. 249, 69 S. E. 101, in which 
an equitable suit to cancel a fraudulent 
conveyance made by a debtor was 
abated because an action at law upon 
the indebtedness was pending. 

1001-24 Southern B. Co. v. Hayes, 
183 Ala. 465, 62 S. 874. 

1002-31 Michelin Tire Co. v. Webb, 
143 Mo. App. 679, 127 8. W. 948. 

1002-32 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & T. 
Co. r. Milbra, 173 Ala. 658, 55 So. 890. 

1002-35 Tinkham t7. Boston & M. B. 
B (N. H.), 88 A, 709. 



Bule illustrated.— Thus the United 
States may sue for a penalty after suit 
by an individual for the same penalty 
where the declaration in the latter 
was found bad on demurrer; amend- 
ment not allowed, and no further ac- 
tion taken by the individual. United 
States V. Dwight Mfg. Co., 213 Fed. 
522. 

1008-37 Bed Deer Oil Develop. Co. 
V. Muggins (Tex. Civ.), 155 8. W. 949. 
1003-38 Bakow v. Tate, 93 Neb. 
198, 140 N. W. 162. 

1003-39 Cook & Laurie Contract. 
Co. r. Denis, 126 La. 413, 52 S. 560; 
Saint V. Martel, 126 La. 245, 52 8. 474. 

1004-42 Ambursen Hydraulic Const 
Co. V. Northern C. Co., 140 Ga. 1, 78 8. 
E. 340; Southern B. Co. r. Diseker, 13 
Ga. App. 799, 81 8. E. 269; Loomis «. 
Federal Union Sur. Co., 163 111. App. 
621; Beed v. Hollingsworth, 157 la. 94, 
135 N. W\ 37; Jones v. Hughes, 156 la. 
684, 137 N. W. 1023; Scott V, Demarest, 
76 Misc. 289, 135 N. Y. 8. 264; Car- 
penter, Baggott & Co. 1*. Hanes, 1G2 
N. C. 46, 77 S. E. 1101; Missouri, K. & 
T. By. V. Bradshaw, 37 Okla. 317, 132 
P. 327. 

This rule applies as well where the sec- 
ond suit is instituted by the defendant 
in the first suit as where the plaintiff 
in both actions is the same person. 
Ambursen Hydraulic Const. Co. v. 
Northern C. Co., 140 Ga. 1, 78 8. E. 
340. 

1005-46 Ironton 9. Harrison Const. 
Co., 212 Fed. 353, 129 C. C. A. 29; 
Groom v, Mortimer Land Co., 192 Fed. 
849, 113 C. C. A. 173; McClellan t\ Car- 
land, 187 Fed 915, 110 C. C. A. 49; 
Bunker Hill, etc. Co. r. Shoshone Min. 
Co., 109 Fed. 504, 47 C. C. A. 200; Land 
u. Ferro-Concrete Const. Co., 221 Fed. 
433; Boniller v, Schuster Co., 212 Fed. 
348; Adler Goldman C. Co. v. Williams, 
211 Fed. 530; Falls City Const. Co. t?. 
Monroe Co., 208 Fed. 482; Scott r. 
George's Creek C. & L Co., 202 Fed. 
251; Bixler v, Pennsylvania B. Co., 201 
Fed. 553; People's Gaslight & C. Co. v. 
Chicago, 192 Fed. 398; Coe v, Aiken, 
50 Fed. 640; Lynch v, Ins. Co., 17 Fed. 
627. Contra, Badford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. 
97. 

An action before the interstate com- 
merce commission for illegal discrimin- 
ation will not bar an action against the 
same defendant by the individual who 
has been discriminated against. Hills- 



48 



AmfTtEti ACTION PENDING 



Vol. 1 



dale Coal & C. Co. v, PennsylTania B. 
Co^ 229 Pa. 61, 78 A. 28, 140 Am. St. 
700. 

1006-49 Nashville, etc. Ry. v. Hub- 
ble, 140 Ga. 368, 78 S. E. 919; National 
M« E. Box Co. V, American M. E. Box 
Co., 246 Pa. 78, 92 A. 42; Pecos & N. 
T. By. Co. V. Porter (Tex. Civ.), 156 
S. W. 267; Biard & Scales v, Tyler Bldg. 
& L. Assn. (Tex. Civ.). 147 S. W. 1168; 
Puj^et Sound State Bank r. Gallucci, 82 
Wash. 445, 144 P. 698. 

An action pending in the federal sn- 
preme court involving the same part- 
ies, issues and subject matter as a 
subsequent action in the state courts, 
will not abate the latter. latt Lumb. 
Co. V. Faircloth, 132 La. 906, 61 S. 866. 

1006-60 Bemoral to federal conrt. 
Where an action is removed from state 
to federal court and recovery is denied 
in the latter court, plaintiff may insti- 
tute another action on the same cause 
in the state court before the one in 
the federal court has been dismissed. 
Holbrook c. Quinlan & Co., 84 Vt. 411, 
80 A. 339. 

lOOT-53 Property in cnstody of 
state court. — ^When a state court se- 
cures by proper process the custody of 
property which it is one of the objects 
of the suit in the federal court to sub- 
ject to its decree, the latter suit should 
not be stayed, but should proceed as 
far as possible without creating a con- 
flict concerning the possession of the 
property. Jenkins 17. Atlantic Coast 
Line B. Co., 89 S. C. 408, 71 S. B. 1010. 
1008-56 Kirby f. Johnson County 
Sav. Bank, 12 Ga. App, 157, 76 8. E. 
996; Wray v. Wray, 159 la. 230, 140 
N. W, 414. 

As to defendant. — An action is com- 
menced as to the defendant when a 
summons is served upon him or he ap- 
pears without summons. Seeger v. 
Young, 127 Minn. 416, 149 N. W. 735. 
Summons not served. — ^Under a statute 
which declares that ''an action is com- 
menced as to each defendant when the 
summons is issued against him," an 
action is pending* from the time sum- 
mons is issued even though it be not 
served. Pettigrew o. McCoin, 165 N. 
C. 472, 81 a E. 701, 52 L. B. A. (N. 
8.) 79. 

1008-67 Seeger r. Young, 127 Minn. 
416, 149 N. W. 735. 
Ko comprint filed. — ^After service of 
snmnions in the first action, and after 



answer was served, the action was 
pending even though the complaint had 
not been filed. Longmore v. Puget 
Sound Co., 78 Wash. 468, 139 P. 191. 

1009-61 TXntU Judgment becomes 
final in former action it is still pending 
and may be pleaded in abatement of 
a subsequent action. Vance v. Heath, 
42 Utah 148, 129 P. 365. 
Judgment in first action opened up. 
When a judgment by confession is 
opened up to allow further pleas it is 
deemed pending so as to abate a sub- 
sequent action for the same cause. 
Garvy v. National Foundry Co., 16X 111. 
App. 455. 

1009-62 Where no stay bond has' 
been given, the fact that an appeal is 
pending will not abate a subsequent 
suit. 8ewell r. Johnson, 165 Cal. 762, 
134 P. 704, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 645. 

1010-67 McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181 
Ala. 427, 61 S. 62; Tate v. Sanders, 24o 
Mo. 186, 149 8. W. 485, Ann. Cas. 
1914A, 998. 

1010-68 Marcus f. National Council, 
127 Minn. 196, 149 N. W. 197; Perham 
V. Lane, 76 N. H. 580, 83 A. 805. 
Where a nolle xwosequi has been en- 
tered upon the former indictment the 
second indictment will not abate. Jones 
t\ S., 115 Ga. 814, 42 S. E. 271. 
1011-69 Glironowski r. Zielinski 
(Mich.), 134 N. W. 982; Barnett v. Cliff- 
side MUls, 167 N. C. 576, 83 S. E. 826; 
Brock V, Scott, 159 N. C. 513, 75 S. E. 
724; Cook v. Cook, 159 N. C. 46, 74 
S. E.« 639, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1137, 40 
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 83. 
1011-71 Wamock I7. Moore, 91 Kan. 
262, 137 P. 959; Bohon Co. v. Moren, 
151 Ky. 811, 152 S. W. 944. 
1013-78 McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181 
Ala. 427, 61 S. 62; Dowdy v, Calvi, 14 
Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873; Boschetti t?. Mor- 
ton, 23 Cal. App. 325, 137 P. 1085; 
American Surety Co. v, Sauers, 50 Ind. 
App. 475, 98 N. E. 829; Long t\ Bar- 
ter, 138 N. Y. S. 505; Kansas City, M. 
& O. B. Co. V, S. (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. 
W. 561; Keator v. Whittaker (Tex. 
Civ.), 147 S. W. 606. 
1014-79 Southern R. Co. v. Diseker, 
13 Ga. App. 799, 81 S. E. 269. 

1014-80 Suit first brought a bar. 
An action by an individual to recover 
a penalty, while pending, would bar 
any other person, including the United 
States, from suing for the same viola- 



43 



Vol. 1 



ANOTHER ACTION PENDING 



tion, where the statute allows recovery 
by the United States or by any indiyid- 
nal first bringing suit. U. S. v, Dwight 
Mfg. Co., 213 Fed. 522. 

1014-81 Singletary v. Chipstead, 142 
Ga. 208, 82 S. E. 547; McFadden v. St. 
Paul Coal Co., 183 111. App. 36. 

1016-82 Myers v. Stein, 154 App. 
Div. 631, 139 N. Y. S. 762. 

1015-85 Warner v, Narragansett 
Mut. F. Int. Co., Ill Me. 590, 90 A. 
706. 

1015-86 Moore-Mansfield Const. Co. 
V. Indianapolis, etc. B. Co., 179 Ind. 
353, 101 N. E. 295; Hawk v. Day, 148 
la. 47, 126 N. W. 955. 

1016-87 Barker r. Eastman, 76 N. 
H. 277, 82 A. 166. 

1017-8S Thorp r. Boudwin, 228 Pa. 
165, 77 A. 421. 

1018-91 PoUock V. Kinman, 176 HI. 
App. 361. 

1019-02 Seeger v. Young, 127 Minn. 
416, 149 N. W. 735. 
1020-93 Higdon V. Fields, 6 Ala. 
App. 281, 60 S. 694; Eppinger V. Lind- 
say, 141 Qa. 640, 81 S. £. 1036; Eppin- 
ger V. Seagrayes, 141 Ga. 639, 81 S. E. 
1035; Meier V. Hilton, 257 111. 174, 100 
N. E. 520; Jefferson v. Bust, 149 la. 694, 
128 N. W. 954; Olivier, Voorhies & 
Lowrey v. Majors, 133 La. 764, 68 8. 
323; Duplessis f>, Moine, 84 N. J. L. 
687, 87 A. Ill; Allen r. Burr's Ferry, 
B. & a B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 143 S. W. 
1185. 

Ooiinty and state. — ^An action by tke 
citizens of a county to compel a rail- 
road company to construct its road 
througk the county seat as required by 
law will not abate a subsequent action 
by the state against the railroad to 
compel suck construction and to re- 
cover for failure to do so. Kansas 
City, M. & 6. B. Co. c. S. (Tex. Civ.), 
155 8. W. 561. 

Declaration in set-off. — The pendency 
of an action by a defendant in the 
form of a declaration in set-off, is as 
good a reason for an answer in abate- 
ment to a subsequent action upon the 
same claim as is the pendency of an 
original and independent suit for the 
same cause of action. Manufacturers' 
Bottle Co. V. Taylor Stites G. Co., 208 
Mass. 593, 95 K. E. 103. 
1020-95 Milbra «. Sloss-Sheffield 8. 
& I. Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 8. 176, 46 L. 
B. A. (N. S.) 274; Boschetti v. Morton, 



23 Cal. App. 325, 137 P. 1085; Wray V. 
Wray, 159 la. 230, 140 N. W. 414. 

1020-08 Speier v. Locust Laundry, 
66 Pa. Super. 323. 

Under a contract for fervlcea to be 
performed during a stated period, 
which provides for monthly payments, 
a breach of the contract during any 
month, is the foundation of a distinct 
cause of action. Gravette v. Allen 
Graphite Co., 1 Ala. App. 656, 66 8. 
17. 

1021-09 Actions for permanent in- 

Jnriea. — ^An action for an injury to 
property will not abate a subsequent 
action for the continuance of the same 
injury. Smith v. Sedalla, 244 Mo. 107, 
149 8. W. 597. 

Pending a aait for separation and ali- 
mony, the wife may bring another ac- 
tion upon an agreement made by hus- 
band after the first suit was instituted, 
to pay her an allowance. Hofmann v. 
Nestel, 146 App. Div. 305, 130 N. Y. 
8. 775. 

1023-7 Different breaches of dif- 
ferent bonds. — An action against a sur- 
ety on saloon keeper's bond will not 
abate because there is an action pend- 
ing against the same surety on another 
saloon keeper's bond; both actions be- 
ing based on the unlawful sale of liq- 
uor to plaintiff's husband. American 
Sure^ Co. v, 8auers, 50 Ind. App. 475, 
98 N. E. 829. 

1024-8 Milbra v. 8chloss-8heffield 8. 
& I. Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 8. 176. 46 
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 274; Kaplan v, Cole- 
man, 180 Ala. 267, 60 8. 886; Under- 
wood V. Underwood, 139 6a. 241, 77 
8. E. 46; Jos. Bosenheim Shoe Co. v. 
Home, 10 Ga. App. 582, 73 8. E. 953; 
Meier v, Hilton, 257 111. 174, 100 N. 
E. 620; Proctor v. Moran, 213 Mass. 
406, 100 If. E. 672. 

Sncceesive actions for posseseiQii. — A 
summary proceeding brought by land- 
lord against tenant for the possession 
of land will not abate a subsequent 
action for the same purpose; the is- 
sues Whether the landlord is entitled 
to possession on the two dates are dif- 
ferent. Proctor 17. Moran, 213 Mass. 
405, 100 N..B. 672. 

Pending patent inroceedings by one co- 
tenant of a mining claim the other co- 
tenant may bring an action to quiet 
title to the claim. O'Hanlon v. Buoy 
Gulch Min. Co., 48 Mont. 66, 136 P. 
913. 



44 



ANOTHER ACTION PENDING 



Vol. 1 



1025-11 Bepleyln and treqiMs.— A 
pending action in replevin for chattels 
will abate a subsequent action in tres- 
pass for damages for the unlawful de- 
tention. Duplessis V, Moine, 84 N. J. 
L. 587, 87 A. 111. 

1025-12 Erikson r. Ward, 268 HI. 
259, 107 N. E. 593. 

Mechanic's Hen and contract combined. 
But a suit upon a mechanic's lien and 
for personal judgment against the con- 
tractor will abate a subsequent action 
against the contractor for the amount 
due upon the contract. Fresno Plan. 
Mill Co. V. Manning, 20 Cal. App. 766, 
130 P. 196. 

102S-13 A foredosoie of tnist in- 
atnunent and an action on the debt 
thereby secured may proceed at same 
time. The one will not abate the other. 
Myers c. Stein, 154 App. Div. 631, 139 
N. Y. S. 762. 

1026-16 Wray v. Wray, 159 la. 230, 

140 N. W. 414; Disbrow v. Creamery 

Pack. Co., 115 Min. 434, 132 N. W. 
913. 

An action nnder the Torrens Act to 
settle a title will abate a subsequent 
action under the adverse claim statute 
by a defendant in the former action 
against the applicant. Seeger r. Toung, 
127 Minn. 416, 149 N. W. 735. 

Pending a divorce proceeding the wife 
may not maintain an independent suit 
at law against the husband for ex- 
penses incurred by her in the mainte- 
nance of their minor child. Libbe v. 
Libbe, 157 Mo. App. 610, 138 S. W. 
688. 

1027-17 Epplnger v. Lindsay, 141 
Ga. 640, 81 8. E. 1036; Eppinger «?. Sea- 
graves, 141 Ga. 639, 81 S. £. 1035. 

Part reUef by way of counterclaim. 
A counterclaim may be interposed in 
a municipal court in a sum equal to 
that court's jurisdiction even though 
an action is pending in a court of 
higher Jurisdiction for the full amount 
of the claim. In his counterclaim the 
defendant cannot obtain full relief. 
Riindlett v. Whitall, 135 N. Y. S. 697. 
102T-18 Colbum r. Dortie, 49 Colo. 
90, 111 P. 837; Williams r. Routt 
County Comrs., 48 Colo. 541, 111 P. 71; 
Rowden v. Meisinger, 164 111. App. 125; 
Ponlson r. Markus, 34 S. D. 428, 148 
K. W. S55; Comstock r. Droney Lumb. 
Co., 69 W. Va. 100, 71 S. E. 255. 

1028-19 Reis v. Applebaum, 170 



Mich. 506, 136 N. W. 393; Pocoke v. 
Peterson, 256 Mo. 501, 165 S. W. 1017. 
1028-20 Van Slyke v. Van Slyke 
(Mich.), 150 N, W. 114; Pocoke r. Pet- 
erson, 256 Mo. 501, 165 S. W. 1017. 

1081-30 Rundlett v. Whitall, 135 
N. Y. S. 697. 

Setting off claim in another action. 
The mere pendency of a suit upon a 
claim will not prevent the same claim 
from being used as a set-off in another 
action; or vice versa the introduction 
of a claim as a setoff in one action 
will not create a bar to a suit in an- 
other court, in a direct action upon the 
same claim. National M. E. Box Co. 
r. American M. E. Box Co.. 246 Pa. 78. 
92 A. 42. ' 

1081-31 Due diligence must be ex- 
ercised by the party seeking the abate- 
ment. Schenck v. Yard (N. J. Eq.), 
86 A. 81. ^ ^' 

The defense is available only as one in 
abatement and not in bar. Blassingame 
17. Cattlemen's Trust Co. (Tex. Civ.), 
174 S. W. 900. 

1032-33 Schenck v. Yard (N. J. 
Eq.), 86 A. 81. 

1082-34 Brown's Est. t?. Stair, 25 
Colo. App. 140, 136 P. 1003. 

1082-35 Hershey f. Kerbaugh, 242 
Pa. 227, 88 A. 1009. 

Remedy of defendant who relies on an- 
other suit pending is by plea in abate- 
ment or by application for stay of pro- 
ceedings. Liggett V. Ritter, 54 Pa. Su- 
per. 405. 

1033-36 In Texas, etc. Trawick v. 
Brown Co., 74 Tex. 522. 12 S. W. 216; 
Wilkerson v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1041; Garza & 
Co. V. Jesse French P. & O. Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 126 S. W. 906. 

1084-89 Dean v. Storm (Okla.), 148 
P. 732; Duncan v, Duncan, 93 S. C. 
487, 76 S. E. 1099; Longmore v. Puget 
Sound, etc. Co., 78 Wash. 468, 139 P. 
191. See also vol. 1, p. 36, n. 47. 

1038-42 Adler Golden C. Co. v. Will- 
iams, 211 Fed. 530; Vance v. Heath, 42 
Utah 148, 129 P. 365. 
Affidavit of defense. — ^The objection 
may be raised by affidavit of defense. 
Speier v. Locust Laundry, 56 Pa. Super. 
323. 

A plea in abatement is also proper even 
though the code permits the objection 
to be made by answer. Longmore v. 



45 



Vol. 2 



ANSWEHS 



Puget Sound, etc. Co., 78 Wash. 468, 
139 P. 191. 

1036-43 Michelin Tire Co. v. Webb, 
143 Mo. App. 679, 127 S. W. 948. 

1037-47 EnroUmeuv of record of 
prior action. — Xot only must tbe iden- 
tity of the cause of action and the 
parties be set out, but also the record 
of the prior action must be enrolled. 
Barker i?. Eastman, 76 N. H. 277, 82 
A. 166. 

1040-57 Seeger v. Young, 127 Minn. 
416, 149 N. W. 735. 

Where the names are not the same as 
in the former action, the defendant 
must show the identity of the parties. 
McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181 Ala. 427, 61 
S. 62. 



ANSWEBS 

4-4 Wright V, Anglo-California Bank, 
161 Cal. 500, 119 P. 651; Reclamation 
Dist. No. 730 V. Hershey, 160 Cal. 692, 
117 P. 904; Kinard f?. Ward, 21 Cal. 
App. 92, 130 P. 1194; Bose v, Lelande, 
20 Cal. App. 502, 129 P. 599; Spaeth 
V. Ocean Park B., M. & Inv. Co., 16 
Cal. App. 329, 116 P. 980; Fowler v. 
Cotton State Lumb. Co., 39 App. Cas. 
CD. C.) 220; Wrenn v. Davis^ 139 Ga. 
374, 77 S. E. 169; Southern Bell T. 
& T. Co. V. Shames, 12 Ga. App. 463, 
77 S. E. 312; Branch v, Johnson, 9 Ga. 
App. 699, 71 S. E. 1123; Bazemore v. 
Small Co., 9 Ga. App. 29, 70 S. E. 261; 
Taylor r. Peoria & E. By. Co., 156 III. 
App. 151; Putnam V. Middleborough, 
209 Mass. 456, 95 N. E. 749; Yeomans 
V, Board of Suprs., 174 Mich. 451, 140 
N. W. 469; Grimme v. General Council, 
167 Mich. 240, 132 N". W. 497; P. M. 
Bruner Granitoid Co. v. Glencoe L. & 
C. Co., 169 Mo. App. 295, 152 S. W. 
601; Walsh v. Barrett, 154 App. Div. 
461, 139 N. Y. S. 68; McKane i?. Dady, 
128 App. Div. 190, 112 N. Y. S. 650, 
af., 201 N. Y. 574, 95 N. E. 1133; 
Long V, Shepard, 35 Okla. 489, 130 
P. 131. 

As to admissions by failure to deny, 
see vol. 7, p. 109. 

8-11 Maier v, Bomatzki, 95 Keb. 76, 

144 N. W. 1036. 

10-15 Friday r. Smith, 195 Fed. 742, 
115 C. C. A. 542; Blanck v. Common- 
wealth A, Corp., 19 Cal. App. 720, 
117 P. 805; Briggs v. P., 21 Cal. App. 
f:5, 121 P. 127; Brown v. P., 21 Colo. 
App. 93, 121 P. 130; Lapin r. North- 



western Elev. R. Co., 162 HI. App. 296; 
Morrill r. Baggott, 57 111. App. 530, 
af., 157 111. 240, 41 N. E. 639; North- 
ern Coal & C. Co. 17. Bates, 146 Ky. 
624, 143 S. W. 13; Cantrill T. Sebree's 
Admx., 146 Ky. 269, 142 8. W. 415; 
Booth r. Irving Nat. Exch. Bank, 116 
Md. 668, 82 A. 652; Overland Sales Co. 
V. Kaufman, 76 Misc. 230, 134 N. Y; 
8. 599. 

Contributory negligence is an affirm^ 
ative defense and must bo specially 
pleaded with particularity, and no acts, 
except those pleaded, can be proved on 
the trial or, if proven, made the basis 
of a verdict. Blalock v, Blacksher, 11 
Ala. App. 45, 66 S. 863. 

Publication of libel is admitted by an 
answer which fails to deny it. Tully 
V. New York Times Co., 78 Misc. 165, 
137 N. Y. 8. 962. 

ia-16 Joyce v. Rubin, 23 Ida. 296; 
130 P. 793; Young v. White, 158 App. 
Div. 760, 143 N. Y. S. 931. 

11-19 Myers v. Stein, 154 App. Div. 
631, 139 N. Y. 8. 762; In re St. George's 
L. Roman Catholic Church, 244 Pa. 410, 
90 A. 918. 

12-22 No extension of time as a 
matter of law results from the destruc- 
tion by fire of a county court house 
and all the records of a lawsuit. Hig- 
son r. North River Ins. Co., 184 Fed. 
165. 

13-26 Before default. — ^Answer may 
be filed as a matter of right at any 
time before the case is marked in de- 
fault. Craig & Co. v. Pierson Lumb. 
Co., 179 Ala. 635, 60 S. 838; Hall <?. 
Ticdeman, 141 Ga. 602, 81 S. £. 868. 
Before final judgment. — Defendant may 
appear and make his defense at any 
time before final judgment. Fort-Mims 
& Haynes Co. v. Branan-Akers Co., 140 
Ga. 131, 78 S. E. 721. 

13-28 United American, etc. Church 
V. United American, etc. Church, 15S 
N. C. 564, 74 S. E. 14; Wichman ft Son 
i\ Fox, 96 S. C. 469, 81 S. E. 180. 

When extension of time is granted in 
which to file an answer, if it is filed 
on or before the day fixed it is in 
time. Combs v. Frick Co., 162 Ky. 42, 
171 S. W. 999. 

What judge. — A circuit judge at cham- 
bers in another circuit than tho one 
in which action is pending, without 
notice to the adverse party or his at- 
torney and without a showing that^ 



46 



ANSWERS 



Vol. 2 



there is no resident or presiding judge 
in that .circuit, has no right to grant 
an extension of time to answer. Beck- 
vith V. Martin, 98 S. C. 183, 82 S. £. 
414. 

15-32 Kosher v. Stuart, 64 Or. 123, 
121 P. 901, 129 P. 491. 

18-41 Erroneous extension. Tuska 
V, Heller, Hirsh & Co., 140 App. Div. 
323, 125 N. Y. S. 182. 

lS-43 Morbeck r. Bradford-Kennedy 
Co^ 19 Ida. 83, 113 P. 89. 

ld-47 Burnett Cigar Co. v. Art Wall 
Paper Co., 164 Ala. 547, 51 S. 263; 
Citizens' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Bridge Co., 
113 Md. 430, 77 A. 378; Red water L. 
& €. Co. i;. Reed, 26 S. D. 466, 128 
N. W. 702. 

19-49 Indicated admissionB not 
stated. — ^An answer alleging denial of 
each and everj allegation of the com- 
plaiint, "except as hereinafter express- 
ly admitted," is bad on demurrer for 
failure to state what is included in the 
exception. Salisbury v. La Fitte (Colo. 
App.), 123 P. 124. 

19-50 Carolina, etc. B. Co. v. Mum- 
power, 205 Fed. 872, 124 C. C. A. 64; 
Hitt Lumb. Co. r. Turner (Ala.), 65 
S. 807; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. 
Weatherly, 93 Ark. 269, 124 S. W. 
1031; O'Neill r. Caledonian Ins. Co., 
166 Cal. 310, 135 P. 1121; Stevens v. 
Kisley (Conn.), 91 A. 260; Johnstone 
r. Kelly, 7 Penne. (Del.) 119, 74 A. 
1099; Moore v. Calvert Mtg. & Dep. 
Co., 13 Ga. App. 54, 78 S. E. 1097; 
Beninghoff v. Futterer, 176 111. App. 
579; Baxter v, Moore, 56 Ind. App. 
472, 105 N. E. 588; Taylor v. Griner, 55 
Ind- App. 617, 104 N. E. 607; Moore f?. 
Crandall, 146 la. 25, 124 N. W. 812, 
140 Am. St. 276; Bassett v. Lush, 156 
Kv. 490, 161 S. W. 227, rehear, denied, 
159 Kv. 621, 167 S. W. 869; In re Wat- 
son, 163 App. Div. 41, 148 N. Y. 
S. 525: Cunningham t>. Piatt, 82 
Misc. 486, 144 N. Y. S. 51; Lum- 
mus C. G. Co. V. Counts, 98 S. C. 136, 
82 S. E. 391; Easterly v. Lumber Co., 
60 Wash. 647, 111 P. 876. 
Constraing admlsulon. — An admission 
in an adversary's pleading to be avail- 
able must pe taken with all the qualify- 
ing clauses included in it. Oklahoma 
Moline Plow Co. v. Smith, 41 Okla. 
498, 139 P. 285. 

26-71 Gilmour v, Hawley Merchan- 
dise Co., 21 Colo. App. 307, 121 P. 765; 
Hyatt r. Lindner, 133 La. 614, 63 So. 



241, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 256; Gordon 
V. Freeman, 112 Minn. 482, 128 N. W. 
834, 1118; Browning, King & Co. V, 
Terwilliger, 144 App. Div. 516, 129 N. 
Y. S. 431; Kimble v. Stackpole, 60 
Wash. 35, 110 P. 677, 35 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 148; Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Pat- 
ton Paper Co., 153 Wis. 69, 140 N. W. 
1066. 

Inoonsistent defenses permitted. — ^Den- 
ver Omnibus & C. Co. v, Gast, 54 Colo. 
17, 129 P. 233; Ilansell-Elcock Co. V. 
Frankfort, etc. Ins. Co., 177 111. App. 
500; Williams v. Hutton & Bourbannats 
Co., 164 N. C. 216, 80 S. E. 257. 

If inconsistent remedies are pursued by 
plaintiff he cannot complain that de- 
fendant's answer is responsive to both 
remedies. Couch V, Crane, 142 Ga. 22, 
82 S. E. 459. 

27-72 Oldham's Admz. v. Oldham's 
Admx, 141 Ky. 526, 133 S. W. 232; 
Caruso t?. Brown, 142 Ky. 76, 133 S. 
W. 948; Brown r. Emerson, 155 Mo. 
App. 459, 134 S. W. 1108. 

27-73 Egan v. Hotel Grunewald, 134 
La. 740, 64 S. 698; Ewen v. Hart, 183 
Mo. App. 107, 166 S. W. 315; Gregg V. 
Wilmington, 155 N. 0. 18, 70 S. E. 
1070; Hart-Parr Co. V, Keeth, 62 Wash. 
464, 114 P. 169, Ann. Cas. 1912D 243. 
Test of inconsistency. — All defenses 
will be held consistent unless one of 
them cannot be proved without dis- 
proving the other. Ford & Isbell Lumb. 
Co. t?. Cady Lumb. €o., 94 Neb. 87, 142 
N. W. 300. 

32-84 Prior authority of agent and 
ratification. — An answer setting up an 
agreement with plaintiff's agent as a 
defense cannot rely upon both an actual 
authority of the agent and ratification 
by the principal, for a pleading must 
proceed upon some single theory. 
Beeves & Co. v. Miller, 48 Ind. App. 
339, 95 N. E. 677, rev. 91 N. E. 812. 

Misjoinder of causes of action is waived 
by plea to the merits. Lampel Land 
& Imp. Co. 1?. Spellings, 236 Mo. 33, 
139 S. W. 345. 

Denial and Justification not permitted 
in libel. Schwing v. Dunlap, 130 La. 
498, 58 S. 162. 

Denial and set-off. — ^A plea denying the 
paTtnership and one of set-off are not 
inconsistent, where the first plea raises 
the validity of an attempted incor- 
poration. HeiBen v, Churchill, 179 Fed. 
828, 103 C. C. A. 320. 



47 



Vol. 2 



ANSWERS 



Fraud and breach of warranty not in- 
consistent defenses in action on note. 
Minneapolis T. M. Co. v, PeterSi 112 
Minn. 429, 128 N. W. 578. 
Tender and general issne. — ^A party can- 
not plead a tender of a part of the 
sum declared for and at the same time 
maintain a plea of the general issue to 
the whole declaration. O'Meara v. 
Cardiff Coal Co., 154 111. App. 321. 

42-29 George F. Root Co. v. New 
York Cent. & H. B. B. Co. (App. Div.), 
151 N. Y. S. 702. 

43-40 Hunt v. Di Bacco, 69 W. Va. 
449, 71 S. E. 584. 

43-41 Halfmoon Bridge Co. v. Canal 
Board, 213 N. Y. 160, 107 N. E. 344.' 

44-46 Levitt v, O'Bourke Eng. Const. 
Co., 160 App. Div. 869, 144 N. Y. S. 
474. 

46-52 Meredith V, Boman, 46 Mont. 
204, 141 P. 643. 

When not characterized as counter- 
claim. — New matter set up as an an- 
swer will be regarded defense only. 
Otto Huber Brewery v. Sieke, 146 App. 
Div. 467, 131 N. Y. S. 271. 

46-64 Vaughan v. Eujath, 44 Mont. 
484, 120 P. 1121. 

48-60 Not to vary admitted allega- 
tions. — Where plaintiff sets out written 
agreement and defendant admitted 
execution of such contract the defend- 
ant cannot set out in his answer a 
contemporaneous parol agreement at 
variance therewith. Bibb Sewer Pipe 
Co. V, WestinghousOi etc Co., 142 Ga. 
263, 82 S. E. 642. 

61-69 * 'Without consideration. "—A 

statement that the contract is without 
consideration is a conclusion. Reese v, 
Rawleigh Med. Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W. 
820. 

62-73 Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v, 
Dickinson, 167 Cal. 616, 140 P. 265. 

63-76 Fairbanks v. Warrum, 66 Ind. 
App. 337, 104 N. E. 983, 1141. 

63-81 Zenot v. Pryor (Ind. App.), 
106 N. E. 746; Barkenthien t?. P., 213 
N. Y. 554, 107 N. E. 1034. See Almy 
V. Com. Travelers' Assn. (Ind. App.), 
106 N. E. 893. 

64-82 Nelson Co. v. Silver, 160 App. 
Div. 445, 145 N. Y. S. 124, reargument 
denied, 161 App. Div. 889, 145 N. Y. 
S. 1135. 

64-83 Edelfson v, Portland B., L. ft 
P. Co., 69 Or. 18, 136 P. 832. 



66-86 Greer v. Malone-Beall Co.. 180 
Ala. 602, 61 S. 285. 

66-87 Berlin M. Wks. r. Ewart 
Lumb. Co., 184 Ala. 272, 63 S. 567; 
Browning, King & Co. v, Terwilliger, 
144 App. Div. 516, 129 N. Y. S. 431. 

66-89 Vogel Co. v, Wolff, 156 App. 
Div. 584, 141 N. Y. S. 756. 

66-91 Dunaway v. Anderson, 22 Cal. 
App. 691, 136 P. 309; Welch v. Bigger, 
24 Ida. 169, 133 P. 381. 

67-93 Nobach r. Scott, 20 Ida. 558, 
119 P. 295; Gahren, Dodge & Maltby 
V. Farmers' Bank, 156 Ky. 717, 156 S. 
W. 1127; Lafayette Trust Co. v. Hal- 
dane, 146 App. Div. 553, 131 N. Y. S. 
171; Hewitt v. Huffman, 55 Or. 57. 105 
P. 98. 

67-96 Bonning i?. Way, 18 Cal. App. 
527, 123 P. 615; Blodgett V. Scott, 11 
Cal. App., 810, 104 P. 842; Cooper V, 
American Cent, Ins. Co., 139 Mo. App. 
570, 123 S. W. 497; Britannia Min. Co. 
V. United States F. & G. Co., 43 Mont. 
93, 115 P. 46; Peters V. McPherson, 
62 Wash. 496, 114 P. 188. 

68-97 Kinney v. Maryland Casualty 
Co., 15 Cal. App. 571, 115 P. 456. 

In Missouri the doctrine of negative 
pregnant is not recognized. Cooper v. 
American Cent. Ins. Co., 139 Mo. App. 
570, 123 S. W. 497. 

69-1 Bartlett Est. Co. v. Fraser, 11 
Cal. App. 373, 105 P. 130. 

60-2 Simoneau v. Pacific Elec. By. 
Co., 159 Cal. 494, 115 P. 320: Tustin 
Packing Co. t?. Pacific Coast Fruit A. 
Co., 21 Cal. App.. 274, 131 P. 338; 
Glenn v. Union-Buffalo Mills Co., 154 
App. Div. 513, 139 N. Y. S. 70; Oishei 
V. New York Tazicab Co., 136 App. 
Div. 683, 121 N. Y. S. 472; Krauss 
Engineering Co. V, McKinnon, 66 Misc. 
181, 121 N. Y. S. 396; Harrison v. Bir- 
rell, 58 Or. 410, 115 P. 141; Peters v. 
McPherson, 62 Wash. 496, 114 P. 188. 
Bule stated. — ^In Pullen v. Seaboard 
Trading Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. 3. 
719, the court said: ''This court has 
often had occasion to state and apply 
the rules applicable to the incorpora- 
tion in a separate defense of denials 
and of facts pleaded as a defense. . • . 
The rule is now well settled by those 
and kindred authorities that, if such 
denials or allegations are essential to 
render the other facts pleaded avail- 
able as a separate defense, they should 
not be stricken out; but, if they are 



US 



APPEAL BONDS 



Vol. 2 



not material or relevaut to the defeDse 
they should not be left in to shield the 
new matter alleged as a defense 
against a demurrer." 

62-10 Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Yates, 
169 Ala. 381, 53 S. 915; Welles t?. Colo- 
rado Nat Life Assur. Co., 49 Colo. 508, 
113 P. 524; Bosenstock v. Laue, 140 
App. Div. 467, 125 N. Y. S. 361, aff,, 
122 N. Y. S. 525; Tullj V. New York 
Times Co., 78 Misc. 165, 137 N. Y. S. 
962; Bedwater L. & C. Co. V. Beed, 26 
S, D. 466, 128 N. W. 702. 

S^axate answer to each cofint must be 
made. Philadelphia, B. & W. B. Co. 
r. Gatto (Del.), 85 A. 721. 

64-15 Berlin M. Wks. v, Ewart 
Lumb. Co., 184 Ala. 272, 63 8. 567; 
Speer v. American Stars of Equity, 157 
111. App. 554; Duffy v. England, 176 
Ind. 575, 96 N. E. 704. 

64t-20 Hunner v, Sj^evenson, 122 Md. 
40, 89 A. 418. 

e5-22 Nelson r. Hall, 66 Fla. 35, 63 
8. 156; Cunningham v, Piatt, 82 Misc. 
486, 144 N. Y. 8. 51. 

66-25 Gaynor v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 
12 Ga. App. 601, 77 8. E. 1072. 

66-26 Marengo Abstract Co. v. Hoop- 
er & Co., 174 Ala. 497, 56 8. 580; Mc- 
Gill Co. r. Underwood, 161 App. Div. 
30, 146 N. Y. 8. 362. 

66-28 Pierce v. Wilke (la.), 145 N. 
W. 908; Browning, King & Co. V. Ter- 
williger, 144 App. Div. 516, 129 N. Y. 
8. 431; In re 8t. George's L. Boman 
Catholic Church, 244 Pa. 410, 90 A. 
918. 

67-33 Duffy v. England, 176 Ind. 575, 
96 N. E. 704; Vallancey V. Hunt, 20 
N. D. 579, 129 N. W. 455, 34 L. B. A. 
(N. S.) 473; Guthrie 17. Huntington 
Chair Co., 69 W. Va. 152, 71 8. E. 14. 

68-38 Penn-American Plate Glass 
Co. V. Harshaw, Fuller & Goodwin Co., 
46 Ind. App. 645, 90 N. E. 1047. 

70-46 Gage L. Co. v. McEldowney, 
207 Fed. 255, 124 C. C. A. 641, rev. 
decree In re Clairfield Lumb. Co., 194 
Fed. 181; Cochran t?. Burdick Bros., 7 
Ala. App. 274, 61 8. 29; Nelson t?. Hall, 
66 Fla. 35, 63 8. 156; 8alyer 17. Blessing, 
151 Ky. 459, 152 8. W. 275; Knicker- 
bocker Trust Co. V. Condon, 147 App. 
Div. 871, 133 N. Y. 8. 95. 

Specifjring paragraphs denied.— A de- 
nial in the answer of specific para- 
graphs of the complaint by number is 



suflS^ient. Miller v. Cunningham, 71 Or. 
518, 139 P. 927. 

Oontenta, and not name, is what the 
law looks upon in a pleading. Nelson 
V. San Antonio Traction Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 142 8. W. 146. 



APPEAI. BONDS 

77-1 The bond for costs is the only 
bond necessary to perfect an appeal. 
Bartree v, Dunkin, 20 Wyo. 376, 123 
P. 913. 

77-2 Theisen v. Matthai, 165 Cal. 
249, 131 P. 747; Bohn v. Bohn, 159 Cal. 
366, 116 P. 567; Gregory v. Kansas 
City, 244 Mo. 523, 149 8. W. 466; Folk 
V. Kansas City, 244 Mo. 553, 149 8. W. 
473. 

78-3 Thomas v. 8pee8e, 14 Ariz. 556, 
132 P. 1137; Willow Land Co. 1?. Gold- 
schmidt, 11 Cal. App. 297. 104 P. 841; 
County Court of Denver u. Gold Min. & 

B. Co., 50 Colo. 365, 115 P. 706; Haas 
1?. Teters, 17 Ida. 550, 106 P. 305; Ben- 
nett V. Karasik, 164 111. App. 362; 
Bairstow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 
148 111. App. 186; Coxe Co. v, Foley 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Caplinger 
V, Pritchard, 136 Ky. 349, 124 8. W. 
352; Monk v, Quarles, 105 Miss. 895, 
63 8. 298; Smith V. Holifield, 98 Miss. 
649, 54 8. 84; J. & M. Elec. Co. v. 
Centotella, 77 Misc. 670, 138 N. Y. 8. 
571; Aldrich v. Public Opinion Pub. 
Co., 27 8. D. 589, 132 N. W. 278; Amer- 
ican Warehouse Co. i?. Hamblen (Tex. 
Civ.), 146 8. W. 1006; Weil «. Cable 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 135 8. W. 755; St. 
Louis, I. M. & 8. Ry. Co. V. Hurst (Tex. 
Civ.), 135 8. W. 599; Ft. Worth & D. 

C. By. Co. 1?. Leach (Tex. Civ.), 129 
8. W. 399; Bardon v. Alexander (Tex. 
Civ.), 128 8. W. 925; Abe Black & Co. 
V. Largent (Tex. Civ.), 127 8. W. 1076; 
Mara i?. Branch (Tex. Civ.), 127 8. W. 
1076; 8impson r. Baker, 57 Tex. Civ. 
460, 122 8. W. 959; 8mith v. Diamond 
Ice & Storage €o. (Wash.), 118 P. 
646; Robertson Mtg. Co. 17. Thomas, 63 
Wash. 316, 115 P. 312; Carson v, Bunn, 
59 Wash. 266, 109 P. 797. But see 
Bohn 17. Bohn, 159 Cal. 366, 116 P. 507. 
Court 's dlscretioiL — ^It has been held 
that the mode of taking the security 
and the time of perfecting it are mat- 
ters of discretion to be regulated by 
the court granting the appeal. The 
Dos Hermanos, 10 Wheat. (U. 8.) 306, 
6 L. ed. 328. 

The appellate cooirt will or^er Becarit7 



« 



Vol. 2 



APPEAL BONDS 



to be given within a prescribed time, 
where it has been omitted, and will 
only dismiss the proceeding upon fail- 
ure to comply with its order. Stewart 
t\ Masterson, 124 tJ. 8. 493, 8 Sup. 
Ct. 561, 31 L. ed. 507; Brown v. Mc- 
Connell, 124 U. S. 489, 8 Sup. Ct. 559, 
31 L. ed. 495; Seymour v. Freer, 6 Wall. 
(U. S.) 822, 18 L. ed. 564; Davidson 
u. Lanier, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 447, 18 L. 
ed. 377; Brobst v, Brobst, 2 WalL (U. 
S.) 96, 17 L. ed. 905; Anson, Bangs & 
Co. V, Blue Bidge R. Co., 23 How. 
(U. S.) 1, 16 L. ed. 517. 

78-4 Bobinson v. Southern Nat. 
Bank, 94 Fed. 22; Bochelle v. Evens 
& Howard F. Brick Ce., 164 HI. App. 
412; Martin v. Board of Fire Comrs., 
132 La. 188, 61 S. 197, 44 L. 
R. A. (N. S.) 68; Luchini v. Police 
Jury, 126 La. 972, 53 S. 68; S. v. Bun- 
can, 49 Mont. 54, 146 P. 95; Board of 
Tenement House Supervision v, Schlech- 
ter, 83 N. J. L. 88, 83 A. 783; State 
r. Orange & N. W. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 
154 S. W. 335. 

An administratrlz, as such, need not 
give an appeal bond. Casey v, Tex- 
arkana & Ft. S. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 151 
S. W. 856. 

Aflldavit in foxma panperla. — Edding- 
ton r. Union Portland C. Co., 42 Utah 
274, 130 P. 243. 

Villftges exempt. — Trueman v. St. 
Maries, 21 Ida. 632, 123 P. 508. 
Exemption not Waived by reason of 
exempt party's giving a defective bond. 
Board of Comrs. v. Howard, etc. Co., 
132 La. 911, 61 S. 868; Board of Comrs. 
r. Concordia, etc. Co., 132 La. 915, 61 
S. 869; Board of Comrs. v. Hops, 132 
La. 915, 61 S. 869; Board of Comrs. v. 
Land Co., 132 La. 916, 61 S. 870. 
National banks. — ^No security on writs 
of error or appeals issuing from, or 
brought to, the federal supreme court 
by cUrection of the comptroller of the 
currency in suits by or against nation- 
al banks or their receivers. Pacific 
Bank v, Mixter, 114 U. S. 463, 5 3up. 
Ct. 944, 29 L. ed. 221. 

78-6 Lunsford v. Alexander, 162 N. 
C. 528, 78 S. E. 275. 

78-7 Forbes u. Thorpe, 209 Mass. 
570, 95 N. E. 955; Sheppick v. Shep- 
pick, 44 Utah 131, 138 P. 1169; In re 
Cleveland, 87 Vt. 422, 89 A. 477. 
A transient poor person is not embraced 
in the statute. Fletcher v, Anderson 
(Tex. Civ.), 145 S. W. 622. 



78-8 Lumpkin ©. B. Co., 136 Ga. 135, 
70 S. E. 1101; Jesse French Piano & 
Organ Co. v. Elliott (Tex. Civ.), 166 
S. W. 29; Smith V, Queen City Lumb. 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 129 S. W. 1145; Bargna 
V, Bargna (Tex. Civ.), 123 S. W. 1143. 
Good faith mnst appear.— An affidavit 
to appeal in forma pauperis must aver 
that it is made in good faith. S. v. 
Smith, 152 N. C. 842, 67 S. E. 965. 

79-10 White v. White, 151 Ky. 96, 
151 S. W. 1; Cook V, Spence, 143 Mo. 
App. 157, 122 S. W. 340. 

79-11 Becker v. Decker, 9 Ala. App. 
241, 63 S. 24; Wheeler v. Fuller, 4 Ala. 
App. 532, 58 S. 792; Callbreath v. 
Coyne, 48 Colo. 199, 109 P. 428; First 
State Bank v. Land Co., 123 Minn. 218, 
143 N. W. 355; First State Bank i\ 
Stevens Land Co., 119 Minn. 209, 137 
N. W, 1101. Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1146, 43 
L. E. A. (N. S.) 1040. 

80-12 Smythe t?. New Orleans Land 
Co., 184 Fed. 892, 107 C. C. A. 214; 
Blair V. Brownstone Oil & R. Co., 21 
Cal. App. 676, 132 P. 605; Canavan r. 
Canavan, 18 N. M. 468, 138 P. 200; 
Kuehn v. Nero, 145 Wis. 256, 130 N. 
W. 56. 

Appeal bond necessary to confer Jorie- 
dictton.— Little Butte C. Mines Co. v. 
Girand, 14 Ariz. 9, 123 P. 309. 
Since amendment of a defective appeal 
bond is permissible, it will give the ap- 
pellate court jurisdiction. Bauer o. 
Crow (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 296. 

Belated appeal bond will defeat juris- 
diction. Underwood v. Midland F. & 
H. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 86. 

80-13 Dean <?. Ter., 13 Ariz. 152, 108 
P. 476; Kyger v, Stallings, 55 Ind. 
App. 196, 103 N. E. 674; People's Bank 
of Elton V, Arceneaux, 134 La. 292, 64 
S. 116; Burger v. Sinclair, 24 N. D. 326, 
140 N. W. 235; Hawkins v, Sinclair, 
24 N. D. 325, 140 N. W. 239; Seckerson 
V. Sinclair, 24 N. D. 326, 140 N. W. 
239; Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. 
t?. Elliott (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 29; 
James t?. Golson (Tex. Civ.), 165 S. W. 
896; Wright v. Bott (Tex. Civ.), 163 
S. W. 60; Trim v. Planters' Cotton 
Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 103; 
Le Blanc v, Jackson (Tex, Civ.), 161 
S. W. 60; Browne Grain Co. v. Miller, 
(Tex. Civ.), 143 S. W. 244; Moore v. 
Moore (Tex. Civ.), 141 S. W. 1084; 
Jones & Co. r. Cunningham, 79 Wash. 
4, 139 P. 612; Mironski V. Noon, 65 
Wash. 568, 118 P. 735, 



50 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



81-14 Murphy v. Williams (Tex. 
Civ,), 116 S. W. 412, judgment mod.. 
124 S. W. 900; Wenatchce Orchard & 
Irr. Co. V. Thompson, 60 Wash. 643, 111 
P. 8/4. 

Waiver.— Objection to failure to file a 
cost bond on writ of error is waived 
'where a general appearance is entered 
without objection to such failure. Can- 
avan v. Canavan, 18 N. M. 468, 138 
P. 200. 

81-15 National Surety Co. v. P., 54 
Colo. 365, 130 P. 843; American Bond- 
ing Co. 1?. Rudolph, 53 Colo. 389, 127 
P. 133; Portis V. Illinois Surety Co., 
176 ni. App. 590; Inskeep v. Gilbert, 
174 Ind. 726, 93 N. E. 8; Summit v, Co- 
letta, 81 N. J. L. 153, 78 A. 1047; 
Seidman €. Pinkelstein, 76 Misc. 549, 
135 N. Y. S. 648; Lauder v. Heley, 25 
X. D. 274, 141 N. W. 201; Nichols & 
Sbepard Co. v. Horstad, 27 S. D. 262, 
130 N. W. 776. 

83-16 Simpson v. Guiseppe, 35 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 97; Bankers' Surety Co. 
r. Linder, 156 la. 486, 137 N. W. 496. 

88-24 Bankers Surety Co. v. Security 
Trust Co., 39 App. Cas. (D. C.) 354; 
Cook r. Spence (Mo. App.), 122 S. W. 
340; Sullivan V. Fried, 42 Mont. 335, 
112 P. 535. 

Ai&zmed in i»art— Where a part of Hie 
judgment is affirmed appellant giving 
the bond will be held liable. Boyal 
Theater Co. r. Collins, 102 Ark, 539, 
144 S. W. 919. 

Appeal diBmisMd. — ^The liability of a 
surety on an appeal bond is fixed by 
the dismissal of the appeal. Callbreath 
r. Coyne, 48 Colo. 199, 109 P. 428. 

90-28 Hydraulic P. B. Co. f?. Nen- 
meister, 15 Mo. App. 592; Barber v. 
Butherford, 12 Misc. 33, 33 N. Y. S. 
89; Ingersoll i?. Seatoft, 102 Wis. 476, 
78 N. W. 576, 72 Am. St. 89'2. 

8av« for trmH or oollnsioiL— Denis v. 
Veazey, 6 Mart. (La.) 40; Piercy v. 
Piercy, 36 N. C. 214. 

91-29 One of the obligees in a chan- 
cery appeal bond could sue thereon, if 
the other obligee assi^ed to him or 
refused on request to join in the suit. 
Both r. Bosenthal, 160 App. Div. 39, 
144 N. Y. S. 963. 

94-35 Dashley r. Daniel, 202 Fed. 
426, 120 C. C. A. 532; C. v. Gould, 48 
Pa. Super. 528. 

95-38 P. V. Groszglas, 152 HI. App. 
i60, 



97-42 Wilson v. Dickey (Tex. Civ.), 
133 S. W. 437. 

98-46 National Surety Co. v. P., 64 
Colo. 365, 130 P. 843. 

98-46 Chicago, etc. R. Co. t?. Bank- 
ers' Nat. Bank, 32 Okla. 290, 122 P. 
499. 

99^7 Adams v, Billingsley, 107 Ark. 
38, 153 S. W. 1105. 

104-57 Bortree v. Dunkin, 20 Wyo. 
376, 123 P. 913. 

104-58 Keithsburg & E. R. Co. v. 
Henry, 90 111. 255; Watson v. Johnson, 
13 Ky. L. R. 336. 

Irregularities In the origliial suit not 
corrected by appeal cannot be taken 
advantage of in an action on the ap* 
peal bon.l. Miller v, M'Luer, Gilm. 
(Va.) 338. 



126-1 An appeal Is not a new suit 
but a continuation of the same suit. 
Hopkins t?. Patton, 257 IlL 346, 100 
N; E. 992. 

128-17 Indianapolis v. Hawkins, 180 
Ind. 382, 103 N. E. 10. 

129-21 Appeal and writ of error 
compared. — The ptocess by appeal is a 
more extensive, expeditious and ade- 
quate remedy than a writ of error, and 
is calculated to reach errors which may 
not be reached by a writ, as well as 
those which may be reached by such 
writ, but as to the latter it does not 
supersede the remedy by writ. The 
two remedies co-exist where the error 
is apparent on the record. Lippitt v. 
Bidwell, 87 Conn. 608, 89 A. 347. 
Scope of writ of error. — ^A writ of er- 
ror has no more extensive range nor 
greater effect than an appeal; they are 
merely different methods of obtaining 
review of judgments of courts of in- 
ferior Jurisdiction. Board of Comrs. v. 
Jay, 122 Md. 324, 89 A. 715; Greenland 
V. Co. Com., 68 Md. 59, 11 A. 581; 
Coston V. Coston, 25 Md. 500. 
Where the Judge acts without his Juris- 
diction the only remedy is by appeal; 
in such case a writ of error will not 
issue. Brown v. Cray, 88 Conn. 141, 
89 A. 1123. 

129-22 Rye v. Banks, 66 Fla. 434, 63 
S. 825. 

129-25 Ex parte Colvert (Ala.), 65 
S. 964; Hoeye v. Willis, 15 Ariz. 257, 
138 P. 15; Ziegler v. GOliatt, 263 III, 



ffl 



Tol. 2 



APPEALS 



587, 105 N. E. 707: Collins v. Laybold 
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 971; Simon v. Wabaih 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 738; Blose v. 
Myers (Ind. App.). 107 N. E. S48; 
Davila v» Barreiro, 20 P. E. 43. 

130-27 Ex parts Jonas, 186 Ala. 567, 
64 S. 960. ' 

134-41 Terwilliger v. Browninff, 
King Co., 207 N. Y. 479, 101 N, E. 
463. 

134-44 That aggrieved party is In 
contempt of court does not deprive him 
of his right to appeal. Jones v. Jones, 
75 Wash. 60, 134 F. 528. 

134-45 Upshaw v. S., 11 Ala. App. 
310, 66 S. 821; Nathan v. Planters' 
Cotton Oil Co. (Mo. App.), 174 8. W. 
126; Tyndall V. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. 
B. Co. (N. Y.), 107 N. E. 577. 
134-46 Stockton t?. Halstead, 179 Ind. 
701, 100 N. E. 82; Stockton v. Yeoman, 

179 Ind. 61, 100 N. E. 2; Blose V. 
Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 548; 
Washington Tp. v. Batts, 54 Ind. App. 
229, 101 N. E. 842; Cole v. Cole, 112 
Me. 315, 92 A. 174; Nathan u. Planters', 
etc. Co., 187 Mo. App. 560, 174 S. W, 
126; Cabassa v. Bravo, 21 P. B. 173. 
134-47 Elbert v. Scott (Del.), 90 A. 
587; Indianapolis V. Hawkins, 180 Ind. 
382, 103 N. E. 10; Curless t?. Watson, 

180 Ind. 86, 102 N. E. 497; In re 
American Mut. L. Ins. Co. (Mass.), 102 
N. E. 693; Pierson v. Daly, 49 Mont. 
478, 143 P. 957; Thien V. Wiltse, 49 
Mont 189, 141 P. 146; S. V. State Bank 
& Tr. Co., 36 Nev. 526, 137 P. 400; 
Livesley t?. Landon, 69 Or. 275, 138 P. 
853, 8. V. Simpson, 69 Or. 93, 138 P. 
467. 

135-48 Hazzard t?. Gallncci. 89 Conn. 
196, 93 A. 230. 

135-49 Hoeye v. Willis, 15 Ariz. 257, 
138 P. 15; Miami Copper Co. f?. Strohl, 
14 Ariz. 410, 130 P. 605; Ft. CoUins 
M & E. Co. 1?. Larimer & Weld Irr. 
Co. (Colo.), 143 P. 1091; Bowen v. Wil- 
son (Kan.), 144 P. 251; Cohen v. War- 
den of Workhouse, 150 N. Y. S. 596. 

Writ of error may be snbstitnted in 
certain cases for appeal. Ft. Collins 
M. & E. Co. r. Larimer & Weld Irr. 
Co. (Colo.), 143 P. 1091. 

135-50 Cohen v. Warden of Work- 
house, 150 N. Y S. 596. 

136-53 First Ave. Coal & L. Co. v, 
Hite, 9 Ala. App. 251, 62 S. 1018. 

)139-7S Lfifayette Bealty Co. v, Poer, 



136 La. 472, 67 S. 335; Vicars t. 
Tharp (Tex. Civ.), 174 fl. W, 949. 

Vacating judgment In fonner texm. 
An order denying a motion to set aaide 
Judgment of former term, being made 
without jurisdiction, is not appealable. 
Banks v. Blake (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 
514. ^' 

130-73 Coryell r. Pawcett, 54 Colo. 
353, 130 P. 838; South Park Floral Co. 
V. Garvey (Ind.), 107 N. E. 68; Ander- 
son V, Board of County Comrs., 90 Kan. 
15, 132 P. 996; Hansen v. Northwestern 
Tel. Exch. Co., 127 Minn. 522, 149 N. 
W. 131; More v. Western Grain Co. 
(N. D.), 149 N. W. 564. 

Deciding qnesttotts of general Inteiest. 
Even though litigation may not be ef- 
fective in all respects because of cir- 
cumstances arising after the appellate 
proceedings are taken, the appellate 
court does not thereby lose jurisdiction, 
and it may be retained for the de- 
termination of questions properly pre- 
sented involving the duties and author- 
ity of public officials that are of gen- 
eral interest to the public. S. v. South- 
ern Tel. & Const. Ca, 65 Pla. 67. 61 S. 
119. 

130-74 Pfeifer v. Graves, 88 0. St. 
473, 104 N. E. 529. 

130-75 McCullough r. Gilcrease, 40 
Okla. 741, 141 P. 5; Muskogee, G. ft 
B. Co. V, Haskell, 38 Okla. 358, 132 
P. 1098, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 190; Fisher 
V. Lockridge, 35 Okla. 360, 130 P. 136. 
130-76 Leaven v. Doney, 181 Ind. 
481, 104 N. E. 856. 

140-78 Wliat is a Judicial fonetlon. 

Every judge to whom is committed the 
decision of judicial, as distinguished 
from administrative, matters is in the 
exercise of a judicial function when he 
80 decides. Brown v, Cray, 88 Conn. 
141, 89 A. 1123. 

140-70 Hkbeas conms and not ap- 
peal is^ the remedy, if any, where an 
order is made punishing a party for 
contempt. McCall v, Lee, 66 Pla. 14, 
62 S. 902. 

140-80 Columbia City Land Co. r. 
Buhl, 70 Or. 246, 134 P. 1035, 141 P. 
208. 

Decisions entered pursuant to mandate, 
etc. Stewart v, Salamon, 97 TJ. S. 361, 
24 L. ed. 1044; Elder v. Wood, 54 Colo- 
236, 130 P. 323. 

141-86 Board of Oomrs. v. Farmer > 
Wren L, Co., 132 L«^. 916, 6X S. 870 j 



sa 



V" 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



Board of Comre. v. Concordia L. & T. 
Oo^ 132 La. 915y 61 8. 869; Board of 
Comrs. «. Howard L. & T. Co., 132 La. 
911, 61 S. 868. 

142-88 Colnmbia City Land Co. v. 
Buhl, 70 Or. 246, 134 P. 1035, 141 P. 
208; Fisher v. Tomlinson, 40 Or. Ill, 
60 P. 390, 66 P. 696; Newberg Orchard 
Assn. V. Osborn, 39 Or. 370, 65 P. 81; 
Osbora 9. Logus, 28 Or. 302, 37 P. 
456, 38 P. 190, 42 P. 997. 

143-92 An appMl from a specific 
part of a judgment is permitted by 
Code Civ. Proc, |940, and ordinarily 
snch appeal will bring up for review 
only the part appealed from. G. Ganahl 
L. Co. r. Weinsveig, 168 Cal. 664, 143 
P. 1025. 

145-1 Fowen Indnded In grsnt.— A 
grant ef appellate jurisdiction implies 
that there is included in it the power 
necessary to its effective exercise and 
to make iJl orders that will preserve 
the subject of the action and give ef- 
fect to the final determination of the 
appeal. Kjellander r. Kjellander, 90 
Kan. 112, 132 P. 1170, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 
1246, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.) 943. 
146-4 Barnes v. Noel (Tenn.), 174 
8. W. 276; Hunt r. Johnson (Tex.), 
171 S. W. 1125. 

147-7 OoMral and restrlctlva ap- 
peals. — ^The general appeal statute does 
not apply to special proceedings in 
which a restrictive appeal is authorized. 
8. V. Superior Court, 82 Wash. 31, 143 
P. 168; 8. 1?. Superior Court, 44 Wash. 
554, 87 P. 514; 8. V. Superior Court, 42 
Wash. 684, 85 P. 673; Western Amer- 
ican Co. V. St. Ann Co., 22 Wash. 158, 
60 P. 158. 

TbB Improper imitlng of two canaea 
of action will not give the ap- 
pellate court jurisdiction where it 
would not have had jurisdiction of 
either cause. Hunt v, Johnson (Tex.), 
171 a W. 1125. 

148-16 Edwards v. Davenport, 11 
Ala. App. 423, 66 S. 878; Hager v. 
SehUess (Mich.), 149 N. W. 1058. 

140-17 Tax Assessor r. Makee Sugar 
Co., 18 Hawaii, 267. 

140-18 Btatntory provialoiiak etc. 
G. Ganahl Lumb. Co. v, Weinsveig, 168 
CaL 664, 143 P. 1025. 

152-28 Wilson v. Fisher, 92 Kan. 
786, 142 P. 241; Louisville Property Co. 
r. Whitley County S. Co., 163 Ky. 336, 
173 8. W. 783; ynllins v. Towler, 163 



Ky. 331, 173 S. W. 812; Qoodrum f?. 
Flowers, 162 Ky. 724, 172 8. W. 1062; 
Thomas v. Thomas, 162 Ky. 630, 172 S. 
W. 1054; Ockerman r. Woodward, 162 
Ky. 134, 172 8. W. 92; Ferguson v. 
Gulf Lumb. Co., 135 La. 974, 66 S. 317. 
162-81 A dedaion of a single sa- 
preme court Justice in an action at law 
is not appealable to the full court. The 
only way to bring such decision before 
the full court for review is by excep- 
tions, unless he reports the questions 
raised. Channell r. Judge of Cent. 
Dist. Ct., 213 Mass. 78, 99 N. £. 769. 

152-32 Effect of filing counterdalm 
in Justice court — ^Although defendant 
files in justice court a counterclaim ex- 
ceeding that court's jurisdiction, this 
does not give the euperior court orig- 
inal jurisdiction of the case on appeal 
where the counterclaim is ignored by 
the trial judge. Consequently the de- 
cision of the superior court is final and 
no appeal lies therefrom. Hillger r. 

Yenrick, 25 Cal. App. 604, 144 P. 980. 
153-86 Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 
N. Y. 499, 108 N. E. 192; Caldwell v. 
New York, 210 N. Y. 576, 104 N. B. 
126. 

Statatory authority necessary. — ^Where 
a lower court sits as an appellate court, 
under statutory authority, no appeal 
will lie from its judgment unless ex- 
pressly given by statute. An excep- 
tion to this rule would exist wher^ the 
lower court exceeded its jurisdiction, in 
which case its judgment will be re- 
versed. Stephens v, Crisfield, 122 Md. 
190, 89 A. 429; Board of County Comrs. 
V. Jay, 122 Md. 324, 89 A. 715. 

154-39 Lafayette Bealty Co. v. Poer, 
136 La. 472, 67 8. 335. 

154-40 Koe v, Snattinger, 91 Kan. 
567, 138 P. 581. 

164-41 Washington Tp. r. Ratts, 54 
Ind. App. 229, 101 N. E. 842. 
Power to enact statute. — ^Where the su- 
preme court has jurisdiction to review 
causes in which the "validity of a 
statute" is drawn into controversy, its 
jurisdiction will extend to cases in- 
volving the power to enact the statute 
as well as those concerning the judicial 
construction or application thereof. 
Boehringer <?. Yuma County, 15 Ariz. 
546, 140 P. 507. 

An order dlsmlsirfng a writ of certiorari 
may be reviewed regardless of the 
amount in controversy. Wong Kee v« 
iLillis (Nov.), 138 P. 900. 



53 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



154-42 Indianapolis i\ Hawltins, 180 
Ind. 382, 103 N. E. 10. 

155-46 Appeal of Hotel Bond Co. 
(Conn.), 93 Atl. 245. 

156-50 Wiesberg v. Bosenberg, 150 
N. Y. S. 632; In re Chriatensen 'g Est., 
77 Wash. 629, 138 P. 1. 

156-54 Irby v, Kaigler, 6 Ala. App. 
91, 60 S. 418; Osborn v, Cardeza. 209 N. 
Y. 530, 102 N. E. 598. . 

"Demurwr, overruled. "—A docket en- 
try merely reciting "demurrer over- 
ruled*' will authorize an appeal there- 
from. Nelson Theatre Co. v. Nelson, 
216 Mass. 30, 102 N. E. 926. 

In New York the appellate term may 
entertain an appeal from an order made 
in the municipal court as indicated by 
a mere indorsement and subsequent en- 
try. Leavitt v. Williams, 150 N. Y. S. 
667. 

156-55 Hanchey v. St. Louis, I. M. 
& S. B. Co., 135 La. 352, 65 S. 487; 
First Nat. Bank v. Hesdorffer (Miss.). 
65 S. 607. '' 

156-56 As to formal entry of Judg- 
ments — ^The statute authorizing ap- 
peals contemplates a formal entry of 
the judgment or decree appealed from; 
and until so entered, there is no "final 
judgment" which will sustain an ap- 
peal.^ The mere announcement of au 
opinion by the court or even the entry 
by the circuit or city court on the trial 
or motion docket of its rulings on de- 
murrers or motions is not a judgment, 
but merely a direction of the presiding 
judge to the clerk as to what judgment 
-should be entered on the records of the 
court. Edwards v, Davenport, 11 Ala. 
App. 423, 66 S. 878. 

157-60 Judgment rendered by per- 
emptory Instructions at request of both 
parties is a judgment by confession, and 
no appeal lies. Grand Lodge V, Bar- 
low (Miss.), 67 8. 152. 

157-62 Boldlng tliat there Is no 
rigl^t of appeal, etc. Sauerbrunn t?. 
Hartford L. Ins. Co. (App. Div.), 150 
N. Y. 8. 1039; Nassau Finance Co. V. 
Suffrin, 150 N. Y. 8. 690; O'Beirne V, 
Carey, 150 N. Y. 8. 666; 8. v. Simpson, 
69 Or. 93, 137 P. 750, 138 P. 467. 8ee 
also vol. 6, p. 839 and supplement 
thereto. 

"Judgment for want of answer." — ^No 

appeal lies from a judgment rendered 
for want of answer even tl^ough testi* 



mony is taken. 8. v. Simpson, 69 Or. 
93, 138 P. 467. 

158-63 A default entered without 
Jurisdiction of person may be appealed 
from without a preliminary motion to 
set it aside. Gear v, Henry, 21 Hawaii 
101. 

158-65 Agreed case as to appeal in, 
see vol. 1, p. 765, F. 

158-66 Subpoena duces tecum.— A 
vacation order requiring election com- 
missioners to appear and bring with 
them the poll books is not appealable. 
A writ of certiorari is the proper meth- 
od of having such order reviewed. 
Bowden v. Webb (Ark.), 173 S. W. ISl. 

161-74 Orders denying reargument 
are not appealable. P. r. Connolly, 
164 App. Div. 163, 149 N. Y. 8. 693. 

161-80 Judson Lumb. Co. r. Patter- 
son (Fla,), 66 S. 727; Eozinsky v. Sea- 
wright, 142 Ga. 251, 82 8. E. 661; S. 
V. Linderholm, 90 Kan. 489, 135 P. 
564; Newbold V. Green, 122 Md. 648, 90 

A, 513; Weil r. Boston El. B. Co., 216 
Mass. 545, 104 N. E. 343; Henderson v. 
Treadway, 187 Mo. App. 628, 173 8. 
W. 46; In re Boberts' Est., 48 Mont 
40, 135 P. 909; Gilbert v. Shingle Co., 
167 N. C. 286, 83 8. E. 337; 8. v. Har- 
mon, 87 0. St. 364, 101 N. E. 286; Col- 
umbia City Land Co. v. Buhl, 70 Or. 246, 
134 P. 1035, 141 P. 208; American Life 
& A. Ins. Co. V. Ferguson, 66 Or. 417, 
134 P. 1029; Bordl v. Carson, 72 Wash. 
117, 129 P. 908. 

Not nntll the case is "ripe for Judg- 
ment" in the trial court may excep- 
tions be entered and heard in the ap- 
pellate court. Lowd t>. Brigham, 154 
Mass. 107, 26 N. E. 1004. This how- 
ever, is a rule of practice in the in- 
terests of justice and is waived where 
not raised by the parties, or is over- 
looked by the court. Weil v, Boston El. 

B. Co., 216 Mass. 545, 104 N. E. 343. 
Moreover although the right to enter 
an appeal is thus in abeyance until final 
judgment, the right to claim an appeal 
is not thereby suspended. Oliver Dit- 
son Co. V, Testa, 216 Mass. 123, 103 N. 
E. 381. 

162-8S International W. Co. v. 
Bloomfield Mfg. Co. (N. C), 83 8. E. 
609. 

Voidable proceedings. — ^An appeal from 
findings and order, which were void- 
able because filed too late» will not be 
dismissed for that reason. St. An- 



M 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



tkony & D. El. Co. v. Martineau, 28 N. 
D. 423, 149 N. W. 355. 

162-86 Kozinsky v. Seawright, 142 
Oa. 251, 82 S. E. 661. 

162-88 If farther Judicial action is 
essential to a final determination of 
the rights of the parties, the judgment 
is only interlocutor/, Zappettini v, 
Buekles, 167 Cal. 27, 138 P. 696. 

163-89 American Fidelity Co. r. 
East Ohio Sewer P. Co., 53 Ind. App. 
335, 101 N. E. 671. 

163-91 Judson Lumb. Co. v. Patter- 
son (Pla.), 66 & 727. 

168-92 drver Bros. r. Merrett (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 929. 

163-93 Busby v. Schrank (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 295. 

163-95 Pake v. Leinkauf Bkg. Co., 
186 Ala. 307, 65 S. 139; Yazoo & M. 
V. B. Co. c. James (Misa), 67 S. 152; 
Henderson r. Treadway, 187 Mo. App. 
628, 173 S. W. 46. 

163-1 Hynes if. Jennings, 262 HI. 
268, 104 N. E. 697; Eastern Bridge & 
Struct. Co. r. Worcester Auditorium 
Co., 216 Mass. 426, 103 N. E. 913. 

^PartitloiL — As to parties having no in- 
terest, a judgment in partition is final 
and appealable; as to those having an 
interest it is interlocutory, Albany 
Hospital V. Hanson, 214 N. Y. 435, 108 
N. E. 812. A judgment in partition 
recognizing one as the owner of half 
the property, is such a final judgment 
as will serve as the basis of an ap- 
peal, and it is not necessary that ap- 
pellant shall wait until a judgment 
homologating the partition proceedings 
has been rendered. Brown v. Green, 132 
La. 1090, 62 S. 154. 

A docket entry or an order for a docket 
entry is not a final decree. Day v. 
Mills, 213 Mass. 585, 100 N. B. 1113; 
Plaisted f>. Cooke, 181 Mass. 118. 63 
N. E. 132. ' 

Bendering decree enforcible.— In a suit 
to remove obstructions from the en- 
forcement of a decree, a decision deny- 
ing such relief is final and appealable. 
Union Trust Co. v. Curtis (Ind.), 105 
N. E. 562. 

An order removing an assignee for the 
benefit of creditors is not a final de- 
cree. Pake V. Leinkauf Bkg. Co., 186 
Ala. 307, 65 S. 139, 



Zappettini r. Buckles, 167 Cal. 
27, 13C P. 696. 



166-5 Kolp V, Weil Bros. (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 1006; St. Louis, S. F. & T. 
K. Co. V. Tudle (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 
797; Wright f?. CHiandler (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 1173. 

Where causes are consolidated the 

judgment must still be final as to all 
the parties. Wright V. Chandler (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 1173. 

165-6 Smith v. Graves (Ind. App.), 
108 N. E. 168. 

165-7 Brown v. Hughes, 243 Pa. 397, 
90 A. 651. 

Signing Judgment. — ^As to the necessity 
of signing a judgment to make it final 
and appealable, see "Api^eala," p. 156, 
n. 55. 

165-8 Adams v, Georgia By. Co., 142 
Ga. 497, 83 S. E. 131; Eozinsky v. 
Seawright, 142 Ga. 251, 82 S. E. 661; 
Oliver Bitson Co. v. Testa, 216 Mass. 
123, 103 N. E. 381. 

166-14 Herreshoff v, American & B. 
Mfg. Co., 164 App. Div. 238, 149 N. Y. 
S. 703. 

167-16 Hager v. SchUess (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 1058, overruling of defend- 
ant's plea which went to the whole bill, 
held final. 

167-18 The striking of amended 
complaint which in effect amounts to 
a dismissal is appealable. Hastings v. 
United States F. & G. Co. (Ark.), 172 
S. W. 1016. 

167-23 Dlflmlwdng a petition. — ^An 

order is appealable which dismisses a 
petition asking that an administrator 
include omitted property. In re Mar- 
tin's Est., 82 Wa6h. 226, 144 P. 42. 

168-32 McElroy v, Whitney, 24 Ida. 
210, 133 P. 118; Trust Co. of America 
V. United Box-Board Co., 213 N. T. 334, 
107 N. B. 574. 

169-33 Bemandlng proceedings. — A 

circuit court order remanding the pro- 
ceedings to the board of commission- 
ers with instructions to set aside the 
orders entered therein is appealable. 
Thompson v, Ferguson, 180 Ind. 312, 
102 N. E. 965, 

Probate court proceedings. — ^An appeal 
will not lie from an interlocutory ap- 
pointment of a temporary guardian. 
Est. of A. Enos, 18 Hawaii 542 (order 
approving annual accounts of executor 
appealable); Estes v. Probate Court, 36 
B. I. 57, 88 A. 977. 

A ruling declaring a rlitl^t of inherit- 



55 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



flmce is a final deeision. Beyes 9. Ciria, 
24 Phil. Isl. 127. 

IlluBtratioiis of final Judgments or de- 
crees. DurBt V. Hanni, 23 Colo. 431, 130 
P. 77; Vise v. Porto Bico Sugar Co., 17 
P. B. 415^ judgment dismissing a com- 
plaint. 

A Judgment on a plea In abatement Is 
appealable even where there is neither 
a dismissal by the plaintiff nor a trial 
on the merits. Brooks Sd Co. v. Gen- 
try (Miss.), 66 8. 812. 
Denial of intervention is final judg- 
ment from which an appeal will lie. 
Korthern Ind. Land €o. v. Brown 
(Ind.), 106 N. E, 706. 

A Judgment for costs alone though en- 
tered for defendant after verdict in his 
favor, will not support a writ of error, 
since such a judgment does not ad- 
judicate the merits of the cause or dis- 
pose of the action. G. W. Zaring & 
Co. V. Humphreys (Fla.), 05 S. 665. 
170-34 Bateman v. Gitts, 17 N. M. 
fil9, 133 P. 969, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1192; 
Cocke 's Admr. v. Gilpin, 40 Va. 22. 

J. 70-86 Idan Litto Temperance Soc. 
r. Isakson, 219 Mass. 95, 106 N. £. 581; 
8. 17. Barnett, 49 Mont. 252, 141 P. 287; 
Borell 17. Carson, 72 Wash. 117, 129 P. 
908. 

170-36 Hirabelli v. Daniels, 44 Utah 
88, 138 P. 1172; Nisius t?. Chapman, 178 
Ind. 494, 99 N. E. 785. 

170-37 Tipton <7. Postal Assn. (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 562. 

171-40 Steinberg v. Jacobs, 21 Cal. 
App. 765, 132 P. 106a 

171-41 Emporia v, Emporia Tel. Co., 
90 Kan. 118, 133 P. 858; Dunham v. 
Slidell, 133 La. 212, 62 S. 635; Vicks- 
burg, S. & P. By. Co. 17. Webster Sand 
Gravel. & C. Co., 132 La. 1051, 62 S. 
140, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1155; Beiseker 
p. Svendsgaard, 28 N. D. 366, 149 N. 
W. 352; Okla. Oomp. Laws, 1909, §6067; 
Perry Pub. Library Assn. v. Lobsitz, 
35 Okla. 576, 130 P. 919; Weaver 17. 
Bichardson, 21 Wyo. 343, 132 P. 1148. 
BCandamus. — An appeal may be taken 
from a judgment granting or denying 
a writ of mandamus. Ballagh t7. Su- 
perior Court, 25 Cal. App. 149, 142 P. 
1123. 

171-43 Norris 17. Burnett (Miss.), 66 

B. 748. 

171-44 Tuckerman v, Curriet, 54 
Colo. 24, 129 P. 220; MacDonald v. 
Etna Indem. Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 154. 



See Tipton i?. Bailway Postal Clerks 1. 
Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 562. 

171-49 Hager 17. Schliess (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 1058. 

171-50 Barney v. Elkhart, etc. Co., 
167 Ind. 505, 79 N. E. 492; Natcher i?. 
Natcher, 153 Ind. 368, 55 N. £. 86; 
Bossert 17. Geis (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 
95. « 

171-51 Bem. & Ball. Code, 11716, 
Bubd. ly 6; Jones 17. Jones, 72 Wash. 517, 
130 P. 1125, order fixing amount of at- 
torney's fees. 

Where costs are part of Judgment^ an 
appeal from the judgment will not be 
dismissed as to costs. Wade 17. Amal- 
gamated Sugar Co., 71 Or. 75, 142 P. 
350. 

Tazlxig costs. — ^Court's direction to tax 
certain items as costs, not appealable. 
Schuh V. Beed, 259 lU. 138, 102 N. E. 
210. But an order refusing to retax 
costs has been held appealable. White 
V. Stout, 72 Wash. 62, 129 P. 917. 
171-53 In re Simmons, 206 N. Y. 
577, 100 N. E. 455. 

172-55 P. 17. District Court, 54 Colo. 

576, 131 P, 424. 

172-56 Harlow 17. Mason (Ark.), 174 

S. W. 1163; Gear 17. Henry, 21 Hawaii 

54; Bodrigues 17. Correia, 20 Hawaii 

563. 

172-58 Tiedemann 17. Tiedemann, 35 

Nev. 259, 129 P. 313. 

172-69 Outcault Adv. Co. «. Hooten 
& Co., 11 Ala. App. 454, 66 S* 901; Fos- 
ter 17. Haines, 13 Me. 307; Clapp v. 
Balch, 3 Me. 216; Wyman i?. Dorr, 3 
Me. 183. 

BuUngff on pleadings alone» not appeal- 
able. — ^'^ Manifestly it was not intended 
by the act that from every adverse rul- 
ing on the pleadings, in the ordinary 
course of trials of civil cases that had 
not been set down for hearing on the 
pleadings alone, there might be an ap- 
peal to this court." Compton 17. Jef- 
ferson County Sav. Bank (Ala.), 66 8. 
446. 

In Alabama under Acts Special Sees., 
1909. pp. 339, 356, only adverse rulings 
on tne pleadings in cases set down for 
hearing on the pleadings alone are ap- 
pealable. Compton 17. Jefferson County 
Sav. Bank (Ala.), 66 S. 446. 
Plea to Jurisdiction. — An order sustain- 
ing a plea to the jurisdiction is appeal- 
able. Oliver Ditson Co. 17. Testa, 216 
Mass. 123^ 103 N, E. 881, 



56 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



172-61 Burr if. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 
S. 300, an order denying a motion to 
strike a eross-bill held appealable. 

Iininopsrly stxiklxig oat amendod com- 
plaint.— Hastings V. U. S. Fidelity, etc. 
Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W. 1016. 
172-62 Helms v. Georgia By. Co. 
(Ala.), 66 8. 470; Scott v. First Nat. 
Bank, 178 Ala. 272, 59 8o. 803; Dans 
r- Short (la.), 150 N. W. 1047, an 
order sustaining a motion to strike part 
of petition held appealable. 

173-65 Tndor v. Kennett (Vt.), 92 
A. 213, order permitting the filing of 
an answer, held appealable. 

An oidar abating an action is appeal- 
able. Klamath Lnmb. Co. v, Bamber 
(Or.), 142 P. 359. In Mississippi nnder 
Code, 1906, |§33 and 178 it is held 
that a judgment on a plea in abate- 
ment that an attachment was wrong- 
fdlly sued out is final and appealable. 
Chas. Brooks & Co. i;. Gentry (Miss.), 
66 S. 812. 

173-67 Consolidated Alfalfa Mill. 
Co. V. Winsor, 40 OkUu 362. 138 P. 
566; Consolidated Alfalfa Mill. Co. V. 
Boberts, 40 Okla. 304, 137 P. 1179. 

173-68 Priebe «. Southern By. Co. 
(Ala.), 66 8. 573; Gilbert v. Shingle 
Co., 167 N. C. 286, 83 S. E. 337. 

Exceptions and not appeal is propet 
remedy in judgment of nonsuit for fail- 
ure to file bill of particulars. Nicker- 
8on f7. Olines (Mass.), 107 N. E. 942. 
An order reinstating a cause after vol- 
untary nonsuit is not appealable. First 
Christian Church V. Bobb, 69 Or. 283, 
138 P. 856. 

Keoessity of nonsuit diown. — ^Where it 
is necessary for plaintiff to suffer a 
nonsuit and this fact appears by the 
record or the bill of exceptions an ap- 
peal will be sustained. Ex parte Mar- 
tin, 180 Ala. 620, 61 So. 905. Such 
necessity would exist in a case in which 
plaintiff became satisfied from an ad- 
verse ruling that he could not recover. 
Bush r. Bussell, 180 Ala. 590, 61 So. 373. 

174-69 Marx r. Barbour Plumb, ft 
Elec. Co., 10 Ala. App. 404, 64 S. 645, 
no appeal from an order setting aside 
a former order for dismissal. 
Order for mistrial in criminal case be- 
ing discretionary is not appealable. S. 
r. Ford (N. C), 83 S. E. 831; 8. t?. 
Hunter, 143 N. C. 607, 56 8. E. 547, 118 
Am, St. 830. 
pi— ^^^1 without prejudice is not a 



final adjudication. Adams v. Pugh's 
Admr., 116 Va. 797, 83 S. E. 370. 

174-70 Davis t?. Biddle (Ark.), 174 
S. W. 1196j Kickert v. Zoeger (Cal.), 
146 P. 894; Brunson v, Santa Monica, 
25 Cal. App. 383, 143 P. 792; Baldwin 
V. Walls, 23 Cal. App. 349, 137 P. 1066; 
Battle V. Hambrick, 142 Ga. 807, 83 
8. E. 937; WilUams v. Huey, 263 HI. 
275, 104 N. E. 1008; Franklin County 
r. Blake, 257 HI. 354, 100 N. E. 929; 
Chicago, I. & S. R. Co. <?. Taylor (Ind.), 
108 N. E. 1; Kahle v. Crown Oil Co. 
(Ind.), 100 K. E. 681; Pentz v. Cor- 
scadden, 49 Mont. 581, 144 P. 157; 
Lecher r. City of St. Johns (Or.), 146 
P. 87; Bonner t?. Diller (Pa.), 89 A. 
579; Zook v. Coker, 24 PhU. Isl. 434; 
Succession of Nieves v. Succession of 
Sanchez, 17 P. B. 837; Torres v. Calaf, 
17 P. B. 585; American B. B. Co. r. 
Quinones, 17 P. B. 247; Hicks v. Lee 
(B. I.), 92 A. 556. See also vol. 6, 
p. 1016; p. 1017, n. 92, and supplement 
thereto. See the title "Indictment and 
Information." 

174-71 Norris r. Burnett (Miss.), 66 
S. 748; Okla. Comp. Laws, 1909, |6067; 
Board of County Comrs. v. Bobertson 
(Okla.), 130 P. 947. 

Judgment sustaining demurrer. — Adams 
V. Georgia By. Co., 142 Ga. 497, 83 
8. E. 131. 

175-72 American Fidelity Co. r. East 
Ohio Sewer P. Co., 53 Ind. App. 335, 
101 N. E. 671; Slattery v. American 
Surety Co., 217 Mass. 507, 105 N. E. 
373; Sault Ste. Marie v. By. Co. 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 649; Wanner t?. 
Martin, 173 Mich. 503, 139 N. W. 249 
(but see Paccalona v. Peninsula B. ft 
L. Co., 171 Mich. 605, 137 N. W. 518); 
Torres v, Calaf, 17 P. B. 585; American 
B. B. Co. V. Quinones, 17 P. B. 247; 
Grover Irr. & L. Co. t?. Lovella Ditch, 
etc Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 P. 43. 

On appeal from the final Judgment, 
rulings upon demurrers may be re- 
viewed. Newbold r. Green, 122 Md. 
648, 90 A. 513. 

175-75 As to order making arrest, 
see vol. 2, p. 975, n. 75. 

176-78 8ee also vol. 3, p. 829, n. 
58. 

175*79 Steinberg v. Jacobs, 21 Cal. 
AI)p. 765, 132 P. 1060; P. B. Code Civ. 
Proc. 295; Davila t?. Barreiro, 20 P. B. 
43; Johnson v. Muenz, 76 Wash. 526, 
1 137 P. 126. 



57 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



176-82 P. B. Code Civ. l>roc. 295; 
Davila v. Barreiro, 20 P. R. 43. See 
also vol. 3y p. 831, n. 62. 

176-89 Alexander v. Woods, 103 
Miss. 860, 60 S. 1017. 

176-91 Fletcher v. Barton (Ind. 
App.), 108 N. E. 137; Brown v. Green, 
133 La. 725, 63 S. 303; Vermont Sav. 
Bank v. Bailey's Admr., 87 Vt. 220, 88 
A. 661. 

177-92 Brown-Beane Co. r. Backer, 
36 Okla. 698, 129 P. 1. 

"Where irrepara'ble Injury would be 
worked by the interlocutory injunction, 
an appeal will lie from an order over- 
ruling a motion to dissolve it. Diebert, 
Bancroft & Ross Co. v. Bertie Sugar 
Co., 131 La. 414, 59 S, 835. 

177-93 Anderson v. Henderson, 103 
Miss. 211, 60 S. 137; Beiseker v. Svends- 
gaard, 28 N. D. 366, 149 N. W. 352; 
P. B. Code Civ. Proc. 295; Davila r. 
Barreiro, 20 P. B. 43; Warren V. War- 
ren, 36 B. I. 167, 89 A. 651. 

In ez parte proceeding. — An order re* 
fusing a preliminary injunction in an 
ex parte proceeding is appealable. Safe 
Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Baltimore, 121 Md. 
622, 88 A. 267. 

An order refoslng to enjoin the fore- 
closure of a mortgage by advertise- 
ment is now appealable, by St., ch. 79, 
Laws, 1907, changing the former law. 
Beiseker v. Svendsgaard, 28 N. D. 366, 
149 N. W. 352. 

177-97 Taintor r. St. John (Mont.), 
146 P. 939. 

A distinction is made somettmes be- 
tween orders appointing receivers and 
orders refusing to appoint them. An 
appeal lies from the former but not 
from the latter. Tipton v, Bailway 
Postal Clerks' Inv. Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 562. 

An anthorlsation to a receiver to sue 
is interlocutory in its nature, and it 
cannot be appealed from. Van Vleet 
V. EvangeUne Oil Co., 133 La. 72, 62 
S. 411. 

178-98 Ex parte Jonas, 186 Ala. 567, 
64 S. 960. 

178-99 Williams v. Watt (Tex. 

Civ.), 171 S. W. 266. 

178-3 Contra, Southern Nat. Bank 

V. Farmington Corp. (S. C), 83 S. E. 

637. 

Order for commission. — An appeal does 

nbt lie from an order denying a motion 



for the issuance of a commission id 
take testimony. Nassau Finance Co. r. 
Suffern, 150 N. Y. S. 690. 

178-4 Baker v. Bohnert, 158 Wis. 
337, 148 N. W. 1093. 

179-9 Application to' stay proceed- 
ings:— The rulings of t(he trial court, 
or. an application to stay proceedings, 
do not constitute a final judgment from 
which an appeal may be taken. Craig 
r. Norwood (Ind. App.), 108 N. K 
395. 

179-10 Henderson v. Treadway (Mo. 
App.), 173 S. W. 46. 
179-11 Barry f, Blackhawk Co. Bist. 
Court (la.), 14^ N. W. 449, is review- 
able on an apffeal from final judgment. 
179-12 Kichelieu r. Union Pac. B. 
Co., 97 Neb. 360, 149 N. W. 772; P. B. 
Code Civ. Proc, |295; Davila r. Bar- 
reiro, 20 P. B. 43. 

180-13 Held appealable.— Pmett «. 
Charlotte Power Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 
S. £. 830; Howard r. Bailroad, 122 
N. C. 944, 29 S. E. 778; McNeal Pipe 
Co. 17. Howland, 99 N. C. 202, 5 S. E. 
745, 6 Am. St. 513; Fitzgerald V. AU- 
man, 82 N. C. 492. 

An order acoepting petition and bond 
for removal of the cause to the federal 
court is a. final judgment and appeal- 
able. Long r. Quinn Bros., 215 Mass. 
85, 102 N. E. 348. 

180-lS Foote r. Foote, 53 Ind. App. 
673, 102 N. E. 393; Berger Mfg. Co. 
V. School Dist. (Okla.), 144 P. 1023; 
Orr r. Orr (Or.), 144 P. 753; In re 
Sneddon (Or.), 14 i P. 676; S. t\ Supe- 
rior Court (Wash.), 146 P. 834. 
180-16 Prince f. Mottman (Wash.), 
146 P. 841. 

180-17 P. V. Chicago Title & Trust 
Co., 261 111. 392, 103 N. E. 997; Cramer 
V, Illinois Com. Men's Assn., 260 111. 
516, 103 N. E. 459; Park Eidge v. Mur- 
phy, 258 111. 365, 101 N. E. 524. 
180-18 Sherman v. Lewis (Cal.), 
137 P. 249; Lapique t?. Plummer, 24 
Cal. App. 687, 142 P. 107; S. v. District 
Court (Mont.), 145 P. 724; Bahl t?. Mar- 
low State Bank, 37 Okla. 170, 131 P. 
525; Freiria & Co. v, Felix, Hmns. ft 
Co., 20 P. B. 148 (holding that an 
order setting aside a judgment by de- 
fault and the levy and sale of defend- 
ant's property may be appealed from); 
Hemaiz, Targa & Co. r. Vivns, 20 P. B. 
99 (order refusing to set aside default 
judgment held ^n appealable order); 



58 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



Davila v. Barreiro, SO P. R. 43, order 
setting aside default not appealable. 

181-20 Pope V. OlBen, 14 Ariz. 528, 
132 P. 434; Ex parte Colvert (Ala.), 65 
S. 964; Buff v. Georgia, S. Sd F. R. Co., 
67 Fla. 224, 64 S. 782; Lambert 17. 
Cheney (Mass.), 108 N. E. 1078; Sher- 
man r. CoUingwood (Mass.), 108 N. E. 
508; Zuccaro v. Nazzaro, 216 Mass. 
289, 103 N. E. 907; Fleming v. Wash- 
ington & V. R. Co. (N. C), 84 8. E. 
270; Beaver V, Mason, Ehrman & Co. 
(Or.), 143 P. 1000; Davidson v, Almeda 
Consol. Mines Co., 71 Or. 516, 142 P. 
778; Abercrombie v, Heckard, 68 Or. 
103, 136 P. 875; Crossen V. Oliver, 41 
Or. 505, 69 P. 308; MeCormick Mach. 
Co. V. Hovey, 36 Or. 259, 59 P. 189. 

Judgment <m letriaL — ^Where a new 
trial is granted this reopens the issues 
and the appeal can only be taken from 
the judgment on the retrial. Independ- 
ent Brew. Co. v, Stewart (Ohio), 105 
N. E. 143. 

In South Oaxollna an order granting a 
new trial is not appealable unless the 
supreme court can render a judgment 
absolute upon the right of the appel- 
lant, if it shall determine that no error 
was committed in granting it. Nunna- 
maker 17. Smith, 98 S. C. 466, 82 S. E. 
675; Daughty v. B. Co., 92 S. C. 361, 
75 S. E. 653. 

181-21 Turner v. F. W. Ten Winkel 
Co., 24 Cal. App. 213, 140 P. 1086; 
P. B. Code Civ. Proc, §295; Davila v, 
Barreiro, 20 P. R. 43; Prince V, Mott- 
man (Wash.), 146 P. 841; Burke v. 
Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 80 Wash. 188, 
141 P. 364. 

Order reinstating a cause. — ^Where an 
appeal is allowed from an order grant- 
ing a new trial, this does not author- 
ize an appeal from an order reinstating 
a cause after voluntary nonsuit. First 
Christian Church of Medford v. Robb, 
69 Or. 283, 138 P. 856. 

181-22 Smith v. Pacific Heights R. 
Co., 17 Hawaii 96. 

182-27 Milteer v. Seaboard Air Line 
R. Co., 65 Fla. 357, 61 S. 749. 

182-29 Elledge v. Superior Court, 
131. Cal. 279, 63 P. 360 (order taxing 
costs); Engel v, Ehret, 21 Cal. App. 
112, 130 P. 1197, order taxing costs. 
Porto Bico.— Code Civ. Proc, §295; 
Davila v. Barreiro, 20 P. R. 43. 

Order modifying Judgment. — An order 
modifying a judgment based upon a 



motion made subsequent to the entry 
of the judgment and after the judg- 
ment has been satisfied of record, is 
one affecting the substantial rights of 
the parties, and is appealable. Min- 
neapolis St. P., R. & D. Elec. Tract. 
Co. V. Grimes (Minn.), 150 N. W. 180. 
Setting aside judgment entry. — An or- 
der setting aside judgment entry and 
the execution issued thereon is not ap- 
pealable. Farris V. St. Paul's Baptist 
Church, 216 Mass. 570, 104 N. E. 639. 

183-31 Quashing execution. — An or- 
der quashing an execution issued by the 
clerk of district court on a judgment 
of a justice of the peace is not appeal- 
able as a special order made after final 
judgment. Pierson v. Daly, 49 Mont. 
478, 143 P. 957. 

184-46 An order approving a bond 
in a condemnation proceeding is not 
appealable. Raystown W. P. Co. r. 
Brumbaugh, 246 Pa. 225, 92 A. 140. 
Payment of award. — A condemnation 
award having been paid to a person, 
an order of the court directing that 
person to pay it to another is appeal- 
able. In re Block, 209 N. Y. 127, 102 
N. E. 638. 

An order dismlBsing a remonstrance 
filed in a drainage proceeding is not a 
final appealable judgment. Crow v. 
Evans, 178 Ind. 661, 100 N. E. 8. 

186-49 In re Holt, 20 Hawaii 255. 

186-61 An order to show cause is 
not appealable. — Mahoney v. Sutphin, 
164 App. Div. 794, 150 N. Y. S. 206. 
See also vol. 5, p. 425, and supplement 
thereto. 

186-62 Directing recount of ballots. 
An order of the district court direct- 
ing the election board to open the 
ballot boxes and proceed with a re- 
count is not a final order, and an ap- 
peal therefrom will not lie. Compton 
V. Simpson, 43 Okla. 642, 143 P. 664. 
186-64 GaLvin r. Logan (Ind.), 106 
N. E. 871. See also vol. 8, p. 52, n. 23. 
186-66 Potter v. Garrison, 161 Ky. 
438, 171 S. W. 147; Kelly, Weber & 
Co. V. Vordenbaumen Lumb. Co., 132 
La. 916, 61 S. 870; Pass Christian i?. 
Lizana (Miss.), 64 S. 209; Herrera r. 
Heirs of Otero, 18 P. R. 434; Ocasio 
t?. Enrique Monllor & Co., 18 P. R. 
433; Mora v. Rosaly, 18 P. R. 170; 
Globe Loan Co. t?. Betancourt (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 308. 
186-68 Mullins v. towler, 163 Ky. 
331, 173 8. W. 812. 



59 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



188-67 Fernandez t?. Bosado, 20 P. 
B. 69; Globe Loan Co. v, Betancourt 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 308; Gorham- 
Bevere Bubber Co. v. Broadway Auto. 
Co., 71 Wash. 578, 129 P. 89. 

Allegations of value, even if sworn to, 

do not bind the appellate court, where 
the contrary of the allegations is mani- 
fest. Bloomfield v. Thompson, 133 La. 
209, 62 S. 634. 

188-69 Amount claimed by plaintiff. 

Although the general rule is that stated 
in the text, yet some cases bold that 
even if the defendant is the appellant, 
the amount claimed by the plaintiff is 
still the governing amount. Kirby v. 
Bainier-Grand Hotel Co., 28 Wash. 705, 
69 P. 378; Trumbull v. School Dist., 
22 Wash. 631, 61 P. 714; Bleeker v. 
Satsop B. Co., 3 Wash. 77, 27 P. 1073; 
•Penter t?. Straight, 1 Wash. 365, 25 P. 
469. 

189-70 In partition the amount to 
be distributed is the test, and not the 
amount claimed by the litigants. Brown 
17. Green, 132 La. 1090, 62 S. 154. 

The test of jurisdiction is the value 
of the property at the date of the 
institution of the suit. In re Quaker 
Bealty Co., 131 La. 84, 59 S. 23. 

In injunction by taxpayer against a 
municipality, it is not the amount of 
his tax, but the whole amount involved 
in the corporate action sought to be 
enjoined which controls. Bloomfield v, 
Thompson, 133 La. 209, 62 S. 634. 

An ailldavlt as to the value of the 
property in litigation made after the 
judgment appealed from will not be 
considered in determining the jurisdic- 
tional amount. In re Quaker Bealty 
Co., 131 La. 84, 59 S. 23. 

189-72 Louisville Property Co. v, 
Whitley County S. Co., 163 Ky. 336, 173 
8. W. 783. 

190-76 Mahaney v. Lee (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 1093. 

191-78 Mahaney v. Lee (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 1093; Gorham-Bevere Bubber 
Co. V, Broadway Auto. Co., 71 Wash. 
578, 129 P. 89; Lauridsen v. Lewis, 47 
Wash. 594, 92 P. 440; Sorrill V. Mc- 
Gougan, 44 Wash. 558, 87 P. 825. 

Plaintiff also lias rigbt of appeal under 
circumstances stated in text. This be- 
ing based upon the principle of mutual- 
ity of remedy. . Gorham-Bevere Bubber 
Co. V, Broadway Auto. Co., 71 Wash. 
578, 129 P. 89. But where the counter- 



claim is abandoned, then tke plaintift 
has no right of appeal to the supreme 
court unless the amount demanded in 
his complaint is sufficient- to give juris- 
diction. Gorham-Bevere Bubber Co. v, 
Broadway Auto. Co., 71 Wash. 578, 129 
P. 89. 

191-80 The amount directly affected 

by the error relied upon for reversal 
is immaterial. Cardwell v. Union Pac. 
B. Co., 90 Kan. 707, 136 P. 244. 

192-89 Meyer v. Perkins, 20 Cal. 
App. 661, 130 P. 206, 208. . 

194-95 Altpeter r. Postal Tel.-Cable 
Co., 22 Cal. App. 63, 133 P. 329; Oles 
V. Macky'g Est (Colo.), 144 P. 891; 
Pottlitzer v. Citizens' Trust Co. (Ind. 
App.), 108 N. E. 36; Perez v. Soto, 20 
P. B. 225; Bamos v, Esteves, 20 P. B. 
122; Andujar v. Alonso, 17 P. B. 410. 

194-97 Waban Bose Conservatories 
V. Hall, 218 Mass. 533, 106 N. E. 137; 
Bichardson v, Thompson, 40 Okla. 348, 
138 P. 177. 

194-98 In re Walden'a Estete, 168 
Cal. 759, 145 P. 100; Mercantile Trust 
Co. V. Miller, 166 Cal. 563, 137 P. 913; 
Carstens & Earles v, Seattle (Wash.), 
146 P. 381. 

194-99 In^re Kirkman's Est., 168 
Cal. 688, 144 P. 745; In re Bradley's 
Est., 168 Cal. 655, 144 P. 136. 

196-1 Adverse party, definition of. 
Osborn v, Logus, 28 Or. 302, 37 P. 456, 
38 P. 190, 42 P. 997. 

196-16 Beceivers may appeal from 
dismissal of petition filed on behalf of 
creditors. Gephart V. Taylor, 124 Md. 
Ill, 91 A. 772. 

197-23 In re Bohanan, 37 Okla. 560, 
133 P. 44; In re Guardianship of Billy, 
34 Okla. 120, 124 P. 608. 

198-24 MacDonald v, Aetna Indem. 
Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 154, appeal allowed 
to creditors of an insolvent indemnity 
company. 

A creditor of defendant corporation 

may appeal from an order appointing 
a receiver. People's Bank v. De Soto 
Hdw. Co., 135 La. 1027, 66 S. 349. 

198-26 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 558. 

199-33 A hnaband may not appeal 
from a decree in a suit to partition 
property inherited by the wife. Swan 
V. Tapley, 216 Mass. 61, 102 N. E. 916. 
Father as guardian of children. — ^A 
father whose interests are adverse to 



60 



APPEALS 



tol. 2 



thoM of Idf eUldren cannot appeal 
from a judgment from w^eh their 
guardian ad litem failed to appeal. 
Battyany v. McNeley (Waih.), 149 P. 

Brother of a spendthrift may appeal 
from a decree terminating his guard- 
ianship of the spendthrift. Sullivan V. 
Lloyd (Mass.), 108 N. E. 923. 
200-34 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 
107 N. K 558. 

A mortgagee who has lost his interest 
in the chattels has no appealable inter- 
est from a decree foreclosing a lien 
thereon. Bhode Island Warehouse Co. 
r. W. H. Holt Mfg. Co., 36 B. I. 192, 
89 A. 706. 

200-38 In re Walden 's Est., 168 Cal. 
759, 145 P. 100; Miller V. MUler, 263 
111. 18, 104 N. E. 1078; Waban Bose 
Conservatories f>. Hall, 218 Mass. 533, 
106 N. E. 137; S. V. State Bank & 
Trust Co., 36 Nev. 526, 137 P. 400. 
201-40 P. V. Dillon, 257 lU. 68, 100 
N. E. 170; Clark v. Stout (Ind.), 105 
N. E. 569. 

201-48 '^Aggrlered" explained.— The 
word "aggrieved" refers to a substan- 
tial grievance and the imposition of 
an illegal obligation or burden or the 
denial of some equitable or legal right. 
8. I?. State Bank & Trust Co., 36 Nev. 
526, 137 P. 400. 

"Where no flndlngs are made as to a 
particular defendant in tort action, he 
may not appeal. Smith v. Qraves (Ind. 
App.), 108 K, K 168. 

202-44 Boundaries of Kahua 2, Hilo, 
20 Hawaii 278; 8. v. Intoxicating 
Liquors, 112 Me. 138, 91 A. 175. 
203-48 Wagner v, Freeny, 123 Md. 
24, 90 A. 774. 

208-49 liovert v. Shirley Planting 
Co., 135 La. 929, 66 8. 301. 
208-52 Continental Gin Co. v. Mil- 
bert, 10 Ala. App. 351, 65 8. 424. 
203-68 New Orleans, etc. B. Co. v. 
State Board of Appraisers, 135 La. 729, 
66 8. 160; Bipley v. Brown, 218 Mass. 
33, 105 N. E. 637; Bass v. Occidental 
Life Ins. Co., 18 N. M. 282, 135 P. 
1175. 

From an order zedueiiig attorney's al- 
lowaaoe, made on motion of other 
parties than the attorney, he is the 
proper person to appeal. Thomas v. 
Thomas, 162 Ky. 630, 172 8. W. 1054. 

204-54 Baas «. Occidental Life Ins. 
Co, 18 N, M. 882, 135 P, 1175. 



204-38 Southern Indiana Power Co. 
V. Cook (Ind.), 107 N. E. 12. 

206-66 Pottlitzer v. Citizens' Trust 
Co. (Ind. App.), 108 N. £. 36; Bound 
V. Land ft Power Co., 92 Kan. 894, 142 
P. 292; 8. t^. Wells, 127 Minn. 252, 
149 N. W. 286. 

206-67 By conaentnig to amendment 
of tbe Judgment so as to correct an 
error made in his favor, a party is not 
precluded from appealing, especially 
when he has expressly reserved his 
right to appeal. Crusel v. Brooks, 133 
La. 477, 63 8. 114. 

Oomplianco under mroteet will not de- 
feat a party 'c right to appeal. Cheney 
V. Bierkamp (Colo.), 145 P. 691. 

Participating in a new trial, the grant- 
ing of which was opposed by defend- 
ant, does not defeat defendant's right 
on appeal from final judgment to urge 
the granting of new trial as error. 
Hirabelli v. Daniels, 44 Utah 88, 138 
P. 1172. 

XTsing property awarded by the decree 
as his own will defeat appellant 's right 
to appeal. Kellogg v. Smith, 70 Or. 
449, 142 P. 330. 

206-71 Palmet v. Lavers, 218 Mass. 
286, 105 N. E. 1000; Wright v. Grand 
Lodge K. P. (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 
270. 

Filing a remitter amounta to acqui- 
escence. — ^Plinsky 17. Nolan, 65 Or. 402, 
133 P. 71. 

207-74 Jolley v. Vivian Oil Co., 131 
La. 937, 60 8. 622. 

207-7U Coffman v. Bushard, 164 Cal. 
663, 130 P. 425. 

208-81 Patterson v. Keeney, 165 Cal. 
465, 132 P. 1043, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 232 
(discussing and limiting the applica- 
tion of rule stated in Morton v. Supe- 
rior Court, 65 Cal. 496, 4 P. 489, cited 
as contra in original volume); Warner 
Bros. Co. I?. Freud, 131 Cal. 639, 645, 
63 P. 1017, 82 Am. St. 400; Yndart v. 
Den, 125 Cal. 85, 89, 57 P. 761; Kenney 
V. Parks, 120 Cal. 22, 52 P. 40 (dist. 
the case of Morton v. Superior Court, 
65 Cal. 496, 4 P. 489, cited as contra 
in original volume); Hatch i;. Jacob- 
son, 94 HI. 584; Dickensheets v. Kauf- 
man, 29 Ind. 154^ Hayes v, Nourse, 107 
N. Y. 577, 14 N. E. 508, 1 Am. St. 
891. Contra, 8. v, Conkling, 54 Kan. 
108, 37 P. 992, 45 Am. St. 271; 8. v. 
Wells, 127 Minn. 252, 149 N. W. 286. 

Compliance wltli Judgment in man- 



61 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



danuui compelling a board to make an 
official appointment, will not estop the 
board from appealing. Mayor & Board 
of Aldermen v. S.. 103 Miss. 645, 60 S. 
676. 

208-82 Must be volimtary payment. 
A payment under a judgment which is 
made without the knowledge or con- 
sent of the party condemned, is not an 
acquiescence by him in such judgment. 
Anderson v. New Orleans R. & L. Co., 
133 La. 896, 63 S. 395. 

209-83 Warner Bros. Co. v. Freud, 
131 Cal. 639, 63 P. 1017; Vermont Mar- 
ble Co. V. Black, 123 Cal. 21, 55 P. 
599; Kenney v. Parks, 120 Cal. 22. 24, 
52 P. 40. 

209-84 Gutierrez v. Mogueras, 20 P. 
R. 251. 

209-85 Warner Bros. Co. r. Freud, 
131 Cal. 639, 645, 63 P. 1017, 82 Am. 
St. 400; Vermont Marble Co. t?. Black, 
123 Cal. 21, 23, 55 P. 599. 

A pnrdiase by mortgagee at f oreclosaxe 
sale, when made to protect his inter- 
ests, will not estop him from prosecut- 
ing his appeal. Sunset Lumb. Co. v. 
Bachelder, 167 Cal. 512, 140 P. 35. 

210-89 Knox v. Steele, 18 Ala. 815, 
54 Am. Dec. 181; Kenney v. Parks, 120 
Cal. 22, 52 P. 40; Corwin r. Shoup, 76 
HI. 246;. Scott v, Dilley, 53 Ind. App. 
100, 101 N. B. 313; Ind. District v. 
District Tp., 44 la. 201; CasseU v. 
Fagin, 11 Mo. 207, 47 Am. Dec. 151; 
Carll V, Oakley, 97 N. Y. 633; Hall r. 
Lacey, 37 Pa. 366; Fly v. Bailey, 36 
Tex. 119. 

Assigning Judgment. — A party who as- 
signs that part of a judgment which 
is favorable to him waives his right 
to appeal from the unfavorable part. 
Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 
558. , 

211-94 San Bernardino County v. 
Riverside County, 135 Cal. 618, 67 P. 
1047; Storke v. Storke, 132 Cal. 349, 
64 P. 578; In re Shaver's Est., 131 Cal. 
219, 63 P. 340; Est. of Baby, 87 Cal. 
200, 25 P. 405, 22 Am. St. 239; Holt 
V. Bees, 46 111. 181; Beard v. Hosier 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 558; Webster- 
Glover, etc. Co. t?. St. Croix County, 71 
Wis. 317, 36 N. W. 864. 

211-96 Higbie f. Westlake, 14 N. 
Y. 281. 

212-99 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 

107 N. E. 558. 

91(lhl9 Bottema v, Tracy (Ind. 



App.), 107 N. B. 741; Middleton v. 
Escoe, 35 Okla. 646, 130 P. 905; Bilby 
V. Unknown Heirs of Gray, 35 Okla. 
430, 130 P. 533; Cook v. S., 35 Okla. 
653, 130 P. 300; First Nat. Bank v. 
Harding, 35 Okla. 650, 130 P. 905; 
John V. Paullin, 24 Okla. 636, 104 P. 
365. 

An Interyenor whoso intoroets cannot bo 
affocted is not a necessary party. Dan- 
iels V. Butler (la.), 149 N. W. 265. 

216-22 Aacortainlng propor partios. 

The appellate court will examine the 
record anH, if necessary, the summons, 
in order to determine who are the 
proper parties. Decatur v, Eady (Ind. 
App.), 105 N. E. 590. 

216-23 Ter. r. Ah Sing, 18 Hawaii 

392. 

Filing a briof will not make one a 

party when his name is not contained 

in the statement of appeal. Com. v. 

Columbia Trust Co., 162 Ky. 825, 173 

S. W. 386. 

217-26 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 

107 N. E. 558. 

217-31 Shaw V, Garrett (Ind. App.), 

108 N. E. 536; Schultze V. Maley (Ind. 
App.), 105 N. E. 942. 

218-33 West v. Johnson, 66 Fla. 4, 
62 S. 913; Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla. 
708, 143 P. 1053; Foreman v. Fish, 43 
Okla. 641, 143 P. 661; Crow v. Hard- 
ridge, 43 Okla. 463, 143 P. 183; Lindley 
V, Hill (Okla.), 133 P. 179; National 
Surety Co. t?. Oklahoma Presbyterian 
College, 38 Okla. 429, 132 P. 652; Ap- 
pleby V. Dowden, 35 Okla. 707, 132 P. 
349. 

AU partios to a Joint Judgment must 
be made parties to the appeal where 
their rights or interests would be af- 
fected by a reversal or modification of 
the judgment. Le Force v, Shirley 
(Okla.), 145 P. 1150; ContinenUl G. 
Co. V. Huff, 25 Okla. 798, 108 P. 369; 
Weisbender v. School Dist., 24 Okla. 
173, 103 P. 639; Strange V. Crisnion, 
22 Okla. 841, 98 P. 937. 

219-35 Montgomery v, McCabe, 6 
Ala. App. 559, 60 S. 456; Smith v. 
Graves (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 168. 
221-41 Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla. 
708, 143 P. 1053; Foreman v. Fish, 43 
Okla. 641, 143 P. 661; Crow v. Hard- 
ridge, 43 Okla. 463, 143 P. 183. 

223-48 Bottema v. Tracy (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 741; Le Force v. Shir- 
ley (Okla.), 145 P. 1150; United Qtatea 



98 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



P. & G. Co. V. Ballard (Okla.), 145 P. 
396; Syfert v. Murphy (Okla.). 144 P. 
1022; Zeimann v, Bennett^ 39 Okla. 344, 
134 P. 1124; Tueker v, Hudson. 38 
Okla. 790, 134 P. 21. 

224-49 Daniels v. Butler (la.), 149 
N. W. 265; Miller v. Oklahoma State 
Bank, 38 Okla. 153, 132 P. 344. 

224-50 Chappie f>, Gidney, 38 Okla. 
696, 134 P. 859. 

225-51 Appeal ftom divisibla Judg- 
ment affecting title. — A judgment af- 
fecting distinct and independent par- 
cels of land and adjudging the title 
thereof to be in two different persons 
'WhoUj . disconnected is divisible; and 
one of such persons is not a necessary 
party to an appeal involving only the 
rights of the other in a particular par- 
cel of such land. Grayson v, Durant, 
43 Okla. 799, 144 P. 592. 

226-63 Appellees in Insolvency pro- 
ceedlngs^A party to a coneursus whose 
claim is rejected by the trial court, 
and who takes no appeal and makes 
no answer to the appeals taken by 
others, and as against whom nothing 
is asked in the appellate court, is with- 
out interest in the result of the appeal 
and need not be cited to answer. In re 
Great Southern Lumb. Co., 132 La. 989, 
62 S. 117. 

226-64 Bamos v, Esteves, 20 P. B. 
122. 

227-68 Beard v. Hosier (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 558. 

228-76 Oregon Auto-Bispatch v. Cad- 
well, 67 Or. 301, 135 P. 880. 

229-83 Deatb of appellee before ap- 
peal, etc. Nye v. Jones, 35 Okla. 96, 
28 P. 112; Skillern 17. Jameson, 29 Okla. 
84, 116 P. 193. 

230-84 Holmes v, Dillard, 40 Okla. 
309, 136 P. 408. 

234-7 Sheriff's successor. — Where the 
sheriff's term of office expires pending 
an appeal, the proceedings may con- 
tinue with his successor as defendant. 
Bank of St. Martinville v, Broussard, 
131 La. 1078, 60 S. 690. 

234-14 Ter. v. Ah blng, 18 Hawaii 
392; Armstrong r. White, 43 Okla. 639, 
143 P. 329; Appleby v, Dowden, 35 
Okla. 707, 132 P. 349; Hawkins v. 
Hawkins, 35 Okla. 641, 130 P. 926; 
Cook V. 8., 35 Okla. 653, 130 P. 300. 

Improper Joinder of stranger to the 
judgment^ not ^ound for dismissal. 



Children's Home v. Fetter (Ohio), 106 
N. E. 761. 

237-22 Dunbar v. Springer, 256 111. 
53, 99 N. E. 889; Webber v. Billings 

iMich.), 150 N. W. 332; Bansom v, 
bseph E. Wickstrom & Co. (Wash.), 
146 P. 1041; Simpson Logging Co. v. 
(Thehalis County. 80 Wash. 245, 141 P. 
344. 

237-24 Brown v. Barr, 184 Mo. App. 
461, 171 S. W. 4- Smythe v. Central* 
Vermont B. Co. (Vt), 90 A. 901. 

239-27 Parkside Realty Co. v. Mac- 
Donald, 166 Cal. 21, 137 P. 21; In re 
Yoell's Est., 164 Cal. 540, 129 P. 999; 
Kett V. Colorado & S. By. Co. (Colo.), 
146 P. 245; Canon City v. Cox, 55 Colo. 
264, 133 P. 1040; Holt V. Savidge, 17 
Hawau 84; P. v, Gerold, 265 HI. 448, 
107 N. E. 165; Fisher v. Blumhardt 
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 466; Cressler v. Tri- 
State Loan & Trust Co. (Ind.), 107 N. 
E. 68; McEeen v. Bowen & Co. (Ind.), 
106 N. E. 529; Johnson V, Citizens' 
Bank (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Bapier 
I?. Guedry, 136 La. 443, 67 S. 322; 
Frisco Land Co. v. Nevins, 135 La. 927, 
66 S. 300; Louisiana Land Co. v. Blake- 
wood, 131 La. 539, 59 S. 984; Cunning- 
ham 9. Penn Bridge Co., 131 La. 196, 
59 S. 119; Kennedy v. Ford (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 1013; City of Kirksville V. 
Ferguson (Mo.), 172 S. W. 4; Nygren v. 
Board of Chosen Freeholders, 86 N. J. 
L. 364, 90 A. 1111; Webster t?. Board 
of Chosen Freeholders, 86 N. J. L. 256, 
90 A. 1110; Seidman v. New York Rya. 
Co., 88 Misc. 53, 150 N. Y. S. 578; 
Bailey v. Inland Empire Co. (Or.), 146 
P. 991; French & Co. r. Haltenhoff 
(Or.), 144 P. 480; Frith v, Wright (Tex. 
Civ.)', 173 S. W. 453; Stephen ville N. 
& St. R. Co. r. Wheat (Tex. Civ.), 173 
S. W. 974; Powers v, Munson, 74 Wash. 
234, 133 P. 453. 

A federal question, involved in an ac- 
tion for wrongful death, cannot be 
raised for the first time on appeal. Chi- 
cago, E. I. & P. E. Co. V. Holliday 
(Okla.), 145 P. 786. 

TlnlesB Justice requires it, a question 
not raised in the court below, nor in 
the appellate court until after oral 
argument, will not be considered. Mod- 
ern Woodmen v. International Trust 
Co., 25 Colo. App. 26, 136 P. 806. 

240-29 Boonville Special Boad Bist. 
V, Fuser (Mo.), 171 S. W. 962. 

240-80 Standard Forgings Co. r. 
Holmstrom (Ind, App.)^ 104 N, E, 872; 



09 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Lamb v, Connor (WaBh.), 146 P. 174. 
Misjolndor of parties. — Galvestoiii H. 
& S. A. E. Co. 17. BraBsell (Tex. Chr.), 
173 S. W. 522. 

Unless a demnrrer is iiled raising ,the 
objection that plaintiff was not saing 
in a representative capacity, the ob- 
jection will not be available on ap- 
peal. German American Nat. Bank v. 
Iiewis, 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S. 74i. 

That plaintiff Is a minor and not rep- 
resented by guardian ad litem or next 
friend is an objection that cansot be 
first raised on appeal. Connelle/ r. 
ConneUey, 43 Okla. 294, 142 P. 1113. 

241-31 Akron Milling Co. v. Leiter 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 99. 

241-82 Southern Pacific Co. v. Santa 
Cruz (Cal. App.), 145 P. 736; M. R. 
Smith li. Co. V. Bussell (Ean.), 144 P. 
819. 

A peremptory plea of prescription may 

be Hied in the supreme court Bohm 
«. Jallansi 134 La. 913, 64 S. 829. 

242-35 Plea of res jQdicata.— Per- 
emptory exceptions may be filed in the 
supreme court, and a plea of res judi- 
cata filed in that court will be disposed 
of where the record contains all the 
evidence, although such plea was not 
filed in and decided by the trial court. 
Bohm V. Jallans, 134 La. 913, 64 S. 
829. 

243-42 Houston, E. & W. T. B. Co. 

V, Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 

619. 

Documents not offered In oTldence at 

the trial cannot be considered. Weaver 

V. Paper Co., 246 Pa. 438, 92 A. 553. 

243-43 Speer v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 
S. W. 201. 

244-44 Failure of parties to answer 
cannot be objected to on appeal where 
the objecting party failed to ask for 
a continuance in the trial court. Mur- 
phy V. Hagan, 163 Ky. 407, 173 8. W. 
1146. 

245-47 McGraw v. Tillery, 178 Ala. 
253, 59 S. 567; Peters r. Brunswick- 
Balke-Callender Co., 6 Ala. App. 507, 
60 8. 431; Tombigbee Valley B. Co. v. 
Still Co., 6 Ala. App. 470, 60 S. 546; 
Morris V. Hartley (Cal. App.), 146 P. 
73; Waite v. C. E. Shoemaker & Co. 
(Mont.), 146 P. 736; O'Hanlon v. Buby 
Gulch M. Co., 48 Mont. 65, 135 P. 913; 
Bobertson v. Frey (Or.), 144 P. 128; 
Coto V. Bafas, 18 P. B. 493; Missouri, 
etc. B, Co, V. Kemp (Tex. Civ.), 173 



S. W. 532;.Demple v. Carroll, 21 Wyo. 
447, 133 P. 137, 135 P. 117. 
Urging stotQte of liniltation8.~A de- 
fendant cannot urge the statute of lim- 
itations for the first time in the ap- 
pellate court where he permits a de- 
cree pro confesso to be taken against 
him in the lower court. Gardner v, Dun- 
can, 104 Miss. 477, 61 S. 545. 

245-48 Walker v. Gunnels (Ala.), 66 
S. 45; Milbra v. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. 
Co., 182 Ala. 622, 62 S. 176, 46 L. B. 

A. (N. 8.) 274; German -American Nat. 
Bank v. Lewisy 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S. 
741; American Sales Book Co. v, S. H. 
Pope & Co., 7 Ala. App. 304, 61 8. 
45; Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. v. 
Leach, 5 Ala. App. 546, 59 8. 358; 
Blanc V. Connor, 167 Cal. 719, 141 P. 
217; Byan v, Oakland Gas, etc. Co., 
21 Cal. App. 14, 130 P. 693; Harring- 
ton V, Anderson, 23 Colo. App. 415, 130 
P. 616; Munere & Portland Tract. Co. 
V, Citizens' Gas & Oil Min. Co., 179 
Ind. 65, 100 N. E. 65; Baub v. Lemon 
(Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 631; American 
Car & Foundry Co. v. Wyatt (Ind. 
App.), 108 N. E. 12; Chicago & B. 

B. Co. V. Mitchell (Ind. App.), 107 N. 
E. 743; Akron Mill. Co t?. Leiter (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 99; Shanks v. Wil- 
liams (Kan.), 144 P. 1007; Frisco L. 
Co. V, Kevins, 135 La. 927, 66 8. 300; 
Baltimore v. Lutcher, 135 La. 873, 66 
S. 253; Salmon Brick & Lumb. Co. v. 
Southern Pac. Co., 132 La. 356, 61 S. 
401; Waldstein v, Dooskin (Mass.), 107 
N. E. 927; Hoban v. Dempsey, 217 
Mass. 166, 104 N. E. 717, Ann. Cas. 
1915C, 810, L. B. A. (N. S.) 1915A, 1217; 
Wilson r. Fire Ins. Co. (Mich.), 151 
N. W. 752; Linn County Bank v Clifton 
(Mo.), 172 S. W. 388; Schwanenfeldt 
V. Met. St. By. Co., 186 Mo. App. 588, 
174 8. W. 143; Hawkins v, St. Louis 
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 129; Chi- 
cago, B. I. & P. B. Co. V. McBee 
(Okla.), 145 P. 331; Shuler v. Collins, 
40 Okla. 126, 136 P. 752; Coombs v. 
Cook, 35 Okla. 326, 129 P. 698; Border 
V. Carrabine, 24 Okla. 609, 104 P. 906; 
Harris v. First Nat. Bank, 21 Okla. 
189, 95 P. 781; Fisher r. St. Albans, 
87 Vt. 524, 90 A. 582; Fadden v. Mc- 
Kinney, 87 Vt. 316, 89 A. 351; North 
Idaho Grain Co. t?. Callison (Wash.), 
145 P. 232. 

245-49 Parr v, Baer, 24 Cal. App. 
149, 140 P. 712; Carpenter r. Bradford, 
23 Cal. App. 560, 138 P. 946; Dalbey 
c. Hayes (111.), 108 N. E, 657; Froemk^ 



64 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



p. Markt, 259 IH. 146, 102 K E. 192; 
McCarty f. Williams (Ind. App.), lOS 
N. £. 370; Mutual Trust & Bep. Co. v. 
Travelers' Protective Assn. (Ind. App.), 
100 N. E. 451; Southern B. Go. t\ 
Crone, 51 Ind. App. 300, 99 N. E. 762; 
Baxter v. Boston ft M. B., 217 Mass. 
312, 104 N. £. 733; Gage v, Boston & 
M. B. B. (N. H.), 90 A. 855; Bhome 
Mill Co. V. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank, 
40 Okla. 131, 136 P. 1095; Advance 
Thresher Co. v. Doak, 36 Okla. 532, 129 
P. 736; Galveston B. Co. r. King (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 335; Wm. M. Boy- 
lance Co. r. Pyne (Utah), 141 P. 301; 
Grow V, Oregon Short Line B. Co., 44 
Utah 160, 138 P. 398; North Idaho 
Grain Co. v. CalUson (Wash.), 145 P. 
232. 

Commoii-law liability. — ^Where plaintiff 
below eounts upon defendant's com- 
mon-law liability rather than upon his 
statutory liability, he cannot proceed 
upon the latter theory above. Egan 
f. Louisville & S. I. Tract. Co., 55 Ind. 
App. 423, 103 N. E. 1100. 
246-50 Wooster t?. Scorse (Ariz.), 
140 P. 819; Union Collection Co. v. 
OUver, 23 Cal. App. 318, 137 P. 1082; 
Farmington v. Biley, 88 Conn. 51, 89 
A. 900; Hamalle v, Lebensberger (111.), 
108 N. E. 669; Wheeler t?. Chicago & 
W. I. B. Co. (ni.), 108 N. E. 330; P. 
V Evans, 262 111. 235, 104 N. E. 646; 
Lake Erie & W B. Co. c. Marott, 52 
Ind. App. 332, 100 N. E, 865; Boss v. 
Maine Cent. B. Co., 112 Me. 63, 90 A. 
711; O'Hare t?. Gloag (Mass.), 108 N. 
E. 566; Harrisonville r. Poster (Mo. 
App.), 174 S. W. 129; Heifner v. Chi- 
cago, B. I. & P. B. Co., 185 Mo. App. 
517, 172 8. W. 618; Marth V. Wisker- 
chen, 186 Mo. App. 515, 172 8. W. 410; 
Round Mountain Min. Co. r. Bound 
Mountain Sphinx Min. Co., 36 Nev. 543, 
138 P. 71; Chicago, B. I. & P. B. Co. 
r. Holliday (Okla.), 145 P. 786; Wal- 
lace r. Killian, 40 Okla. 631, 140 P. 
162; Duffey v. Scientific Amer. Comp. 
Dept., 30 Okla. 742, 120 P. 1088; Brown 
r. Aitken (Vt.), 92 A. 22; Board of 
Directors of Quincy Val. Irr. Dist. V. 
Scott, 79 Wash. 434, 140 P. 391. 

Lachet^ — ^The trial court's attention not 
having been called to the question of 
laches, the appellant cannot urge it on 
appeal. Parkside Bealty Co. v. Mac- 
Donald, 166 Cal. 426, 137 P. 21. 
QiM8ti0ii of estoppel must be raised 
below. Bean v. Atkins (Vt.), 89 A. 



Contributory negligence cannot be 
raised for the first time on appeal. 
TituB V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J. 
Eq.), 92 A. 944; Seeley r. By. Co. (Vt.), 
92 A. 28. 

Interstate commerce. — A defense based 
on the interstate character of the con- 
tract in question cannot be first raised 
on appeal. "Western Union Tel. Co. v, 
Taylor (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 771. 

Want of Jorlsdiction. — A defendant 
who appears specially to contest the 
jurisdiction and presents no further de- 
fense, cannot on appeal present objec- 
tions not going to the jurisdiction. P. 
r. Stephens, 261 111. 121, 103 N. E. 581. 
Judgment as bar. — An objection that a 
former judgment was a bar to the re- 
lief prayed for, must be made below. 
Inlet Swamp Drainage Dist. r. Ander- 
son, 257 111. 214, 100 N. E. 909. 

Marshaling. — A defense based upon 
the marshaling of securities must be 
made below. Frith v. Wright (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 453. 

An admission of liability at the trial 
will estop the defendant from disput- 
ing the same on appeal. Wright v. 
Grand Lodge (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
270. 

246-51 Parr v, Baer, 24 Cal. App. 
149, 140 P. 712; Dubois V. Bowles, 5ij 
Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Degge v. Carstar- 
phen Elec. Co. (Colo. App.), 140 P. 
478; Miller v. Engler, 54 Ind. App. 
689, 103 N. E. 358; Schwanenfeldt r. 
Metropolitan St. By. Co. (Mo. App.), 
174 S. W. 143; St. Louis & S. F. R. 
Co r. Brown (Okla.), 144 P. 1075; 
Smith V. Northern Pac. B. Co., 79 Wash. 
448, 140 P. 685. 

Treating case as one in equity, etc. 
Steltzer r. Chicago, M. & St. P. B. Co. 
(la.), 149 N. W. 501. 

A cbuige from law to equity will not 
be permitted. Goldsmith v. Murray, 48 
Mont. 337, 138 P. 187. 
Oontrlbutory negligence. — The case on 
appeal will proceed on the theory that 
contributory negligence is in issue, 
where such was the theory below. Mil- 
ler V. Engle, 185 Mo. App. 558, 172 S. 
W. 631. 

Assumption that street is public one, 
indulged in by both parties at tho 
trial, will bar any issue as to such ques- 
tion on appeal. Vandevere r. Kaiis'i3 
City, 187 Mo. App. 297, 173 R. W. iVM), 
246-52 Uuko i*. Kaio, 20 Hawau 567; 



65 



Vol.2 



APPEALS 



Gilchrist v. Hatch (Ind.), 106 N. E. 
694; Domestic Block Goal Co. v, De 
Armey, 179 Ind. 592, 100 N. E. 675, 
102 N. E. 99; Ealer v, Euler, 55 Ind. 
App. 547, 102 N. E. 856; McKiiley v. 
Britton, 56 Ind. App. 21, 103 N. E. 
349; Cobb v. Peters, 68 Or. 14, 136 P. 
656; Smith V. Pacific Coal & O. Co., 75 
Wash. 128, 134 P. 675. 

Bnbmlttlxig lasaes. — ^Where instntctions 
followed theory of the parties as to 
issues, and appellant requested no in- 
structions, the court will not reverse 
the cause because certain issues might 
have been eliminated Weber «. Towle, 
97 Ne^. 233, 149 N. W. 406. 

247-58 Holler r. S. (Ind.), 106 N. 
E. 864; Geppelt r. Middle West Stone 
Co., 90 Kan. 539, 135 P. 573; S r. 
Gray, 112 Me. 558^ 91 A. 787; Cham- 
bers r. Bessent, 17 N. M. 487, 134 P. 
237; Baker v, Donlin, 88 Misc. 586, 151 
N. Y. S. 433; Sykes v. Everett, 167 N. 
C. 600, 83 S. E. 585; Weller r. Davis, 
245 Pa. 280, 91 A. 664. 

Though bills of exception are abol- 
ished, timely objections must stiU be 
made below. Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. 
J. L. 632, 90 A. 292. 

248-65 Fountain r. Pateman (Ala.), 
66 S. 75; Fisher 17. Blumhardt (Ind.), 
107 N. E. 466; Metsker t?. Whitsell, 181 
Ind. 126, 103 N. E. 1078; Colonial Pow- 
er & L. Co. V, Creaser, 87 Vt. 457, 89 
A. 472. 

Fallnre to serve motion for new trial 

need not be objected to below since 
such defect is jurisdictional. Marshall 
& Steams Co. v, Deneen Bldg. Co. 
(Cal.), 146 P. 684. 

QnaliflcationB of trial Jndge.— Objec- 
tions to the qualifications of the judge 
not available in the trial court may be 
presented in the appellate court. ' San- 
dusky Grain Co. v, Sanilac Circ. Judge 
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 329; Bliss t?. Caille 
Bros. Co., 149 Mich. 601, 113 N. W. 
317. 

249-66 Terra Ceia Estates r. Taylor 
(Fla.), 67 8. 169; Fisher r. Blumhardt 
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 466; Metsker r. 
' Whitsell, 181 Ind. 126, 103 N. E. 
1078; Nebel r. Bockhorst, 186 Mo. App. 
499, 172 S. W. 452. 

249-57 Empire Banch & Cattle Co. 
r. Millet, 24 Colo. App. 464, 135 P. 
127; Carrington v. Thomas C. Basshor 
Co., 121 Md. 71, 88 A. 52; Stuart v. 
Wood, 86 N. J. U 110, 90 A. 1030. 



Bffanner of getting into court— Where 
the superior court has original juris- 
diction of the subject-matter and the 
case comes into said court improperly 
by appeal, and both parties appear, file 
pleadings and go to trial without ob- 
jections, the question of jurisdiction as 
to the manner of getting into court is 
waived and such objections will not be 
heard for the first time in the supreme 
court. State Nat. Bank v. Wood, 43 
Okla. 251, 142 P. 1002. 

250-58 Titus f. North Kansas City 
Develop. Co. (Mo.), 174 S. W. 432; 
Price t?. Davis, 187 Mo. App. 1, 173 
8 W. 64; Grover Irr. & L. Co. v. Lovella 
Ditch, etc. Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 P. 
43, cit. 2 Standard Proc. 250. Contra, 
Robinson v, S., 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 
929; Chicago & E. B. Co. v, Mitohell 
(Ind App.), 107 N. E. 743; Stiles t?. 
Hasler (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 878. 
Only where conrt is without Jurisdiction 
can a failure to*state a cause of action 
be taken advantage of on appeal. 
Smith V. Greene, 187 Mo. App. 210, 173 
S. W. 705. 

Bight of action in another. — It may 
be urged ^or the first time on appeal 
that the cause of action for negligent 
killing of {flainllff's husband was in 
the personal representative, by virtue 
of the federal employers' liability act. 
La Casse r. New Orleans, T. & M. B. 
Co., 135 La. 129, 64 S. 1012. 
250-59 Stewart v, Preston, 77 Wash. 
559, 137 P. 993. 

That plea In abatement is not avail- 
able for first time on appeal, see vol. 
1, p. 61, n. 84. 

UndertaJdng for attachment must be 
attacked below. Lowenberg v. L. 
Jaeobson's Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 
P. 734. 

251-61 In re Heaver's Est. (la.), 
150 N. W. 698; Elliott f?. Page, 98 S. 
C. 400, 82 S. E. 620. 
252-63 Kline i\ Guaranty Oil Co., 
167 Cal. 476, 140 P. 1; Mengelkamp r. 
Consolidated Coal Co., 259 111. 305, 102 
N. E. 756; Bank i\ Paul (Ind. App.), 
108 N. E. 532; Murphy v, Hagan, 163 
Ky. 407, 173 S. W. 1146; Kimbrough t?. 
Da vies, 104 Miss. 722, 61 S. 697; Sevier 
t?. Mitchell (Or.), 142 P. 780. 
252-64 Lehman, Durr & Co. t?. Green - 
hut, 88 Ala. 478, 7 S. 299; Blake v. 
Harlan, 80 Ala. 37; Southern B. Co. 
r. Chambless, 10 Ala. App. 326, 65 S. 
417; Stevens v, Bockport Co., 216 Mass. 



66 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



486, 104 N. E. 371; Irwin v. Pittsburg 
& L. E. B. Co., 243 Pa. 7, 89 A. 802; 
Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Bras- 
sell (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 522. 

253-66 Hiehborn v. Bradbury, 111 
Me. 519, 90 A. 325; Hartley v, Lang- 
kamp, 243 Pa. 550, 90 A. 402; Need- 
ham V. Cooney (Tex Civ.), 173 S. W. 
979. 

253-68 Frogg v. C, 163 Ky. 175, 173 
S. W. 383; McDowell v. Justice, 167 
X. C. 493, 83 S. E. 803; Cook v. Wash- 
ington-Oregon Corp. (Wash.), 146 P. 
156. 

253-70 Boss v. Wadsworth Bed Ash 
Coal Co., 185 Ala. 59/, 64 S. 341; Bruce 
T. Citizens' Bank, 185 Ala. 221, 64 S. 
82; McCall V. Hall, 182 Ala. 191, 62 
8. 68; Bush v, Bussell, 180 Ala. 590, 
61 8. 373; English Lumb. Co. v. Hireen, 
25 Colo. App. 199, 136 P. 475; Webb 
c. Deadwyler, 142 Ga. 422, 83 E. E. 
99; Lott r. Davis, 264 111. 272, 106 
N. E. 179; Chicago B. Co. t?. Mitchell 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 743; Noyes v. 
Caldwell, 216 Mass. 525, 104 N. E. 495; 
Trenholm r. Miles (Miss.), 64 8. 209; 
P. V. Willett, 213 N. Y. 368, 107 N. E. 
707; Stebbens v. Longhoffer (Okla.), 
143 P. 671; Hill Co. Cotton Oil Co. 
r. Gathings (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 597. 
Veriflcatloiu — The sufficiency of a veri- 
iication of a petition must be chal- 
lenged below. Green r. J. H. McCloud 
Co., 87 Vt. 242, 88 A. 810. 

That bill of partlenlan not fdentliled 

by the complaint with which it is filed, 
necessitates an objection. Jordan v, 
Indianapolis Coal Co., 52 Ind. App. 542, 
100 N. E. 880. 

254-71 American Tie & T. Co. «. 
Naylor Lumb. Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 246; 
Deason v. Gray (Ala.), 66 8. 646; Hig- 
don 9. Garrett, 5 Ala. App. 467, 59 8. 
309; Turnipseed v. Burton, 4 Ala. App. 
612, 58 8. 959; Oles v. Wilson, 57 Colo. 
246, 141 P. 489; Lott V, Davis, 264 
111. 272, 106 N. E. 179; Birds Drainage 
Dist. r. Cairo V. & C. B. Co., 257 IlL 
57, 100 N. E. 141; Vandalia B. Oo. 
r. House (Ind. App.), 108 N. EL 872; 
Wood V. Bathman (Ind. App.), 108 N. 
E. 126; Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. Elec- 
tric Magnetic Gold Min. Co., 54 Ind. 
App. 28, 99 N. E. 429, 100 N. E. 307; 
Fry r. Hoffman, 54 Ind. App. 434, 
102 N. E. 167, 103 N. E. 15; Book- 
er t, Ludowici Celadon Co., 53 Ind. 
App. 275, 100 N. E. 469; Prere i?. Mis- 
joari, K. & T. B. Co. (Kan.), 145 P. 



864; Price v. Davis, 187 Mo. App. 1, . 
173 8. W. 64; Eder r. Crown Butte 
Canal & Beservoir Co. (Mont.), 145 
P. 1; 8tebben8 v. Longhoffer (Okla.), 
143 P. 671; U. 8. <?. Cardell, 23 Phil. 
Isl. 207; U. 8. t?. Palacio, 16 Phil. Isl. 
660; U. 8. V. Lampano, 13 Phil. Isl. 
409; U. 8. t?. Kosel, 10 Phil. Isl. 409; 
Brittein v. Gorman, 42 Utah 586, 133 
P. 370; 8. t?. Bitter, 74 Wash. 649, 134 
P. 492; Ogden V. Bradshaw (Wis.), 150 
N. W. 399. 

Oroas-comidaint. — Bradford v. Wegg 
(Ind. App.), 102 N. E. 845. 

Defective complaint aided by proof. 

A complaint though fatally defective, 
may, if not properly objected to, be 
so aided by the proof as to enable the 
court on appeal to consider it. 8erra 
f?. Mortiga, 204 U. 8. 470, 27 8up. Ct. 
343, 51 L. ed. 571; U. 8. V. Destrito, 
23 PhU. Isl. 28. 

Waiver not binding on appellate court. 
Court is not required to ignore the in- 
firmities of a complaint which has not 
been challenged below. Fairbanks v, 
Warrum (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 983. 
No Jurladiction in the court must result 
as a consequence of the failure to state 
a cause of action. 8mith v, Greene, 
187 Mo. App. 210, 173 8. W. 705. 
2S4-72 Pishbaugh v. Beeler, 15 Ariz. 
119, 136 P. 1057 (answer not sufficient- 
ly particular as to items of payment); 
Southern Pac. Co. v, Santa Cru« (Cal. 
App.), 145 P. 736; 8urbaugh V. But- 
terfield, 44 Utah 446, 140 P. 757. 
Sufficiency of demnrrer in form and 
Bubatance must be attacked below. Dre- 
bing V, Zahrt, 55 Ind. App. 492, 104 
N. E. 46. 

Treating an aflirmatlve defenae as a 
counterclaim cannot be cause for objec- 
tion on appeal unless raised below. 
Zindorf v. Tillotson (Wash.), 145 P. 
587. 

The suffictency of answer In dander 

as averring the truth of the matters 
spoken, must be questioned below. Vil- 
leret v, Jeflfer, 131 La. 1017, 60 8. 669. 
254-73 Webb v. Deadwyler, 142 Ga. 
422, 83 8. E. 99; McDuffee f?. Hayden- 
Coeur D'Alene Irr. Co., 25 Idaho 370. 
138 P. 603; Hatchett t?. Blacketer, 168 
Ky. 266, 172 8. W. 533. 
255-75 Akron Milling Co. v. Leiter 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. B. 99. 
255-76 HoUer v. 8. (Ind.), 106 N. 
E. 364; Bobinson v. 8., 177 Ind. 263, 



67 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



97 N. E. 929; Akron Milling Co. t?. 
Leiter (Ind. App.), 107 N. B. 99; 
Adams v. Helman (Ind. App.), 106 N. 
£. 733. 

255-7T Southern B. Co. <?. Brewster, 
9 Ala. App. 597, 63 S. 790; Brevard 
Naval Stores Co. v. Commercial Bank 
(Fla.), 64 S. 943. 

256-78 Birmingham By. L. & P. Co. 

V, Roach (Ala.), 66 S. 82; Louisville 
& N. R. Co. t?. Kay, 8 Ala. App. 562, 
62 S. 1014; Hastaran v. Marchand, 23 
Cal. App. 126, 137 P. 297; Rice v. 
Eatonton (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 868; 
Eorrest V. Roper Furniture Co. (HI.), 
108 N. E. 328; Pittsburg, etc. R. Co. 
V, Crockett (Ind.), 106 N. E. 875; 
Mississippi Central B. Co. v, Robinson 
(Miss.), 64 8. 838; Brown v. St. Joseph 
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 935; Lams v. Fish, 
86 N. J. L. 321, 90 A. 1105; James v. 
Hood (N. M.), 142 P. 162; Miele v. 
Rosenblatt, 164 App. Div. 604, 150 N. 
Y. 8. 323; 8. v. Heavener (N. C), 83 
S. E. 732; Roberts t?. Wilkins, 40 Okla. 
138, 137 P. Ill; U. 8. t?. Mabanag, 1 
Phil. Isl. 441; 8. v. Connelly, 34 8. D. 
520, 149 N. W. 360; King County v, 
Martin (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 960; 
Francis v, Cornelius (Tex. Civ.), 173 
8. W. 947; Jefferson Cotton Oil & F. 
Co. V, Pridgen & Congleton (Tex. Civ.), 
172 8. W. 739; Lyman v. James, 87 
Vt. 486, 89 A. 932; Griffin v. Boston & 
M. R.Co., 87 Vt. 278, 89 A. 220. 
Illegal evidence though not objected to 
below, will not be given the same 
weight on appeal as legal evidence. 
McLester Bldg. Co. v, Upchurch, 180 
Ala. 23, 60 8. 173. 
Fonn of Interrogatories. — Objection to 
the form of interrogatories must be 
made at the time they are submitted. 
Inland Steel Co. v, Kiessling (Ind.), 
108 N. E. 232. 

256-79 Simoneau r. Pac. Elec. R. Co., 
166 Cal. 264, 136 P. 544. 

256-80 Gilley v, Denman, 185 Ala. 
561, 64 S. 97; Fidelity, etc. Ins. Co. 
fJ. Friedman (Ark.), 174 8. W. 215; 
Gavrilutz v. Savage, 166 App. Div. 309, 
151 N. Y. S. 808; Muskogee Elec. Tract. 
Co. V, Mclntire, 37 Okla. 684, 133 P. 
213. 

Competency of experts. — ^Huntsville r. 
Pulley (Ala.), 65 S. 405. 

257-81 Oliver t?. Oliver (Ala.), 65 
8. 373; Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. 
r. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 8. 584; Shaw 
V, Cleveland, 5 Ala. App. 333, 59 8. 



534; Stevens v. S. (Ark.), 174 8. W. 
219; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. t?. 
Cella (Conn.), 91 A. 972; Jones v. 
Rome (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 593; P. c. 
Spira, 264 111. 243, 106 N. E. 241; 
Marks v. Box, 54 Ind. App. 487, 103 
N. E. 27; Hollenback c. Stone & Web- 
ster Eng. Corp., 46 Mont. 559, 129 P. 
1058; James v. Hood (N. M.), 142 P. 
162; Tilghman t?. R. Co., 167 N. C. 163, 
83 8. E. 315, 1090; Anderson f?. Meier 
& Frank Co., 68 Or. 21, 136 P. 660; 
Glens Falls Ins. Co. t?. Melott (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 8. W. 700; Houston, etc. R. 
Co. V. Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. 
W. 619; National U. F. Ins. Co. v. 
Burkholder, 116 Va. 942, 83 8, E. 
404; Holdsworth v, Blyth & Fargo Co. 
(Wyo.), 146 P. 603. 

257-82 Cox f?. Moore, 142 Ga. 487, 
83 8. E. 115- Martin v, Rome (Ga. 
App.), 83 8. E. 872; Cohen f. Reich- 
man, 55 Ind. App. 164, 102 N. E. 2S4; 
McGuire v. Smith, 54 Ind. App. 509, 103 
N. E. 71; Sullenbarger r. Ahrens (la.), 
150 N. W. 71; Noyes v, Meharry, 213 
Mass. 598, 100 N. E. 1090; Trzebietow- 
ski V, Jereski, 159 Wis. 190, 149 N. W. 
743. 

258-83 Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
R. Co. V, Hayes (Ind.), 104 N. E. 581; 
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 
Hayes (Ind.), 102 N. E. 34; McCray 
V. Whitney (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 979. 

258-84 Gamble-Robinson Com. Co. 
V. Union Pac. R. Co., 262 111. 400, 104 
N. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 89. 

258-86 Lincoln i\ Chicago & A. R. 
Co., 262 111. 98, 104 N. E. 282; Schwan- 
enfeldt v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 186 
Mo. App. 588, 174 8. W. 143. 

258-87 Halstead f. Olney J. Dean 
& Co. (Ind.), 105 N. E. 903; Texas & 
P. R. Co. r. White (Tex. Civ.), 174 
8. W. 953, 

258-88 • Pevton r. Shoe Co., 167 N. 
C. 280, 83 S. E. 487; Houston, E. & 
W. T. R. Co. V. Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 
173 8. W. 619. 

Improperly Impeached. — ^Boone County 
Lumb. Co. r. Niedermeyer, 187 Mo. 
App. 180, 173 S. W. 57. 

259-90 Mercantile Trust Co. r. Doe 
(Cal. App.), 146 P. 692; Walsh v. Cold 
Storage Co., 260 111. 322, 103 N. E. 
185; Carney v. Marquette Min. Co., 260 
111. 220, 103 N. E. 204; Brunnworth t:. 
Kerens-Donnewald C. Co., 260 111. 202, 
103 N. E. 178; Louisville & 8. I. Tract. 



68 



APPEALS 



Tol. 2 



Co. V, Lloyd (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 
519; Seewald v. Schmidt, 127 Minn. 
375, 149 N. W. 655; Mosher r. Sut- 
ton's New Theater Co., 48 Mont. 137, 
137 P. 534. 

259-91 Morris v. Beyman, 55 Ind. 
App. 112, 103 N. E. 423; Person r. 
Ames (la.), 150 N. W. 450; Pell r. 
Northwest, etc. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355, 

149 N. W. 358. 

259-92 Webber v. Billings (Mich.), 

150 N. W. 332; Amberg r. Kinley 
(N. Y.), 108 N. E. 830; P. r. Harris, 
87 Misc. 266, 150 N. Y. S. 557. 

259-94 That party was piematnrely 
forced to trial will not be considered 
on appeal unless proper objection was 
made in lower court. Braun *8 Exr. r. 
Williams, 162 Ky. 45, 171 S. W. 996. 

259-95 No waiver of Jury trial 
Murphy v. Fitch, 35 Okla. 364, 130 
P. 298. 

260-98 Martinez r. Medina Val. Irr. 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1035. 
Directing Jury to retire. — A party de- 
siring the jury to retire during any 
stage of the trial should request the 
samoy otherwise he cannot complain 
of the court's failure to direct the jury 
so to do. Gillet i*. Shaw, 217 Mass. 59, 
104 N. E. 719. 

260^99 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. r. 
Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644^ 66 S. 
942; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Mason, 
10 Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154; McCaskey 
Begister Co. r. Nix Drug Co., 7 Ala. 
App. 309, 61 S. 484; Appel v. Chicago 
City E. Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. E. 
1021; Hamilton, Harris & Co. t'. Lar- 
rimer (Ind.), 105 N. E. 43 (improper 
conduct of counsel in the examination 
of witness must be objected to below) ; 
Kiogan & Co. v. King, 179 Ind. 285, 100 
X. E. 1044; Domestic Block Coal Co. 
T. Holden (Ind. App.), 103 N. E, 73; 
Boss V. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S. W. 
36; Lawrence v. Board of Councilmen, 
162 Ky. 528, 172 S. W. 953; Perkins 
r. Baker, 41 Okla. 288, 137 P. 661; Mis- 
souri, K. & T. B. Co. V, Long (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 329; Andrews r. Free 
(UUh), 146 P. 555. See also vol. 2, 
p. 829. 

2e0-2 King v, Bobinson, 5 Ala. App. 
431, 59 S. 371; Borinson v. Woodward, 
88 Misc 116, 151 N. Y. S. 655; Ferebee 
T. R. Co., 167 N. C. 290, 83 S. E. 360; 
Yellowday r. Perkinson, 167 N. C. 144, 
83 S. E. 341. 
260-3 Boberson r. S. (Ga. App.), 



S3 S. E. 877; Le^wi8 V, Fountain (N. C), 
84 S. E. 278; Williams v, Phelps (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1100. See S. r. Apple- 
gate, 28 N. D. 395, 149 N. W. 356. 

261-4 Delta Lumb. Co. t\ Schwarz 
Wheel Co., 218 Fed. 85; Birmingham 
By., L. & P. Co. r. Simpson, 177 Ala. 
475, 59 8. 213; Tate f?. Holly, 25 Colo. 
App. 218, 138 P. 64; Denver t?. Borkc, 
25 Colo. App. 127, 135 P. 1191; Mc- 
Whorter v. Ford, 142 Ga. 554, 83 8. E. 
134; Wheeler v. Gilmore & P. B. Co., 
23 Ida. 479, 130 P. 801; State v. Pier- 
not (la.), 149 N. W. 446; S. v. Nott 
(la.), 149 N. W. 79; Bambo v. Empire 
Dist Elec. Co., 90 Kan. 390, 133 P. 
553; Boss t?. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 17* 
S. W. 36; Cheek v. C, 162 Ky. 56, 171 
S. W. 998; Thompson V. C, 122 Ky. 
501, 91 S. W. 701; Buckles v. C, 113 
Ky. 795, 68 S. W. 1084; McLellan v. 
Fuller (Mass.), 108 N. E. 180; Chase 
r. Tingdale Bros.,. 127 Minn. 401, 149 
N. W. 654; Wallace v. Weaver, 47 
Mont. 437, 133 P. 1099; B^iche v, Mor- 
rison, 47 Mont. 127, 130 P. 1074; Hol- 
lenback v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 
46 Mont. 559, 129 P. 1058; Kargmau 
v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632 90 A. 292; 
NeflP V, Hannan, 85 N. J. JL. 381, 88 A. 
1068; Corbo v East Orange & A. Land 
Co. (N. J. Eq.), 92 A. 345; Colbert v. 
Journal Pub. Co. (N. M.), 142 P. 146; 
Barefoot t?. Lee (N. C.),. 83 S. E. 247; 
Kennedy v. Goodman, 39 Okla. 470, 135 
P. 936; Mastel t?. Walker, 246 Pa. 65, 
92 A. 63; Fortney t?. Breon, 245 Pa. 
47, 91 A. 525; Cole v. Beiley (S. D.), 
150 N. W. 299; Bowden v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 174 S. W. 339; Fuller v. El Paso 
Live Stock (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 
930; Sands f?. Sedwick (Tex. Civ.), 174 
S. W. 894; Atchison, T. & S. F. B. 
Co. V. Skeen (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 
655; Keevil v. Ponsford (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 518; Jefferson Cotton Oil 
& Fertilizer Co. v, Pridgen & Congleton 
(Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 739; Martinez 
V. Medina Valley Irr. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 1035. 

A peremptory iustmction need not be 
objected to in lower court. Gulf, C. & 
S. F. By. Co. V. Higginbotham (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 482. 

Federal Employers' Liability Act. — Ob- 
jection cannot be made for the first 
time on appeal to the court's instruct- 
ing upon the Federal Employers' Lia- 
bility Act, or to the court's failure to 
compel plaintiff to elect between that 
act or the state act. Graber v, Duluth, 



69 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



S!, 8. & A. B. Co., 159 Wis. 414, 150 
N. W. 489. 

Mlarecitals of evidence in the Instruc- 
tiona cannot be urged as error on ap- 
peal where corrections not asked below. 
Moore v. Pennsylvania B. B. Co., 242 
Pa. 541, 89 A. 671. 

261-5 Varnon v, Nabors (Ala.), 66 
S. 593* Jordan v. Smith, 185 Ala. 591, 
64 S. 317; Birmingham By., L. & P. 
Co. V. Simpson, 177 Ala. 475, 59 S. 213; 
Willoaghby v. Birmingham By., L. & P. 
Co., 11 Ala. App. 611, 66 S. 887; Oliver 
V, Camp, 9 Ala. App. 232, 62 S. 469; 
Bogers v, Bogers, 57 Colo. 132, 140 P. 
193; Clark v, Aldenhoven (Colo. App.), 
143 P. 267; Makekau i\ Kane, 20 
Hawaii 203 ; Indiana Union Traction Co. 
V, Cauldwell (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 
705; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. B. Co. 
i?. Macey (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 486; 
O'Connor v. Baum, 54 Ind. App. 195, 
100 N. E. 581; Hall V. Shenandoah 
(la.), 149 N. W. 831; American Stable 
Co. V. Clarke (Mass.), 108 N. E. 1077; 
Walters v. Detroit United By. (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 1004; Barton v. Gray, 57 
Mich. 622, 24 N. W. 638; Miller v, Dela- 
ware Biver Transp. Co., 85 N. J. L. 
700, 90 A. 288; Curtis & Oartside Co. 
V. Pribyl, 38 Okla. 611, 134 P. 71; 
Moyer v, Pennsylvania B. Co., 247 Pa. 
210, 93 A. 282; Sage v, Lehigh Val. 
B. Co., 241 Pa. 49, 88 A. 77; Cole v. 
Beiley (S. D.), 150 N. W. 299; An- 
drews f?. Free (Utah), 146 P. 555. 

262-6 Parkhill v. Bekins' Van, etc. 
Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 506; Luckhurst v. 
Shroeder (Mich.), 149 N. W. 1009; 
Walters P, Detroit United By. (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 1004; Boone County Lumb. 
Co. V, Niedermeyer, 186 Mo. App. 180, 
173 S. W. 57; Daugherty v. Stocks, 185 
Mo. App. 541, 172 S. W. 616; 8. v. 
Powell, 168 N. C. 134, 83 S. E. 310. 

Explanatory charge should be re- 
quested. — In an action against a car- 
rier for wrongful ejection and assault 
and battery, a charge that "if plaintiff 
refused to pay his fare, the conductor 
had a right to eject plaintiff, using no 
more force than necessary, and you 
could not find for plaintiff," as ignor- 
ing plaintiff's right to recover though 
ejection was warranted if more force 
was used than necessary, in the ab- 
sence of a request for an explanatory 
charge. Willoughby v. Birmingham 
By., L. & P. Co., 11 Ala. App. 611, 66 
8. 887. 



Bequest that terms be defined. — ^In an 
action for injuries to a railway em- 
ploye claimed to have been due to an 
insecure handhold, where the charge 
failed to define the word "secure," if 
defendant wanted it defined it should 
have offered a special charge. Galves- 
ton, H. & S. A. B. Co. V, Boemer (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 229. 

262-7 Sanitary Dist. of Chicago t?. 
Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E. 185. 

Failure to give promised instructiona 

is an oversight which is waived if not 
called to court's attention. Williams 
V. Weekley (S. C), 84 S. E. 299. 

262-8 Clark v. Aldenhoven (Colo. 
App.), 143 P. 267; Soulier v. Daab, 85 
N. J. L. 681, 90 A. 266; Collier v. Gan- 
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179. 

263-12 Sovereign Camp W. O. W. 
f?. Latham (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749, 
751. 

263-14 Allen v. Wildman, 38 Okla. 
652, 134 P. 1102. 

Inconsistencies in the findings must be 
brought to the court's attention. Wil- 
son V, Cheshire Brass Co., 88 Conn. 118, 
89 A. 903. 

268-15 Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. 
App. 424, 129 P. 478. 

That an Issue not pleaded was deter- 
mined by the referee cannot be raised 
for the first time on appeal. Price v. 
Davis, 187 Mo. App. 1, 173 S. W. 64. 

264-16 London Irr. Canal & B. Co. 
V. Berthoud, 57 Colo. 374, 140 P. 802; 
Sullivan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. B. 
Co., 262 111. 317, 104 N. E. 707; In re 
Moore (Me.), 93 A. 180; McDowell v. 
Justice, 167 N. C. 493, 83 S. E.-803; 
United States F & G. Co. v. Ballard 
(Okla.), 145 P. 396. 
Amount of judgment. — ^No objection can 
be raised for the first time on appeal 
that the judgment is in excess of the 
amount claimed. Swope v, Sherman, 7 
Ala. App. 210, 60 S. 474. 
Order of distribution. — Objection must 
be made to an order of distribution. 
It is not sufficient that motion was 
afterward made to set the order aside. 
Pottlitzer t?. Citizens' Trust Co. (Ind. 
App.), 108 N. E. 36. 
Order appointing a receiver should be 
duly objected to below. Millikan tv 
McAlphin, 181 Ind. 482, 104 N. E. 855. 

264-19 lAck of opportunity.— Where 

the party had no opportunity to object 
to omissions in a decree, he may raise 



70 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



ike qnestion on appeal. Kuhn v, GIos, 
257 IlL 289, 100 N. E. 1003. 

264-20 Cheney v. Taber (MasB.), 
108 N. E. 1072; United Stetes P. & G. 
Co. V. Ballard (Okla.), 145 P. 396. 

265-22 Erronaoiui order vacating the 
Judgment* — Where the order vacating 
the judgment erroneously provided that 
the taxed costs in the action should be 
paid ''to the clerk," and the statute 
requires payment to be made to plain- 
tiff, the error should be made a ground 
of objection. Guaranteed Inv. Co. V, 
Van Metre, 158 Wis. 262, 149 N. W. 
30. 

265-23 An affidavit of merits on a 

motion to vacate a default judgment, 
if defective, must be objected to be- 
low. Headdings v. Gavette, 86 App. 
Div. 592, 83 N. Y. S. 1017. 8ee also 
vol. 1, p. 721, n. 21. 

266-26 Stephens v. Conley, 48 Mont 
352, 138 P. 189. 

266-27 Cox V. 8. (Tnd.), 106 N. E. 
878; S. V. StoUberg (Idinn.), 150 N. 
W. 924. 

267-31 Objections to instmctlone 
should be seasonably made. Consid- 
eration of them has been refused when 
they were interposed after argument 
(Gonzales v. £Ute [Tex. Cr.]» 171 8. 
W. 1149); after the jury retired (J. 
H. Walker ft Co. v. Norris, 10 Ala. 
App. 515, 63 8. 935); two days after 
judgment (Moore v. Cooper Mfg. Co. 
[Tex. Civ.], 171 8. W. 1034); in a 
motion for new trial. Martinez v, 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 171 8. W. 1153. 

267-32 Cliarlie's Transfer Co. v. W. 
B. Leedy & Co., 9 Ala. App. 652, 64 
S. 205; Elswick r. Deskins (W. Va.), 
83 S. E. 283. 

267-39 FizBt opportunity may be on 
appeal, etc. Kuhn r. Glos, 257 HI. 289, 
100 N. E. 1003; Pangbum r. Buick 
Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228, 105 N. E. 
423. 

Ko canae of action stated. — ^While the 
objection that the complaint does not 
state a cause of action must be con- 
sidered at any stage of the case, it 
will be received with greater favor and 
permitted a wider field of operation 
when made in due time by motion or 
answer tiian when interposed after the 
delay and expense of a trial. Carter 
r. Butler (Mo.), 174 S. W. 399; East 
St. Louia, I. & C. S. Co. v, Kuhlmann, 
238 Mo. 685, 142 S. W. 253. 



268-40 Akron Milling Co. r. Leiter 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 99. 

Validity of the contract. — The ques- 
tion of the validity of the contract 
sued upon may be presented to the 
court below by an objection to the ad- 
mission of the contract in evidence. 
Peters f. Brunswick-Balke-Callender 
Co., 6 Ala. App. 507, 60 8. 431. 

The prematore bringing of anlt is suf- 
ficiently objected to when presented by 
general demurrer; in the denials of 
the answer; in the notice of mo- 
tion for a new trial; and in the specifi- 
cations of error in the bill of excep- 
tions. Borger v, Connecticut Fire Ins. 
Co., 24 Cal. App. 696, 142 P. 115. 

A memorandnm of objections must be 
filed with the demurrer. Gifford v. Gif- 
ford (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 308. 

268-41 A motion to strike ont an 
item improperly allowed in an account- 
ing should be made, otherwise the error 
will not be reviewed. Bhees v. Coe, 91 
Kan. 493, 138 P. 576. 
Bequest to instmct Jnry. — Objection 
that evidence admitted for a particular 
purpose may have been applied by the 
jury to the substance of the case, is . 
not available on appeal where the court 
was not requested to instruct the jury 
upon the point. Templer v, Lee, 55 
Ind. App. 433, 103 N. E. 1090. 
A motion to suppress a deposition is 
not the proper method of presenting 
the question as to proof of serving no- 
tice of taking thereof. Cohen v. Belch- 
man, 55 Ind. App. 164, 102 N. E. 284. 
26S-42 Where on cross-examination 
the incompetency of witness is dis- 
closed there must be a request to strike 
out his testimony, in order to base a 
complaint on appeal. Schwanenfeldt v. 
Metropolitan B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 
S. W. 143. 

268-43 Birmingham By., L. ft P. Co. 
V. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 584; Louis- 
ville, etc. Co. V. Lottich (Tnd. App.), 
106 N. E. 903; Healey v. Perkins Mach. 
Co., 216 Mass. 75, 102 N. E. 944; Bivers 
V, Bichards, 213 Mass. 515, 100 N. E. 
745: McKennan i*. Omaha ft C. B. St. 
B. Co., 97 Neb. 281, 149 N. W. 826; 
Littieri v. Freda, 241 Pa. 21, 88 A. 82. 

268-44 Young v. Fresno Flume ft 
Irr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 286, 141 P. 29. 
Iffotion mnst be gpeciflc — ^''A general 
motion for nonsuit, that plaintiff has 
not proved a cause of action is without 
force on appeal, unless some particular 



71 



Tol. 2 



APPEALS 



defect is pointed out, or unless the de- 
fect actually existing is such that the 
omission could not have been supplied, 
if attention had been called to it." 
Troy Automobile Exchange v. Home 
Ins. Co., 164 App. Div. 761, 149 N. Y, 
S. 978. 

269-47 Form of objection sometimes 
unimportant.— If a plea is bad, it is 
unimportant that objection to it was 
raised below by motion to strike in- 
stead of by demurrer, Cain v. Osier 
(la.), 150 N. W. 17^ 

270-52 Cougar v, Buffalo Specialty 
Co. (Colo. App.), 141 P. 611; McCarty 
r. Williams (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 370; 
Eulcr r. Euler, 55 Ind. App. 547, 102 
N. E. 856; Hall V. Grand Lodge I. 0. 
O. P., 55 Ind. App. 324, 103 N. E. 
854; Boone County Lumb. Co. v, Nieder- 
meyer, 187 Mo App. 180, 173 S. W. 57; 
King County t?. Martin (Tex Civ.), 173 
8 W 960; Pecos & N. T. By. Co. v. 
Grundy (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 318; 
Shepherd V. Denver & E. G. R. Co. 
(Utah), 145 P. 296; Gay r. Gay (W. 
Va.), 83 S E. 75. 

270-53 Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ.), 
174 S. W. 331. 

* 270-54 Deslandes f?. Scales (Ala.). 
65 S. 393, Ellis v. Abbott, 69 Or. 234, 
138 P. 488. 

Defective deed.— Objections to the ad- 
mission of a deed in evidence must 
point out the defect in the deed. This 
rule does not apply in a suit to quiet 
title to land where the deed in ques- 
tion docs not purport to convey the 
land. House r. Grable, 25 Colo. App. 
405, 138 P. 1012. 

Mere objection on gronnd of variance 
will not suiEce. The party must fur- 
ther show that he is not prepared to 
meet the evidence. Louisville & S. I. 
Tract. Co. I?. Lloyd (Ind. App.), 105 
N. E. 519. 

Objection to admission of evidence 
must assert reason, and if inapt, re- 
ception cannot be complained of. Au- 
trey r. S. (Ala.), 67 S. 237. 
Beason apparent. — When, however, it is 
apparent that the objection presents 
but one question the reason for the rule 
and the rule itself ceases to apply. 
Eaton V, Klein (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 
331. 

270-55 Birmingham Rv., L. & P. Co. 
V. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 5S4; Eck- 
man v. Funderburg (Ind.), 108 N. E. 
677; Clokey p, S. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 



273; Marietta Glass Mfg. Co. r. Prnitt, 
ISO Ind. 434, 102 N. E. 339; St. AlLan 's 
Granite Co. v, Elwell & Co. (Vt.), 9J 
A. 974; Garrison r. Newark Call P. &, 
Pub. Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 690. 

270-56 Josephs f. Briant (Ark.), 172 
S. W. 1002; Pine Bluff & A. E. Co. <?. 
Washington (Ark.), 172 S. W. 872; 
Chunn v. Fire Ins. Co. (Ark.), 172 S. 
W. 837; Cummings v, Lobsitz, 42 Okla. 
704, 142 P. 993; Gay v. Gay (W. Va.), 
S3 S F 75 

270-57 Merritt v, Wyatt, 184 Ala. 
262, 63 S. 962; Swindall v. Ford, 184 
Ala. 137, 63 S. 651; Bloomington v. 
Citizens' Nat. Bank (Ind. App.), 105 
N. E. 575; Armstrong v. Stair, 217 
Mass. 534, 105 N. E. 442; Congregation 
Ohab Shalom v. Hathaway, 216 Mass. 
539, 104 N. E. 379; Sanders v. K. Co. 
(N. H.), 92 A. 546; Kipros v, Uintah 
Ry. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 292; Burling- 
ton Paper Stock Co. v. Diamond (Vt.), 
92 A. 19. 

271-58 Morton v, Clark, 10 Ala. ' 
App. 439, 65 S. 408; Oak Park t\ Swi- 
gs rt, 266 111. 60, 107 N. E. 158; Wol- 
cott V. Mongeon (Vt.), 92 A. 457. 

271-59 Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor 
(Fla.), 67 S. 169; Cummings v. Buck- 
field Branch R. R., 35 Me. 478; Carter 
V, Thompson, 15 Me. 464. 

271-60 S. V, Heavener (N. C), 83 
S. E. 732. 

271-61 Elliott V. Page, 98 S. C. 400, 
82 S. E. 620; Overton v. Colored 
Knights of Pythias (Tex. Civ.), 173 

5 W. 472. , 

272-65 Ogden v, AspinwaU (Mass.), 
107 N. E. 448. 

An "objection" is not an "excep- 
tion;" consequently the Appellate court 
will disregard a bill of exceptions 
where the defendants *' objected" to 
portions of the charge and to the re- 
fusal of the presiding judge to give the 
rulings asked. Ogden v, AspinwaU 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 448. 

272-67 In re Moore (Me.), 93 A. 
180. 

272-68 Maxwell v. Abrost Realty 
Co. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 457; Oooley 
r. Jones, etc. Mfg. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 
S. E. 232; Scott t\ American Zine, L. 

6 S. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 23; 
P. V. Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 1, 106 
N. E. 759; Lawless v. Raddis, 36 Okla. 
C16, 129 P. 711; Nelson v. St. Helens 
Timber Co., 66 Or. 570, 133 P. 1167, 



72 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



135 P. 169; Cole V. Eeiley (S. D.), 150 
N. W. 299; St. Louis Southwestern R. 
Co. V. Moore (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
904; Trabue t?. Guaranty State Bank 
(Tex, App.), 173 S. W. 612; Denton t?. 
English (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 248; 
White V. Central Vermont B. Co. (Vt.), 
89 A. 618. 

Bight to except la purely statatory. 
In re Moore (Me.), 93 A. 180; S. v, 
Martel, 103 Me. 63, 68 A. 454. 

Different rule by statute in homicide. 
People V, Tomlins (N. Y.), 107 N. E. 
496. 

273^9 Clokey v. S. (Ind.), 107 N. 
E. 273; P. V. Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 
1, 106 N. E. 759. 

Belief may be granted by appellate 
court for failure to file exception. P. 
». Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 1, 106 N. E. 
750. 

Znterpretation of the rule. — The rule 
that on appeal from a judgment in a 
eivil action only questions of law can 
be considered and that those questions 
muBt be presented by exceptions, must 
be interpreted in the light of reason, 
and is subject to certain inherent limi- 
tations, and it has no application where 
there is no opportunity for the taking 
of an exception. Pangburn v, Buick 
Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228, 105 N. E. 
423. 

278-70 P. V. Willett, 164 App. Div. 
1, 149 N. Y. S. 348; Grissom v. Beidle- 
naan, 35 Okla. 343, 129 P. 853. 
A fundamental error in instructing a 
verdict for defendant where the ad- 
mitted and proven facts show plaintiff 
entitled to a verdict, need not be as- 
signed. Neville v. Miller (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 1109. 

274-74 Tllinois Surety Co. v. S., 55 
Ind. App. 31, 103 N. E. 363; Pullen v, 
Eugene (Or.), 146 P. 822. 
A ruling sustaining a demurrer to a 
plea in abatement need not be ex- 
cepted to. S. V, Wetzel (W. Va.), 83 
8. R 68. 

275-75 Hicks v. Bevels, 142 Ga. 524^ 
83 S. E. 115. 

276-82 Gamett v. Parry Mfg. Co, 
185 Ala. 326, 64 S. 559. 
276-83 Morton v, Clark, 10 Ala. 
App. 439, 65 S. 408; Pitela V. Roublicek, 
97 Neb. 561, 150 N. W. 813. 
An imiwoper Joinder of counts, based 
on the federal and the state employers' 
liability act will not be considered on 
appeal in the absence of an exception 



"to the motion to strike out one of 
them. Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. v, 
Jones, 9 Ala. App. 499, 63 S. 693. 

277-85 Southern E. Co. v, Brewster, 
9 Ala. App. 597, 63 S. 790. 

277-00 Ortiz v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 173 
S. W. 300. 

277-91 Moapa Garden Co. v. San 
Pedro, L. A. & S. L. E. Co. (Utah), 
143 P. 218. 

Exception to refusal of nonsuit is not 
necessary where trial has resulted in 
a verdict for plaintiff and defendant 
has excepted to the verdict on ground 
of no evidence to support it, because 
the latter raises the question more ade- 
quately than the exception to the over- 
ruling of a motion for nonsuit. Hen- 
derson 17. Maysville Guano Co. (Ga. 
App.), 82 S. E. 588. 

277-93 A party who has not yet ap« 
peared when the receiver is appointed 
need not reserve an exception to the 
order making the appointment. Eyder 
V. Shea (Ind.), 108 N. E. 104. 

278-97 King v, Eobinson, 5 Ala. 
App. 431, 59 S. 371; Gast V, Barnes 
(Okla.), 143 P. 856. 
Bight to examine Jurors. — ^Erroneously 
denying counsel's right to examine a 
juror may in Connecticut be* reviewed 
without exceptions. Zalewski v. Water- 
bury Mfg. Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 682. 
That the court confused the issues can- 
not be urged on appeal where the error 
was not preserved by exception. New- 
ton's Admx. t?. American Car Sprinkler 
Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90 A. 583. 
The method adopted by trial Judge in 
inquiring into the misconduct of the 
jury cannot be urged as error on ap- 
peal unless proper exception was taken 
thereto. Beckley V. Alexander (N. H.), 
90 A. 878. 

278-98 Hamilton, Harris & Co. v, 
Larrimer (Ind.), 105 N. E. 43; Tucker 
V. Eastridge, 51 Ind. App. 632, 100 IST. 
E. 113; Spencer v. Johnson (Mich.), 
151 N. W. 684; Knock v. Tonapah & 
G. E. Co. (Nev.), 145 P. 939; Midland 
Val. E. Co. V. Larson, 41 Okla. 360, 138 
P. 173; Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 
S. W. 1128. 

Objecting party must move to take the 
case ftom Jury where his objection has 
been sustained to improper argument 
of counsel to jury, if he wishes to have 
counsel's misconduct reviewed on ap- 
peal. Fadden V. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316 
89 A. 351. 



73 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



A I 



^proper remarks of ootmsel. — ^Excep- 
tion should be made to improper re- 
marks of counsel or else request should 
be made that the jury be instructed to 
disregard them. Midland Val. B. Co. 
V. Larson, 41 Okla. 360, 138 P. 173. 

278-99 That Jury took the pleadings 

into the jury room is an objection that 
cannot be raised for the first time on 
appeal. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. V, 
Mundel, 42 Okla. 270, 141 P. 415. 

278-1 Jones v. White (Ala.), 66 S. 
605; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Eobinson 
(Ala.), 66 So. 519; Littieri v. Freda, 
241 Pa. 21, 88 A. 82; First State Bank 
17. Knox (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 894. 

279-2 Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. 
O. Hinds (Ala, App.), 60 S. 409; Har- 
ris V. Hipsley, 122 Md. 418, 89 A. 852; 
Ferebee v. Berry (N. C), 84 S. E. 262; 
Bhome Mill. Co. v. Farmers' & M. 
Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 131, 136 P. 1095; 
Newton v, American Car Sprinkler Co. 
(Vt.), 92 A. 831. 

Non-responsive answers must be ex- 
cepted to. Peyton v. Shoe Co., 167 N. 
0. 280, 83 S. E. 487. 

Where court rules conditionally on the 
admission of evidence, it being subject 
to a subsequent motion to exclude, and 
there is an exception to such ruling, 
and thereafter the court allows the 
evidence to stand and there is no ex- 
ception reserved to the admission, the 
ruling is not reviewable on appeal. 
Ballard v. Bank of Boanoke (Ala.), 65 
S. 356. 

279-S Lookout Fuel Co. v. PhiHips, 
11 Ala. App. 657, 66 S. 946; Cooley v. 
Jonos, etc. Mfg. Co. (Ga. App.), 84 S. 
E. 232. 

279-4 Wilson v Bridgforth (Mies.), 
66 S. 524. 

limitation on the purposes for which 
the evidence may be used, must be re- 
quested. Elliott V. Norfolk Southern B. 
Co., 166 N. C. 481, 82 S. E. 853. 

279-7 Blake v. Hotel & E. Co., 263 
HI. 471, 105 N. E. 323. 

280-9 But see Conrow t?. Huffine, 48 
Mont. 437, 138 P. 1094. 

280-11 Alabama T. E. Co. v. Benns 
(Ala.), 66 S. 589; Pryor v, S., 186 Ala. 
27, 65 S. 331; Wise, Boles & Bowdoin v. 
Fuller, 11 Ala. App. 427, 66 S. 827; 
Anderson v. Anniston Elee. & G, Co., 
n Ala. App. 560, 66 S. 925; Kent v. 
Cobb, 24 Colo. App. 264, 133 P. 424; 
S, V. Nott ria.), 149 N. W. 79^ Ingram 



V. Kansas City, S. & G. E. Co., 134 La> 
377, 64 S. 146; O'Hare r. Gloag (Mass.),' 
108 N. E. 566; Scott v. American Zinc, 
L.1& S. Co., 187 Mo. Adp. 344, 173 8. 
W. 23; Pe Sandro v, Missoula L. Sb W. 
Co., 48 Mont. 226, 136 P. 711; Young 
V. Missouri, O. & G. E. Cox (Okla.), 145 
P. III85 Gast V. Barnes (Okla.), 143 P. 
856; Shuler v. Hall, 42 Okla. 325, 141 
P. 280; Shuler V. Collins, 40 Okla. 126, 
136 P. 752; Weis? r. Pittsburg Eys. Co. 
(Pa.), 89 A. 586; Ziserman v. Philadel- 
phia Eapid Transit Co., 241 Pa. 13, ?S 

A. 80; Franklin V, International & G. 
N. E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 333; 
Galveston, H. ft S. A. E. Co. f?. Pat- 
terson (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 273; Hor- 
ton f?. Texas Midland E. B. (Tex. Civ.), 
171 8. W. 1023; Gulf T. & W. E. Co. f>. 
Dickey (Tex Civ.), 171 S. W. 1097; 
Henderson & Grant t?. Gilbert (Tex. 
Civ^.), 171 S. W. 304; Boyd v. San 
Pedro, L. A. & S. L. E. Co. rUtah), 146 
P. 282; Stacy v. Dolan (Vt.), 92 A. 
453. See 4 Standard Proc. 316, n. 84> 
and supplement thereto. 
Peremptory instructiona. — ^There is soms 
uncertainty in Texas as to the appli- 
cation of this rule to peremptory in- 
structions. That no exceptions need be 
taken to peremptory instructions, see 
Henderson t?. Gilbert (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. 
W. 304; Owens v, Corsicana, etc. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 169 S.W. 192. But for cases 
apparently holdinsr otherwise, see Need- 
ham V, Cooney (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
979; Eailway Co. v. Wheat (Tex. Civ.), 
173 8. W. 974; Case t?. Folsom (Tex. 
Civ.), 170 8. W. 1066; Eailway Co. V. 
Feldman (Tex. Civ.), 170 S. W. 133. 
Error first discovered on appeal 
Where, in an action on a contract, the 
court omits to charge the conceded fact 
that defendant had paid plaintiff a 
small sum on the contract, and the 
error is not discovered until after the 
argument in the appellate court the 
error will not be grround for reversal, 
but a remittitur will be ordered and the 
judgment affirmed. Moden v. Superin- 
tendents of Poor (Mich.), 149 N. W. 
1064. 

An 'error in tbe instmctiona may be 
saved by proper exception taken to the 
same error in rulings on the evidence. 
Ginzler v, Birmingham, 6 Ala. App. 
666, 60 8. 976. 

280-12 8. V. Williams (N. C), 83 8. 

B. 714; Miller V. Western Union Tel. 
Co., 167 N. C. 315, 83 8. E. 482; Horn- 
thai V. Norfolk Southern B. Co., 167 N. 



74 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



C. 627, 82 S. E. 830; EQison v. Tel. 
Co., 163 N. C. 5, 79 S. E. 277; Young 
c. Missonri, O. ft G. B. Co. (Okla.), 145 
P. 1118; Clark v. Morier (S. D.) 150 
K. W. 475. 

Instmctloiis become the law, of the 
case when not excepted to. Clark v. 
Mosier (S. D.), 150 N. W. 475. 

280-13 Jordan v. Smith, 185 Ala. 
591, 64 8. 317; McLellan v. Fuller 
(Haas.). 108 K. E. 180; Quinn v, Mfg. 
Co. (Minn.) 150 N. W. 919; Rade- 
maeher v. Pioneer Tractor Mfg. Co., 
127 Minn. 172, 149 N. W. 24; Ford V, 
Wanamaker (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. 8, 
795. 

281-14 Given v. Johnson, 213 Mass. 
251, 100 K. E. 369; Miller v. Western 
rnion Tel. Co., 167 N. C. 315, 83 8. E. 
482; James 9. Golson (Tex. Civ.), 174 
S. W. 688. 

281-16 Pine Bluff & A. B. B. Co. v. 
Washington (Ark.), 172 8. W. 872; 
Pulliam V. Adams, 142 Ga. 523, 83 S. 
E. 121; Barefoot v. Lee (N. C), 83 8. 
K 247; Way v. Lyric Theater Co., 79 
Wash. 275, 140 P. 320. 
General exception lUnstrated. — ^An ex- 
ception to part of a charge as a whole 
"and to each sentence thereof separ- 
ately and severally'' is a general ex- 
ception, and is not to any particular 
part, the charge not being wholly bad. 
Han V. 8., 11 Ala. App. 95, 65 8. 427. 

281-lT Zalewski v. Waterbury Mfg. 
Co. (Conn.), 92 A. 682. 

281-18 Watson v, Hecla Min. Co., 79 
Wash. 383, 140 P. 317. 

282-21 Yarbrongh v. Pellissier 
(Wash.), 145 P. 81. 

New triaL — ^The denial of a motion for 
a new trial must be excepted to. Henry 
V. 8piUer, 67 Fla. 146, 64 8. 745. 

282-24 Judson v. Phelps, 87 Conn. 
495, 89 A. 161; Newman v. Homer, 55 
Ind. App. 298. 103 N. E. 411; Walker 
c. Brooklyn (Mich.), 151 N. W. 628; 
Blanchard Bros, v, Beveridge (N. J. 
Eq.), 92 A. 384; Stroberg v. Merrill, 67 
Or. 409, 135 P. 335; Yarbrough v. Pell- 
issier (Wash.), 145 P. 81. 

The exception admits for the purposes 
thereof that the facts are true and 
eorreetly found. Harrell v, Neill (Ind. 
App.), 105 N. E. 926; 8. v, Jackson, 52 
Ind. App. 254^ 100 N. E. 479. 

282-2S Town of Sheridan v. Boths- 
chUd, 181 Ind. 405, 104 N. E. 66; Met- 
ealf V. Storey, 80 Wash. 119, 141 P. 



315; Francis v. Brown (Wyo.), 145 P. 
750. 

Pure conclusion of law.— A finding that 
a former judgment was not res adjudi- 
cata, being purely a conclusion of law, 
is reviewable even in the absence or 
exception. Jones v, Bevillard, 209 N. 
Y. 446, 103 N. E. 719. 

To challenge a conclusion of law no ex- 
ception is necessary. Under Wis. 
8t., §2405, the court is not com- 
pelled in any case to sit still and 
see a miscarriage of justice go uncor- 
rected simply because of a failure to 
file an exception. In re Footers Will, 
159 Wis. 179, 149 N. W. 738. 

282-26 Barnes v. Noel (Tenn.), 174 
8. W. 276; Eailroad Co. i?. Johnson, 114 
Tenn. 632, 88 8. W. 169. 

283-28 Moapa Garden Co. v. 8an 
Pedro, L. A. & 8. L. B. Co. (Utah), 
143 P. 218, granting nonsuit must be 
excepted to. 

28a-29 A referee's finding of fact 
has the effect of a special verdict and 
by analogy can be reviewed, in the first 
instance, only by the trial court. North- 
rop Nat. Bank v. Webster Bef. Co., 91 
Kan. 434, 138 P. 587. 

28a-30 Harrigan v. Dodge, 216 Mass. 
461, 103 N. E. 919; Eandall v. Moody, 
87 Vt. 68, 88 A. 321; Williams u. 8. M. 
8mith Ins. Co. (W. Va.), 84 8. E. 235. 

283-32 Phipps V Wise Hotel Co., 116 
Va. 739, 82 8. E. 681. 

283-33 Pangburn v. Motor Co., 211 
N. Y. 228, 106 N. E. 423. 

284-34 P. V. Journal, 213 N. T. 1, 
106 N. E. 759; Francis v. Brown (Wyo.), 
145 P. 750. 

An exception to a Judgment as not 
warranted by the findings does not raise 
the question as to whether the findings 
are warranted by the evidence. Wol- 
cott V. Mongeon (Vt.), 92 A. 457. 
285-38 The denial of a motion for 
a new trial must be duly excepted to. 
Jones V. Jones, 43 Okla. 361, 143 P. 
37. 

285-40 Meeker v. Waddle (Wash.), 
145 P. 967. 

285-43 Levert <?. 8hirley Planting 
Co., 135 La. 209, 65 8. 111. 

Exceptions to findings must be filed be- 
fore judgment on the findings in order 
that the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support them may be considered. St. 
George v, Tilley, 87 Vt. 427, 89 A. 



75 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



474. Within five davs after party ac- 
quires iiotice of findings. Meeker r. 
Waddle (Wash.), 145 P. 967. 

285-44 Written exception le neces- 
sary to a decision in a jury waived 
cased. Nahaolelua i*. Heen, 20 Hawaii 
613. 



Central Fonndry Co. V. Laird 
(Ala.), 66"^ S. 571; Fairbanks r. War- 
rom (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 983; Akeley 
V, Carpenter, 87 Vt. 248, 88 A. 897. 

286-49 P. V, Koensgen (HI.), 106 N. 
E. 840; Fairbanks v, Warrum (Ind. 
App.), 104 N. E. 983. 

286-50 Motion to exclude an Im- 
proper statement of counsel must be 
made in order to rely upon it as error. 
Jackson v. S., 11 Ala. App. 303, 66 S. 
877; McCaskey Register Co. v. Nix 
Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 309, 61 S. 484; 
Birmingham Ry. L, & P. Co. V, Gon- 
zales (Ala. App.), 61 S. 80. 

286-51 Congregation Ohab Shalom «?. 
Hathaway, 216 Mass. 539, 104 N. E. 
379; St. Laurent v, Manchester St. Ry. 
(N. H.), 92 A. 959. 

Expected proof. — An exception to the 
exclusion of evidence must state what 
the testimony was expected to be, save 
v.- hero the appellate court knows what 
the party expected to prove. Coolidge 
t\ Boston Elevated R. Co., 214 Mass. 
568, 102 N. E. 74. 

287-52 Territory t?. Furomori, 20 
Hawaii 344; Hamilton v. Boston Elc- 
vpted R. Co., 213 Mass. 420, 100 N. E. 
604; Newton V, American Car Sprinkler 
Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 831; Seeley v. Central 
Vt. R. Co. (Vt.), 92 A. 28. 

If bnt one proposition of law is con- 
tained in the instruction a general ex- 
ception will suffice. Burchmore r. Ant- 
lers Hotel Co., 54 Colo. 314, 130 P. 
846. 

287-53 Granite Falls State Bank i?. 
Ryan, 80 Wash. 243, 141 P. 354. 

Exceptions to a master's report must 
give the grounds upon which they are 
based. Randall v. Moody, 87 Vt. 68, 
88 A. 321. 

r87-54 Wolcott <?. Mongeon (Vt.), 
92 A. 457. 

287-55 Sloss^heflfield S. & I. Co. v. 
Dunn, 9 Ala. App. 524, 63 S. 812; Hasse 
V. Herring, 36 Colo. 383, 85 P. 629. 

288-59 Misleading instructions. 

*'If defendant thout'ht an instruction 
capable of an erroneous construction. 



it should have made a specific objection 
to it on that ground. Garretson-Orco- 
son Lumb. Co. V. Goza (Ark.), 172 S. W. 
825. 

288-60 In re Moore (Me.), 93 A. 
l.^'O; Kerr r. ShurtleflP, 218 Mass. 167, 
105 N. E. 871; White's Admx. v. Rail- 
road, 87 Vt. 330, 89 A. "618. 

288-63 A joint exception must be 
good as to all the parties. Haynes r. 
Johnson (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 164. 

288-65 McDuffie & Sons v. Weeks, 9 
Ala. App. 282, 63 S. 739; Daggs r. 
Howard Sheep Co. (Ariz.), 145 P. 140; 
Monaghan r. Green, 265 111. 233, 106 
N. E. 792; State Exchange Bank v. 
Paul (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 532; Blose 
17. Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 548; 
Pittsburg Ry. r. Macy (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 486; Kost f. R. Co. (la.), 149 N. 
W. 851; Price V. Davis, 187 Mo. App. 
1, 173 S. W. 64; Muskogee v, Irvln 
(Okla.), 145 P. 415; Nidiffer r. Nidiffer 
(Okla.), 144 P. 350; Maddox v. Bar- 
rett (Okla.), 143 P. 673; Jones r. Jones, 
43 Okl. 361, 143 P. 37; S. v, Connelly, 
34 S. D. 520, 149 N. W. 360. 
A motion for a new trial cannot be em- 
ployed as a means of bringing to ap- 
pellate court for review any matter ac- 
cruing during trial to which no ob- 
jection was made. Bradley v. Bradley, 
123 Md. 506, 91 A. 685. 

291-85 The filing of a motion for 

appeal effects the appeal and transfers 
the cause to the supreme court. Alfred 
t\ Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90 A. 580. 
Leave of cbanceller to file a motion 
for appeal is only necessary in fore- 
closure proceedings, and where the de- 
cree was entered pro confesso. Gove t?. 
Gove's Admr., 87 Vt. 468, 89 A. 868.- 
292-89 Miami Copper Co. v, Strohl, 
14 Ariz. 410, 130 P. 605. 
298-92 Coxe Bros. & Co. t?. Foley 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85. 
293-96 TJpshaw t?. S., 11 Ala. Apn. 
310, 66 S. 821; Hartfield v. Aldcrcte, 25 
Cal. App. 732, 145 P. 146; Griflin r. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 174 S, W. 351. 
293-97 Benjamin t?. Ernst (Wash.), 
145 P. 79. 

293-98 Texas. — As to procedure in 
Texas. See Tyler Bldg. & L. Assn. t?. 
Biard (Tex.), 171 S. W. 1122. 
294-1 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. i\ James 
(Miss.), 67 S. 152. 

295-8 In re Laing, 48 Okla. W8, 143 
P. 665. 



78 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



Attom^yB mentioned- as movers. 
Where it ia clear from a reading of a 
motion of appeal that the appeal is be- 
ing taken on behalf of a real party 
in interest, the appeal will not be dis- 
missed on the ground that the attor- 
neys mentioned their own names as the 
movers in the motion for a^^peal. Brown 
r. Green, 132 La. 1090, 62 S. 154. 
SoAdency of designation. — ^Where a 
motion of appeal irives the names of 
eonnsel for defendant, then recites 
that the "mover'' desires to appeal, 
the word mover being in the singular 
must refer to defendant. McCormick 
r. Alfred S. Americo Co., 131 La. 220, 
r9 S. 127. 

Failure t4> style the cause on appeal 
plaintiff in error and defendant in er- 
ror will not cause a dismissal. In re 
Laing (Okla.), 143 P. 6C5. 

296-12 Cast r. Barnes (Okla.), 143 
P. 856; Maddoz r. Barrett (Okla.), 143 
P. 673. 

A petition in error must set forth the 
errors complained of in a concise, spe- 
cific manner. Hopley v, Benton, 38 
Okla. 223, 132 P. 808; Wilson t'. Mann, 
37 Okla. 475, 132 P. 487; Perkins r. 
Perkins, 37 Okla. 693, 132 P. 1097. 

296-14 Failure to verify the appli- 
eation for writ of error, when verifica- 
tion is required, will justify a rescission 
of the order of appeal. Landry f?. Poir- 
rier, 135 La. 731, 66 S. 163. 

297-19 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v, 

James (Miss.), 67 S. 152. 

298-29 State r. Childress, 127 Minn. 
533, 149 N. W. 550. 

299-32 8pybuck Drainage Bist. No. 
1 r. St. Francis County (Ark.), 172 S. 
W. 893. 

299-33 In Alabama upon the filing 
of a proper statement of appeal the 
elerk of the trial court is required to 
forward to the clerk of the proper ap- 
pellate court a certificate of appeal. 
Upahaw r. S., 11 Ala. App. 310, 66 S. 
821. 

809-41 PttWc officers may defend 
the rights of the state without prepay- 
ment of costs on appeal. Coon v. Som- 
mercamp (Ida.), 146 P. 728. 

301-46 Blose r. Myers (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 548; Walton v. Boss (W. Va.), 
84 S. E. 245. 

301-47 Order of Calanthe r. Arm- 
strong, 7 Ala. App. 378, 62 S. 269; Blair 
r. Brownstone Oil k Befining Co., lOS 



Cal. 632, 143 P. 1022; McDonald r. Mc- 
Donald, 168 Cal. 433. 143 P. 726; Title 
Ins. & Tr. Co. r, California Develop. Co., 
168 Cal. 897, 143 P. 723; Hartfiold v. 
Alderete, 25 Cal. App. 732, 145 P. 146; 
Behrensmeyer f. Gwinn, 25 Ida. 186, 136 
P. 623; People's Bank r. De Soto Hdw. 
Co., 135 La. 1027, 66 S. 349; Commer- 
cial Kat. Bank v, Sanders, 132 La. 174, 
61 S. 155; Monk t?. Quarles, 105 Miss. 
895, 63 S. 298; Crawford f?. Lees (N. 
J. Eq.), 93 A. 201; Muskogee Electrl 
Tract. Co. t\ Howenstine, 40 Okla. 543, 
138 P. 381, 139 P. 524; Rhome Mill Co. 
r. Farmers* & M. Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 
131, 136 P. 1C95; Lord's Ore. Laws, 
§550, subd. 5, as amended by laws 1913, 
p. 618; McCann r. Burns (Or.), 136 P. 
659; P. R. Code Civ. Proc, §295; Davila 
r. Barriero, 20 P. R. 43. 
The general statutes regulating the 
commencement of ordinary actions, as 
affected by the statute of limitations, 
apply by analogy to proceedings in 
error. Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co. 
V. Davis (Okla.), 145 P. 337. 
802-48 School Dist. t?. Mackcy 
(Okla.), 144 P. 1032; Wood v, McEwrn 
(Okla.), 144 P. 590; Phillipps t\ Dill- 
ingham (Okla.), 144 P. 363; Caswell v, 
Eaton, 43 Okla. 718, 770, 144 P. 591; 
Western Union Tel. Co. t?. Dabyns, 41 
Okla. 403, 138 P. 570, appeal from ai 
order sustaining a demurrer must be 
taken within one year. 
If the judgment is already appealed 
from by a party entitled to appeal, 
another party appealing from the same 
judgment must do so within ten days 
after service upon him of notice of 
the prior appeal. Carstens t?. Seattle 
(Wash.), 146 P. 381. 
Appeals under the alternative method 
provided for in the California code 
may be taken within six months where 
no notice of entry of judgment is 
served. Hartfield t\ Alderete, 25 Cal. 
App. 732, 145 P. 146. 

302-49 Farmers' & M. State Bank 
t?. Cox, 40 Okla. 307, 138 P. 148; Stacey 
V, McNicholas (Or.), 144 P. 96. 
Appeal from order appointing a re- 
ceiver must be taken within t'.'n da^s. 
Lamb v. Alexander (Okla.), 146 P. 443. 
Appeal from order discharging attach- 
ment must be taken within thirty days. 
Bates-Fulkerson Co. t?. Freeman (Okla.>, 
146 P. 1082; Kennedy Merc. Co. f. Dob- 
son, 40 Okla. 306, 138 P. 147. 

302-61 Six months. — Anderson r. 
Limerick, 43 Okla. 484, 143 P. 183 



77 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



302-52 Bowen f?. Wilson (Kan.), 144 
P. 251, an appeal taken more than six 
months from the rendition of judgment 
held too late. 

303-S3 Order of Calanthe v. Arm- 
strong, 7 Ala. App. 378, 62 S. 269. 

303-59 Bickley v. Hays, 183 Ala. 
606, 62 S. 767; Scott v. First Nat. Bank, 
178 Ala. 272, 59 S. 303; Allen v. Gar- 
ner (Utah), 143 P. 228. 

303-60 Ventimiglia v. Eichner, 213 
N. Y. 147, 107 N. E. 48. 
No final decision. — ^Where judgment be- 
low did not finally dispose of case and 
it does not appear from record or bill 
of exceptions that the case is not pend- 
ing in court below the appeal is pre- 
mature and will be dismissed. White 
Prov. Co. V, Nashville, etc. R. Co., 142 
Ga. 855, 83 S. E. 943. 

303-61 Upshaw v. S., 11 Ala. App. 
310, 66 • 8. 821; Tort v. White (Ind. 
App.), 108 N. E. 27; Shay v. Horn (Ind. 
App.), 106 N. E. 544; W. C. Hall Mill- 
ing Co. V, Hewes (Ind. App.), 105 N. 
E. 241; Ward V. Pittsburg Silver Peak 
Gold Min. Co. (Nev.), 143 P. 119; Hol- 
combe t?. Lawyers' Co. -Op. Pub. Co. 
(Okla.), 143 P. 1046; Bodovitz v. Camp- 
bell, 43 Okla. 644, 143 P. 661; Colter 
V. Martin, 43 Okla. 618, 143 P. 660; 
Comanche Merc. Co. <?. Curlee Cloth- 
ing Co. (Okla.), 143 P. 190; Grier 
D. Durham, 43 Okla. 527. 143 P. 169; 
Bomano v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 
201; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. V. Stapp 
(Tex Civ.), 171 S. W. 1080; Gove V. 
Gove's Admr., 87 Vt. 468, 89 A. 868. 

304-62 Oberly v. fiarris (Okla.), 
143 P. 663; Sanders -P. Hart, 35 Okla. 
212, 130 P. 284. 

304-63 Allen v. Garner (Utah), 143 
P. 228. 

305-67 St. Louis & 8. F. B. Co. v. 
Nelson, 40 Okla. 143, 136 P. 590; Bhome 
Mill. Co. V. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank, 
40 Okla. 131, 136 P. 1095; Gvosdanovic 
fj. Harris, 38 Okla. 787, 134 P. 28; State 
Sav. Bank v. Bedden, 38 Okla. 444, 134 
P. 20; Powell v. Johnson-Larimer D. 
G. Co., 35 Okla. 644, 130 P. 945; Hon- 
ley t\ First Nat. Bank, 35 Okla. 649, 
130 P. 945; Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 
35 Okla. 439, 130 P. 138. 
Substitution of personal representative. 
Time begins from such substitution. 
McCann v. Burns (Or.), 136 P. 659. 
305-68 Moyer v. De Witt, 166 Cal. 
780, 135 P. 1126; Behrensmeyer t?. 
Gwinn, 25 Ida. 186, 136 P. 623. . . 



Porto Bico.— Code Civ. Proc, §295. 
306-70 Cathin v. Vandegrift (Colo.), 

144 P. 894; Terre Haute I. & E. Tract. 
Co. V, Beeves (Ind. App.), 108 N. B. 
275; Book v. Strauss Bros. Co. (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 692; Huber v. Tielk- 
ing, 55 Ind. App. 577, 103 N. E. 853, 
104 N. E. 314; Audia V. Denver & B. G. 
B. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 559; Lindley r. 
Bradshaw (Utah), 141 P. 300. 

An nnnecessary motion for new trial 
cannot extend the time for appeal. 
Bowen v. Wilson (Kan.), 144 P. 251; 
St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. v. Nelson, 40 
Okla. 143, 136 P. 590; Cowart v. Parker 
Washington Co., 40 Okla. 56, 136 P. 
153. 

306-74 Arzuaga <?. Boe, 20 P. R. 
292; Torres i\ Calaf, 17 P. B. 1137. 
Written notice required. — The notice of 
entry of judgment required to start 
the statute running is a written one. 
Hartfield v. Alderete, 25 Cal. App. 732, 

145 P. 146. 

306-75 American Trust Co. v. Cres- 
cent Ice Co., 133 La. 247, 62 8. 664. 

308-85 Scott V. Linder, 18 Hawaii 7. 

308-91 Terre Haute I. & E. Tract. 
Co. r. Beeves (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 
275. 

Accident, mistake and unforeseen cause 
may excuse delay in appealing. Kenyon 
V. Hayhurst (R. I.), 89 A. 15. But the 
supreme court is not authorized to al- 
low an appeal when the right has been 
lost through any of these causes. Gove 
V. Gove's Admr., 87 Vt. 468, 89 A. 868. 
308-93 Terre Haute I. ft £. Tract.' 
Co. V. Beeves (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 
275. 

310-4 Thomas f. Speese, 14 Ariz. 
556, 132 P. 1137; Garner v. Meizel, 22 
Cal. App. 256, 133 P. 1165; Griffin r. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 351; Dibert V. 
Peterson (Wash.), 145 P. 589. 
Notice pot lndiq;>en8able. — The giving 
of notice Is not an indispensable step 
in taking an appeal. It does not serve 
any higher purpose than a summons 
and its entire absence can be waived. 
Stephens V. Conley, 48 Mont. 352, 138 
P. 189. 

310-5 Spaulding Mfg. Co\ v, Baek- 
holtz, 40 Okla. 54, 135 P. 1052. 
310-6 Citation of appeal is neces- 
sary where the petition is filed after 
the term at which the judgment was 
rendered, or in vacation or at a subse- 
quent term. .Succession of Morris, 136 
La. 69, 66 S. 542. 



78 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



311-8 Commercial Nat. Bank r. San- 
ders, 132 La. 174, 61 8. 155. 

311-8 Smith v. Hibben (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 40. 

812-10 a €. Oleott* 67 Or. 214. 135 
P. 95, 902. 

812-11 Jones €. MoGinnis (Ind. 
App.), 103 N. E. 853; Lane v. Went- 
worth, 69 Or. 242. 133 P. 348, 138 P. 
468; Martinez v Succession of Laurido, 
21 P. B. 29; Candelas v. Bamirez, 20 P. 
B. 31; Andnjar €. Alonso, 17 P. B. 410; 
Allen r. Gamer (Utah), 143 P. 228. 

Porto Rico,— Code Civ. Proc, J296. 
The court must be furnished by the 
clerk with a copy of the notice of ap* 
peal. Coon v, Sommercamp (Ida.), 146 
P. 728. . \ ^., 

312-13 Kissler €. Moss^ 26 Ida. 516, 
144 P. 647. * 

312-16 Smith v. Hibben (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 40; Bowles t?. (^ooney 
(Okla.), 146 P. 221. ; 

313-17 Jackson r. b^perior Court, 
20 Cal. App. 638, 120 P. 946; Templeton 
r. Morrison. 66 Or. 493, 131 P. 319, 135 
P. 95; Smith v. Bums (Or.), 135 P. 
200 (holding that this rule does not 
apply except in cases where one judg- 
ment debtor can call upon another for 
contribution in case he is compelled 
to pay all of the judgment); Candelas 
r. Bamires, 20 P. B. 31. , , 

813-18 Jaques v. Board of Suprs., 22 
Cal. App. 627, 135 P. 686. , 

Filed witb secretary of lower court 
P. B. Code CiT. Proc, (296; Candelas 
V. Bamirez, 20 P. B. 31. \ 

813-19 Jackson v, Superior Court, 20 
CaL App. 638, 129 P. 946; Candelas f. 
Bamirez, 20 P. B. 31; Aponte t?. Freirea, 
19 P. B. 1104. 

An adverse party is a party whose in- 
terest in the judgment appealed from 
is in conflict with the modiflleation or 
reversal sought by appellant. Smith v. 
Burns (Or.), 135 P. 200. 

313-21 'Where Judgment is against 
one defendant only, who appeals, his 
co-defendant is not an adverse party 
within the meaning of (940 Code Civ. 
Proc., and notice of appeal need not be 
served upon him. Jackson v, Superior 
Court, 20 Cal. App. 638, 129 P. 946. 

314-24 Fraley f>. Hoban, 69 Or. 180, 
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751. 

Dealgnmtiiig improper appellate conrt 
in the notice of appeal does not vitiate 



v- 'V 



the notice, for in such case the appeal 
may be considered by the proper court. 
Du Tungco V. Barrera, 5 Phil. Isl. 125. 

314-25 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180, 
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751. 

314-26 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180, 
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751. 

314-27 Ewart Lumb. Co. v. Ameri- 
can Cement P. Co., 9 Ala. App. 152, 62 
a 560; Stephens ©. Conley, 48 Mont. 
852, 138 P. 189; Lecher v. St. Johns 
(Or.), 146 P. 87. 

The undertaking on appeal may be ex- 
amined to supply the defects of the 
notice of appeaJ which failed to desig- 
nate the judgment appealed from. Hel- 
ton V. Helton, 64 Or. 290, 129 P. 532. 
Incorrect date. — Where the judgment 
appealed from is otherwise identified, 
the giving in the notice of an incorrect 
date of entry of the judgment will not 
invalidate the appeal. Wilson v. Un- 
ion Iron Wks. D. D. Co., 167 Cal. 539, 
140 P. 250: 

315-29 Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180, 
133 P. 1190, 137 P. 751. 

315-33 Title Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Cali- 
fornia Develop. Co., 168 Cal. 397, 143 
P. 723. 

Issuance by appellate clerk. — ^A notice 
to co-parties issued by the clerk of ap- 
pellate court is sufficient. Jones v, Mc- 
Ginnis (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 353. 
A person other than the appellant or 
bl8 attorney may be authorized by 
these latter to sign the attorney's name 
to the notice of appeal. Howard cu 
Hartford F. Ins. Co. (Or.), 144 P. 450. 

316-39 By dierlff. — A notice to co- 
parties may be served by sheriff. Jones 
V. McGinnis (Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 353. 

317-43 Bechtell v. Central Station 
Eng. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 73. 

317-45 Cal. Code Civ. Proc, |941h. 
317-46 Bechtell v. Central Station 
Eng. Co. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 73; Coxe Co. 
r. Foley (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; 
Clinton & 0. W. Ry. Co. r. Dean, 40 
Okla. 51, 135 P. 1067; Page v. Sherman 
(Or.), 143 P. 1115. 

317-48 Quintero v. Morales, 19 P. B. 
1120, held good ground for dismissal 
if not so served where practicable. 

319-60 Planters Trading Co. v. 
Moore, 7 Ala. App. 393, 62 S. 302; In 
re Great Southern Lumb. Co., 132 La. 
989, 62 S. 117. 

320-62 A written acceptance of 



79 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



service of petition and order of appeal 
upon a petition of appeal implies a 
waiver of citation of appeal. In te 
Great Southern Lumb. Co., 132 La. 989, 
62 S. 117. 

320-65 Proctor v. Jeffery (Or.), 144 
P. 1192, 

320-66 Coxe Co. t?. Foley (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 85; Childers v. La- 
han, 18 N. M. 487, 138 P. 202. 
323-76 Quilter v. Kearns, 135 La. 
807, 66 S. 229. 

323-78 Motion pleading prescrip- 
tion. — A motion to dismisB on tha 
ground that the appeal was not talien 
in time will constitute an appearance. 
Commercial Nat. Bank t?. Sanders, 132 
La. 174, 61 S. 155. 

324-86 So an order of revivor in 
the trial court, made after the appeal 
has been perfected, is of no force. Las- 
seter v. Deas, 9 Ala. App. 564, 63 S. 
735; Durbrow f?. Chesley, 23 Cal. App. 
627, 138 P. 917; McCandless v. Carter, 
18 Hawaii 218; Yazoo & M. V. E. Co. 
r. Teissier, 135 La. 19, 64 S. 928; S. t\ 
Cobb, 134 La. 207, 63 S. 877; Board of 
Comrs. V, Concordia Land & T. Co., 
132 La. 915, 61 S. 869; Board of Comrs. 
V. Farmer-Wren L. Co., 132 La. 916, 61 
S. 870; Board of Comrs. v, Howard L. 
& T. Co., 132 La. 911, 61 S. 868. 
Matters not disposed of. — ^Where an ap- 
peal has been allowed from a judgment 
which clearly and definitely disposed 
of only one of the matters set up in the 
pleading the parties to the suit may 
proceed with reference to the other 
matters not disposed of by the judg- 
ment. Martel v, Peterman, 136 La. 14, 
66 S. 381. 

An appeal from a- non-appealable order 
and a supersedeas bond given thereon 
do not deprive the trial court of juris- 
diction to proceed further in the case. 
Velin r. Lauer Bros. (Minn.), 150 N. 
W. 169. 

324-87 Colburn t\ Williams (Ariz.), 
141 P. 120; Pruett i*. Charlotte Power 
Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 S. E. 830. 
325-89 Dinwiddle t\ Shipman (Tnd.), 
108 N. E. 228. 

Suspe:ids judgment, etc. C. t*. Burdo 
(Mass.), 106 N. E. 550. 
326-90 Henry v, Whitehurst, 66 Pla. 
567, 64 S. 233. 
326-92 Freare r. Rosenbledt, 20 

Hawaii 682. 

326-93 A recovery of property sold 



under a decree cannot be had by the 
purchaser pendimg appeal. Pillsbury t?. 
McGarry, 69 Or. 261, 138 P. 836; 

327-1 McLaughlin v, Beyer, 181 Ala. 
427, 61 S. 62. 

327-2 Button r. S., 123 Md. 373, 91 
A. 417; ' Farris v. Baptist Church 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 955. 

327-6 Farris v. Baptist Church 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 955. 
327-7 Farris v. Baptist Church 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 955. 
328-10 Liesny v. Metropolitan Life 
Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. S. 1057. 
328-12 Continuing injunction. — Ap- 
peal does not have effect to continue in- 
junction beyond time fixed by court for 
its duration. Biggins r. Thompson, 96 
Tex. 154, 71 S. W. 14; Ft. Worth St. B. 
Co. V, Rosedale St. B. Co., 68 Tex. 163, 
7 S. W. 381; Sanders V, Bledsoe (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 539. 
329-17 A void Judgment may dur- 
ing the term at which the trial was 
had, be vacated, notwithstanding an 
appeal is pending. Scott v. Watkins, 
25 Colo. App. 340, 138 P. 432. 
330-24 First Nat. Bank v. Acme Co.- 
Op. Brick & T. Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 
607; Martel v. Peterman, 136 La. 14, 
66 S. 381. 

330-26 S. t\ Childress, 127 Minn. 533, 
149 N. W. 550. 

331-30 Cook r. Suburban Realty Co., 
20 Cal. App. 538, 129 P. 801; Helms v. 
Cook (Ind. App.), 108 X. E. 147; Smith 
r. Hibben (Ind. App'.), 107 N. E. 40; 
Succession of Morris, 136 La. 69, 66 S. 
542; Frederick v. Marx, 127 La. 149, 
53 S. 474; Thorne v. Harris, 35 Okla. 
645, 130 P. 906; Honley t?. First Nat. 
Bank, 35 Okla. 649, 130 P. 945; Mar- 
tinez V. Succession of Laurido, 21 P. R. 
29; Candelas v. Ramirez, 20 P. R. 31. 
Premature appeal is ground for dis- 
missal. White Prov. Co. v. Nashville R. 
Co., 142 Ga, 855, 83 S. E. 943. 
Effect of Joinder in error. — A joinder in 
error is an unequivocal act implying 
a submission by the appellee to the 
jurisdiction of the appellate court, and 
amounts to a waiver of an appeal, and 
of any steps required to effectuate it. 
Coats V. M. J. Elkan & Co., 7 Ala. App. 
187, 60 S. 941. 

331-32 Pruett v. Charlotte Power 
Co., 167 N. C. 598, 83 S. E. 830. 
Failure to except to a non-suit does 



80 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



not deprive the appellate court of jur- 
isdiction of an appeal from the order. 
P. r. Journal, 213 N. Y. 1, 106 N. E. 
759. 

331-34 S. V, Cobb, 134 La. 207, 63 
S. 877. 

332-42 Bacord on sabseqaent appeal 
consists of the record on file in the 
previous appeal, together with a copy 
of 80 much of the proceedings of the 
lower court as have taken place since 
the cause was remanded on th^a first ap- 
peal. Carey «. Hawaiian Lumb. Mills, 
21 Hawaii 506. 

334-52 ComitB to wUch damnrrer la 
sustained, if in the record, may be con- 
sidered in ascertaining whether an 
amended declaration states a new cause 
of action. Vogrin v. American Steel 
k W. Co., 263 111. 474, 105 N. E. 332. 
Camp. Bedington v. Oomwell, 90 Cal* 
49, 27 P. 40. 

Most be part of lower record. — ''A 
pleading merely tendered and not filed 
or made a part of the record of the 
lower court by an order of that court, 
although copied into the record by the 
clerk, is not a part of the record, and 
cannot be considered on appeal." C. v, 
Pittsburg By. Co., 163 Ky. 645, 174 S. 
W. 29, dt. National Concrete C. Co. v. 
Duvall, 150 Ky. 192, 150 S. W. 46; 
Lewis' Admr. v. B. Co., 147 Ky. 460, 
144 S. W. 377, 39 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 929; 
McGrew's Ezr. r. Congleton, 139 Ky. 
515, 102 S. W. 1185; Weimer's Admr. 
V Smith, 30 Ky. L. B. 1311, 101 8. W. 
327. 

33S-53 Bray v. Lowery, 163 Cal. 256, 
124 Pac. 1004; New Albany r. Strack 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 547. See Boca 
ft L. B. Co. r. Sierra Val. B. Co., 2 Cal. 
App. 546, 84 P. 298. But see Beding- 
ton V, Com well, 90 Cal. 49, 27 P. 40. 

335-55 Continental Casualty Co. v* 
Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398, 64 S. 619; Ten- 
nessee Val. Bank v, S. M. ATery ft 
Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 S. 813; P. r. 
American Life Ins. Co. (HI.), 108 N. 
E. 679; Mann V. Brown, 263 HI. 394, 
105 N. E. 328. 

335-57 Contra, Henry v. Monte- 
zuma W, ft L. Co., 55 Colo. 182, 133 P. 
747. 

Ineofporatlng motions in record. — Mo- 
tions of all sorts by which judicial ac- 
tion is invoked during the progress of 
the trial and the rulings thereon are 
not parts of the record proper, and 



their incorporation therein does not 
make them such. They should be set 
out in a bill of exceptions. Ex parte 
Watters, 180 Ala. 523, 61 S. 904. 

336-58 P. L. Turner Beal Estate Co. 
t\ Anson (Wyo.), 142 P. 1052. 

337-62 Stagway v. Biker (N. J. L.), 
88 A. 1067. 

337-63 The judgment roll is no part 
of the record on appeal from an order 
vacating a default judgment. Beller v. 
Le Bouef (Mont.), 145 P. 945; Emer- 
son V. McNair, 28 Mont. 578, 73 P. 121. 

338-68 S. €. Powell, 184 Ala. 46, 63 
S. 542; In re Shirey's Estate, 167 Cal. 
193, 138 P. 994; Hicks Merc. Co, v. 
Mu8gN)ve (Miss.), 67 S. 213; Liles r. 
May, 105 Miss. 807, 63 S. 217; Glass v, 
Gould, 41 Okla. 424, 138 P. 796; Coach 
t?. Gage, 70 Or. 182, 138 P. 847. 

338-70 Chambers r. Land Credit 
Trust Co., 92 Kan. 1032, 142 P. 248. 

339-74 In re He Laveaga's Est., 165 
Cal. 607, 133 P. 307; Katterhenry r. 
Ai;^nsman (Ind.), 108 N. E. 101; Hin- 
shaw t?. Security Trust Co., 48 Ind. App. 
351, 93 N. E. 567. 

339-75 Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 
142 P. 996. 

340-80 Polkinghorn v, Biverside 
Portland C. Co., 24 Cal. App. 615, 142 
P. 140. 

840-81 Pantaze v. West, 7 Ala. App. 
599, 61 S. 42; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 
257, 142 P. 996; Gulf, etc. B. Co. v. 
Higginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 

482. 

340-82 Hofreiter «. Schwabland, 72 
Wash. -314, 130 P. 364. 

340-84 Noblesville Business Men's 
Assn. 17. Capital Furniture Mfg. Co. 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Bacon v. 
George, 216 Mass. 519, 104 N. E. 382; 
Jones V, Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 142 P. 996; 
Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla. 
439, 130 P. 138; Nelson f». St. Helens, 
Timber Co., 66 Or. 570, 133 P. 1167, 135 
P. 169. 

Notice of motion for a new trial is no 
part of the record. Cross r. Mayo, 167 
Cal. 594, 140 P. 283. 

341-86 Bradley v. Bradley, 123 Md. 
506, 91 A. 685. 

341-91 Cable v. Myers, 43 Okla. 302, 
142 P. 1114. 

342-93 Nelms v. S. (Ark.), 174 S. 
W. 233; Zalewski v. Waterbury Mfg. 



81 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Co. (Oonn.)i 92 A. 682. See also vol. 

4, p. 292. 

342-95 McCall Co. 9. Smith (Ark.), 
173 S. W. 845. 

342-2 Mason v. Harlow, 92 Kan. 
1042, 142 P. 243; Oklahoma Pire Ins. 
Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 65 
Bean v, Atkins (Vt.), 8y A. 643. 
343-3 Upshaw v, S., 11 Ala. App. 
810, 66 S. 821; Swope <?. Sherman, 7 
Ala. App. 210, 60 S. 474; Marsicano v. 
Phillips, 6 Ala. App. 229, 60 S. 553; 
Bean v. Northern Trust Co., 259 111. 
148, 102 N. E. 244; Ev^nsville Furni- 
ture Co. V, Fruman (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 27; Dennis v. Independent School 
Dist. (la.), 148 N. W. 1011; Pile v. 
Bank tff Flemington (Mo. App.), 173 

5. W. 60. 

Consolidating actions. — The record 
must show that court refused upon 
motion to consolidate actions, or the 
error will be waived. Trabue v. Guar- 
anty State Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
612. 

345-11 Properly organized tribunal. 
Record must show that the court ren- 
dering the decision was properly or- 
ganized pursuant to law. Allen v, 
Scruggs (Ala.), 67 S. 301; Commission- 
ers' Court V. Ballard, 4 Ala. App. 310, 
59 S. 191. 

345-12 That circuit court had appel- 
late Jurisdiction in the cause must be 
shown where that court had no original 
jurisdiction in the matter. Illinois 
Central B. Co. r. Burleson, 4 Ala. App. 
384, 59 S. 230. 

346-16 Order of Calanthe «. Arm- 
strong, 7 Ala. App. 378, 62 S. 269. 

On collateral attack, a general recital 
in the judgment entry, of legal notice 
by publication, is sufficient to support 
the judgment. McMahan t?. Browne, 
185 Ala. 272, 64 S. 553; White v. Simp- 
son, 124 Ala. 238, 27 S. 297; Soulard 
r. Vacuum Oil Co., 109 Ala. 387, 19 
S. 414. 

Constructive notice. — ^Where the notice 
to a defendant is constructive only 
and he does not appear, the facts con- 
stituting a compliance with the statute 
must be proved to and found by the 
court to have been done; and on ap- 
peal the record must show it. Mc- 
Mahan f?. Brown, 185 Ala, 272, 64 S. 
553; White f?. Simpson, 107 Ala. 386, 
18 S. 151; Diston v. Hood, 83 Ala. 331, 
3 S. 746. 
:;47-20 Joinder of issue.— The rec- 



ord need not show a joinder of issue 
between the parties. Craddock v. 
Walden, 184 Ala. 58, 63 S. 534. 

?^'^'^K ^*^ ^' Cardwell, 5 Ala. App. 
481, 59 S. 514; Graves v. Jenkins (Ind. 
App.), 108 N. E. 531. 

347-22 Shanan v. Brown, 179 Ala. 
425, 60 S. 891; Sovereign Camp. W. O. 
W. f?. Jones, 11 Ala. App. 433, 66 S. 

348-24 Where the original pleading 
is necessary to a determination of the 
propriety of the amendment, it may be 
considered on the appeal if in the rec- 
ord. Redington v, Cornwell, 90 Cal. 49, 
27 Pac. 40. Comp. Bray t?. Lowery, 163 
Cal. 256, 124 P. 1004. 

348-27 Warble v, Sulzberger Co., 185 
Ala. 603, 64 S. 361; General Accident 
Fire & L. Ins. Co. v. Shields, 9 Ala. 
App. 214, 62 S. 400; SulUvan r. Brown, 
67 Fla. 133, 64 S. 455; Bottema v. 
Tracy (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741. 

A recital in the Judgment entry that 
demurrers were overruled not sufficient. 
Glenn Befining Co. v, Webster, 5 Ala. 
App. 441, 59 S. 717. 

A recital in the minutes of the court 
will not present for review a ruling 
upon demurrer. White v. Steele, 5 
Ala. App. 532, 59 S. 713. 
Bulings upon the demurrers must be 
shown, otherwise the appellate court 
cannot pass upon the sufficiency of the 
pleading demurred to. Prattville Cot- 
ton Mills Co. V. McKinney, 178 Ala. 
554, 59 S. 498. 

349-34 McDuffie & Sons v. Weeks, 9 
Ala. App. 282, 63 8. 739; Eckler v. 
Wake, 87 Conn. 708, 88 A. 369; St. 
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Kendle, 
163 Ky. 146, 173 S. W. 373. 

350-37 Goulding Fertilizer Co. v. 
Johnson, 65 Fla. 195, 61 S. 441; Sul- 
livan V. Atchison, T. & S. F. B. Co., 
262 HI. 317, 104 N. E. 707; Noblesville 
Assn. t?. Capital Furniture Mfg. Co. 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 85; Evansville 
Furniture Co. f?. Freeman (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 27. See also 4 Standard 
Prog. 306, and supplement thereto. 

350-38 Buford r. Graden, 5 Ala. 
App. 421, 59 S. 368. 
350-39 Glenn Befining Co. v. Wes- 
ter, 5 Ala. App. 441, 59 S. 717: S. v, 
Connelly, 34 S. D. 520, 149 N. W. 360. 
A rule of the trial court» set out in 
the record and authenticated by the 
certificate of the judge who sat in the 
case, is properly before the appellate 



8? 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



eoart Wagner v. Freeny, 123 Md. 24, 
90 A. 774. 

351-40 O'Hare i^. Gloag (Mass.), 
108 N. £. 566; Oliver v. Pettaconsett 
Const Co., 36 B. I. 477, 90 A. 764. 

351-41 Barnes & Jessnp Co. v. Wil- 
liams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 S. 787. 

351-43 Stamps v, Thomas, 7 Ala. 
App. 622, 62 S. 314; Hall r. CardweU, 
5 Ala. App. 481, 59 8. 514; Lyons v, 
Armstrong, 142 6a. 257, 82 S. E. 651; 
Selectmen v. Elwell, 219 Mass. 287, 
106 N. E. 994; Taft v. Henry, 219 Mass. 
78, 106 N. E. 553; Hicks Merc. Co. i'. 
MusgroTe (Miss.), 67 S. 213; Elm City 
Lumb. Co. r. Childerhose, 167 N. C. 
34, 83 S. £. 22; Stout v. Railroad, 157 
N. C. 366, 72 8. E. 993; Graham v. At- 
wood, 41 Okla. 30, 136 P. 1080; Worrell 
t. Fellows, 39 Okla. 769, 136 P. 750; 
Gault t?. Thurmond, 39 Okla. 673, 136 
P. 742; Homeland Bealty Co. r. Bob- 
ison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P. 585; Jones 
r. State Bank, 39 Okla. 393, 135 P. 
373; Palmer V. Clemens Horst Co., 66 
Or. 33, 133 P. 634; Laughlin v. Mt. 
Carmel & Locust Gap Transit Co., 241 
Pa. 281, 88 A. 441; International Dev. 
Co. t?. Sanger, 75 Wash. 546, 135 P. 28; 
Iowa State Sav. Bank t?. Henry (Wyo.),* 
136 P. 86^. See also 4 Stakdasd Pboc. 
307, and supplement thereto. 
352-44 Brannon f7. Birmingham, 177 
Ala. 419, 59 S. 63; Continental G. Co. 
r. Milbrat, 10 Ala. App. 351, 65 S. 425 ; 
McCray v. Whitney (Ind. App.), 104 
N". E. 979; Van Arsdale -Osborne Brok- 
erage Co. V, Wiley, 40 Okla. 651, 140 
P. 153; In re Colling 's Guardianship, 
40 Okla. 629, 140 P. 141; Clark t?. 
Moaer (S, D.), 150 N. W. 475; Fred- 
erick t?. Morse (Vt.), 92 A. 16. 

When all tlie evldeiiee is not Incor- 
porated, only matters which do not re- 
quire an examination of the evidence 
can be determined by the supreme 
court. Casner «?. Streit, 42 Okla. 710, 
142 P. 1004; Weleetka Light & Water 
Co. V. Castleborry, 42 Okla. 745, 142 P. 
1006. * " 

Ezdnded docnmentaxy evidence cannot 
be considered on appeal even though 
incorporated in the abstract. Schworm 
r. Fraternal Bankers' Beserve Soc. 
(la.), 150 N. W. 714. 

A literal rebearsal of aU the testimony 

will be considered only on the ques- 
tions of directed verdict and non- 
sait Oliver v. Grande Bonde Grain 
Co. (Or.), 142 P. 541. . 



The fact that no stenographer was 
present at the taking of testimony 
does not prevent the parties from in- 
corporating such evidence in the rec- 
ord. Wood V. MaCain, 84 0. D. 544, 
149 N. W. 426. 

352-47 Ewton v. McCracken, 9 Ala. 
App. 619, 64 S. 177. 

352-48 Hale v. Tennessee Coal, Iron 
& B. Co., 183 Ala. 507, 62 S. 783; Fair- 
banks V. Warrum (Ind. App.), 104 N. 
E. 983; Blodgett v. Ahem, 217 Mass. 
262, 104 N. E. 484; Supreme Lodge v. 
Liberty Trust Co., 215 Mass. 27, 102 
N. E. 96; Mathews v, Colburn, 215 
Mass. 571, 102 N. E. 941; Kaufman i;. 
Butte, 48 Mont. 400, 138 P. 770; First 
N^t. Life Assur. Soc. t?. Farquhar, 75 
Wash. 667, 135 P. 619. 

353-49 Lyons v. Armstrong, 142 Ga. 
257, 82 S. E. 651; Oliver v, Grande 
Bonde Grain Co. (Or.), 142 P. 541. 
353-51 Miller v. Armstrong-Land on 
Co., 53 Ind. App. 501, 102 N. E. 47; 
Cassanova v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 173 S. .W. 
662. 

858-52 Hutto v. Gamer, 7 Ala. App. 
412, 61 S. 477; Houston, etc. B. Co. 
r. Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
619. 

354-53 McLaughlin v. Beyer, 181 
Ala. 427, 61 S. 62; Owen v. Alabama 
Great Southern By., 181 Ala. 552, 61 
S. 924; Middlebrooks v. Sanders, 180 
Ala. 407, 61 S. 898. 
355-56 General Accident Fire & Life 
Ins. Co. V. Shields, 9 Ala. App. 214, 62 
S. 400; Louisville & N. By. Co. v. Shep- 
herd, 7 Ala. App. 496, 61 S. 14; Ottum- 
wa f7. McCarthy Imp. Co. (la.), 1'50 
K W. 586; Com. v. Segee, 218 Mass. 
501, 106 N. E. 173. 

355-57 Handley v, Shaffer, 177 Ala. 
636, 59 S. 286; Birmingham By., L. & 
P. Co. V. Canfleld, 177 Ala. 422, 59 
S. 217; Central of Georgia B. V. Mathis, 
9 Ala. App. 643, 64 S. 197. 
358-65 Ewart Lumb. Co. v. American 
Cement P. Co. (Ala. App.), 62 S. 560; 
Torson v. Beckley, 20 Hawaii 406; 
Suloj V, Betlaw Mines Co. (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 18; Patterson v. State Bank, 
55 Ind. App. 331, 102 N. E. 880; St. 
Albans Granite Co. v. El well & Co. 
(Vt.), 92 A. 974. 

A charge not made part of the bill 
of exceptions cannot be considered on 
review though printed in the record. 
Smith V. Granite Co., 118 Me, 297 98 
A. 103. 



83 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Necessity for numbering Insirnetlons. 
While the practice of submitting 
charges without numbering them is to 
be condemned^ yet the failure to do 
so does not relieve the appellate court 
from the duty of considering t^em. 
The appellee or the appellate court 
may number them for reference. Cen- 
tral of Georgia Ry. Co. v, Stewart, 178 
Ala. 651, 59 S. 507. 

A strict constmction will be given a 
statute providing that all instructions 
requested, whether given or refused, 
and all instructions, given by the court 
of its own motion, shall be filed with 
the clerk, and unless the record af- 
firmatively shows that the instructions 
were filed in accordance therewith, 
such instructions are not a part of the 
record and cannot be considered on ap- 
peal. Suloj V. Betlaw Mines Co. (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 18. 

358-66 Baltimore Ss 0. S. W. B. Co. 
V, McCord (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 516. 

359-67 Brown v, S., 11 Ala; App. 
321, 66 S. 829; Marsicano v, Phillips, 
6 Ala. App. 229, 60 8. 553 : Indianapolis 
Traction & Term. Co. v. Gillaspy (Ind. 
I App.), 105 N. E. 242; Burrus v. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 981. See also 4 
Standard Prog. 316, and supplement 
thereto. 

359-68 Hodge v. Toyah, etc. Trr. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 334; Stephen- 
ville, N. & St. B. Co. r. Wheat (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 974. 
360-71 Bridgman v. Boss (Ala. 
App.), 64 S. 173; Mondioli r. American 
Bldg. Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 577. 

360-74 Gumm v, Ferguson, 71 Or. 
66, 142 P. 341. 

Special findings not authorized by law. 
Findings not assigned as error, and 
which were made sometime after the 
judgment was rendered and subsequent 
to the signing of the bill of exceptions 
will not be considered. Wells v. Louis- 
ville & N. R. Co., 6 Ala. App. 579, 
59 S. 343. 

360-77 English f?. English (Ind. 
App.), 106 N. E. 643; Shuler v. Collins, 
4C Okla. 126, 136 P. 752; Shives f?. Froh- 
berg, 40 Okla. 85, 136 P. 399; Walton 
V. Kennamer, 39 Okla. 629, 136 P. 584; 
Iowa S. Sav. Bank r. Henry (Wyo.), 
136 P. 863. 

361-78 Bottema r. Tracy (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 741; Mangan v. 
Woodward <Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 121. 



361-79 Cross v. -Mayo, 167 Cal. 594, 
140 P. 283. 

362-80 Alabama Great Southern By. 
r. Taylor, 7 Ala. App. 683, 61 S. 475; 
Mobley v. Chicago, B. I. ft P. B. Co. 
(Okla.), 145 P. 321; Jones v. Bilby, 43 
Okla. 330, 143 P. 330. 

362-81 Where waiyer of notice of 
entry of tlie Judgment is claimed, the 
record must show sufficient facts to 
constitute a waiver. Hughes Mfg. fr 
Lumb. Co. r. Elliott, 167 CaL 494, 140 
P. 17. 

Suffidenoy of showing. — ^The conclusion 
reached by the trial court is sufficient- 
ly shown where the bill of exceptions 
states that the court "handed down 
a judgment for the plaintiff Peters 
V, Brunswick -Balke-Callender Co., 6 
Ala. App. 507, 60 S. 431. 

362-82 The voltintary character of 
a nonsuit is sufficiently shown 'where 
it appears that a demurrer was sus- 
tained to the complaint for a defect 
which went to the whole cause of 
action. Ex parte Martin, ISO Ala. 620, 
61 S. 905. 

362-83 Shockman t\ Buthruff, 28 N. 
D. 597, 149 N. W. 680. 
Waiver ef written notice of entry of 
Judgment must be shown by the record. 
Hartfield v. Alderete, 25 Cal. App. 732, 
145 P. 146. 

363-85 Beason v. Gray (Ala.), 66 8. 
646 (bill of exceptions not signed in 
time, stricken out); P. €. Bosenwaid, 
266 Bl. 548, 107 N. B. 854; English r. 
English (Ind.), 107 N. E. 547; Graves 
r. Jenkins (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 531; 
Waddle v. Smith (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 
537. See also 4 Standasd Pboo. 370, 
n. 54. 

Identifying bill of ezceptionB. — ^The file 
mark of the clerk is alone insufficient 
to ' identify the bill of exceptions and 
make it a part of the record, but it 
may be a means of such identification 
when taken in connection with the 
order book entry and the judge's cer- 
tificate. Thompson t?. Michigan Mut. 
Life Ins. Co. (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 
780. 

363-86 Catlin v, Yandegrift (Colo.), 
144 P. 894. 

Filing Of affidavit for appeal need not 
be shown upon the record. Spybuck 
Drainage Diet. No. 1 v. St. Francis 
County (Ark.), 172 S. W. 893, 

363-88 Bothlisberger r. Hamblin, 15 
Ariz. 274, 138. P, 14, 



84 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



S6d-S0 Snmpter r. First Nat. Bk., 
67 FU. 413^ 65 S. 458. 

S64-90 fimith r. Algona Lumb. Co. 
(Or.), 136 P. 7. 

364-93 Contents of.— ^ee Mangan 17. 
Woodward (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 131. 
Poxm of abstract. — A copy of the full 
record does not meet the requirement 
as to an abstract. Johnson v, Ambur> 
sen Hydranlic Const. Co. (Mo. App.), 
173 8. W. 1081. See the title "State- 
ment and Abstract of Case." 

36e-96 Todd i^. Carter, 43 Okla. 238, 
142 P. 996; O'Donnell v. McCool, 81 
Wash. 452, 142 P. 1135. 

366-97 Bartlett f. Lee, 136 La. 41, 
66 S. 390; Hicks Merc. Co. !?. Musgrove 
(Miss.), 67 8. 213. 

366-99 Baca f. Unknown Heirs of 
Jacinto Palaez (N. M.), 146 P.^ 945. 
The court may ordsr the appellant to 
farnish a copy of the stenographer's 
minutes for the purpose of his appeal. 
Gray V. Mossman, 88 Conn. 247. 90 A. 
938. 

867-4 Praecipe limits tbe record* 
Only such papers and entries as are 
mentioned in the praecipe are properly 
a part of the record on appeal. Any 
paper or entry not mentioned in such 
praecipe is no part of the record, even 
if copied into the transcript and cer- 
tified by the clerk. King v. Steel Co., 
177 Ind. 201, 96 N. E. 337, 97 N. E. 
529; Guynn t\ Newman, 174 Ind. 161, 
90 N. E. 759; Workman v, S., 165 Ind. 
42, 73 N. E. 917; Boos i?. Lang, 163 
Ind. 445, 71 N. E. 120; Alexandria v. 
Ldebler, 162 Ind. 438, 70 N. E. 512; 
McCaslin v. Advance Mfg. Co., 155 Ind. 
298, 58 N. E. 67; King v. Hoover (Ind. 
App.), 105 N. E. 172; Holtz v. Trust 
Co., 53 Ind. App. 194, 100 K. E. 398. 

S67-7 Twiggs r. Williams, 98 8. C. 

431, 82 8. E. 676. 

Date of trlaL— The date of the trial 

should be shown by the abstract since 

sneh date is sometimes material in 

passing upon the evidence. Dake v. 

Ward (la.), 150 N. W. 60. 

367-9 Xoblesville Assn. v. Capital 

Parniture Mfg. Co. (Ind. App.), 107 

N. E. 85. 

367-10 Baca r. Unknown Heirs of 

Jacinto Palaez (N. M.), 146 P. 945; 

Glass r. Gould, 41 Okla. 424, 138 P. 

796; Twigps t?. Williams, 98 8. C. 431, 

82 8« E. 676. 

The printed record must be in substan- 

tial coBformity with the settled case. 



where the sufficiency of the evidence 
to sustain the verdict is challenged. 
Watre v. Great Northern E. Co., 127 
Minn. 118, 149 N. W. 18. 

368-14 Baca i\ Unknown Heirs of 
Jacinto Palaez (N. M.), 146 P. 045. 

869-15 Exhibits not xrroperly identi- 
fied as having been, received in evi- 
dence, and bearing no indication that 
they were filed with the clerk of the 
trial court, will not be considered. Mc- 
Farland r. Oregon Elec. B. Co. (Or.), 
138 P. 458. 

869-16 Chambers r. Land Credit 
Trust Co., 92 Kan. 1032, 142 P. 248. 

370-22 Marsicano v, Phillips, 6 Ala. 
App. 229, 60 8. 553; Hoopeston Drain- 
age Dist. t?. Honeywell, 259 111. 145, 102 
N. E. 297: Flatter r. 8. (Ind.), 107 
N. E. 9. 

Absence of bill of exceptions. — ^Where 
the transcript contains no bill of ex- 
ceptions, and the proceedings shown by 
the record proper are regular and sus- 
tain a conviction* the conviction must 
be affirmed. Webb r. S., 11 Ala. App. 
306, 66 8. 870; Davis v. 8., 11 Ala. 
App. 679, 66 8. 913. 

870-24 Bullenbarger v. Ahrens (Ia.)» 
150 N. W. 71; Twiggs v. Williams, 98 
8. C. 431, 82 8. E. 676. 

Time for binding tbe transcript. — ^Where 
the law requiring the transcript to be 
bound does not specify the time for 
such binding, it must be done before 
filing in the appellate court. King v» 
Hoover (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 172. 

370-26 Mitchell v. Mason, 65 Pla. 
208, 61 8. 579: Twiggs v. Williams, 98 
8. C. 431, 82 8. E. 676. 

371-28 Union Trust & Sav. Bank r. 
Amery, 81 Wash. 133, 142 P. 492. 

371-29 Hudgins r. Pickens County, 
9 Ala. App. 228, 62 8. 995; George 
Gifford Co. v. Willman, 187 Mo. App. 
29, 173 8. W. 53. 

371-31 Lowenberg r. L. Jacobson's 
Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734; 
Makateh v, 8., 5 Okla. Cr. 34, 113 P. 
200; Rail Grain Co. v. First State 
Bank, 39 Okla. 786, 136 P. 744; For- 
tune V. Parks, 29 Okla. 698, 119 P. 
134; Bruce r. Casey -Swasey Co., 13 
Okla. '554, 75 P. 280. 

372-33 Daniels v, Butler (Ia.)j 149 
N. W. 265. 

Wlien Judge may certify transcriptr 
Where the transcript of the record pre- 
pared consists entirely of the papers 



85 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



constituting the judgment roll it is 
properly certified by the clerk. The 
only transcript which the judge is re- 
quired or authorized to certify is that 
containing the testimony and other pro- 
ceedings which are had in the trial of 
issues of fact. Jaques r. Board of 
Suprs., 22 €al. App. 627, 135 P. 686. 

372-34 Casner c. Streit, 42 Okla. 
710, 142 P. 1004. 

372-35 Carter Coal Co. v. Clouse, 
163 Ky. 337, 173 S. W. 794. 

Contradicting Judge's certificate 

Judge's certificate showing proper fil- 
ing cannot be contradicted by sten- 
ographer's certificate. Carter Coal Co. 
t*. Clouse, l63 Ky. 337, 173 S. W. 
794. 

372-^7 Childers 17. Fleetwood, 39 
Okla. 455, 135 P. 931, form of cer- 
tificate. 

373-41 In re Simons' Will, 266 111. 
304, 107 N. E. 613. 

373-42 Evansville Furniture Co. v. 
Freeman (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 27; 
Childers <?. Fleetwood, 39 Okla. 455, 
135 P. 931. 

374-43 McCowen v. Trumann, 22 
Cal. App. 361, 134 P. 341; Miller v. 
Mencken, 124 Md. 673, 93 A. 219. 
Filing with the clerk is sufficient 
though the statute designates the dep- 
uty clerk. Central Oregon Irr. Co. v. 
Whited (Or.), 142 P. 779. 

375-53 Smith r. Hibben (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 40; Schultze v, Maley (Ind. 
App.), 105 N. E. 942. 

Effect of motion for new trial. — ^When 
a party appealing from a judgment 
has given notice of motion for a new 
trial before perfecting the appeal, the 
time for filing a transcript does not 
begin to tun until the motion for a 
new trial has been decided or the pro- 
ceeding therefor dismissed. Baker t\ 
Filers Music Co., 24 Cal. App. 348, 804, 
141 P. 395. 

376-55 Excepting to sureties. — ^The 
appeal is perfected upon the expiration 
of the time allowed to except to 
sureties and the transcript must be 
filed within thirty days thereafter. 
Sabin v, Owens Const. Co., 69 Or. 269, 
138 P. 844. 

376-56 Or after the date of its cer- 
tification. — Jaques v. Board of Suprs., 
22 Cal. App. 627, 135 P. 686. 

376-61 Kaneohe Banch Co. v. Kane* 
ohe Eico MiU Co., 21 Hawaii 173. 



The appellate conrt has no po^er to 
extend the time for perfecting appeal. 
Rook r. Strauss Bros. Co. (Ind. App.)- 
107 N-. E. 692. 

ConUusiveness of ex parte aflidavlt. 
An ex parte affidavit upon which ap* 
pellant obtains an extension of time 
in which to file the transcript is not 
conclusive of the rights of the oppos- 
ing litigant who has not been heard. 
Oertling v. Commonwealth Bonding & 
C. Co., 134 La. 26, 63 S. 611. 

377-62 In re Est. of Sniffen, 20 
Hawaii 40. 

377-66 O. H. Broun, Jr., Timber Co. 
V, Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 243; Buck 
Creek Lumb. Co. V, Nelson (Ala.), 66 
S. 476; Sampite f. Deslouche, 135 La. 
330, 65 S. 479; Vasquez v. Vasquez, 
132 La. 1008, 62 S. 123; Eichardson t?- 
Cobb, 130 La. 203, 57 S. 889; Miller 
V. Mencken, 124 Md. 673, 93 A. 219; 
Bradley v. Bradley, 123 Md. 506, 91 
A. 685; J. J. Newman Lumb. Co. v, 
Lucas (Miss.), 67 S. 216; Buckhorn L. 
& T. Co. V. McKay (N. C), 82 S. E. 
958; Todd v. Page, 40 Okla. 19, 1,35 
P. 737; Schmidt v. Beatie, 67 Or. 24S, 
135 P. 875. 

Prematnre filing. — An appeal will not 
be dismissed because the transcript ia 
prematurely filed. S. v. Patterson, 13-4 
La. 875, 64 S. 805. 

378-68 First caU of the dlvisloii. 

Where the record is filed at the firsi 
call of the division to which it be- 
longs, although after the time pre- 
scribed for the filing, the appeal will 
not be dismissed. Schloss-Sheffield 
Steel & I. Co. t?. Webster, 183 Ala. 322, 
62 S. 764; National Union v. Sherry, 
180 Ala. 627, 61 S. 944. 

378-70 Kaneohe Banch Co. f. Kane- 
ohe Rice Mill Co., 21 Hawaii 173. 

378-74 Illness of official stenog- 
rapher resulting in failure to obtain, 
transcript is no excuse for failure to 
file the record in time. Yazoo & M. 
V. B. Co. V, Dampeer (Miss.), 66 S. 
814. 

379-83 OUar-Bobinson Co. v. O 'Neill, 
80 Wash. 1, 141 P.^ 194. 

380-84 Hodges f?. Wright, 81 Wash. 
321, 142 P. 692; Ollar-Eobinson Co. r. 
O'Neill, 80 Wash. 1, 141 P. 194. 

380-85 Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. r. 
Shields, 182 Ala.. 106, 62 S. 71; General 
Accident Fire & L. Ins. Co. 17. Shielda, 
9 Ala. App. 214, 62 S. 400. 
I The record will control the bill of ex- 



Si 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



eeptions when they differ as to a mat- 
ter. Bruce v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 185 
Ala. 221, 64 8. 82; Mann v. Bar den, 6 
Ala. App. 555, 60 S. 454. And a dis- 
crepancy between the record and the 
attorney's brief will be resolved in 
favor of the record. Liles v. May, 105 
Miss. 807, 63 S. 217; Carrier Lumb. & 
Mfg. Co. V. Boxley, 103 Miss. 489, 60 
S. 645. 

381-89 Button v. S., 123 Md. 373, 91 
A. 417; Neville V. Miller (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 1109. 

381-90 Burbank r. Farnham (Mass.), 
107 N. B. 351. 

381-91 Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ.), 
174 S. W. 331. 

Impeaching bill of ezceptionSb — A bill 
of exceptions incorporated into the rec- 
ord cannot be impeached by a showing 
on affidavit of the trial judge that he 
was misled into signing it. The proper 
procedure is to have the record cor- 
rected in the trial court. Neville V. 
Miller (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109. See 
also vol. 4, p. 362, n. 30. 

382-98 Bernier r. Woodstock Agr. 
Soc, 88 Conn. 558, 92 A. 160. 

382-94 Scott 17. American Zinc, L. 
i: S. Co., 187 Mo. App. 344, 173 S. W. 
23. 

Supplying lost pap6r& — ^It is within 
the court's discretion to permit a sub- 
stitution of other papers in place of 
portions of the record lost. Watts v. 
Chicago & E. I. B. Co. (Ind. App.), 104 
N. £. 42. But where papers are missing 
in lower court a motion to substitute 
lost papers and for certiorari will not 
lie. Brown Grain Co. v. Farmers & 
M. Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
942. 

383-95 Williams v. Pacific Surety 
Co. (Or.), 146 P. 147. 

Incomplete ceitlflcate may be supple- 
mented before final submission of the 
case. Steenslalid v. Hess, 25 Ida. J81, 
136 P. 1124; Smith v. Inter-Mountain 
Auto Co., 25 Ida. 212, 136 P. 1125. 
A snpplemexitMy record containing a 
supersedeas bond may be permitted 
after the opinion in the case has been 
delivered and before the mandate is- 
sues. Chesapeake & O. K. Co. v. Kelly's 
Admx., 161 Ky. 660, 171 S. W. 182. 

S83-97 0. H. Broun, Jr., Timber Co. 
r. Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 248. 

fiedtals in tbe certification of the evi- 
doioe may be thus stricken out. Phoe- 



nix, etc. Co. I?. Sinclair ft Co. <Ia.), 151 
N. W. 462. 

383-98 Unless approved by trial 
Judge.— Eaton v. Klein (Tex. Civ.), 174 
S. W. 331. 

384-4 P. V, Holbrook (HI.), 107 K 
E. 830; Burbank v, Farnham (Mass.), 
107 N. E. 351. 

385-6 Further proof than counsel's 
aifidavlt is required where opposing 
counsel files a sworn answer denying 
the facts set out in the affidavit. Wil- 
cox f>. Downing, 88 Conn. 368, 91 A. 
262. 

386-17 Varnon v, Nabors (Ala.), 66 
S. 593; North Birmingham Trust ft Sav. 
Bank v. Adams, 184 Ala. 564, 63 S. 
1022; Chenoweth 9. Budge (Ariz.), 145 
P. 406; Waggoner v. Saether, 267 HI. 
32, 107 N. E. 859; Weil v. Federal Life 
Ins. Co., 264 111. 425, 106 N; E. 246. 

386-18 Bosenau v, Powell, 184 Ala. 
396, 63 S. 1020. 

387-21 Proceedings to determine ap- 
pealability. — The question as to wheth- 
er a cause is appealable to the cir- 
cuit court from the common pleas can 
be raised only by motion in the cir- 
cuit court to dismiss the appeal and 
not by motion for a new trial. Inde- 
pendent Brew. Co. v. Stewart (Ohio), 
105 N. E. 143. 

387-22 Appellant has no right to 
dismiss his appeal where appellee's 
motion for affirmance is well taken. 
Hubbell V. Armijo, 18 N. M. 68, 133 P. 
978; Acequia Madre V. Meyer, 17 N. 
M. 371, 128 P. 68. 

387-23 Minneapolis, St. P. B. ft D. 
Elec. Tract. Co. v. Goodspeed (Minn.), 
150 N. W. 222. 

Where the public is interested the case 
will not be dismissed upon appellant's 
motion. Bussell v. Crook County Court 
(Or.), 145 P. 653. 

387-24 Oertling r. Commonwealth 
Bonding ft C. Co., 134 La. 26, 63 S. 
6n: Cahn v. Wright (Miss.), 66 S. 
782. 

388-25 O. W. Zaring ft Co. v. Hum- 
phreys (Pla.), 65 S. 665, 
388-26 McCutchen v. Hudson, 132 
La. 177, 61 S. 157. 

388-27 Wilson r. Fisher, 92 Kan. 
786, 142 P. 241; Lafayette Realty Co. 
V. Poor, 136 La. 472, 67 8. 335; Bich- 
ardson v. Thompson, 40 Okla. 348, 138 
P. 177; Gutierrez v, Diaz, 20 P. B. 252; 
Orosas v. Gutierrez, 20 P. B. 249 j Fer- 



87 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



nandez v, Eosado, 20 P. B. 69; Mar- 
tinez V, Am. R. B. Co., 20 P. B. 49. 
Necessary parties must be brought in 
or the appeal will be dismissed. White 
Lumb. Co. V. Beasley (Okla.), 146 P. 
1082. 

Defective organization of trial court. 
An appeal will be dismissed where the 
record fails to show that what pur- 
ports to be the judgment presented for 
review was rendered by a court organ- 
ized pursuant to law. Gallahar v. In- 
gram & Co., 9 Ala. App. 432, 62 8. 989; 
Hudgins t?. Pickens County, 9 Ala. App. 
228, 62 S. 995. 

That the trial court did not have Jur* 
Isdlction is cause for dismissal. Cen- 
tral of Georgia By. v. Coursen, 8 Ala. 
App. 589, 62 S. 977; Fourth Nat. Bank 
V. Mead, 214 Mass. 549, 102 N. E. 69. 

389-28 Agee r. Gate, 180 Ala. 522, 

61 S, 900 (where the decision of ques- 
tions presented would be useless; held 
court will not review the case merely 
to place responsibility for costs); Wil- 
son V, Chesley, 23 Cal. App. 630, 138 
P. 958; Bernard v. Weaber, 23 Cal. 
App. 532, 138 P. 941; Nichols v. 
Katres, 57 Colo. 471, 140 P. 792; Cory- 
ell 17. Fawcett, 54 Colo. 353, 130 P. 
838; South Park Floral Co. v. Garvey 
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 68; Hyatt v, Lind- 
ner, 136 La. 184, 66 S. 773; Carriker 
t?. Gebhardt, 43 Okla. 149, 141 P. 432; 
Spaulding i7. Yarbrough, 40 Okla. 731, 
140 P. 782; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. 
V. Hamilton, 80 Wash. 51, 141 P. 199; 
V oilman i?. Industrial Workers of the 
World, 79 Wash. 192, 140 P. 337. 

That the case has been settled pending 
an appeal is good ground for dis- 
missal. P. f7. Canon (Colo. App.), 145 
P. 711; Stires V. Sherwood (Or.), 145 
P. 645. 

389-29 Chicago, I. & L. B. Co. t?. 
Priddy (Ind. App.), 108 K E. 238; 
Helms V. Cook (Ind. App.), 108 N. E. 
147; Blose v, Myers (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 548; Whidden v. Broadus (Miss.), 
67 S. 155; Turner r. Simmons, 99 Miss. 
28, 54 S. 658; In re Braker's Est., 158 
App. Div. 925, 143 N. Y. S. 859;' 
Cabassa v. Bravo, 21 P. B. 173; Wolk- 
ers V, American B. B. Co., 20 P. B. 
379; Ex parte Quintero, 20 P. B. 333; 
Santiago r. Somen te, 20 P. B. 305; 
Oronoz v. Montalvo, 20 P. B. 254; 
Aponte f?. Freiria, 20 P. B. 87; P. v, 
Olivencia, 20 P. B. 56; Allonge r. Bel- 
aval, 19 P. B. 1022; Brown t?. Tucker 
(Tex. Civ.), 139 S. W. 924; Gilliland 



V. German-American State Bank, 59 
Wash. 292, 109 P. 1020; Bartree f?. 
Dunkin, 20 Wyo. 376, 123 P. 913. 

InsiCfELcient appeal bond, see 2 Stand- 
ard Peoc. 80, n. 13. 

Failure to serve praecipe on defendant 
no ground for dismissal. P. t?. Chicago 
Title & Trust Co., 266 lU. 224, 107 
N. E. 198. 

Appeal prematurely taken. — White 
Prov. Co. V. Nashville, etc. B. Co., 142 
Ga. 855, 83 S. E. 943. 

Withdrawal of record. — Where appel- 
lant, without authority, removes the 
record upon which his appeal is founded 
the judgment of the trial court will 
be affirmed. White f?. Craney (Ala.). 
59 S. 622. 

A party's failure to pray for the is- 
suance of citation when he makes his 
motion for an appeal, cannot be at- 
tributed to the fault of the clerk or 
sheriff, and in such case the appeal 
will be dismissed. McCutchen v, Hud- 
son, 132 La. 177, 61 S. 157, 

389-30 Bennett v. Meek (Okla.), 145 
P. 767; Myers f?. Hunt (Okla.), 145 P. 
328. 

Appeal for delay. — ^Where it sufficiently 
appears to the appellate court that 
the appeal was filed merely for delay, 
the appeal will be dismissed. Buble v, 
Daniel, 105 Miss. 569, 62 S. 642. 

389-31 Gilmore v, First Nat. Bank, 
43 Okla. 151, 141 P. 433; Thomason 
V. Champlin, 43 Okla.- 86, 141 P. 411; 
Wilhoit V. Haswell, 40 Okla. 387, 138 
P. 794. 

Wrong appellate court designated. — ^It 
is not ground for dismissal of the ap- 
peal that appellant designated an ap- 
pellate court having no existence, be- 
cause the appeal must be understood to 
be to the court empowered by law to 
take cognizance ef the matter on ap- 
peal. Du Yungco I'. Barrera, 5 PhiL 
Isl. 125. 

389-82 Laahia v. Poomaikai, 20 

Haw. 39; Oliveira f?. Silva, 18 Haw. 

662; Johanna v, Larson (N. D.), 150 

N. W. 535. 

390-33 Appeal of O'Brion, 110 Me. 

550, 88 A. 85. 

399-34 Deal v. Western Clay, etc. 

Co., 18 N. M. 70, 133 P. 974; Geronilla 

V, Gadia, 23 PhU. Isl. 229. 

390-35 Milliken v. Lane, 43 Okla. 

259, 142 P. 1040. 

390-30- Coryell V* Fawcett^ 54 Colo. 



88 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



353, 130 P. 838; Burns v. National M., 
etc. Co., 23 Colo. App. 545, 130 P. 
1037; Yent t?. State, 66 Fla. 336, 63 
S. 452; Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 
61 S. 118; Meyn V. Kansas City, 91 
Kan. 29, 136 P. 898; S. v, Goflf, 135 
La. 335, 65 8. 481; Fanst v. Cairns, 242 
Pa. 15, 88 A. 786; Gutierrez v, Nogue- 
ras, 20 P. B. 251; Carr v. Montesano, 
76 Wash. 380, 136 P. 363. 

Where no inrooaadlngg for revivor are 
had after death of joint appellant, the 
appeal will be dismissed. Holmes f?. 
Dillard, 40 Okla. 309, 136 P. 408; Nye 
1?. Jones, 35 Okla. 96, 28 P. 112; Skillern 
v. Jameson, 29 Okla. 84, 116 P. 193. 

890-37 Grevemberg r. Boane, 133 
La. 679, 63 S. 280. 

Notice of motion for new trial. — A 
failure to give notice of intention to 
move for a new trial is not ground for 
dismissing an appeal from an order de- 
nving_a new trial. Turner v, F. W. 
Ten winkel Co., 24 Cal. App. 213, 140 
P. 1086. 

890-38 Imperfections in the stenog- 
rapher's report, held not ground for 
dismissal. Vicksburg 8. & P. B. Co. 
c. Webster Sand, G. & C. Co., 132 La. 
1051, 62 S. 140, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
1155. 

Kaming return day. — ^Where a party in 
his application for an appeal asked 
that it be made returnable ''according 
to law," the failure of the judge to 
epeeify the return day, as required by 
the statutes, is not ground for dis- 
missal. Keplinger v, Barrow, 132 La. 
244, 61 S. 217. 

Failure to file transcript in time if at- 
tributable to the stenographer is not 
ground for dismissal. Be Coito V. De 
Coito, 21 Haw. 250. 

391-41 O'Connor t?. Towey, 70 Or, 
399, 140 P. 625. 

391-42 Bradshaw v. Knoll, 132 La. 
829, 61 S. 839; Succession of 8t. Bizier', 
132 La. 657, 61 S. 727. 

391-43 Twinn Tree Lumb. Co. r. 
Dav, 181 Ala. 565, 61 S. 914; Cautino 
r. Mnnoz, 18 P. B. 849; Gandia v. Piza 
Hermanos, 17 P. B. 780. 
Belated motion. — A motion to dismiss 
made more than three days after filing 
of the transcript on appeal, is too late. 
Askew V. Parker, 131 La. 733, 60 S. 
226. 

Want of neoeesary parties. — ^It is im- 
material at what time a motion to dis- 
miss an appeal for want of necessary 



parties is filed, or where they are not, 
in fact, cited, there is no prayer for 
citation and they fail to appear, wheth- 
er it is filed at all, for without such 
parties there can be no final judgment, 
and this court is therefore bound to 
take notice of their absence, and may 
ex proprio motu dismiss the appeal. 
McCutchen v. Hudson, 132 La. .177, 61 
S. 157. 

On ground of acquleseence. — ^A motion 
to dismiss an appeal because of acqui- 
escence in the judgment may be made 
at any time. Anderson t?. New Orleans 
By. & L. Co., 133 La. 896, 63 8. 395. 

391-45 Necessity for brief. — A mo- 
tion for dismissal of an appeal, not 
supported by brief or argument, will 
not be considered. Murry v. Daughtry, 
18 N. M. 44, 133 P. 1070. See the title 
"Briefs." 

392-46 Goebns v. Wallace (Miss.), 
66 S. 978. 

392-48 Dreyfus r. American Bond- 
ing Co., 136 La. 491, 67 S. 342. 
No question relative to the burden of 
proof to sustain some allegation of the 
pleadings can be raised on a motion to 
dismiss. Brown V, Green, 132 Lft. 1090, 
62 S. 154. 

Where the original letters o£Fered in 
evidence cannot be found, the court 
will not act on the motion to dis- 
miss until it has considered the evi- 
dence, as the case may be decided 
without the missing documents. Suc- 
cession of White, 132 La. 890, 61 S. 
860. 

392-60 Plaintiff's right to prosecute 
cross-appeal is not terminated by dis- 
missal of defendant's appeal. Crane v. 
Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 66 Or. 317, 133 
P. 810. • 

An opinion on the merits will be ren- 
dered though a motion to dismiss, made 
after the cause has been submitted and 
argued, must prevail. Zook v. Cdker, 
24 Phil. Isl. 378. 

392-51 Stevens r. Tompkins, 24 
Colo. App. 104, 131 P. 802. 
393-54 Colburn r. Williams (Ariz.), 
141 P. 120. 

393-57 Scherubel t?. Askew, 42 Okla. 
273, 141 P. 410. 

394-63 Wliere additional delay and 
expense to the litigants would result 
from teinstatement and no useful pur- 
pose would be served, the motion will 
be denied, Geronilla f?. Gadia, 23 Phil. 
I Isl. 229. 



89 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



395-64 S. V. Foster, 44 N. J. L. 378. 

395-69 Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. i\ 
Dampeer (Miss.), 67 S. 150. 

396-73 If the appeal is without 
merit and the party would not be 
benefited by its restoration, the motion 
for reinstatement will be denied. 
Schenck v. Bengler, 105 N. Y. 630, 11 
N. B. 382. 

401-10 See Mund v, Behaume, 51 
Colo. 129, 117 P. 159, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 
1243. 

402-14 Hillis <?. Bils, 53 Ind. App. 
676, 100 N. E. 1047, 102 N. E. 140. 

403-20 Carty t?. Jarrett, 21 Haw. 
310; Bayner v. Posey (Tex. Civ.); 173 
S. W. 246. 

404-28 Points not presented in 
brief. — A t eh earing will not be granted 
to consider points jiot presented in the 
briefs or argument upon which the case 
was presented. Flores v. Stone, 21 Cal. 
App. 105, 131 P. 348, 351, 131 P. 352. 

404-30 Wittenberg v. Northern Ida- 
ho Pine L. Co., 23 Idaho 75, 131 P. 1. 

405-33 Sharkey v. Portland Gas & 
Coke Co. (Or.), 145 P. 660. 

406-36 Wliere petition is required a 
motion will not do. Wyoming Goal 
Min. Co. V. Stanko (Wyo.), 138 P. 
182. 

406-39 Met. Life Ins. Co. t?. Prankel 
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 856. 
Too late when filed on day judgment 
of supreme court becomes final. Peter- 
son V. Louisville & N. B. Co., 136 La. 
460, 67 S. 331. 

407-41 Beiff v, Portland, 71 Or. 421, 
141 P. 167, 142 P. 827. 
407-43 Gamble v, Hanchett, 35 Nev^ 
319, 133 P. 936. 

407-45 An improper and disrespect- 
ful brief will cause the dismissal of 
the application. Birmingham By., L. 
& P. Co. r. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 S. 
584. 

408-49 German v. Harwell, 103 
Hiss. 521, 60 S. 212. 

408-55 Crusel t\ Brooks, 133 La. 
477, 63 S. 114; Gordon Jones Co. f?. 
Lopez (Tex. Oiv.), 172 S. W. 987; Har- 
rison r. Harker, 44 Utah 541, 142 P. 
716; Pierce v. Seattle Electric Co. 
(Wash.), 145 P. 228. 
409-57 Colorado & 5. B. Co. v. Jen- 
kins, 25 Colo. App. 348, 138 P. 437; 
Weil f?. Federal Life Ins. Co., 264 111. 
425, 106 N. E. 246; Witthauer v. 



Wheeler (la.), 150 N. V;. 4C; Brock i\ 
Corbin (Kan.), 146 P. 1150; Weatern 
Electric Co. v. National Automatic 
Electric Sup. Co., 135 La. 559, 65 S. 
741; Quaker Bealty Co. f?. Maierwatt 
Eealty Co., 134 La. 1030, 64 S. 897; 
S. V, Gray, 112 Me. 558, 91 A. 787; 
Williams v. New York Life Ins. Co., 
122 Md. 141, 89 A. 97; Walsh v. Lake 
Shore By. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 754; 
Kennedy v. Ford (Mich.), 149 N. W. 
1013; Wilson f?. Bridgforth (Miss.), 66 
S. 524; BoonviUe Special Boad Dist. 
t?. Fuser (Mo.), 171 S. W. 962; Muck 
!?. Hitchcock, 212 N. Y. 283, 106 N. E. 
75; McDowell t\ Justice, 167 N. C. 493, 
83 S. E. 803; Ferebee r. B. Co., 167 
N. C. 290, 83 S. E. 360; Frith f. Wright 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 453. 

A question as to the ralidity of a law, 

not presented below, will not be con- 
sidered in the appellate court. S. t?. 
Derbyshire, 79 Wash. 227, 140 P. 540. 
409-58 Motion for Jury triaL— The 
trial court's decision on a motion for 
a jury trial is immaterial where the 
case is in the appellate court upon its 
merits. Thompson & Co. v, Gosserand, 
131 La. 1056, 60 S. 682. 

410-61 Williams v. Prince, 142 Ga. 
789, 83 S. E. 789; Gazaway v, S. (Ga. 
App.), 83 S. E. 857: Bacon v. George, 
216 Mass. 519, 104 N. E. 382; Blanch- 
ard Bros. v. Beveridge * (N. J. Eq.), 
92 A. 384; P. t?. Sweeney (N. Y.), 
106 N. E. 913; Wolcott V. Mongeon 
(Vt.), 92 A. 457. 

410-62 Mutual Life Ins. Co. r. 
Witte (Ala.), 67 S. 263; Georgia By. 
Co. V. Stephenson (Ala.), 66 S. 495; 
Franklin i?. S., 11 Ala. App. 305, 66 
9. 875; McCaskey Begister Co. v. Nix 
Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 309, 61 S. 484; 
Keating V. Keating, 23 Cal. App. 384, 
138 P. 118; P. t?. Strosnider, 264 111. 
434, 106 N. E. 229; English r. English 
(Ind.), 107 N. E. 547; Bossert f?. Geis 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 95; St.. Paul 
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Kendle, 163 
Ky. 146, 173 S. W. 373; Louisville t?. 
Hehemann, 161 Ky. 523, 171 S. W. 
165; Abbott Bros. & Co. v. Maine S. 8. 
Co., 110 Me. 551, 88 A. 356; Mitchell 
V. Cobb (Mass.), 107 N. E. 388; Gaff 
17. Cornwallis, 219 Mass. 226, 1C6 N. E. 
860; Lodi v, Goyette (Mass.), 106 N. E. 
601; Atlantic Horse Ins. Co. v, Nero 
(Miss.), 66 S. 780; Gibson v. Sherman 
County, 97 Neb. 79, 149 N. W. 107; 
Webster t?. Board of Chosen Freehold- 
ers, 86 N. J. L, 256, 90 A. 1110; Bucher 



90 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



t. Showalter (Okla.), 145 F. 1143; Ger- 
hnger 17. Frank (Or,), 145 P. 1069; 
Wood V. McCain, 34 S. D, 544, 149 N. 
W. 426; Wilson v, S. (Tex. Cr.)i 173 
S. W, 662; St. Albans Granite Co. «« 
ElwcU (Vt.), 92 A. 974; First Nat. 
Bank of Montpelier v. Bertoli (Vt.)> 
92 A. 970; Silvain v. Benson (Wash.), 
145 P. 175. 

Facts stated in briefs 6f counsel can- 
not aid the record. Atl. Horse Ins. Co. 
17. Nero (Miss.), 66 8. 780. 

"Wliere record la ambignous it may be 
supplemented bj evidence. Paul v» 
Barnbrook (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 425. 

Becord in anotber case not made a part 
of th^ record submitted cannot bo re- 
ferred tc by reviewing court Morrow 
t?. Hall (la.), 151 N. W. 482. 

"Where there is no transcript of the evi- 
dence in tlie record the court will con- 
aider only whether the judgment is 
supported by the pleadings. Myers v. 
Baltry, 163 Ky. 481, 173 S. W. 1138. 

Court's refusal to permit an answer 
will not be reviewed where the record 
shows no motion for leave to file the 
answer. Southern Cgtton Oil Co. v. 
Lightrey (S. C), 84 S. E. 301. 
410-63 Bowen r. Bowen, 265 HI. 
638, 107 N. E. 129; Weil r. Mulvancy, 
262 HI. 195, 104 N. E 273; St. Albans 
Granite Co. v. Elwell & Co. (^t.), 92 
A. 974, 

41(K64 Bjorgo V, First Nat. Bank, 
127 Minn. 105, 149 N. W. 3; Evans v 
Sharbrough (Miss.)^ 64 S 466, Steger 
Lumb. Co. 1^. Haynes (Okla.), 142 P. 
1031. 

411-68 Morris f>. Iden, 23 Cal. App. 
388, 138 P. 120; Huffstetlei f. Our 
Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla 324, 65 S. 
1; Chicago 17. Francis, 262 lU. 331, 104 
N. E. 662; Des Moines City B. Co. v, 
Snsong (la ), 150 N. W. 6; C. r. Colum- 
bia Trust Co., 162 Ky. 825, 173 S. vV. 
386; In re Williams' Will (Mont.), 145 
P. 957; Sargent v. Bealty Traders, 82 
N. J. Eq. 331, 88 A. 1043; Muck v. 
Hitchcock, 212 N. Y. 283, 106 N. E. 
75; Southern Pac. Co. r. Walker (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 264; Duggins v Colby 
(rtah), 145 P. 1042. 

Appeal from order setting aside ver- 
dict * leaves nothing to be considered 
except the propriety of that order " 
John Batt & Co Ltd. v. Earle, 164 
App. Div 228, 149 N Y. 8. 623. 

411-69 Bohman v. Jaftei, 87 Misc. 



•339, 149 N. Y. S. 853; NaUe & Co. 9. 
Costley (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 625. 
On appeal ttom part of a decree the 
appellate court cannot review the mer* 
its of^ the case as ^ whole, though the 
suit was tried in equity, and was there- 
fore triable de novo on appeal. First 
Nat. Bank r. Acme Co.-Op. Brick & 
Tile Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 607. 

,412*71 The sufficiency of tbe plead- 
ings will be reviewed where the error 
alleged is that plaintiff had offered no 
evidence sufficient to entitle him to re- 
cover under the pleadings. Dudley A. 
Tyng & Co. V. Woodward, 121 Md. 422, 
88 A. 243. 

412-75 Lafayette Bealty Co. r. 
Poer, 136 La. 472, 67 S. 335. 

Original Jurisdiction. — The appellate 
court will not consider exhibits if by 
doing so it would be exercising original 
jurisdiction contrary to statute. Frei- 
tag <?. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 
262 HI. 551, 104 N. E. 901. 

418-77 Eborn v. Clark, 184 Ala. 363, 
63 S. 1018; Henry V. Providence Gas 
Burner Co. (B. L), 90 A. 168. 

If reversal on record alone must be 
granted, the court will not consider the 
bill of exceptions or the assignments of 
error. Bieker V. Cullman, 178 Ala. 662, 
59 S. 625. 

Where two causes of action are pleaded 
and the verdict is based entirely upon 
items embraced in one of them, the ap- 
pellate court will not consider any as- 
signment of error which pertains only 
to the other cause of action and which 
in no way affect the appellants. Hilder- 
bran v. McCorkle, 92 Kan. 615, 141 P. 
248. 

418-78 Sandell v. Norment (N. M.), 
145 P. 259. 

413-79 aark r. Smith, 142 Ga. 200, 

82 S. E. 563; Griffin v. S. (Ga. App.), 

83 S. E. 891; So. Park Floral Co. v. 
Garvey (Ind.), 107 N. E. 68; Cox r. S. 
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 878; Edgren v. Coal 
Co. (la.), 161 N. W. 519; C. v, Colum- 
bia Trust Co., 162 Ky. 825, 173 S. W. 
386; S. V. Goff, 135 La. 335. 65 S. 481;- 
S. t?. Bd. of Suprs., 49 La. Ann. 578, 21 
S. 731; Hansen v. N. W. Tel. Exch. Co., 
127 Minn. 522, 149 N. W. 131; Whid- 
den V, Broadus (Miss.), 67 S. 155. 
413-80 Clayton r. Martin, 7 Ala. 
App. 190, 60 S. 963. 

413-81 Macon Auto Co. v. Heard, 
142 Ga. 264, 82 S, E. 658. 



91 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Where a oount in stricken out, errors 
cannot be predicated upon a demurrer 
to that count. North Birminprham Tr. 
& Sav. Bank v, Adams, IS I Ala. 564, 
63 S. 1022. 

413-83 Young r. Duncan, 218 Mass. 
346, 106 N. E. 1. 

413-84 Cahill v. E. B. & A. L. Stone 
Co., 167 Cal. 128, 138 P. 712; Koch f?. 
Speedwell Motor Car Co., 24 Cal. App. 
123, 140 P. 598, 600; Warren r. War- 
ren, 66 Fla. 138, 63 8. 726; Sherlock v, 
Vam, 64 Fla. 447, 59 8. 958; Mitchell 
& Co. f?. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (Ga. 
App.), 84 S. E. 227; Surrency v. Glenn- 
ville Supply Co.. 13 Ga. App. 180, 78 
S. E. 1013; Crawley t'. Studebaker Corp. 
(Mich.), 149 N. W. 1019; Cooper v. 
Romney, 49 Mont. 119, 141 P. 289; Wal- 
lace V, Chicago, M. & P. S. R. Co., 48 
Mont. 427, 138 P. 499; Stephens v. Con- 
ley, 48 Mont. 852, 138 P. 189; Butte t?. 
Goodwin, 47 Mont. 155, 134 P. 670,-Ann. 
Cas. 1914C, 1012; Kelly v, Higginsville 
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 966; Kanaly f. Bron- 
son, 97 Neb. 322, 149 N. W. 781 ; Beach 
V, Palisade Realty & A. Co., 86 N. J. 
L. 238, 90 A. 1118; Homeland Realty 
Co. V, Robison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P. 
585; Cerra v. Fajardo Develop. Co., 18 
P. R. 984*; Parkes v, Lindenmann 
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 787. 

414-85 Ridge v, Norfolk Southern 
R. Co., 167 N. C. 510, 83 S. E. 762; 
Wasiljeff v. Hawley Pulp & Paper Co., 
68 Or. 487, 137 P. 755, quot 2 Standabd 
Proc., pp. 414, 415. 

414-86 Noyes v, Caldwell, 216 Mass. 
525, 104 N. E. 495; Yazoo « M. V. R. 
Co. V. Hawkins, 104 Miss. 55, 61 S. 161, 
451. 

Theory of case below not binding. 
The fact that counsel for plaintiff or 
the trial court may have said, in the 
court below, that the case is a common 
law action does not preclude the su- 
preme court from holding it to be 
within the Employer's Liability Act. 
Wasiljeff v, Hawley Pulp & Paper Co., 
68 Or. 487, 137 P. 755. 

415-87 Frost r. Los Angeles R. Co., 
165 Cal. 365, 132 P. 442; Beverly t\ 
Hardaway, 6Q Fla. 177, 63 S. 702. 

416-89 Rome Scale Mfg. Co. t?. Har- 
vey (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 434; Kelley v 
Davison (Mich.), 151 N. W. 671. 

416-91 Walshe t?. Bwight Mfg. Co., 
178 Ala. 310, 59 8. 630. 
415-92 Anderson r, Elec. & G. Co., 
11 Ala. App. 560, 66 S. 925; Judson 



Lumb. Co. V. Patterson (Fla.), 66 S. 
727; Bowen f?. Bowen, 265 111. 638, 107 
N. E. 129. 

What pleadings Gonsidered. — Where an 
order appointing a receiver issues after 
answer is filed, the bill and answer will 
be considered on appeal, but only the 
bill will be considered where receiver 
is appointed upon bill alone. Carring- 
ton v. Thomas C. Basshor Co., 121 Md. 
71, 88 A. 52. 

416-97 Pratville Cotton Mills Co. r. 
McKinney, 178 Ala. 554, 59 S. 498: In 
re Gamble's Est., 166 Cal. 253, 135 P. 
970; Terra Ceia Estates t?. Taylor 
(Fla.), 67 S. 169; S. v, Bullock, 136 La. 
167, 66 S. 767; McLaughlin Bros. r. 
Hilliard, 97 Neb. 326, 149 N. W. 807; 
Haight V. Omaha & C. B. St. R. Co., 97 
Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 778; Sanders f?. 
Sanders, 167 N. C. 317, 83 S. E. 489. 

416-98 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
Bouchard (Ala.), 67 S. 265; Thompson 
V. Cole, 6 Ala. App. 208, 60 S. 556; 
Colorado Midland Ry. Co. v, Edwards, 
24 Colo. App. 350, 134 P. 248; MitcheU 
V. Mason, 65 Fla. 208, 61 8. 579; Akron 
Milling Co. v, Leiter (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 99; Johnson v. Citizens' Bank 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 35; In re Moore 
(Me.), 93 A. 180; Hix v. Giles, 103 Me. 
439, 69 A. 692; Allen V. Wildman, 38 
Okla. 652, 134 P. 1102. 
Bole of oonstmctiond — ^Doubtful Re- 
citals in the record are construed most 
strongly against the objector. Birm- 
ingham Ry. L. & P. Co. V, Gonzalez. 
183 Ala. 273, 61 S. 80. 

417-1 P. t\ Dillon, 266 HI. 272, 107 
N. E. 583. 

Judges antliority to hear case* — ^Where 
the record does not show that the 
acting judge was called to preside at 
the trial by the incumbent judge and 
in his stead, the appellate court will 
indulge a presumption to that effect. 
P. V. Dillon, 266 111. 272, 107 N. E. 583. 

417-2 Singleton r. Jackson, 177 Ala. 
123, 59 S. 45; Terra Ceia Estates v, 
Taylor (Fla.), 67 S. 169. 

417-3 H. H. Hitt Lumb. Co. r. Tur- 
ner (Ala.), 65 S. 807. 
Default judgment, etc. McCauley v. 
Western Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 173 
S. W. 1000. 

418-10 Jackson r. Putnam, ISO Ala. 
39, 60 S. 61; Henderson v, Jackson 
Woolen Mills, 7 Ala App. 199, 60 8. 
965; Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon 
Ry., 36 Nev, 181, 135 P. 141, 



92 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



41^13 A xedtol of a continuance 
after answer asking affirmative relief, 
does not operate as an appearance of 
plaintiff, when no notice was given 
plaintiff, and it is not shown that he 
asked for the continnance or agreed 
to it Smith V. Carr (Tex. Civ.), 173 
S, W. e02. ' 

* 

419-15 Hirsch A Spitz Mfg. Co. v. 
Enterprise, 5 Ala. App. 387, 59 S. 315 
(plea presumed withdrawn); Wood- 
men of the World v. Jones, 4 Ala. App. 
633, 59 8. 239 (replication to a special 
plea presumed abandoned); Terra Ceia 
Estates v. Taylor (Pla.), 67 S. 169; 
* Nathan r. Planters Cotton Oil Co. (Mo. 
App.), 174 8. W. 126, plea to the jur- 
isdiction presumed properly sustained. 
Kannor of amandment. — Where the 
record fails to show how complaint 
was amended after demurrer sustained, 
it will be presumed that the amend- 
ment was 80 made as to obviate the 
objections pointed out in the demurrer. 
General Ace. Fire ft Life Co. V. Shields, 
9 Ala. App. 214, 62 8. 400. 
That proof will ba aa broad as the 
pleading, will be presumed by the ap- 
pellate court in passing upon the suffi- 
ciency of the pleading. Studebaker 
Corp. of America v. Gollmar, 159 Wis. 
336, 150 N. W. 442. 

Tmth of tha allagatlona of petition 
will be presumed when the case is pre- 
sented to the appellate court as if on 
exceptions of no cause of action. 
Boagni v. Schell (La.), 66 S. 387. 

420-18 Hanchey v. Brunson, 181 
Ala. 453, 61 8. 258; Sjong t;. Occidental 
Fish Co., 78 Wash. 4, 138 P. 313. 

That complaint was amended will be 
presumed where the record shows that 
amendment was granted. Engen v, Ol- 
son (Wyo.), 145 P. 756. Amendments 
will not be regarded as made where 
the bill of exceptions does not present 
any evidence, or disclose that any of 
the essential facts were established by 
evidence received without objection. 
Manhattan Co. v. White, 48 Mont. 965, 
140 P. 90. 

420-20 Parsons v. Age-Herald Pub. 
Co., 181 Ala. 439, 61 8. 345; Watts v. 
Atlanta B. ft A. B. Co., 179 Ala. 436, 
60 8. 861; McOuffln r. Leufesty (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 475. See Spork r. In- 
ternational Harvester Co. (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 740. 

420-21 In re Beclamation Diet., 22 
CaL App. 439, 134 P, 726. 



420-22 Harris Transfer ft Ware- 
house Co. 17. Moore (Ala. App.), 65 U. 
416; Morton «. Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439, 
65 8. 408. 

421-29 Haight r. Omaha ft C. B. St. 
B. Co., 97 Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 778. 

421-31 P. V, Pennington, 267 111. 45, 
107 N. B. 871; 8. t?. Bullock. 136 La. 
167, 66 8. 767: Homeland Eealtv Co. t?. 
Kobison, 39 Okla. 591, 136 P. 585; Iowa 
State Sav. Bank v. Henry (Wyo.), 136 
P. 863. 

422-34 McCaskey Begister Co. v. 
Nix Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 309, 61 8. 
484; Georgia ft F. B. Co. v, tttapleton 
(Ga.), 84 8. E. 120; Myers v, Saltry, 163 
Ky. 481, 173 8. W. 1138; Sylvester r. N. 
H. ft H. B. Co., 217 Mass. 148, 104 N. 
E. 437; Sweikhart v, Hanrahan (Mich.), 
150 N. W. 833; Mundy v. Irwin (N. 
M.), 145 P. 1080; Elliott V, B. Co., 166 
N. C. 481, 82 8. E. 853. 

422-35 Adams v. Georgia By. Co., 
142 Ga. 497, 83 8. E. 131; Weil t\ Fed- 
eral Life Ins. Co., 264 Bl. 425, 106 N. 
£. 246. 

Use of OTldence, etc. — ^Barnes ft Jes- 
sup Co. V. Williams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 8. 
787. 

Motion to strike out toBtimony, etc. 
Byerson Grain Co. v. Moyer, 9 Ala. App. 
254, 63 S. 13. 

422-88 Padgett v. Fertilizer Co., 11 
Ala. App. 366, 66 8. 866; Clark v. Wat- 
kins Medical Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 
136; Berri v. Bogero (Cal.), 145 P. 
95; Kinard v. Kaelin, 22 Cal. App. 383, 
134 P. 370; P. v. Niehoff, 266 111. 103, 
107 N. E. 119;. Sanitary Dist. of Chi- 
cago V, Munger, 264 111. 256, 106 N. E. 
185: Wright v. Glos, 264 111. 261, 106 
N. JB. 200; Thompson t?. Miller (Ind.), 
107 N. B. 74; Briggs t?. Sanford, 219 
Mass. 572, 107 N. £. 436; Nathan v. 
Planters,' etc. Co., 187 Mo. App. 560, 
174 8. W. 126; Tyndall v. B. Co. (N. 
Y.), 107 N. E. 577; Wagner 17. Stand- 
ard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 244 Pa. 310, 91 
A. 353; Lebovitz i?. Cogswell (Wash.), 
145 P. 212. 

That parol evldenee sustained the les- 
see's claim on a lease, will not be pre- 
sumed where the lease was unambig- 
uous and upheld the lessor 's contention. 
Long V, Hammond (Cal.), 145 P. 527. 
All Inferences drawn to support ver- 
dict. Czapinski r. Thomas Furnace Co., 
158 Wis. 635, 149 N. W. 477. And the 
appellate court is warranted in assum- 
ing any possible evidence within is- 



93 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Buefl. Paul r. Bambrook (Ind. App.). 
106 N. E. 425. 

423-39 Farmer v. Myers, 90 Kan. 
532, 135 P. 668. 

423-40 Jones v. White (Ala.), 66 S. 
605; Reid v. McElderry (Ala.), 66 S. 
7; Eeid f?. AfcKlderry, 10 Ala. App. 
472, 65 3. 421; Sloss, etc. Co. v, Bedd, 
6 Ala. App. 404, .60 S. 468; Hunnieut 
L. Co. V. B. Co., 2 Ala. App. 436, 67 S. 
73; Dowdell v. Sunflower Grand Lodge, 
91 Kan. 128, 136 P. 920. 
423-42 Clark v. Watkins Medical 
Co. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 136; Hanks V. 
Oil Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 635. 
423-43 Myers r. Pittsburg Coal Co., 
223 U. S. 184, 34 Sup. Ct. 559, 58 L. 
ed. 906; Heckert v. Central Dist. & P. 
Tel. Co. (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 29; Den- 
nis f?. Griswold, 142 Ga. 114, 82 S. E. 
519; Sawyer <?. Hawthorne (la.), 149 
N. W. 512; Walsh r. Boston Elev. R. 
Co., 219 Mass. 515, 107 N. E. 360; 
Adams v. Boston Elev. B. Co., 219 
Muss. 515, 107 N. E. 360; Hicks v. 
Hammond Pack. Co. (Mo.), 171 S. W. 
937; Pickett v. Wren (Mo. App.), 174 
fi. W. 156; Hawkins v. St. Louis & 8. 
F. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 129; Scott 
r. American Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co. (Mo. 
App.), 173 S. W. 23; McLaughlin v. 
Bardsen (Mont.), 145 P. 954; Faber u. 
New York, 213 N. Y. 411, 107 N. E. 
756; Buckley v. Hudson Val. B. Co., 
212 N. Y. 440, 106 N. E. 121; Griswold 
<?. Bingling (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S. 
1022; Drusky t\ Schenectady By. Co., 
164 App. Div. 406, 149 N. Y. S. 762; 
Tolchinsky v. New York (App. Div.), 
149 N. Y. S. 423; McEl^arney V. Clover 
Farms, 150 N. Y. S. 154; Hall v. Pied- 
mont B. Co., 167 N. C. 284, 83 S. E. 
351; Tyson r. East Carolina B. Co., 167 
N. C. 215, 83 S. E. 318; McAtee v. 
Branning Mfg. Co., 166 N. C. 448, 82 S. 
E. 857; Shepherd 17. B. Co., 163 N. C. 
518, 79 S. E. 968; Locklear v. Savago, 
159 N. C. 236, 74 S. E. 347; Cotton t?. 
B. Co., 149 N. C. 227, 62 S. E. 1093; 
Jones V, Citizens' State Bank, 39 Okla. 
393, 135 P. 373; First State Bank v. 
Bridges, 39 Okla. 355, 135 P. 378; Cara- 
duc V, Schanen-Blair Co., 66 Or. 310, 
133 P. 636; Hanks V. Houston Oil Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 635; Dawson V. 
King (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 257. 
In reviewing a dlnnilsBal of the com- 
plaint the only question is whether the 
court by the exclusion of evidence pre- 
vented plaintiff from proving his case. 
Glassman v, Bubin Bros.. 150 N. Y. S. 
537, 



424-44 Lake Shore Electric By. Co. 
r. Kurtz (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 165. 

424-45 Ttutli of evidence ia pre- 
sumed in reviewing the overruling of 
a demurrer, to the evidence. GiUogly 
V, Dunham (Mo.), 174 S. W. 118; Bar- 
rett r. Delano (Mo.), 174 S. W. 181; 
Brown r. Kansas City So. B. Co., 187 
Mo. App. 104, 173 S. W. 73. 

424-46 Central of Georgia B. Co. r. 
Courson, 186 Ala. 155, 65 S. 179 (no 
presumption that instruction was not 
requested at proper time); Massey c. 
Southern Land Co. (Ark.), 174 S. W. 
531; Pile v. Bank of Flemington, 187 
Mo. App. 61, 173 S. W. 50; Winborne 
Guano Co. v. Plymouth Merc. Co. (X. 
C), 84 S. E. 272; Cameron v. Joslyn 
(Vt.), 90 A. .793. 

Separate exceptions to the instructions 
are presumed. Birmingham By., L. So 
P. Co. V. Leach, 5 Ala. App. 546, 59 S. 
358. 

424-47 Middlebrooks V. Sanders, 180 
Ala. 407, 61 S. 898; Thompson t?. Mil- 
ler (Ind.), 107 N. E. 74; Cleveland, C. 
C. & St. L. B. Co. r. Hayes (Ind.), 104 
N. E. 581; McGlone v. Hanger (Ind. 
App.), 104 N. E. 116; Cilley i?. Bacon 
(Vt), 93 A. 261. 

424-48 . Handley r. Schaffer, 177 Ala. 
636, 59 S. 286; Fairbanks v. Warrum 
(Ind. App.), 104 N. B. 983; Gordon f?. 
First Uuiversalist Soc, 217 Mass. 30, 
104 N. E. 448; Weller v. Davis, 245 Pa. 
280, 91 A. 664. 

425-49 Alexander r. Smithy 180 Ala. 
541, 61 S. 68; Winborne Guano Co. v. 
Plymouth Merc. Co. (N.*C.), 84 S. E. 
272; Hornthal v. Norfolk S. B. Co., 167 
N. C. 627, 82 S. E. 830; Allen v. Farm- 
ers' & Merchants' Bank (Wash.), 135 
P. 621. 

Tliat a certain charge was given will 
not be presumed where the record mere- 
ly shows that it was requested and does 
not show that it was given. White 
Sewing Mach. Co. v. Sneed (Tex. Civ.), 
174 S. W. 950. 

425-60 Hall v. Gordon (Ala.), 66 
S. 493; Erikson v. Ward, 266 111. 259, 
107 N. E. 593; Wabash B. Co.r. Mc- 
Doniels (Ind.), 107 N. E. 291; Inde- 
pendent 5 and 10 Cent Stores v, Earles 
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 730; Scott i\ 
American Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co., 187 Mo. 
App. 344, 173 S. W. 23; Mauder r. S., 
97 Neb, 380, 149 N. W. 800; Langd^n 
r. Withnell, 97 Neb. 335, 149 N. W. 
781; Hutchinsou i?, Oshkosh, 159 Wis* 



H 



APPEALU 



Vol. 2 



141, 1« N. W. 711; Czapinski v. 
Thomas Farnace Co.^ 158 Wis. 635, 149 
N. W. 477. 

Trath of defendant's evidence will be 
presumed where the jury found for him. 
O'Donnell v. Johnson, 36 B. L 308, 90 
A. 165. 

425-61 International A. Corp. r. 
Southern Ry. Co. (Ala.)> 66 S. 14; Birm- 
ingham By. L. & P. Co. V, Mayoi 181 
Ala. 525, 61 S. 289; St. Louis, I. M. 
& 8. By. Co. r. Elrod (Ark,), 173 S. 
W. 836; Albrook v. Western Union Tel. 
Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 75; Prediger v. 
Lincoln Traction Co., 97 Neb. 315, 149 
N. W. 775; Haight v. Omaha & C. B. 
fit. B. Co., 97 Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 778; 
Glens FaUs Ins. Co. v. Melott (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 8. W. 700; Curkeet v. Joint 
School Dist., 159 Wis. 149, 149 N. W. 
708. 

426-52 Swindall v. Ford, 184 Ala. 
137, 63 S. 651; Beid t?. . McElderry, 10 
Ala. App. 472, 65 S. 421; Hann v. 
Shoaf, 9 Ala. App 300, 63 S. 764; Woos- 
ter €. Scorse (Ariz.), 140 P. 819; Phil- 
lips V, Jokische (Ark.), 174 S. W. 520; 
Pavlovich v, Pavlovich, 22 Cal. App. 
500, 135 P. 303; Modern Woodmen v. 
Loveland (Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 518; 
Briggs f?. Sanford, 219 Mass. 572, 107 
N. £. 436; Young f>. Duncan, 218 Mass. 
346, 106 N. E. 1; Tyndall v. New York 
Cent. & H. B. B. Co. (N. Y.) 107 N. 
£. 577; People t>. Santa Clara Lumb. 
Co., 213 N. Y. 226, 107 N. E. 495; San- 
ders r. Sanders, 167 N. C. 317, 83 8. E. 
4S»; Babcock v. Glover (Tex. Civ.), 174 
8. W. 710. 

The troth of the court's findings will 
be presumed. Mower v. Shannon, 178 
Ala. 469, 59 8. 568. 

426-54 United States F. & G. Co. 
V. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 892; 
Todd 17. St. Louis Southwestern B. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 617, presump- 
tion that conclusions of fact and law 
were filed pursuant to request. 

That judge was not inflnenced by evi- 
dence erroneously admitted will not be 
presumed. Blair V, Norfolk & W. B. 
Co., 162 Ky. 833, 173 8. W. 162. 

Filing concliiflioiis of law.— In absence 
of showing in record the presumption 
will be indulged that the conclusions 
of fact and law were filed by re- 
quest. Todd V, St. Louis, etc. B. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 617; Biggins f?. 
Trickey, 46 Tex. Civ, 569, 102 8. W. 
918. 



426-65 Prejadidal remarks of juror. 
Bemarks of juror during deliberation 
that the defeated party was ''the 
meanest man that ever lived," etc., 
were presumptively prejudicial, neces- 
sitating a new trial, especially when, 
damages awarded were excessive. Jolly 
V. Doolittle (la.), 149 N. W. 890. 

426-68 Gamble v. Andrews (Ala.), 65 
8. 525; Smith V. Allen, 9 Ala. App. 
371, 63 8. 770; Maloney v. Jones-Wise 
Com. Co. (Ark.), 174 8. W. 239; Long 
V. Hammond, 168 Cal. 790, 145 P. 527; 
Watson V. Lawson, 166 Cal. 235, 135 
P. 961; Myers r. Sal try, 163 Ky. 481, 
173 8. W. 1138; Boyd v. Bradley, 134 
La. 223, 63 8. 883; Shreveport v. Mar- 
oun, 134 La. 148, 63 8. 857; Wakefield 
V, Wakefield, 97 Neb. 652, 150 N. W. 
1001; Simon V, Etgen, 213 N. Y. 589, 
107 N. E. 1066; 8. V. Connelly, 34 8. 
D. 520, 149 N. W. 360; Wells Fargo & 
Co. Express v. Keeler (Tex. Civ.), 173 
8. W. 926; Bastrop & Austin Bayou 
Bice Growers Assn. t?. Cochran (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 8. W. 294; Bennington Coun- 
ty V, Manchester, 87 Vt. 655, 90 A. 
502. 

That statates of another state were in 
evidence cannot be presumed in sup- 
port of the judgment where the bill of 
exceptions recited that it contained all 
the evidence at the trial. Weil v. Fed- 
eral Life Ins. Co., 264 HI. 425, 106 N. 
£. 246. 

426-69 Prudential Savings Bank v. 
Looney (Ala.), 65 S. 770; Hutson t?. 
Illinois Cent. B. Co., 186 Ala. 436, 65 
8. 62; Potter v. Tucker, 11 Ala. App. 
466, 66 8. 922; P. r. Pennington, 267 
111. 45, 107 N. E. 871; Bonardo v. P., 
182 111. 411, 55 N. E. 519; Johnston v. 
Citizens' State Bank (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 35; Christensen v, Esbeck (IaO> 
149 N. W. 76; P. v, Santa Clara Lumb. 
Co. (N. Y.), 106 N. E. 927; BabcoCk t?. 
Glover (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 710; First 
State Bank v, Jones (Tex. Civ.), 171 
8. W. 1057; Escamilla v. Pingree, 44 
Utah 421, 141 P. 103. 
All Inferences necessary to support the 
decree will be presumed to have been 
made by the trial judge. Bennington 
County V, Manchester, 87 Vt. 555, 90 
A. 502. 

427-60 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. 
r. Jones, 9 Ala. App. 499, 63 S. 693; 
Shilling t?. Dodge, 22 Cal. App. 517, 135 
P. 299; Busalt r. Doidge, 91 Kan. 37, 
136 P. 904; Kaliamotes v. Wardwell, 
112 Me. 557^ 91 A, 433 j Coolidge t?, 



W 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Smith, 112 Me. 556, 91 A. 433; Heath- 
cote V. Barbour, 36 B. I. 453, 00 A. 
803. 

Different Judges. — ^Thia presumption 
does not exist where the judge who 
passed upon the motion for a new trial 
13 other than the one who presided at 
the trial. Gibson v, Morris State Bank. 
49 Mont. 60, 140 P. 76. 

427-62 Ingalls r. Smith (Kan.), 145 
P. 846; O'Hanlon v, Buby Gulch M. 
Co., 48 Mont. 65, 135 P. 913. 
An order general In terms will be pre- 
sumed to have been granted for insuffi- 
ciency of evidence. Waltz v, Silveira, 
25 Cal. App. 717, 145 P. 169. 

427-64 Berri v. Bogero, 168 Cal. 736, 

145 P. 95. 

Vacated on discretionary grounds. 

There is no presumption that an order 
vacating a 'default judgment was made 
on discretionary grounds where there 
is no showing of excusable neglect and 
no meritorious defense. Beller v, Le 
Bouef (Mont.), 145 P. 945. 

428-69 Settlement of bill of excep- 
tions. — It will be presumed that the 
bill of exceptions was prepared and 
settled in time. Hughes Mfg. & Lumb. 
Co. V. Elliott, 167 Cal. 494, 140 P. 17. 

429-72 Illinois Central B. Co. v. 
Bobinson (Ala.), 66 S. 519; Tilghman 
t\ Seaboard Air Line B. Co., 167 N. 
C. 163, 83 S. E. 315, 1090. 

429-73 Gillispie v, Darroch (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 475. 

429-74 Jackson Lumb. Co. v. Cour- 
cey, 9 Ala. App. 488, 63 S. 749; Craig 
V. Craig's Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 454 
(where appellee did not appeal) ; Kitch- 
in V, Oregon Nursery Co., 65 Or. 20, 130 
P. 408, 1133; 132 P. 956; Manz r. Klip- 
pel, 158 Wis. 557, 149 N. W. 375. 

429-75 Pairchild t?. Bay Point ft C. 
B. Co., 22 Cal. App. 328, 134 P. 338; 
Gumett r. Henry, 24 Colo. App. 272, 
133 P. 1047. 

430-78 Morrow v. Hall (Ta.), 151 N. 
W. 482; Commissioners v, Westminster, 
123 Md. 198, 91 A. 412; Carpenter v. 
Carpenter, 104 Miss. 403, 61 S. 421; 
Wefis V. Lusk (Mo. App.), 173 a W. 
750; Billings r. Shaw, 209 N. Y. 265, 
103 N. E. 142; Sharum t?. Muskogee, 
43 Okla. 22, 141 P. 22. 

430-81 Gebhart v, Shrader (W. 
Va.), 83 S. E. 925. 

430-82 Turner v, Eastside Canal So 
Xrr. Co., 168 Cal. 103, 142 P. 69; Jolly 



V. Doolittle (la.), 149 N. W. 890; Craig 
V. Craig's Est. (la.), 149 N. W. 454; 
Munroe v. Stanley (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
1012; Morris V. HendersonviUe (N. C), 
84 S. E. 260; St. Louis, L M. & S. B. 
Co. r. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677, 136 P. 396; 
Barber v. Toomey, 67 Or. 452, 136 P. 
343; Beach's Est., 50 Or. 179, 92 P. 
118. 

431-84 Cummings v. McDonnell 
(Ala.), 66 S. 717: Trask v, Boise King 
Placers Co., 26 Ida. 290, 142 P. 1073; 
P. V. Toledo, etc. B. Co., 265 HI. 502, 
107 N. E. 220; Akron Milling Co. r. 
Leiter (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 99; Do- 
mestic Block Coal Co. v, Holden (Ind. 
App.), 103 N. E. 73; Bay r. Missouri, 
K. ft T. B. Co., 90 Kan. 244, 133 P. 
847; Illinois Cent. B. Co. v. Handy 
(Miss.), 66 S. 783; Wallace v. Duke 
(Okla.), 142 P. 308; City of Woodburn 
t\ Apliii, 64 Or. 610, 131 P. 516; Wich- 
ita Cotton Oil Co. V. Hanna (Tex.), 173 
S. W. 644; Bla<Jk v, Suydam, 81 Wash. 
279, 142 P. 700; Gage v. Gage, 78 Wash. 
262, 138 P. 886. 

482-87 Davis v. Parsons, 165 Cal. 70, 
130 P. 1055; Gjurich v. Eieg, 164 CaL 
429, 129 P. 464; Lincoln V. Chicago ft 
A. B. Co., 262 HI. 98, 104 N. E. 282; 
Beckley v. Alexander (N. H.), 90 A. 
878; Winston 17. Terrace, 78 Wash. 146, 
138 P. 673. 

Unless the party offering the evldenco 

moved to exclude it. MeCaskey Beg- 
ister Co. v. Nix Drug Co., 7 Ala. App. 
309, 61 S. 484. 

Invited error. — ^Where questions asked 
were limited as requested by a party, 
he could not predicate error thereon. 
Beid i\ Eastern S. S. Co., 112 Me. 34, 
90 A. 609. 

Illegal evidence admitted in rebuttal 
of illegal evidence introduced by a 
party cannot be complained of by him. 
Lockridge V. Brown, 184 Ala. 106, 63 
S. 524. 

That Jury believed a party's witness 
cannot be complained of by that party. 
Schleich v, Baltimore ft O. B. Co., 245 
Pa. 184, 91 A. 253. 

TTsing docnments for xmrpose offered. 
Party offering contract as aid in con- 
struction of subsequent contract can- 
not complain that it was so used. 
Stephen v. Keen (Fla.), 67 S. 226. 
432-88 P. V, Spencer, 264 HI. 124, 
106 N. E. 219; Pettet r. Johnston 
(Wash.), 145 P. 985; Lantz t?. Moeller, 
76 Wash. 429, 136 P. 687, 



96 



APPEALS 



Wol. 2 



4S2-0O Gray v. Ellia, 164 Cal. 481, 
129 P. 791; Mutual Life Ins. Co, v. 
Good, 25 Colo. App. 204, 136 P. 821; 
Judj V, Judy, 261 HI. 470, 104 N. E. 
256; Olds t?. Lochner (Ind. App.), 106 
N. E. 889; Thummel f?. Surplus (Mo.), 
171 S. W. 929- McKennan f?. Omaha & 
C. B. St. E. Co., 97 Neb. 281, 149 N. 
W. 826; S. €. PoweU (N. C), 83 S. E. 
310; Wichito Cotton Oil Co. f?. Hanna 
(Tex.), 173 S. W. 644; Miller v. Camp- 
bell (Tex. Civ,), 171 S. W. 251; Olson 
t?- Carlson (Wash.), 145 P. 237, 
Iiivited error includes charges given 
without objection, for when not ex- 
cepted to such charges must be deemed 
approved, and a party who thus ap- 
proves a charge is in the same situa- 
tion as if that charge had been re- 
quested by him. Elser v. Putnam Land 
da Develop. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 
1052; Cleburne Street B. Co. v, Barnes 
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 991. 
If altei^tive and Inconalstent reqneBtfl 
to charge are preferred, the party can- 
not complain of the choice made by the 
court Kosher Dairy Co. v. New York, 
S. A; W. E. Co., 86 N. J. L. 161, 91 A. 
1037. 



Bain v. Ft Smith Light & 
Tract. Co. (Ark.), 172 S. W. 843; Eas- 
ton 9. Connecticut Co. (Conn.), 91 A. 
645; Cincinnati, C. C. ft St. L. B. Co. 
V. Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; In- 
diana Union Traction Co. r. Cauldwell 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 705; Terre Haute 
Traction Co. r. Frischman (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 296; Chicago, etc. B. Co. v. 
Gorman (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 897; 
Pelton I?. Illinois Cent. E. Co. (la.), 150 
N. W. 236; Boone County Lumb. Co. 
r. Niedermeyer, 187 Mo. App. 180, 173 
8. W. 57; Cleburne St B. Co. r. Barnes 
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 991; Cranford v, 
O'Shea, 75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486; David- 
aon Fruit Co. v. Produce Distributors 
Co., 74 Wash. 551, 134 P. 510; Carlson 
Sbeep Co. v. Schmidt, 21 Wyo. 498, 133 
P. 1053. 

Or was favorable to liim. — So. Bealty 
Co. V. Keenan (S. C), 83 S. E. 39. 

438-92 Exchange Bank i;. Bobinson, 
1B5 Mo. App. 582, 172 S. W. 628. 

438-03 UtKm matters not in issaa 
"Where plaintiff requested instructions 
on defenses not pleaded, he cannot 
complain that those issues were sub- 
mitted.'' Exchange Bank v. Bobinson, 
185 Mo. App. 582, 172 S. W. 628. 

433-94 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Good, 
25 Colo. App. 204, 136 P. 821, 



Or indncod by pleadlnga and evidence. 

Plaintiff cannot attack on appeal a 
finding which was in accordance with 
its complaint and evidence. Wiscon- 
sin Lumb. Co. t?. Pacific Tank & Silo 
Co., 76 Wash. 452, 136 P. 691. 

434-97 Boone County Lumb. Co. t?. 
Niedermeyer, 186 Mo. App. 180, 173 
S. W. 57; Mason County v. McBeavy 
(Wash,), 145 P. 993; Multerer v, Dal- 
lendorfer, 158 Wis. 268- 148 N. W. 
1084. 

Consent given to an irregularity at the 
trial will estop the consenting party 
from complaining thereof on appeal, 
particularly where he is benefited there- 
by. Freeman v, Clark, 28 N. D. 578, 

149 N. W. 565. 

434-98 Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. 
t?. Cockrum, 179 Ala. 372, 60 S. 304; 
Nystrom t?. Barker, 88 Conn. 382, 91 
A. 649; S. V, Eppinett, 136 La. 225, 66 
S. 798; Boberts t?. Cooper, 131 La. 811, 
60 S. 246. See P. r. Sweeney (N. Y.), 
106 N. E. 913. 

436-99 Bass v. Clements, 6 Ala. App. 
167, 60 S. 443; Dean t?. Connecticut Tob. 
Corp.i 88 Conn. 619, 92 A. 408; McKeen 
t7. Bowen & Co. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 
529; Grouch v. Heffner (Mo.), 171 S. 
W. 23; Curtis v, S., 97 Neb. 397, 150 
N. W. 264; Watts v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 
S. W. 202; Paul Stone Co. v. Saucedo 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1038; Denton f>. 
English (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 248. 

435-1 Gingold v. Coplon, 186 Ala. 
340, 65 S. 328; Curtis v. Brown, 219 
Mass. 157, 106 N. E. 569; C. v. Double- 
day-Hill Electric So., 243 Pa. 235, 90 
A. 67. 

437-18 Bugenstein v, Ottenheimer, 
70 Or. 600, 140 P. 747. 

437-23 Palmer v. Goodrum, 219 
Mass. 260, 106 N. E. 1001. 

437-24 Jones v, Bome (Ga. App.), 
82 S. E. 593. 

437-26 Thougb a nonsuit is termed 
voluntary by plaintiff in his abstract, 
if it is in effect involuntary the court 
will treat it as such. Scott r. American 
Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co., 187 Mo. App. 
344, 173 S. W. 23. 

437-28 Weller v, Davis & Sanford 
Co. (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 593; Hewitt 
f?. Southern Wis. B. Co., 159 Wis. 309, 

150 N. W. 502. 

Exception to refusal to grant nonsuit 
will not be considered where case was 
later submitted to jury. Henderson t?. 



97 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



Maysville Guano Cor(Ga. App.), 82 S. 
E. 588. ' 

438-30 Illinois Cent. B. Co. r. Eob- 
inson (Ala.)» 66 S. 519; McDuffie So 
Sons V. Weeks. 9 Ala. App. 282, 63 S. 
739; ridelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. t?. 
Friedman (Ark.), 174 S. W. 215; Chan- 
cey V, S. (Fla.), 66 S. 430; Florida East 
Coast R. Co. V. Pierce, 65 Fla. 131, 61 
S. 237; Morris-Roberts Co. v. Mariner, 
24 Ida. 788, 135 P. 1166; Baillie t?. Wal- 
lace, 24 Ida. 706, 135 P. 850; Panhandle 
Lumb. Co. 17. Rancour, 24 Ida. 603, 135 
P. 558; Oeohegan v. Union Elev. R. Co., 
266 IlL 482, 107 N. E. 786; Humason v. 
Michigan Cent. R. Co.. 259 111. 462, 102 
N. E. 793; Falk v. S. (Ind.), 106 N*. 
E. 354; QiflPord V. Oifford (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 308; Wheatcraft v. Myers 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 81; Ft. Wayne 
A N. I. Tract. Co. v. Smith (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 31; Cincinnati Gas, C. C. & 
Min. Co. V, Underwood (Ind. App.), 
107 N. E. 28; Marietta Glass Co. v. 
Bennett (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 419; 
Hensler r. Fountain Park Co. (Ind. 
App.), 106 N. E. 384; Pelton v. Illi- 
nois Cent. R. Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 236; 
Brossard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 
(la.), 149 N. W. 915; Middleton v. 
Potts, 163 Ky. 550, 174 8. W. 9; Mil- 
ler's Admr. v, Ewing, 163 Ky. 401, 174 
S. W. 22; Interstate Coal Co. v. Gar- 
rard, 163 Ky. 235, 173 S. W. 767; 
Strickland v, Louisiana R. & Nav. Co., 
134 La. 238, 63 S. 888; Coles v. New 
Orleans Ry. & L. Co., 133 La. 915, 63 
S. 401; Giarruso v. New Orleans Ry. & 
L. Co., 131 La. 559, 59 S. 979; Estey v. 
Whitney, 112 Me. 131, 90 A. 1093; 
Hufft V. Dougherty (Mo.), 171 S. W. 
17; laser V. Nelson (Mo.), 171 S. W. 
6; Davis v. Manning, 97 Neb. 658, 150 
N. W. 1019; Nofsinger v, Paup, 97 Neb. 
599, 150 N. W. 1005; Norman v, Kusel, 
97 Neb. 400, 150 N. W. 201; Olson v, 
Farnsworth, 97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 
260; Langdon v. Withnell, 97 Neb. 335, 
149 N. W. 781 ; Dore v. Omaha & C. B. 
St. R. Co., 97 Neb. 250, 149 N. W. 792; 
De Noon v. Lincoln Traction Co., 97 
Neb. 1, 149 N. W. 48; WiUiams 17. 
Western Travelers* Ace. Assn., 97 Neb. 
352, 149 N. W. 822; Kohl v. Munson, 97 
Neb. 170, 149 N. W. 314; Ryan t?. Man- 
hattan Big Four Min. Co. (Nov.), 145 
P. 907; Burngarner 17. Rice (N. C), 83 
8. E. 803; Hammet r. S., 42 Okla. 384, 
141 P. 419; Thompson 17. De Long, 40 
Okla. 718, 140 P. 421; fit. Louis, I. M. 
& S. R. Co. 17. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677, 136 
P, 396; Bell 17. Bearman, 37 Okla. 645, 



133 P. 188; Latourette i?. Miller, 67 
Or. 141, 135 P. 327; Kelly 17. Lewis 
Inv. Co., 66 Or. 1, 133 P. 826, Ann. Cas. 
1915B, 568; Sullivan 17. Wakefield, 65 
Or. 528, 133 P. 641; Martin r. Borough 
of West Liberty, 243 Pa. 500, 90 A. 366; 
Ainsley v, Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. 
R. Co., 243 Pa. 437, 90 A. 129; Shaw 
17. Garrison (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 942; 
El Paso & Southwestern Co. 17. La Loude 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 890; Texas & 
P. R. Co. 17. Stevens (Tex, Civ.), 173 
S. W. 629; Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. 
Co. 17. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 487; Frith i?. 
Wright (Tex Civ.), 173 S. W. 453; 
Gaines 17. Ogden Rapid Transit Co. 
(Utah), 141 P. 110; Newton's Admx. v. 
American Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546, 
90 A. 583; Culp 17. Kirkman, 79 Wash. 
440, 140 F. 346; Hewitt 17. Southern 
Wis. R. Co., 159 Wis. 309, 150 N. W. 
502. 

Mere possibilities and probabilities in- 
consistent with the verdict opposed by. 
direct evidence do not warrant disturb- 
ance of verdict. S. 17. Wilson (W. Va.)j 
83 S. E. 44. 

438-31 Gay 17. Metcalf (Ala.), 66 S. 
668; Illinois C. R. Co. 17. Robinson 
(Ala.), 66 S. 519; Webber 17. Smith, 
24 Cal. App. 51, 140 P. 37; Dunaway 17. 
Anderson, 22 Cal. App. 691, 136 P. 309; 
Read 17. W. T. Craft Realty Co. (Colo. 
App.), 146 P. 128; First Nat. Bank v. 
Brooks (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 608; Camp- 
bell 17. Hackfeld & Co., 20 Haw. 245; 
P. 17. Grosenheider, 266 HI. 324, 107 N. 
E. 607; Knox Engineering Co. t\ R. I. 
S. Rv. Co., 264 111. 198, 106 N. E. 188; 
Thain 17. S. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 690; Sov- 
ereign Camp of Woodmen 17. Latham 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749; Wheatcraft 
17. Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 81; 
Roberts Cotton O. Co. 17. Dodds, 163 
Ky. 695, 174 S. W. 485; Cassady v. 
Texas & P. R. Co., 131 La. 626, 60 S. 
15; Golden 17. Bank of Lake (Miss.), 66 
S. 782; Wenquist 17. Omaha & C. B. 
St. R. Co., 97 Neb. 554, 150 N. W. 637; 
Mauder i?. S., 97 Neb. 380, 149 N. W. 
800; Herring -Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. 
Balliet (Nov.), 145 P. 941; Wilkinson o. 
Bartholomew (Okla.), 146 P. 1081; 
Myers 17. Cabiness (Okla.), 146 P. 33; 
Lee 17. Fulsom (Okla.), 145 P. 808; Tyer 
& Son 17. Wheeler, 41 Okla. 335, 135 P- 
351; Everett 17. Combs, 40 Okla. 645, 
140 P. 152; School Dist. No. 13 17. Ward, 
40 Okla. 97, 136 P. 588; Lowenstein v. 
Holmes, 40 Okla. 33, 135 P. 727; Avants 
i;. Bruner, 39 Okla. 730, 136 P. 593; 



98 



APPEALS 



Tol. 2 



Chicago, R. I. A P. B. Co. v. Newburn, 
39 Okla. 704, 136 P. 174; Moore t?. 
Johnson, 39 Okla. 587, 136 P. 422; 
Flynn v. Eadford Grocery Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 902; Texas & P. B. 
Co. t?. Stevens (Tex. Civ.), 173 S, W. 
629; Virginia Fire Ins. Co. v, St. Louis, 
etc. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 487; 
Frith t?. Wright (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
453; Nat. U. F. Ins. Co. v, Burkholder, 
116 Ya. 942, 83 S. £. 404. 

Appellee faTored. — In determining suf- 
ficiency of evidence appellate court 
view it in the light most favorable to 
appellee. 8o, Products Co. f. Frank- 
lin, etc. Co. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 872; Pea- 
body Coal Co. V. Yandell, 179 Ind. 222, 
100 N. E. 758. 

438-32 White v. Connecticut Co., 88 
Conn. 614, 92 A. 411- Combs v. Combs 
(Ind. App.), 105 N. B. 944; Spencer r. 
Gross-Kelly & Co., 18 N. M. 191, 135 
P. 77; St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. v. 
Kerns, 41 Okla. 167, 136 P. 169; Squires 
f?. Modern Brotherhood, 68 Or. 336, 135 
P. 774; Oregon B. & Nav. Co. v, Taffe, 
67 Or. 102, 134 P. 1024; 135 P. 332, 515. 

439-33 Miller's Admr. r. Ewing, 163 
Kv. 401, 174 S. W. 22; Cedar Bapids 
Nat. Bank v, Bashara, 39 Okla. 482, 135 
P. 1051. 

The difllculty of obtaining positlTe 
proof will be taken into consideration 
by the appellate court in passing upon 
the probative force of the evidence. 
Scott V. American Zinc, L. & Smelt. Co., 
187 Mo. App. 344, 173 S. W. 23. 

A f ailnre to ask peremptory instruc- 
tion in the trial court does not prevent 
a party from contending in the appel- 
late court that the verdict was contrary 
to the weight of the evidence. Carna- 
han V. Hamilton, 265 HI. 508, 107 N. £. 
210. 

Contraiy to physical facts.— Though 
the verdict of jury is ordinarily con- 
elusive, yet where the evidence ac- 
cepted by the jury is contrary to physi- 
cal facts the verdict will be set aside. 
Behling r. Wisconsin Bridge & I. Co., 
158 Wis. 584, 149 N. W. 484; Kalman 
V. Pieper, 158 Wis. 487, 149 N. W. 203. 

439-34 Ideal Cream Separator Be- 
pair Works i?. Des Moines (la.), 149 N. 
W. 640; Independent Order of Foresters 
V, Bonner (Wash.), 145 P. 987. 

439-36 Helms v. Georgia By. Co. 
(Ala.), 66 B. 470; Taxicab & Touring 
Car Co. V, Cabaniss, 9 Ala. App. 549, 
63 S. 774; Hannix v, B. L. Badke Co., 



166 Cal. 333, 136 P. 52; American Art 
Works V. Chicago Picture Frame Wks., 
264 111. 610, 106 N. E. 440; Southern 
By. Co. V. Howerton (Ind.), 106 N. E. 
369; Buchanan v, Caine (Ind. App.), 106 
N. B. 885: Basher V, Basher (Ind. 
App.), 106 N. E. 375; Taylor v. Griner, 
55 Ind. App. 617, 104 N. E. 607; Maine 
V, Bittenmeyer (la.), 151 N. W. 499; 
Whinnery v. Cundiff (la.), 150 N. W. 
659; Dugger v. Kelly (la.), 150 N. W. 
27; Louisville So N. B. Co. t?. Stewart's 
Admx., 163 Ky. 823, 174 S. W. 744; 
Yandell v. Anderson, 163 Ky. 702, 174 
S. W. 481; Louisville & N. B. Co. v, 
McArthur, 163 Ky. 291, 173 S. W. 770; 
Denney v, Abbott, 163 Ky. 499, 173 S. 
W. 1159; Tavlor Sons Co. t?. Hunt, 163 
Ky. 120, 173 S. W. 333; Voism t?. 
Schwing Lumb. & Shingle Co., 131 La. 
775, 60 S. 241; Beid v. Eastern S. S. 
Co., 112 Me. 34, 90 A. 609; Anderson v. 
Boston Elev. B. Co. (Mass.), 107 N. 
E. 376; Burnett V, Worcester Brewing 
Corp., 219 Mass. 91, 106 N. E. 597; Lof- 
tus r. Fall Biver Laundry Co., 217 
Mass. 240, 104 N. E. 675; Bragg & 
Co. V. Johnson (Minn.), 150 N. W. 223; 
Thompson v. Poe, 104 Miss. 586, 61 S. 
656; Kemp v. Turman, 104 Miss. 501, 61 
S. 548; Gillogly I?. Dunham (Mo. App.), 
174 S. W. 118; Williams t?. Western 
Travelers' Ace. Assn., 97 Neb. 352, 149 
N. W. 822; Haight v, Omaha & C. B. 
St. B. Co., 97 Neb. 293, 149 N. W. 
778; Scott V. Blakely, 85 N. J. L. 729, 
90 A. 317; Tulsa St. B. Co. v. Jacob- 
son, 40 Okla. 118, 136 P. 410; Peters v. 
Holder, 40 Okla. 93, 136 P. 400; Zo- 
brist f?. Estes, 65 Or. 573, 133 P. 644; 
Harriss v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 354; 
Thompson r. Pennington (Tex. Civ.), 
174 S. W. 944; Glover v, Phillips (Tex. . 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 657; Southern Kansas 
By. Co. of Texas i?. Barnes (Tex. Civ.), 
173 8. W. 880; Memphis Cotton Oil Co. 
r. Gardner (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1082; 
Ft. Worth Horse & Mule Co. v, Bur- 
nett (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1076; 
Thomas v. Barthold (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. 
W. 1071; Becker v. Sunnyside Land & 
Inv. Co., 76 Wash. 685, 136 P. 1147; 
Puget Sound Electric By. v, Carstens 
Pack. Co., 76 Wash. 364, 136 P. 117; 
Bercer-Crittenden Co. v, Chicago, M. 
& St. P. B. Co., 159 Wis. 256, 150 N. 
W. 496. 

439-36 Henderson v. Planters* & M. 
Bank (Ala.), 66 S. 473; Helms v. Cen- 
tral Georgia By. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470; 
Alexander v. Smith, 180 Ala. 541, 61^ 



99 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



S. 68; Hebert v. Patrick (Colo. App.), 
146 P. 190; Southern Express Co. v. 
Wniiamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 8. 433; 
Woodland v. Portneuf Marsh Val. Irr. 
Co. (Ida.), 146 P. 1106; Nordyke, etc. 
Co. V. Whitehead (Ind.), 106 N. E. 867; 
Horine v, Hammond (Kan.), 146 P. 
1144; Francois v, Maison Blanche 
Realty Co., 134 La. 215, 63 S. 880; 
Quint V, Foss, 112 Me. 699, 91 A. 785; 
Shackford V. New England Tel. Co., 112 
Me. 204, 91 A. 931; First Nat. Eealty 
& Loan Co. v. Mason, 185 Mo. App. 37, 
171 S. W. 971; Bood v. Murray (Mont.), 
146 P. 541; Kohl v, Munson, 97 Neb. 
170, 149 N. W. 314; Knock r. Tono- 
pah & G. E. Co. (Nov.), 145 P. 939; 
Dunn V. Carrier, 40 Okla. 214, 135 P. 
337; Moore v, Johnson, 39 Okla. 587, 
136 P. 422; Bumbaugh v, Bumbaugh, 
39 Okla. 445, 135 P. 937; S. Yamamoto 
c. Puget Sound Lumb. Co. (Wash.), 146 
P. 861; Clapp r. Snohomish Bivei* Boom 
Co.. 76 Wash. 69, 135 P. 808. 
Unless clearly wrong. — Weber c. Towle, 
97 Neb. 233, 149 N. W. 406. 
440-3T Anderson v, Boston Elev. By. 
Co. (Mass.), 107 N. E. 376; Pruitt «?. 
B. Co., 167 N. C. 246, 83 S. E. 350. 

440-38 Pendleton D. Poland, 111 
Me. 563, 90 A. 426. 

440-39 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. V. 
Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 S. 179; Inde- 
pendent Order of Foresters v, Bonner 
(Wash.), 145 P. 987. 

441-40 Central of Ga. E. Co. v. 

Hingson, 186 Ala. 40, 65 S. 45; Jack- 
son <?. Smith (Ark.), 174 S. W. 1189; 
Borne S. Mfg. Co. v. Harvey (Ga. 
App.), 83 S. E. 434; Meeker v. Trap- 
pett, 24 Ida. 198, 133 P. 117; Jeffries 
V. Alexander, 266 111. 49, 107 N. E. 146; 
Wheatcraft v, Myers (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 81; Bell f?. Providence Gas Co. 
(B. I.) 90 A, 2; Just t?. Herry (Tex. 
Civ.), 174 S. W. 1012; Thomas v. Barth- 
old (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1071; North 
Ben. L. Co. <?. Chicago, M. & P. S. By. 
Co., 76 Wash. 232, 135 P. 1017. 

441-41 Prairie Pebble' Phosphate Co. 
V, Taylor, 64 Fla. 403, 60 S. 114; Tay- 
lor Sons Co. V. Hunt, 163 Ky. 120, 173 
S. W. 333; Franks v, C, 163 Ky. 96, 173 
S. W. 327; Darling t?. By. Co. (Mich.), 
151 N. W. 701; Olson t?. Famsworth, 
97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 260; MerrUl v. 
Missouri Bridge & I. Co., 69 Or. 585, 
140 P. 439; Kennedy t?. First State 
Bank, 34 S. D. 457, 149 N. W. 168; 
Virginia Fire Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. 
B. Co. (Tex, Civ.), 173 S. W. 487; Gal- 



veston, H. ft S. A. B. Co. V. Patter- 
son (T«x. Civ.), 178 S. W. 273. 

A verdict coattaxj to aiatters of com- 
mon knowledge, conceded facts or all 
responsible probabilities will be set 
aside on appeal even where the .trial 
court has refused on motion to change 
it. Behling v. Wisconsin Bridge & I. 
Co., 158 Wis. 584, 149 N. W. 484; Lee 
r. 0. St. P. M. & O. By. Co., 101 Wis. 
352, 77 N. W. V14; Flaherty f? Harri- 
son, 98 Wis. 559, 74 N. W. 360; Both v. 
Barret Mfg. Co.,. 96 Wis. 615, 71 N. W. 
1034; Badger f?. Janesville Cotton Mills, 
95 Wis. 599, 70 N. W. 687. 

442-44 St. Louis, L M. & S. B. Co. 

f?. Smith (Ark.), 174 S. W. 547; Ter. 
V. Soga, 20 Haw. 71, 75; Cincinnati, 
etc. Co. V. Underwood (Ind, App.), 107 
N. E. 28; Eecord v. Littlefield, 218 
Mass. 483, 106 N. E. 142. 

442-45 Birmingham By, L. ft P. Co. 

V, Nails (Ala.), 66 S. 5; HiUey v. B. 
Co., 11 Ala. App. 605, 66 S. 883; Liles 
t\ Montgomery Traction Co., 7 Ala. 
App. 537, 61 S. 480; Nashville C. & St. 
L. By. V. Blackmon, 7 Ala. App. 530, 
61 S. 468 (holding the imposition of 
punitive damages discretionary with 
the jury); Scragg v. Sallee, 24 Cal. 
App. 133, 140 P. 706; Wabash B. Co. 
1?. McDoniels (Ind.), 107 N. E. 291; 
Albrook t?. Western Union Tel. Co. 
(la.), 150 N. W. 75; Taylor Sons Co. v. 
Hunt, 163 Ky. 120, 173 S, W. 333; Cin- 
cinnati, N. O, & T. P. B. Co. 17. Gold- 
ston, 163 Ky. 42, 173 S. W. 161; Henry 
c. Morris & Co., 42 Okla. 13, 140 P. 
413; St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. t?. Fitts, 
40 Okla. 685, 140 P. 144; Moore 1?. John- 
son, 39 Okla. 587, 186 P. 422; Yard- 
borough V, Columbia, etc. Co. (S. C), 
84 S. E. 308; Mehegan v, Faber, 158 
Wis. 645, 149 N. W. 397. 

442-46 Avondale Mills v, Bryant, 
10 Ala. App. 507, 63 S. 932; McNeil ©. 
Webeking, 66 Fla. 407, 63 S. 728; 
Kling V, Lumb. Co., 127 Minn. 468, 149 
N. W. 947. 

Bnoneow exomplaxy daHiageB not sep- 
arated. — ^Bvt where exemplary dam- 
ages are erroneously allowed, and it 
cannot be determined how much of the 
verdict was for actual damages, the er- 
ror is prejudicial. Shriver t?. Frawley 
(la.), 149 N. W. 510. 

442-47 BinBingfaam By. L. A P. Co. 

V. Coleman, 181 Ala. 478, 61 S. 890; 
Petrie r. IlHnois Cent. E. Co,, 132 La. 



100 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



290, 61 S. 381; ^£alir v. Forrestal, 127 
Minn. 475, 149 N. W. 938. 
In «Kti«Bi6 caflM only. — The power eon- 
ferred on the supreme court to grant 
a new trial beeauee a verdict is exces- 
rive will be exercised only in extreme 
cases. Hertzberg 9. Pittsburg Taxicab 
Co.^ 24d Pa. 540, 90 A. 344; Turnpike 
Boad Co. 17. Cumberland County, 225 
Pa. 467, 74 A. 340. 

442 - 4 8 Pratt Engineering Co. r. 
Trotti, 142 Ga. 401, 83 8. E. 107; Jones 
r. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 265 111. 
98, 10« K. K 473; Tazoo * M. V. B. 
Co. «. Hay, 104 Miss. 422, 61 S. 449, 
44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1138; Hutchinson 
r. Western Bridge 4 C. Co., 97 Neb. 
439, 150 N. W. 193. 
CcnditiOBal grant of new triaL— The 
fact that the court granted a new trial 
unless plaintiff remitted a portion of 
the damages, does not amount to a find- 
ing that the jury was influenced by 
passion or prejudice. Lynch v. South- 
em Pac. Co., 24 Cal. App. 108, 140 P. 
298. 



Seathera By. Co. f^. Herron 
(Ala.), 66 S. 627; Empire Life Ins. Co. 
17. Qee, 178 Ala. 492, 60 S. 90; Doug- 
las V. Berlin Dye Works A Laundry Co. 
(Cal.), 145 P. 535; Pana r. Baldwin, 
265 Dl. 119, 106 N. E. 454; Frere v. 
Missouri K. ft T. B. Co. (Kan.), 145 
P. 864; Eder V. Crown Butte Canal 8d 
B. Co. (Mont.), 145 P. 1; Carney v, 
Hawkins (B. L), 90 A. 418; Mehegan 
V. Faber, 158 Wis. 645, 149 N. W. 397. 

443-50 Cash v. Smith, 10 Ala. App. 
417, 65 S. 193; Kashville. C. & St. L. 
By. V. Hinds (Ala. App.). 60 S. 409; 
Han V. Clayton, 4 Ala. App. 461, 59 
8. 235. 

443-51 Southern B. Co. v. Morgan, 
178 Ala. 590, 59 S. 432; Terrill v. 
Walker, 5 Ala. App. 535, 59 S. 775; 
Davis V. S. (Pla.), 66 S. 429; SpeU v, 
Johnson, 142 Ga. 242, 82 S. E. 663; 
Ideal Cream Separator Bepair Wks. v. 
Des Moines (Ta.), 149 K. W. 640; Walsh 
c. By. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 754; 
Grorud v, Lossl, 48 Mont. 274, 136 P. 
1069; Lizott V. Big Blackfoot Mill Co., 
48 Mont 171, 136 P. 46; Tulsa St. E. 
Co. V, Jaeobson, 40 Okla. 118, 136 P. 
410; Adams V. Simpson, 76 Wash. 508, 
136 P. 704; McKay v. Seattle El^ct. 
Co., 76 Wash. 257, 136 P. 134. 

443-S2 J. B. Kilgor» & Son v. Shan- 
non * Co., e Ala. App. 537, 60 S. 520; 
McFarlane v. Bobertson, 142 Ga. 266, 



82 S. E. 643; Parkes v, Lindenmann 
(Wis.), 151 N. W. 787. 
44SI-S3 Where prejudice <>r ignor- 
ance of the jury brought about the 
verdict, it will be set aside though ap- 
proved by the trial judge. Southern 
B. Co. V. Herron (Ala.), 66 S. 627. 
444*65 Hazard v. Fostoria Gold Min- 
Co. (Colo. App.), 146 P. 1072; Dickin- 
son V. Erie B. Co., 85 N. J. L. 586, 90 
A. 305 

444-56 Enslen Development Co. v, 
Barbour Plumbing & E. Co. (Ala.), 66 
So. 514; Beid v. McElderry (Ala.), 66 
S. 7: Gingold r. Coplon, 186 Ala. 340, 
65 8. 328; Beid t?. McElderry, 10 Ala. 
App. 472, 65 S. 421; Southern B. €o. 
V, Poster, 7 Ala. App. 487, 60 S. 993; 
Swope V, Sherman, 7 Ala. App. 210, 60 
S. 474; Hearn V. Louisville Sd N. B, 
Co., 6 Ala. App. 483, 60 S. 600; Georgia 
Pine Lumb. Co, v. Central Lumb. & T. 
Co., 6 Ala. App. 211, 60 S. 512; Bass f?. 
Clements, 6 Ala. App. 167, 60 S. 443; 
Wells r. Louisville & N. B. Co., 5 Ala. 
App. 579, 59 S. 343; Glenn Befining Co. 
V. Wester, 5 Ala. App. 441, 59 S. 717; 
Huffman v. Sudbury (Ark.), 174 S. W. 
1149; Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur r. 
Gailey (Ark.), 173 S. W. 838; Blanc f?. 
Connor, 167 Cal. 719, 141 P. 217; Simen 
V. Sam Afergut Co. (Cal. App.), 146 P. 
1058: Farrington V. McClellan (Cal. 
App.), 146 P. 1051; Tomasini v. Smith 
(Cal. App.), 146 P. 691; Ford v. Lou 
Kum Shu (Cal. App.), 146 P. 199; 
Kurze v, Douglas (Cal. App.), 146 P. 
197; Fernandez v. Watt (Cal. App.), 
146 P. 47; Herron f?. Gear (Cal. App.), 
145 P. 731; Foote V. San Francisco Pro- 
duce Co., 25 Cal. App. 787, 145 P. 730; 
Eaton V. Locey, 22 €al. App. 762, 136 
P. 534; Weill V. Danziger, 22 Cal. App. 
688, 136 P; 308; Byan v. Mineral Coun- 
ty High School Dist. (Colo. App.), 146 
P. 792; Central Trust Co. v. Culver 
(Colo.), 145 P. 684; Degge v. Carstar- 
phen Electric Co. (Colo. App.), 140 P. 
478; Edwards v. McLaughlin, 25 Colo. 
App. 202, 136 P. 552; Monte Vista Canal 
Co. V. Centennial Irr. D. Co., 24 Colo. 
App. 496, 135 P. 981; Welles v. Bryant 
(Fla.), 66 S. 562; Foster V. Sunday, 65 
Fla. 329, 61 S. 625; Hau v. Palolo Land 
ft Imp. Co., 20 Haw. 172; In re Simon's 
Will, 266 HI. 804, 107 N. E. 613; Knox 
Engineering Co. v. Bock Island S. E. 
Co., 264 111. 198, 106 N. E. 188; Gil- 
christ V. Hatch (Tnd.), 106 K E. 694; 
Johnson V. Allispaugh (Ind. App.), 107 
N. E. 686; Youtsey v. Lemley (la.), 



101 



I 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



151 N. W. 491; Morrow v. Hall (Ta.), 
151 N. W. 482; Bell Jones Co. v. Erie 
B. Co. (la.), 150 N. W. 7; Sprecher r. 
Ensminger (la.), 149 N. W. 97; Sent- 
ney v. Hutchinson Interurban By. Co., 
9C Kan. 610, 135 P. 678; Johnson 17. 
Kansas Nat. Gas. Co., 90 Kan. 565, 
135 P. 589, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 649; S. V. 
Mayer, 90 Kan. 470, 135 P. 666; Sal- 
mon Brick & Lumb. Co. 17. Southern Pae. 
Co., 132 La. 356, 61 S. 401; Siekmann 
V, Kern, 132 La. 100, 61 S. 128; McCabe 
V. Keystone Life Ins. Co., 131 La. 1044, 
60 S 678; Merchants' & Farmers' Bank 
V. Harris, 131 La. 829, 60 S. 362; Gold- 
berg V. Deslatte, 131 La. 798, 60 8. 
246; Damm v, Boylston, 218 Mass. 557, 
106 N. E. 177; Carey v. Gleason Expl, 
& Min. Co. (Mich.), 149 N. W. 974; 
Murphy v, Anderson (Minn.), 150 N. 
W. 387; McKinley V, Northern Boom 
Co. (Minn.), 149 N. W. 295; Illinois 
Central B. Co. 17. Smith, 102 Miss. 276, 
59 S. 87; Woods i?. Johnson (Mo.), 174 
S. W. 375; London 17. Funsch (Mo. 
App.), 173 S. W. 88; St. Louis Sash & 
Door Works i?. Tonkins (Mo. App.), 173 
S. W 47; Friedman, Keller & Co. 17. 
Olson, 187 Mo. App. 469, 173 S. W. 28; 
Thompson 17. Tonopah Lumb. Co. 
(Nev.), 141 P. 69; Lamed v. MacCar- 
thy, 85 N. J. L. 589, 90 A. 272; Gi!- 
more 17. Smathers, 167 N. C. 440, 83 S. 
E. 823; Fell i?. Northwest German 
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355, 
149 N. W. 358; Hale 17. Becord (Okla.), 
146 P. 587; Friar v. McGilbray (Okla.), 
146 P. 581; Bailey 17. Williamson-Hal- 
sell-Frazier Co. (Okla.), 145 P. 412; 
Galer 17. Berrian, 43 Okla. 303, 140 P. 
155; American Nat. Bank 17. Halsell, 
43 Okla. 126, 140 P. 399; Franklin 17. 
Wright, 42 Okla.' 17, 140 P. 403; Alfred 
17. St Louis, I. M. & S. E. Co., 42 Okla. 
4, 140 P. 415; Thigpen i?. Bisby, 39 
Okla. 598, 136 P. 418; Semple 17. Baken, 
39 Okla. 563, 135 P. 1141; Wolf 17. Ep- 
penstein, 71 Or. 1, 140 P. 751; Peaslee 
17. Gordon Falls E. & Mfg. Co., 68 Or. 
244, 135 P. 521; Stroberg 17. Merrill, 
67 Or. 409, 135 P. 335; Smith i?. Gev- 
urtz & Sons, 67 Or. 25, 135 P. 190; Son 
Cui 17. Guepangeo, 22 Phil. Isl. 216; Pa- 
terno 17. City of Manila, 17 Phil. Isl. 26; 
Capcllania de Tambobong 17. Antonio, 
8 Phil. Isl. 683; Enriquez i?. Enriquez, 
8 Phil. Isl. 565; Todd 17. St. Louis, etc. 
E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 617; Ara 
17. Butland (Tex Civ.), 172 8. W. 993; 
Best 17. Kirkendall (Tex. Civ.), 107 S. 
W. 932; Samman v. Miller, 116 Va. 873, 



83 S. E. 382; Laughlin v. Seattle Taxi- 
cab & Tr. Co. (Wash.), 146 P. 847; 
Barnard 17. Clarke (Wash.), 146 P. 175; 
Kleesattel i?. Orr, 80 Wash. 191, 141 
P. 355; Edward Thompson Co. 17. Mur- 
phine, 79 Wash. 672, 140 P. 1073; Dou- 
gan 17. Seattle, 76 Wash. 621, 136 P. 
IIOSL; Liebman 17. Welsh, 159 Wis. 597, 
150 N. W. 966; Murphy 17. Baldwin, 159 
Wis. 567, 150 N. W. 957; First Savings 
& Trust Co. 17. Cazenovia & S. C. B. 
Co., 159 Wis. 344, 150 N. W. 405. 
Findings of fact prepared by counsel 
may not be entitled to the same re- 
spect as those judicially prepared. 
Bibelhausen 17. Bibelhausen, 159 Wis. 
365, 150 N. W. 516. 
444-57 Shannon 17. Lee, 178 Ala. 463, 
60 S. 99; Stephenson 17. Jebeles & Co- 
lias C. Co., 10 Ala. App. 431, 65 S. 314; 
Smith 17. Shadix, 5 Ala. App. 345, 59 
S. 706; Northern Alabama B. Co. i;. 
Bidgood, 5 Ala. App. 658, 59 S. 680; 
In re Cowell's Est. (Cal.), 146 P. 425; 
Cross 17. Mayo, 167 Cal. 594, 140 P. 283; 
Johnson 17. All Night & Day Bank, 22 
Cal. App. 717, 136 P. 516; Lynch v. 
Lynch, 22 Cal. App. 653, 135 P. 1101; 
Taber 17. Bailey, 22 Cal. App. 617, 135 
P. 975; Salisbury 17. La Fitte, 57 Colo. 
358, 141 P. 484; Dubois 17. Bowles, 55 
Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Bollins c. Fearn- 
ley Inv. & B. E. Co., 25 Colo. App. 85, 
136 P. 95; Jackson 17. Larson, 24 Colo. 
App. 548, 136 P. 81; Weiss 17. Ahrens, 
24 Colo. App. 531, 135 P. 987; Waters 
17. Southern Asphalt & C. Co., 67 Fla. 
440, 65 S. 457; Pidcock 17. Nace (Oa. 
App.), 84 S. E. 226; Dearing 17. Hocker- 
smith, 25 Ida. 140, 136 P. 994; Huf- 
ton 17. Hufton, 25 Ida. 96, 136 P. 605; 
Burmeister 17. Northern Trust Co., 266 
111. 304, 107 N. E. 613; Burr 17. Beck- 
ler, 264 Dl. 230, 106 N. E. 206; McKeen 
17. Bowen & Co. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 529; 
Davis 17. Little, 163 Ky, 512, 173 S. 
W. 1129; Williams 17. EUerslie Planting 
Co., 132 La. 332, 61 S. 392; Perrett r. 
Morgan's L. & T. B. & S. S. Co., 131 
La. 986, 60 S. 639; Gaff i?. Cornwallis, 
219 Mass. 226, 106 N. E. 860; Lodi r. 
Goyette, 219 Mass. 72, 106 N. E. 601; 
Damm 17. Inhab. of Boylston, 218 Mass. 
'557, 106 N. E. 177; Schwler i?. Hurl- 
burt (Mich.), 151 N. W. 603; Golden 
17. Bank of Lake (Miss.), 66 S. 782; 
Nygren 17. Board of Chosen Freehold- 
ers, 86 N. J. L. 364, 90 A. 1111; Web- 
ster 17. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 
86 N. J. L. 256, 90 A. 1110; Fell v. 
Northwest, etc. Ins. Co., 2t N. D. 355, 



102 



APPEALS 



Tol. 2 



149 N. W. 358; BothweU v. Way 
(Okla.), 145 P. 350; Gault v. Thurmond, 
39 Okla. 673, 136 P. 742; Vincent v. 
South Bend (Wash.), 145 P. 452; Han- 
sen f?. Abrams, 76 Wash. 457, 136 P. 
678; Borde r. Kingsley, 76 Wash. 613, 
136 P. 1172. 

445-68 Enslen Dev. Co. t?. Barbour 
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 514; Shannon v. 
Tooker, 167 Cal. 484, 140 P. 10; Tout- 
sey r. Lemley (la.), 151 N. W. 491; 
Record V. Littlefield; 218 Mass. 483, 
106 N. E. 142; Eosenberg v. National 
Warehouse Co., 218 Mass. 518, 106 N. 
E. 171. 

Probate court findings. — ^Beview of con- 
elusions on facts- entered by probate 
court will not be disturbed unless it 
is so manifestly against the evidence 
that a judge at nisi prius would set 
aside the verdict of a jury rendered 
on the same testimony. Allen v, 
Scruggs (Ala.), 67 So. 301; Briel r. 
Exchange Bank, 180 Ala. 576, 61 S. 
277. 

445-59 Byan v. Mineral County 
High School Dist. (Colo. App.), 146 P. 
792; Williams V. Dockwfler (N. M.), 
145 P. 475; Texas Midland R. R. t?. 
Becker & Cole (Tex. Civ,), 171 S. W. 
1024. 

445-60 Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. 
r. Hillhouse, 64 Fla. 173, 60 S. 339; 
Potosi Zinc Co. v. Mahoney, 36 Nev. 
390, 135 P. 1078; Smith v, Gevurtz & 
Sons, 67 Or. 25, 135 P. 190; Covington 
r. Hawes La-Anna Co., 245 Pa. 73, 91 
A. 514; lannuccilH r. Carlone (B. I.), 
90 A. 163; Bennington County v. Man- 
chester, 87 Vt. 555, 90 A. 502. 

445-61 Twinn Tree Lumb. Co. fl. 
Hunter, 181 Ala. 565, 61 S. 914; Nolan 
r. Zagar, 266 HI. 39, 107 K B. 105; 
Music V. B. Co., 163 Ky. 628, 174 S. 
W. 44; Morton v. De Young (Mich.), 
151 N. W. 627; Carey v, Gleason Exp. 
& Mining Co. (Mich.), 149 N. W. 
974; In re Gordon's Est. (Minn.), 151 
N. W. 529; Berndt V, Berndt, 127 Minn. 
238, 149 N. W. 287; Todd v. St. Louis, 
etc. B. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 617; 
Best V, Kirkendall (Tex. Civ.), 107 S. 
W. 932; Williamson v. Levine (W. Va.), 
83 S. E. 281 : McMillen v. Strange, 159 
Wis. 271, 150 N. W. 434; Keck v, Mich- 
igan Quartz Silica Co., 158 Wis. 500, 
149 N. W. 208. 

Jndge improperly influenced. — ^Unless 
clearly erroneous, or that it is shown 
the judge was influenced by improper 



motives or misunderstood the evidence. 

Knowlson v. Friar (Mich.), 151 N. W. 

555. 

446-62 Thornton v. Eseo, 181 Ala. 

241, 61 S. 255; Dyer v. Dyer (Ark.), 

173 S. W. 394; Terra Ceia Est. v, Tay- 
lor (Fla.), 67 S. 169; Barnes ft Jessup 
Co. f?. Williams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 S. 787; 
Baker v. Baker (la.), 151 N. W. 459; 
Nicholson v. DuflP (Mo. App.), 174 S. 
W. 451; Mutual Benefit L. Ins. Co. v. 
Cummings, 66 Or. 272, 126 P. 982, 133 
P. 1169, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 535; Utah 
Commercial & Sav. Bank v. Fox, 44 
Utah 323, 140 P. 660; Highland v. Ice 
(W. Va.), 84 S. B. 252. 

The opinion of the txlal Judge may be 
considered in order to ascertain the 
reasons for his decision. Utah Com- 
mercial & Sav. Bank v. Fox, 44 Utah 
323, 140 P. 660. 

Speiciflc performance. — Applications for 
the enforcement of specific perform- 
ance of a contract for the sale of real 
estate are addressed to the sound 
judicial discretion of the chancellor. 
Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432, 63 S. 824. 
446^3 Gay v, Metcalf (Ala.), 66 S. 
668; Joiner v. Watkins, 186 Ala. 211, 
65 S. 135; Bonner v, Campbell (Ark.), 

174 S. W. 230; Dyer U. Dyer (Ark.), 
173 S. W. 394; Nolan v. Zagar, 266 HI. 
39, 107 N. E. 105; In re Wearin's Est. 
(la.), 149 N. W. 621; Sposedo v. Mer- 
riman, 111 Me. 530, 90 A. 387; Buben- 
stein V. Lottow (Mass.), 107 N. E. 718; 
Freeman v. Freeman (Miss.), 66 8. 
202; Northern Assur. Co. v. J. J. New- 
man Lumb. Co., 105 Miss. 688, 63 S. 
209; Lett v. Hull, 104 Miss. 308, 61 S. 
421; Southern Plantations Co. v. Ken- 
nedy Heading Co., 104 Miss. 131, 61 
S. 166; Board of Comrs. of Woodward 
County r. Thyfault, 43 Okla. 82, 141 
P. 409; Scott V. Hubbard, 67 Or. 498, 
136 P. 653; Longstreth v, Philadelphia, 
245 Pa. 233, 91 A. 667; Borough of Mt. 
Oliver ». Goldbach, 244 Pa. 56, 90 A. 
435; Smith v. Alderson, 116 Va. 986, 
83 S. E. 373. 

Written documents in evidence will be 
construed by the appellate court ir- 
respective of the construction placed 
upon them by the trial court. North- 
ern Assur. Co. 17. J. J. Newman Lumb. 
Co., 105 Miss. 688, 63 S. 209. 
446-64 T. S. Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie 
Grocery Co., 178 Ala. 254, 59 S. 450; 
Bonner v, Campbell (Ark.), 174 S. W. 
230; McLaughlin Bros. if. Hilliard, 97 
Neb. 326, 149 N. W. 807. 



103 



Vol.2 



APPEALS 



Credibility of witnttnes.— Where the 
examination of the record on appeal in 
a suit in equity leaves an appellate 
court in doubt as to the equities be- 
tween the parties^ the doubt depending 
solely upon the credibility of material 
witnesses who testified orally upon the 
trial, suck doubt will ordinarily be 
resolved in favor of the correctness of 
the judgment of the trial court, Mc- 
LaughUn Bros. r. Hilliard, 97 Neb. 326, 

149 N. W. 807; Langmann v, Guernsey, 
95 Neb. 221, 145 N. W. 270. 

447-67 Southern B. Co. 17. Cleve- 
land (Ala.), 60 S. 799; Olson v. Farns- 
worth, 97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 260. 

447-68 Gamer v, Schlentz (Wash.), 
146 P. 166. 

447-69 Dorset v. Chambers, 187 Mo. 
App. 276, 173 S. W. 725; Waite v. C. E. 
Shoemaker & Co. (Mont.), 146 P. 736; 
Yarborough v, Columbia, etc. Co. (S. 
C), 84 S. B. 308. 

447-70 Girardino v. Birmingham 
Southern B. Co., 179 Ala. 420, 60 8. 
871; Yarbrough v. Carter, 179 Ala. 356, 
60 S. 833; Chappell v. Falkner, 11 Ala. 
App. 382, 66 S. 890; Western ft A. B. 
Co. r. Smith (Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 906; 
Button I?. S., 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417. 
In federal courts a motion for a new 
trial will not be reviewed. Black v. 
Canadian Pac. B. Co., 218 Fed. 239. 

448-71 Girardino v. Birmingham 
So. B. Co., 179 Ala. 420, 60 S. 871; 
Bosche V. Bettendorf Axle Co. (la.), 

150 N. W. 663; Ingalls v. Smith (Kan.), 
145 P. 846; Bucher v. Showalter 
(Okla.), 145 P. 1143; Turtle Creek Bor- 
ough V. Pennsylvania Water Co., 243 
Pa. 401, 90 A. 194. 

448-72 Prejudidal error.— A judg- 
ment will be vacated, and a new trial 
ordered, where a new trial was refused 
by the trial court on a proper showing 
of newly discovered evidence which, 
if furnished in the form of competent 
proof, would seriously affect the pre- 
vailing party's right of recovery. Mey- 
erson v, Travin, 151 N. Y. S. 584. 

448-73 Finding that interpleader 
was not collusive is conclusive on ex- 
ceptions. Page Belting Co. v. Prince 
ft Co. (N. H.), 91 A. 961. 

448-74 James Livingston Const. Co. 
V. Bedmond, 150 N. Y. S. 1021. 

449-76 Harvard r. Bank, 64 Fla. 
308, 60 S. 345; Dawson v. Morris, 163 
Ky. 220, 173 S, W. 348; In re Hunne- 



well (Mass.), 107 N. E. 934; Taft v. 
Henry, 219 Mass. 78, 106 N. E. 653; 
Wentworth v. Market Co., 218 Mass. 
91, 106 N. E. 118; Montcastle v. Wheel- 
er, 167 N. C. 258, 83 S. E. 469; Sim- 
mons V. Groom, 167 N. C. 271, 83 S. E. 
471. 

Begister. — ^Where there is a conflict of 
evidence the register's finding has the 
same weight as that of a jury. O'Kel- 
ley V. Clark, 184 Ala. 391, 63 S. 948; 
Metcalf V. First State Bank. 181 Ala. 
323, 61 S. 900. 

449-77 Apseloff v. Hyman, 162 Ky. 
541, 172 S. W. 946; Farrow V. Work, 
39 Okla. 734, 136 P. 739. 

449-78 Dawson v. Morris, 163 Ky. 
220, 173 S. W. 348. 

Findings of a referee when approved 
by trial court are not generally re- 
viewable, but when the finding of the 
ultimate and determinative fact is not 
definitely stated by the referee the ap- 
proval by the judge adds no force 
thereto. French v. Bichardson, 167 N. 
C. 41, 83 S. E. 31. 

449-79 Stewart v. Hunter, 65 Fla. 
325, 61 S. 623; Sherlock r. Varn, 64 
Fla. 447, 59 S. 953; Nickeraon r. Glines 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 942; Browne v, 
Fairhall, 218 Mass. 495, 106 N. E. 
177; Bennett V, Eaowa County Bank 
(Okla.), 145 P. 807; Pierce v. Mitchell, 
87 Vt. 538, 90 A. 577. 

449-80 Cummings if. MeDonnell 
(Ala.), 66 8. 717; Butler ft Co. v, 
Strickland-Tillman Hdw. Co. (Ga. 
App.), 82 S. E. 815; Houser v. Laugh- 
lin, 55 Ind. App. 563, 104 N. E. 309 
(abuse of discretion as to change of 
venue); Nickerson v. Glines (Mass.), 
107 N. E. 942; Kelly V. Higginsville 
(Mo.), 171 S. W. 966. 

460^3 Blickenstaff f^. Cowgill (Iiid. 
App.), 106 N. E. 376; Brittain V, Gor- 
man, 42 Utah 586, 133 P. 370. 

450-84 Bowning v. Klondike M. ft 
M. Co., 165 Cal. 786, 134 P. 970; Staley 
V. O'Day, 22 Cal. App. 149, 133 P. 
620; Esden V. May, 36 Kev. 645, 135 
P. 1185. 

461-87 Houser v. Laughlin, 55 Ind. 
App. 563, 104 N. E. 309; Heck r. C, 
163 Ky. 518, 174 S. W. 19; Mansfield 
v. C, 163 Ky. 488, 174 8. W. 16; Boyd 
V. Chicago, B. ft Q. B. Co., 97 Neb. 238, 
149. N. W. 818. . 

451-88 Dussart o, M. Abdo Mere. 
Co., 67 Colo. 423, 140 P. 806; De Puy 



104 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



V. Peebles, 24 Ida. 550, 135 P. 264; 
Walton V. Kennamer, 39 Okia. 629, 136 
P. 584; Fire Assn. v. Farmers' Gin 
Co., 39 Okla. 162, 134 P. 443. 

Ovamiling of motion to show cause 

why an attachment should not be va- 
cated will not be reviewed. Wilson t?. 
Callan, 9 Ala. App. 265, 63 S. 27. 

461-0O Bixlev-Theisen Co. v. Evans, 
186 Ala. 507, 65 S. 81; Union Marine 
Ins. Co. V. Charlie's Transfer Co!, 186 
Ala. 443, 65 S. 78; Florence Oil & B. 
Co. V. Hiawatha Oil, G. & B. Co., 55 
Colo. 378, 135 P. 454; Dubois r. Bowles, 
55 Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Mantle v. 
Jack Waite M. Co., 24 Ida. 613, 135 
P. 854, 136 P. 1130; Lakin v. Chartered 
Co. of Lower California, 111 Me. 556, 
90 A. 427; Cnllen v. Western Mtg., etc. 
Co., 47 Mont. 513, 134 P. 302; Adickes 
r. Chatham, 167 N. C. 681, 83 S. E. 
748; Cauley r. Dunn, 167 N. C. 32, 83 
8. E. 16; Lowenstein v. Holmes, 40 
Okla. 33, 135 P. 727. 

Amendment of pleadings is within the 
eourt's discretion. Lakin v. Chartered 
Co. of Lower California, 111 Me. 556, 
90 A. 427. 

riling reply after verdict. — ^It is with- 
in the discretion of the court, in an 
action for money advanced, to allow 
plaintiff to amend his pleadings to con- 
form to the proof y showing that a re- 
ceipt, given defendant for a part pay- 
ment, by mistake omitted items for 
which defendant should have been 
charged. Halligan v. Heeler (la.), 148 
N. W. 971. 

461-91 Outcault Adv. Co. v, Hooten 
ft Co., 11 Ala. App. 454, 66 S. 901; 
Southern Surety Co. v. Waits (Okla.), 
146 P. 431. 

Permitting additional pleas. — Craig Ss 
Co. r. Pierson Lumb. Co., 179 Ala. 535, 
60 S. 838. 

Beparating pleadings into paragraplis 

ifl a discretionary matter with the 
eonrt. Huntington, etc. Co. v. Spell 
<Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741; Adams v. 
Antles (Ind. App.), 105 N. E. 931; 
Walley v. Wiley (Ind. App.), 104 N. B. 
318. 

She overmling of a demurrer strictly 
pro forma cannot be regarded as an 
exercise of the court's discretion. In- 
ternational Paper Co. v. Bellows Falls 
Canal Co. (Vt.), 90 A. 943. 

Bin of particQlar& — ^The denial of a 
notiom for a more detailed bin of par- 



ticulars will not be reversed in the 
absence of abuse of discretion. Groves 
17. McLaurin^ 66 Fla. 230, 63 S. 439; 
Blue Ridge L. & P. Co. t?. Tutwilcr, 

106 Va. 54, 55 S. E. 539; S. t?. Bailey 
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 910. 

451-92 Eaton v. Southern Pac. Co., 
22 Cal. App. 461, 134 P. 801; Meier 
& Frank Co. v, Mitlehner (Or.), 146 
P. 796. 

Competency of Jnrora, etc. — ^Healer v. 
Inkman, 94 Kan. 594, 146 P. 1172. 

Order of addressing jury. — ^The order 
in which counsel shall address the jury 
is within the court's discretion. Ex- 
change State Bank r. Taber, 25 Ida. 
723, 145 P. 1090. 

Appointment of qpecial prosecutor. 

The trial court is vested with la dis- 
cretion in the appointment of a special 
prosecutor and his judgment in the 
matter will not be disturbed on appeal 
unless abuse is shown. P. v. Strosnider^ 
264 HI. 434, 106 N. E. 229. 

452-95 Standard Oil Co. v. Weeks, 
6 Ala. App. 161, 60 S. 508. 

Broader field in discretion of court in 

passing on motion for new trial than 
in determining motion to nonsuit. Bome 
S. Mfg. Co. V. Harvey (Ga. App.), 83 
S. E. 434. 

452-96 Setting aside verdict.— Ernst 
V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 158 Wis. 467, 
149 N. W. 146. 

€^cial flndingi. — ^It is within the 
judge's discretion to tequire the jury 
to find specially on certain questions. 
Surridge v, Ellis (Ark.), 174 S. W. 
537; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. 17. Eisman 
(Okla.), 146 P. 214. 

452-97 Sherlock v. Yarn, 64 Fla. 
447, 59 S. 953; New Bell Jellico Coal 
Co. V, Sowders, 162 Ky. 443, 172 S. W. 
914; Childers t?. C, 161 Ky. 440, 171 
S. W. 149; Briggs v, Adams (Mass.), 

107 N. E. 966; Gerlinger v. Frank (Or.), 
145 P. 1069. 

Allowance of leading questions. — An- 
derson V. Berrum, 36 Nev. 463, 136 P. 
973. 



gestae. — Admissibility of evidence 
as part of res gestae is a matter within 
court's discretion. Callahan v. Chicago, 
B. & Q. R. Co., 47 Mont. 401, 133 P. 
687, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 587. 

Ssctent of cross-examination. — Central 
of Georgia R. Co. v. Stephenson (Ala.), 
66 S. 495; Meadow t;. Evans (Ala.), 66 



105 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



S. 446; St. Louig, I. K & S. B. Co. v. 
McMichael (Ark.), 171 S. W. 115. 
Number of witnesses. — The trial court 
maj in its discretion limit the number 
of witnesses who shall, testify to a 
particular fact Geohegan v. Union 
Elevated R. Co., 266 Dl. 482. 107 N. E. 
786. 

OompeUlng testimony.— In Indiana hy 
statute the court on appeal will re- 
view the court's ruling requiring plain- 
tiff to testify in certain matters. Yost 
V, Bunk (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 644. 
452-99 Birmingham, E. & B. B. Co. 
V, Williams (Ala.), 66 8. 653 (recep- 
tion of testimony by a person claim- 
ing to be non compos mentis, discre- 
tionary with court); Melvin v. Mur- 
phy, 184 Ala. 188, 63 S. 546. 

453-1 Johnson v, Jones, 39 Okla. 323, 
135 P. 12, 48 L. B. A. (N. S.) 547. 

Baa in criminal cases. — S. t?. Franklin, 
11 Ala. App. 230, 65 S. 421. 

Granting or refasing injunctions, etc. 
Beiseker v. Svendsgaard, 28 N. D. 366, 
149 N. W. 352. 

Specific performance. — The trial court 
has a large discretion in granting or 
refusing specific performance. McGinn 
V. Willey, 24 Cal. App. 303, 141 P. 49. 
454-2 Montgomery Light & Tract. 
Co. f>. Biverside Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 459; 
Anderson v. Southern B. Co., 184 Ala. 
468, 63 S. 473; In re Bainbridge's Est.i 
(Cal.), 146 P. 427; Waltz v. Silveira, 
25 Cal. App. 717, 145 P. 169; Otten v. 
Spreckels, 24 Cal. App. 251, 141 P. 224; 
Orchard v. Charlotte Harbor Sb N. 
B. Co., 66 Fla. 353, 63 S. 717; Geor- 
gia, etc. B. Co. V, Bryan (Ga. App.), 
82 S. E. 913; Wall v, Facke, 21 Haw. 
406 (order granting a new trial set 
aside); Kost v, Chicago, B. I. & P. B. 
Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 851; Olson v. 
Parnsworth, 97 Neb. 407, 150 N. W. 
260; Malmstad v. McHenry Tel. Co. 
(N. D.), 149 N. W. 690; First Nat. 
Bank v. Kornegay (Okla.), 146 P. 22; 
Bennett r. Kiowa County Bank 
(Okla.), 145 P. 807; Sipes v. Dickin- 
son, 39 Okla. 740, 136 P. 761; St. Louis 
& S. F. B. Co. r. Fisher, 37 Okla. 751, 
133 P. 41; Arnold v. Treat (B. L), 
90 A. 382; Gamer v. Schlentz (Wash.), 
346 P. 166; Nordeen Iron Works v, 
Bucker (Wash.), 145 P. 219; Hender- 
son r. Hazlett (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 907; 
Beuter t?. Hickman, etc. Co. (Wis.), 
151 N. W. 795; Bakowski v. Zimmer- 
man, 158 Wia^ 539| 149 N. W. 214. But 



see Garriso v. Sun Prtg. & Pub. Assn., 
164 App. Div. 737, 150 N. Y. S. 284. 
Conditional grant of new triaL — ^Jett 
17. Old Nat. Bank Bldg. Co., 79 Wash. 
562, 140 P. 554. 

454-3 Pryor v. S., 186 Ala. 27, 65 S. 
331; International Agr. Corp. v. Aber- 
crombie, 184 Ala. 244, 63 S. 549, 49 
L. It. A. (N. S.) 415 (discretion abused 
in not granting a new trial); Bentz r. 
Bridges, 177 Ala. 616, 59 S. 63; Bar- 
nett V, S., 165 Ala. 59, 51 S. 299; Bur- 
gage V. S., 113 Ala. 108, 21 S. 213; 
Bradley v, S., 11 Ala. App. 329, 66 8. 
820; Bolin i?. S., 11 Ala. App. 35, 65 
8. 433; Fowlkes v, Lewis, 10 Ala. App. 
543, 65 S. 724; Ellison v, S. (Ga. App.), 
83 S. E. 867; Buchanan v. Firemen's 
Ins. Co. (Kan.), 146 P. 411; Crouch t? 
O'Banion, 163 Ky. 681, 174 8. W. 3; 
Bamsey v. Lebow (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
926; Ott t?. Tribute Tel. A Tel. Co., 
127 Minn. 373, 149 N. W. 544; laser 
V. Nelson (Mo.), 171 8. W. 6; BatcliflP 
17. Sharrock (Okla.), 145 P. 802; Davis 
V. Gray, 39 Okla. 386, 134 P. 1100; 
Dunlap V, Pittsburg B. Co., 247 Pa. 230. 
93 A. 276; Virginia Fire & Marine 
Ins. Co. V. St. Louis S. B. Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 8. W. 487. 

Seasons influencing court are immate- 
rial. Bome Scale & Mfg. Co. v, Har- 
vey (Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 434. 
Necessity for argument. — ^The question 
of the necessity or advisability of 
argument to support a motion for new 
trial is left to the trial court's dis- 
cretion. Sovereign Camp of Woodmen 
t?. Latham (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749. 
456-4 Ogden v, Aspinwall (Mass.), 
107 N. E. 448; Brown v. Walla Walla, 
76 Wash. 670, 136 P. 1166; Ernst v. 
Milwaukee Western Fuel Co., 158 Wis. 
467, 149 N. W. 146. 

Setting aside Terdict.— The court's 
action in setting aside a verdict will 
not be reviewed unless there is an 
abuse of discretion. Western Union 
Tel. Co. f. Louisell, 4 Ala. App. 493, 
59 S. 186. 

466-6 Evidence merely cnmnlatiTe. 
Court will not set aside a denial of 
a motion for new trial where the 
newly discovered evidence might have 
been merely cumulative so far as rec- 
ord shows. Hall «. Feagins (la.), 151 
N. W. 481. 

466-7 Ex parte Boak (Ala.), 66 S. 
64; Berri v. Bogero, 168 Cal. 736, 145 
P. 95; Watson v. Columbia Basin Dev. 



106 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



Co^ Sfi Cal. App. S5d, 135 P. 511; But- 
ton r. S., 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417; 
Bodgers f. United States & Dominion 
L. Ins. Co., 127 Minn. 435, 149 N. W. 
671; Hodges V. Alexander (Okla.)* 145 
P. 809; Philip Carey Co. v. Vickers, 
38 Okla. 643^ 134 P. 851; Salt Lake 
Hdw. Co. 17. Neilson L. & W. Co., 43 
Utah 406, 134 P. 911; Mut. Life Ins. 
Co. V, Poster (Vt.), 93 A. 258. 
Motion to set aside verdict.— < 'The 
question presented by this exception 
(exception to ruling upon motion to 
set aside the verdict) is not whether 
ire should have exercised our discretion 
in the way in which the judge exer- 
cised his discretion. It is whether the 
judge abused his discretion. ... To sus- 
tain the exception it is necessary that 
we should decide that the judge could 
not honestly have taken the view 
taken by him." Ogden v. Aspinwall 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 448. 

Anmilllng the effect of ah appeal — ^The 
supreme court has no power to re- 
view the refusal of trial court to an- 
nid the effect of an appeal, for it is 
a matter lying within the discretion 
of that court. Crownfield v. Phillips 
(Md.), 92 A. 1033. 

465-8 Amending record. — ^Action by 
lower court in correcting record is final 
and not reviewable on appeal. Dutton 
V. 8., 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417. 

45^10 Snyder v, Snyder, 244 Pa. 
331, 90 A, 717. 

466-11 Mountain Timber Co. f. 
Case, 65 Or. 417, 133 P. 92. 

466-12 Huff r. Bidwell (C. C. A.), 
218 Fed. 6; Perry v. Seals, 186 Ala. 
514, 65 S. 151. 

46T-1T Wilson v. Draper, 9 Ala. 
App. 585, 63 S. 779; Chancey v, S. 
(Fla.), 66 8. 430; Parks v. Hailey, 142 
Ga. 391, 83 S. E. 100; National Live 
Stock Ins. Co. V. Wolfe (Ind. App.), 
106 N. E. 390; Jolly v. Doolittle (la.), 
149 N. W. 890; S. t?. Mayer, 90 Kan. 
470, 135 P. 666; Shoop V. Fidelity & 
Deposit Co., 124 Md. 130, 91 A. 753; 
Albiani r. JBangs (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
406; Levering ft Garrigues Co. v. Cen- 
tury H. Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S. 
649; Nelson v. Davidson (Okla.), 145 
P. 772; Jones v, Bennett, 40 Okla. 664, 
140 P. 148. 

46T-18 Olds V. Lochner (Ind. App.), 
106 N. E. 889; P. V. Bailey, 164 App. 
DiT. 756. 149 N. T. S. 823. 



467-10 Christian *J. Smith Coal Co. 
(Ala.), 66 S. 641; McLendon v. Ruben- 
stein, 180 Ala. 615, 61 S. 902; Bradley 
Lumb. Co. V, Hamilton (Ark.), 173 S. 
W, 848; S. V, Stalker (la.), 151 N. W. 
527; Turner Lumb. Co. v, Tonopah 
Lumb. Co. (Nov.), 145 P. 914; Bradley 
V. Village of Union, 164 App. Div. 565, 
150 N. Y. S. 107; Gillihan v. Cieloha 
(Or.), 145 P. 1061. 

Prosecution on lesser offense. — ^<<The 
defendant cannot complain that he has 
been proceeded against for the lesser 
of two offenses committed by him. 
Neither is the fact that the evidence 
given upon the trial discloses the com- 
mission of a greater crime ground for 
reversal upon conviction for the les- 
ser.'* P. V. Gussfeld, 87 Misc. 274, 150 
N. Y. S. 599. 

467-20 Schultz r. Ericsson Co., 264 
111. 156, 106. N. E. 236; Grorud v. Lossl, 
48 Mont. 274, 136 P. 1069. 

468-21 Interstate Lumb. Co. v. 
Woods, 67 Pla. 202, 64 S. 741. 

468-22 Boyd v. San Pedro, L. A. & 
S. L. E. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 282, denial 
of nonsuit held harmless. 
The dismissal of a civil case for in- 
sufficient evidence instead of giving 
peremptory instructions for defendant 
is not reversible error. Braun v, Peet, 
97 Neb. 443, 150 N. W. 256. 

468-23 Colorado Midland B. Co. v. 
Edwards, 24 Colo. App. 350, 134 P. 
248; Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phos- 
phate Co. (Fla.), 67 S. 228; Welles v. 
Bryant (Fla.), 66 S. 562; Miller t? 
Morine (la.), 149 N. W. 229; North 
Biver Ins. Co. v. Dyche, 163 Ky. 271, 
173 S. W. 784; Burley v. Old Colony 
By. Co., 219 Mass. 483, 107 N. E. 365; 
M'Nitt V. GiUiland, 246 Pa. 378, 92 
A. 508. 

460-24 Hartsell v, Boberts, 185 Ala. 
201, 64 S. 90; Griffin V. S. (Ga. App.), 
83 S. E. 871; Cincinnati, etc. B. Co. v, 
Guinn, 163 Ky. 157, 173 S. W. 357; 
People's Bank v. Levert, 133 La. 494, 
63 S. 601; Eubanks v. McLeod, 105 
Miss. 826, 63 S. 226; Johnson v. Am- 
bursen Hydraulic Const. Co. (Mo. 
App.), 173 S. W. 1081; Williams v. 
Phelps (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1100; 
Gulf, T. ft W. B. Co. t?. Dickey (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1097. 
Conduct of the trlaL — ^Error in forcing 
parties to trial is harmless where it 
appears that the parties cannot main- 
tain the action and where the judg- 



107 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



ment recovered against them is vacated 
upon appeal. Whelan v, Adams (Okla.)> 
145 P. 1158. 

Denial of nonmUt may be rendered 
harmless by the subsequent admission 
of sufficient evidence to take the case 
to the jury. Scibor v. Oregon-Wash- 
ington B. & N. Co., 70 Or. 116, 140 
P. 629. 

469-26 Curtis V. Biddle, 177 Ala. 
128, 59 S. 47j Byan 9. Mineral County 
High School Dist. (Colo. App.>, 146 
P. 792; S. V, Han, 28 N. D. 649, 149 
N. W. 970; S. V. Dahms (N. D.), 149 
N. W. 965; Hanover Pire Ins. Co. f?. 
Eisman (Okla.), 146 P. 214. 

469-26 See Troy Automobile Ex- 
change V, Home Ins. Co., 164 App. Div. 
761, 149 N. Y. S. 978; Leavenworth 
u. Brandon, 76 Wash. 394, 136 P. 375. 
See P. V. Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 107 
N. E. 1058. 

Denial of amendment. — ^An erroneous 
denial of plaintiff's request to amend 
petition so as to allege greater dam- 
ages is harmless where plaintiff does 
not win his suit. Lyons t'. Armstrong, 
142 Ga. 257, 82 S. E. 651; Smith's 
Admz. V, Middlesboro Electric Co., 164 
Ky. 46, 174 S. W. 773. 

Directing Terdict is luunnleafl where 
the jury could not lawfully have re- 
turned any other verdict. Swift V. 
Moore (6a. App.), 82 S. E. 914. 

Transferring canse to eqnlty. — ^Though 
error may exist in transferring a 
cause from circuit court to chancery, 
it will be considered harmless where 
the evidence was undisputed and the 
decision of the chancellor was correct. 
Landreth V. Henson (Ark.), 173 S. W. 
427. 

469-27 Norvell V. Gilreath (Ala.), 
66 S. 635; Baker 17. Britt-Carson Shoe 
Co. (Ala.) 9 66 S. 475; Helms v. Central 
of Georgia B. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470; 
Corona C. ft 1. Co. v. Moore Stave Co., 
186 Ala. 593, 65 S. 51 (prejudicial 
error in striking a count); I>rew v. 
Fort Payne Co., 186 Ala. 285, 65 S. 
71; S. V. Waterworks Co., 185 Ala. 
388, 64 S. 23; Hoffman v, Moreman, 
184 Ala. 220, 63 S. 942; Parsons v. 
Age Herald Pub. Co., 181 Ala. 439, 
61 S. 345 (striking out replication held 
not prejudicial where the matters re- 
plied to were elsewhere denied); Sov- 
ereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Jones, 11 
Ala. App. 433, 66 S. 834; Minge ft 
Co. p, Barrett Bros. Shipping Co., 10 



Ala. App. 502, 65 S. 671 (rulings made 
on pleadings held not to prejudice 
plaintiff where his complaint ^owed a 
lack of ri^t to maintain the action); 
Hagin r. Sheaf, 9 Ala. App. 300, 63 S. 
764; Birmingham Transfer ft Traffic 
Co. V. Still, 7 Ala. App. 556, 61 3. 611; 
Woodmen of the World r. Jones^ 4 
Ala. App; 668, 59 S. 239; Burriff 9. 
Rodrigues, 22 Cal. App. 645, 135 P. 
1105; Kinard i;. KaeUn, 22 Cal. App. 
383, 134 P. 370; SCartinez 9. Martiness, 
57 Colo. 292, 141 P. 469; WeUea v. Bry- 
ant (Fla.), 66 a 562; Ferry Pass Ship- 
pers ft Inspection Assn. 17. Penaacola 
Lumb. Co., 65 Fla. 313, 61 S. 639; 
Brand v. Atlanta Coast Line B. Co., 64 
Fla. 1S4, 59 S. 956 (error in sustain- 
ing a plea held prejudicial); P. v, 
Koensgen (HI.), 106 N. E. 840; Bark- 
ley V, Barkley (Ind.), 106 N. B. 609; 
Jones V. Phoenix Ins. Co. (Kan.), 146 
P. 354; Belmont Dairy Co. ip. Thrasher, 
124 Md. 320, 92 A. 766; Shoop r. Fidel- 
ity ft Dep. Co., 124 Md. 130, 91 A. 753; 
Wagner v. Seattle (Wash.), 146 P. 
621. 

MisJoindAr haxmlesB.^— Galveston, H. ft 
S. A. B. Co. V. BrasseU (Tex, Civ.), 173 
S. W. 522. 

Electloa betireeii catuiM. — ^The refusal 
to require plaintiff to elect between 
different causes of action which in fact 
were tried as one, even if error, is 
without prejudice to defendant. Begse 
17. Carstarphen Elec. Co. (Colo. AppO, 
140 P. 478; Johnson v. Wild Bice Boom 
Co., 127 Minn. 490, 150 N. W. 218. 
Denial of leave to file cross-bill is not 
prejudicial where the decree would be 
no more competent and conclusive if 
offered under cross-bill than if offered 
under answer to original bill. Amer- 
ican Woolen Co. v. Lesher, 267 HI. 11, 
107 N. E. 882. 

A refornl to separate oom^laliit Into 

paragraphs is not reversible error. 
Huntington Light ft Fuel Co. V. Spell 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741. 
460-28 Singer Sewing Mach. Go. v, 
Methvin, 184 Ala. 554, 63 S. 997 (le- 
fusal to strike evidential m&tters from 
the complaint held not prejudicial); 
Pacific Imp. Co. v. Maxwell (CaL App.), 
146 P. 900; Cook V, Packard Motor 
Car Co., 88 Conn. 590, 92 A. 413; 
Maine v, Bittenmeyer (la.), 151 K. W. 
409; Bettinger V. Loring (la.),. 150 N. 
W. 31; Morris V. Brown (Tex. dr.), 
173 S. W. 265. 



108 



APPEALS 



7ol. 2 



n« pr eit uu a of poMlbly dafectlTe 
ooDBtB i& a deelarAtioji is not matdrial 
when thera are geod counts sustained 
by the evidence and there is nothing 
to indicate that the yerdict may pos- 
sibly have beei^ found under a de- 
fective count. McNeil v, Webekinir, 
M Pla. 407, 63 6. 728. 

460-S9 Moore v. Whitmire (Ala.), 
66 8. 601; Woodward Iron Co. «. Fin- 
ley (Ala.), ^ 8. 587; Ma^bank 9. 
Lumpkin (Ala.), 66 8. 584. 
Error in saatalsiliig demurrer, preju* 
diciaL— ^eo»e «. Boberts, 186 Ala. 521, 
65 8. 345; Central Lumb. Co. v. Mc- 
Ohure Lumb. Co., 180 Ala. 606, 61 B. 
821; Bieker v. Cullman, 178 Ala. 662, 
59 8. 625; i^uinn v, Pratt ConsoL Coal 
Co., 177 Ala. 434, 59 B. 49. 
AdMlwIoa made by defendant in epen- 
iniT etatement to j«ry renders harmless 
an error in sustaining a demurrer. First 
State Bank v. Bridgee, 89 Okla. 855, 
135 P. ZIS. 

4<ia-SO Connors-Weyman Steel Co. v, 
Kilgere (Ala.), «6 6. 609; Moore v. 
'WMtmire (Ala.), 66 8. 601; Woodard 
Iron Co. V. Finley (Ala.), 66 8. 567; 
ICaybank r. Lumpkin (Ala.), 66 8. 584; 
Tillis V. Smith Sons Lumb. Co. (Ala.), 
65 8. 1015; Cedar Creek Store Co. v. 
Steadham (Ala.), 65 8. 984; Copeland 
«. Union Nursery Co. (Ala.), 65 8. 984; 
Baker v. Lehman ft Co., 186 Ala. 493, 
65 8. 821; Eason Drug Co. v. Mont- 
gomery Showcase Co., 186 Ala. 454, 
65 8. 345; Sloss-Sheffield S. ft I. Co. 
c. Smith, 185 Ala. 607, 64 8. 337; 
Tatem c. Commercial Bank ft Tr. Co., 
185 Ala. 249, 64 8. 561; Twinn Tree 
Lumb. Co. 1^. Day, 181 Ala. 565, 61 S. 
914; Birmingliam By., L. ft P. Co. v, 
Simpson, 177 Ala. 475, 59 S. 213; Wood- 
men of the World v, Jones (Ala. App.), 
M 8. 634; Padgett v. Qulfport Fer- 
tilizer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 8. 
866; Central of Georgia B. Co. v. 
Campbell, 10 Ala. App. 288, 64 8. 540; 
Louisville ft N. B. Co. r. Mason, 10 
Ala. App. 263, 64 8. 154; Camp Trans- 
fer ft Warehouse Co. v, Bonham, 10 
Ala. App. 258, 64 8. 649; Frederick 
«. Coosa Pipe ft Foundry Co., 6 Ala. 
App. 810, 59 S. 702; Higdon V. Garrett, 

5 Ala. App. 467, 59 8. 309; Miller V. 
Assured 's Nat. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 264 
m. 380, 106 K E. 203; Nashville By. 
Go. €7. Johnson (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 
414; Unltod States F. ft G. Co. v. Shep- 
herd's Home Lodge, 163 Ky. 706, 174 

6 W. 487; Slater v. Lich (Wash.), 145 



P. 996. See Priebe v. Southern By. 
Co. (Ala.), Q^ 8. 573. 

460^1 Hunter v, Taylor (Ala.), 66 
S. 671; Baker v, Lehman Weil ft Co., 
186 Ala. 493, 65 S. 321; Massachusetts 
Mut Life Ins. Co. v, Crenshaw, 186 
Ala. 460, 65 S. 821; Liverett v, Nash- 
ville, C. ft St. L. B. Co. Co., 186 Ala. 
Ill, 65 S. 54; Birmingham By., L. ft 
P. Co. V. Johnson, 183 Ala. 352, 61 
8. 79; Bush v. Bussell, 180 Ala. 590, 
61 S. 373; Pence v. Mutual Benefit 
Life Ins. Co., 180 Ala. 583, 61 8. 817; 
Louisvillo ft N. B. Co. v, Dilburn, 
178 Ala. 600, 59 8. 438; Southern B. 
Co. V, Jarvis, 11 Ala. App. 635, 66 8. 
936; Loy v. Beid, 11 Ala. App. 231, 
65 S. 855 (error in overruling demurrer 
to a count cured by failure to intro- 
duce evidence to support the counts); 
Central of Georgia B. Co. v. Mathis, 9 
Ala. App. 643, 64 8. 197; Greek-Amer- 
ican Produce 6o. v. Pappas, 9 Ala. App. 
311, 63 S. 799; Liverpool ft London ft 
G. Ins. Co. V, Lavine, 5 Ala. App. 392, 
59 S. 336; Morris v. Hartley (Cal. 
App.), 146 P. 73; Ulman v, Thompson 
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 611; National 
Council V. Thomas, 163 Ky. 364, 173 
S. W. 813; Lara way v. Croft Lumb. 
Co. (W. Va.), 84 8. E. 333. See Na- 
tional Live Stock Ins. Co. v, Wolfe 
(Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 390. 

Snor oared by instnietions.— An error 
in overruling a demurrer is cured by 
the court's withdrawing from the jury 
all the evidence under the pleading 
demurred to. Central of Georgia B. 
Co. V, Hingson, 186 Ala. 40, 65 S. 45; 
Ballanger v. Shumate, 10 Ala. App. 
329, 65 S. 416. 

460-32 Scragg r. Sallee, 24 Cal. 
App. 133, 140 P. 706; Thain v, S. 
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 690. 

Prejudicial error in examining Juror. 
A challenge for implied bias may be 
taken for having served on the grand 
jury which found the indictment; con- 
sequently where the defendant has ex- 
hausted his peremptory challenges be- 
fore the completion of the jury it is 
reversible error for the court to ex- 
amine such a juror as though he had 
been challenged for actual bias. Hol- 
man v. S. (Ark.), 171 S. W. 107. 

461-83 Drawing of Jnrorn. — The 
drawing of a special jury before the 
hour designated therefor in the order 
is prejudicial error. P. v, Damron, 212 
N. Y. 256, 106 N. E. 67. 



109 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Calling jurors. — Error of clerk in call- 
ing jurors will not affect the judgment 
unless the complaining party was 
prejudiced. Hanson v. Kendt (E[an.)> 
146 P. 1190. 

461-34 Hegarty v. Maudsley (la.), 
150 N. W. 4 (improper cross-examina- 
tion held harmless) ; Leavens v. Hoover, 
93 Kan. 661, 145 P. 877 (restricting 
cross-examination of witness, held 
harmless); Olson t?. White Star Lumb. 
Co., 159 Wis. 391, 150 N. W. 443, use 
of. memorandum by witness held harm- 
less. 

Merely corroborative and cuniilatlve 
answers to improper questions will not 
constitute prejudicial error. Lockridge 
V. Brown, 184 Ala. 106, 63 8. 524. 

461-35 Rogers t?. Smith, 184 Ala. 
506, 63 S. 530; Knox Engineering Co. 
V, Koek Island S. R. Co., 264 111. 198, 

106 N. E. 188. 

Limiting number of witnesses to testify 
to one point is not prejudicial. Geohe- 
gan V. Union Elevated Co., 266 HI. 482, 

107 N. E. 786, 787. 

462-37 Norvell u. Gilreath (Ala.), 
66 S. 635; Jones r. White (Ala.), 66 
S. 605; Ward V. Lane (Ala.), 66 S. 
499; Garrow f?. Toxey (Ala.), 66 8. 
443; Age-Herald Pub. Co. t?. Water- 
man (Ala.), 66 S. 16; Birmingham By., 
L. & P. Co. r. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 
S. 584; Logan t?. Smith Bros. & Co., 
9 Ala. App. 459, 63 S. 766; Tuskegee 
Land & Security Co. v. Birmingham 
Realty Co., 5 Ala. App. 499, 59 S. 557; 
Hall V. Cardwell, 5 Ala. App. 481, 59 
S. 514; Shaw v. Cleveland, 5 Ala. App. 
333, 59 S. 534; Ft. Smith Lumb. Co. 
V, Shackleford (Ark.), 171 S. W. 99; 
Blanc r. Connor, 167 Cal. 719, 141 P. 
217; Fernandez v. Watt (Cal. App.), 
146 P. 47; Colorado Springs & Inter- 
urban Ry. Co. 17. Allen, 55 Colo. 891, 
135 P. 790; Meeker t?. Fairfield, 25 
Colo. App. 187, 136 P. 471; Tampa & 
J. R. Co. V. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 
S. 437; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v, 
Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, 61 S. 179; Rav v. 
S., 142 Ga. 655, 83 S. E. 518; Field 
r. Ilardwick & Co., 142 Ga. 424, 83 
S. E. 93; Yarn V. Chapman, 142 Ga. 
243, 82 S. E. 641; Aiona v. Ponahawai 
Coffee Co., 20 Haw. 724; Terre Haute, 
I. & E. Tract Co. i\ Frischman (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 296; Louisville, etc. 
Co. V. Lottich (Ind. App.), 106 N. E. 
903; Woodworth t\ Iowa Cent. R. Co. 
(la.), 149 N. W. 522; Franks v, C, 



163 Ky. 96, 173 S. W. 327; Conowingo 
Land Co. n McGaw, 124 Md. 643, 93 
A. 222; Harford Nat. Bank v. Butledge, 
124 Md. 46, 91 A. 790; Jewett <?. Bos- 
ton El. R. Co., 219 Mass. 528, 107 N. E. 
433; Manley v. Bay State B. Co. 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 409; Boeing v. Ford- 
ney (Mich.), 150 N. W. 852; In re 
Paulson's Est. (Minn.), 150 N. W. 
914; Nichols u. Atwood, 127 Minn. 
425, 149 N. W. 672; Klein v, Frerichs, 
127 Minn. 177, 149 N. W. 2; J. J. New- 
man Lumb. Co. 17. Dantzler (Miss.), 64 
S. 931; Baxter v, Campbell Lumb. Co. 
(Mo.), 171 B. W. 955; Lauff v. Ken- 
nard ft Sons Carpet Co., 186 Mo. App. 
123, 171 S. W. 986; Westlake t?. Keat- 
ing Gold M. Co., 48 Mont. 120, 136 
P. 38; Sleeper t?. Smith (N. H.). 91 
A. 866; Ferebee t?. R. Co., 167 N. C. 
290, 83 S. E. 360; Peyton v. Hamilton- 
Brown Shoo Co., 167 N. C. 280, 83 S. E. 
487; Rice V. Theimer (Okla.), 146 P. 
702; Midland Valley R. Co. r. Lynn, 
38 Okla. 695, 135 P. 370; H. S. Gile 
Grocery Co. v, Lachmund (Or.), 146 P. 
519; Everhart u. Fischer (Or.), 145 P. 
33; MeClaugherty r. Rogue River Elec- 
tric Co. (Or.), 140 P. 64; S. v. Le- 
macks, 98 S. C. 498, 82 S. E. 879; 
Fuller V. El Paso Live Stock Com. Co,- 
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 930; Memphis 
Cotton Oil Co. V. Tolbert (Tex. Civ.), 
171 S. W. 309; Denton r. English 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 248; Kipros r, 
Uintah R. Co. (Utah), 146 P. 292; 
Doyle V, Langdon, 80 Wash. 175^ 141 
P. 352; Zuloger v, Zeh, 160 Wis. 60O, 
150 N. W. 406; Czapinski v. Thomas 
Furnace Co., 158 Wis. 635, 149 N. W. 
477. 

Cross-ezaminatlon of witness as to 
whether he did not give certain testi- 
mony at the preliminary hearing, held 
harmless. Bradley v, S., 11 Ala. App. 
329, 66 S. 820. 

Formal defects. — <' Appellate courts are 
no longer reversing judgments be- 
cause of the allowance of questions 
and answers that are variant only in 
form, and are clearly good in sob- 
stance and effect." Huntsville v. Pul- 
ley (Ala.), 65 S. 405. 
Refusal to strike out direct testimony 
after cross-examination was not preju- 
dicial error where in a personal injury 
case a physician had testified that a 
certain condition would give pain and 
a certain movement was limited and 
evidentlv painful. Darling r. Grand 
Rapids R. Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W, 701. 



110 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



Before each error can be disregarded 
as Bon-mrejndicial it mnst appear such 
error did not and could not have 
prejudiced the complaining party. The 
appellate court must not be called upon 
to decide that the verdict was correct 
uQtwithstanding the error. Huston v. 
Johnson (N. D.), 151 N. W. 774. 
Error beneflclal to appellant. — U the 
erroneous admission or exclusion of 
evidence tends to strengthen the theory 
of the complaining party, it is not 
reversible error. Memphis Cotton Oil 
Co. V. Goode (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 
284. 

Error cued by answer. — Questions call- 
ing for hearsay evidence may be ren- 
dered harmless by the answer. Scragg 
r. Sallee, 24 Cal. App. 133, 140 P. 706. 

462-38 Cummings r. McDonnell 
(Ala-), 66 8. 717; Pearsall v, Hyde 
(Ala.), 66 S. 665; Snead r. Patterson 
(Ala.), 66 S. 664; Stouts Mountain 
Coal & Coke Co. v. Tedder (Ala.), 66 
8. 619; Moore v. Whitmire (Ala.), 66 
8. 601; Ward v. Lane (Ala.), 66 8. 
499; Stewart v, Riley (Ala.), 66 8. 488; 
Bike r. McHugh (Ala.), 66 8. 452; 
Garrow v. Toxey (Ala.), 66 8. 443; 
Pierce v. Huntsville, 185 Ala. 490, 64 
8. 301; Sloss-Sheffield 8. ft I. Co. v. 
Mitchell, 181 Ala. 576, 61 8. 934; Briel 
r. Exchange Nat. Bank, 180 Ala. 576, 
61 8. 277; Carter v, Tennessee Coal, 
I. ft B. Co., 180 Ala. 367, 61 8. 65; 
Blalack 17. Blacksher, 11 Ala. App. 
545, 66 S. 863; Lefkovitz v. Lester, 11 
Ala. App. 504, 66 8. 894; Jefferson 
Fertilizer Co. v. Burns, 10 Ala. App. 
301, 64 S. 667; Taxicab ft Touring Car 
Co. V, Cabaniss, 9 Ala. App. 549, 63 
6. 774; Page 17. Haas Bros. Packing Co., 
9 Ala. App. 445, 63 S. 691; Nashville 
O. ft St. L. B. Co. V. Hinds, 5 Ala. 
App. 596, 59 S. 670; Tiner v. 8. (Ark.), 
172 8. W. 1010; Bow v, OroviUe, 22 
Cal. App. 215, 134 P. 197; In re Burn- 
ham's Will (Colo. App.), 134 P. 254; 
McTyre 17. Stearns, 142 Ga. 850, 83 
8. E. 955; Martin v, Monroe, 142 Ga. 
807, 83 8. E. 958; P. v. Spencer, 264 
HI. 124, 106 'N. E. 219; Bobinson 17. 
8. (Tnd.), 106 N. E. 533; Waltham 
Piano Co. r. Lindholm Furniture Co. 
(la,), 150 N. W. 1040; G. J. Stewart ft 
Co. r. Whicher (la.), 150 N. W. 64; 
Miller r. Kerr (Kan.), 146 P. 1159; 
Beid €. Eastern 8. 8. Co., 112 Me. 34, 
90 A. 609; Michael v. Smith, 124 Md. 
116, 91 A. 762; Edgerly 17. Maccabees 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 692; Newton 17. 



Consolidated Const. Co. (Mich.), 150 
N. W. 348; Bragg ft Co. v, Johnson 
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 223; Thomas t7. 
St. Louis, I. M. ft 8. B. Co., 187 Mo. 
App. 420, 173 8. W. 728; Boone County 
Lumb. Co. V, Niedermeyer, -187 Mo. 
App. 180, 173 8. W. 57; P. i7. Sarzano, 
212 N. Y. 231, 106 N. E. 87; Tillett v. 
B. Co., 166 N. C. 515, 82 8. E. 866; 
Missouri, O. ft G. B. Co. v. Miller 
(Okla.), 145 P. 367; Meier ft Frank 
Co. 17. Mitlehner (Or.), 146 P. 796; 
Levin 17. V. Clad ft Sons, 244 Pa. 194, 
90 A. 570; Ebberts 17. Borough of 
Edgewood, 243 Pa. 595, 90 A. 334; 
Coons 17. McKees Bocks, 243 Pa. 340, 

90 A. 141; Oliver 17. Pettaconsett Const. 
Co., 36 B. L 477, 90 A. 764; 8. 17. 
Lemacks, 98 8. C. 498, 82 8. E. 879; 
Houston E. ft W. T. B. Co. 17. Cavanaugh 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 619; Missouri, 
K. ft T. B. Co. 17. Empire Express Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 222; Gulf, T. 
ft W. B. Co. 17. Dickey (Tex. Civ.), 171 
8. W. 1097; MoUoy 17. Brower (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1079; Stofferan 17. 
Okanogan County, 76 Wash. 265, 136 
P. 484; McKay 17. Seattle Elec. Co., 76 
Wash. 257, 136 P. 134. 

463-30 Streit 17. Wilkerson, 186 Ala. 
88, 65 8. 164; Birmingham By., L. ft 
P. Co. 17. O'Brien, 185 Ala. 617, 64 8. 
343; Empire Coal Co. i?. Gravlee, 9 
Ala. App. 657, 64 S. 207; 8. 17. Lemacks, 
98 8. C. 498, 82 8. E. 879; Texas ft P. 
R. Co. 17. Graham (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. 
W. 297; Bickford 17. Hupp (Wash.), 145 
P. 454. 

463-40 Norvell v. Gilreath (Ala.), 
66 8. 635; Moore 17. Whitmire (Ala.), 
66 8. 601; Bike 17. McHugh ft Groom 
(Ala.), 66 8. 452; Pennsylvania F. Ins, 
Co. 17. Draper (Ala.), 65 8. 923; Gilley 
r. Denman, 185 Ala. 561, 64 S. 97; 
C*. M. Staub Shoe Co. u. Byrne (Cal.), 
145 P. 1032; Scott 17. McPherson, 168 
Cal. 783, 145 P. 529; Tampa ft J. B. 
Co. 17. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 8. 437; 
Cole Motor Co. 17. Morrison, 142 Ga. 
542, 83 8. E. 95; Silverthorne r. Arkan- 
sas 8. B. Co., 142 Ga. 194, 82 S. E. 
551; Boss u. Beynolds, 112 Me. 223, 

91 A. 952; Boswell 17. Norton, 125 Md. 
11, 93 A. 214; Herring-Hall-Marvin S. 
Co. 17. Balliet (Nov.), 145 P. 941; Wil- 
liams 17. Dockwiler (N. M.), 145 P. 
475, 479; Evarart 17. Fischer (Or.), 145 
P. 33; Ft. Worth ft D. C. By. Co. i?. 
Firestone (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 919; 
Missouri, K. ft T. B. Co. 17. Empire 



111 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Express Co. (Tex. Civ.), .173 S. W. 
222. 

463-41 First Nat. Bank f?. Johnson 
(Ala.), 67 S. 234; Ward v. Lane (Ala.), 
66 8. 499; Borne Industrial Ins. Co. v, 
Eidson, 142 Ga. 253, 82 S. E. 641; P. 
V. Strosnider, 264 111. 434, 106 N. E. 
229; Boss r. Beynolds, 112 Me. 223, 91 

A. 952; Manley v. Bay State By. Co. 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 409; De Sandro 17. 
Missoula L. & W. Co., 48 Mont. 226, 
136 P. 711; S. V. Heavener (N. C), 
83 S. E. 732. 

The withdrawal of an allegation to 
support which erroneous evidence is 
admitted will cure the error. Sappen- 
field V, National Zinc Co.^ 94 Ejin. 22, 
145 P. 862. 

464-42 Turner Lumb. Co. v, Tonopah 
Lumb Co. (Nov.), 145 P. 914; Darby 
Coal Min. Co. v. Shoop, 116 Va. 848, 
83 S. E. 412. 

BemlBrion of part of damages may ren- 
der harmless the admission of erroneous 
evidence as to damages. Cranford v. 
O'Shea (Wash.), 145 P. 579. 

464-43 Central Ga. P. Co. t?. Stone, 
142 Ga. 662, 83 S. E. 524; Wheatcraft 
f?. Myers (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 81; 
6ullenbarger v. Ahrens (la.), 150 N. 
W. 71; Witthauer t;. Wheeler (la.), 150 
N. W. 46; Bamlet Bealty Co. v. Doff 
(Mich.), 150 N. W. 307; Harriss V, S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 354; Witty v. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 229. 

465-44 Central of Georgia B. Co. v. 
Teasley (Ala.), 65 S. 981 (admission 
of irrelevant evidence held prejudi- 
cial); Watson f>. Adams (Ala.), 65 S. 
528; Troy Lumb. & C. Co. v, Boswell, 
186 Ala. 409, 65 S. 141; Illinois Cent. 

B. Co. f?. Lowery, 184 Ala; 443, 63 S. 
952, 49 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1149; Si- 
moneau v. Pacific Electric B. Co., 166 
Cal. 264, 136 P. 544; Dublin v, Ogburn, 
142 Ga. 840, 83 S. E. 939; Central of 
Georgia v. Prior, 142 Ga. 536, 83 S. 
E. 117; S. V. Kirk (la.), 150 N. W. 
91; Hall v. Shenandoah (la.), 149 N. 
W. 831; In re Schaffner's Est., 92 Kan. 
570, 141 P. 251; Maloney v, Philpot, 
219 Mass. 480, 107 N. E. 369; P. v. 
Marendi, 213 N. Y. 600, 107 N. E. 
1058; Bloom v. Union B. Co. (App. 
Div.),' 150 N. Y. S. 779; P. v. Follette, 
164 App. Div. 272, 149 N. Y. S. 888; 
Mankes r. Fishman, 163 App. Div. 
789, 149 N. Y. S. 228; Titus t?. Spencer, 
151 N. Y. S. 515; Orient Land CO. r. 
Boeder (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 939; 



Wichita Palls & W. B. Co. e. Asher 

(Tex. Civ.). 171 S. W. 1114; Shepherd 

r. Denver & B. G. B. Co. (Utah), 145 

P. 296; Klas V. Kuehl, 159 Wis. 561, 

150 N. W. 973. 

Instruction to disregard does not cure 

error. Institution, etc. v. Brookline 

(Mass.), 107 N. E. 939. 

Not cured by wlthdrawaL — ^Davis i^. S. 

(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 978. 

An indemnity agreement erroneously 

admitted in evidence is prejudicial, 

since it would tend to show that the 

plaintiff had so little faith in his case 

that he required an indemnity bond 

against possible loss. Coffman v, Xiouis- 

ville & N. B. Co., 184 Ala. 474, 63 S. 

527. 

465-46 BoUins v. Pearnley Inv. & 
B. E. Co., 25 Colo. App. 85, 136 P. 95. 
466-46 T7nanthorized view by Judge. 

Where a view is had by the trial 
judge without the consent of the par- 
ties and his decision is based in part 
upon such view, the error will be pre- 
sumed prejudicial. Elston v, McGlaoflin, 
79 Wash; 355, 140 P. 396. 
466-47 Header «. Evans (Ala.), 66 
S. 446; WilUams v, Lyon, 181 Ala. 531, 
61 S. 299; Cook & Laurie Contracting 
Co. V. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 59 8. 273; 
Arkansas Logging Co. 17. Martin (Ark.), 
173 S. W. 184; McKinnon v, Mcll- 
hargey, 24 Ida. 720, 135 P. 826; Meyer- 
Bridges Co. V. American Warehouse 
Co. (Kan.), 146 P. 361; Leavens v. 
Hoover, 93 Kan. 661, 145 P. 877 (re- 
stricting cross-examination held harm- 
less); Sandy Valley k E. B. Co. v, 
Bentley, 161 Ky. 555, 171 S. W. 178; 
Harford Nat. Bank v. Butledge, 124 
Md. 46, 91 A. 791; Green r. North- 
western Trust Co. (Minn.), 150 N. W. 
229; Dunne vant v, B. Co., 167 N. C. 
232, 83 S. E. 347; Hazlett v. Wilkin, 
42 Okla. 20, 140 P. 410; Pecos & N. T. 
B. Co. V, Amarillo St. B. Co (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1103; De Pas v. South- 
ern Wis. B. Co., 159 Wis. 306, 150 
N. W. 408; Bogers r. Bosenfeld, 158 
Wis. 285, 149 N. W. 33. 
Cured by instruction. — ^Error In ex- 
clusion of evidence is harmless where 
court properly instructed as to suffi- 
oiencv. Mundy's Exrs. v. Garland, 116 
Va. 922, 83 S. E. 491. ' 
View by Jury. — A denial of view by 
jury is not reversible unless injury re- 
sulted to the applicant. Atlantic Coast 
Line B. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Ela. 72, 61 
8. 179. 



112 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



lamltfttioii of cro88-ezamlnatlon. — Ginns 
V, Sherer Co., 219 Mass. 18, 106 N. E. 
600. 

VThere an issue becomes immaterial hy 
reason of the verdict or judgment, rul- 
ings on evidence as to such issue are 
harmless, as for example the exclusion 
of evidence of decedent's age in an 
action for wrongful death, where the 
verdict is for defendant. Helms v, 
Georgia E. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470. 

466-48 Brown f?. Central of Georgia 
B. Co., 185 Ala. 659, 64 S. 581; Alex- 
ander V. Smith, 180 Ala. 541, 61 S. 
68; Askew v, S., 11 Ala. App. 293, 66 
S. 852; Phillips f?. S., 11 Ala. App. 
35, 65 S. 444; Jefferson Fertilizer Co. 
r. Bums, 10 Ala. App. 301, 64 S. 667; 
Kendrick 9. Cunningham, 9 Ala. App. 
398, 63 S. 797; Coolidge v. Austin, 22 
Cal. App. 334, 134 P. 357; In re Burn- 
ham's Will (Colo. App.), 134 P. 254; 
Bevine v. Northwestern E. R, Co., 265 
lU. 641, 107 N. E. 118; P. v. Strosnider, 
264 HI. 434, 106 N. B. 229; Burley v. 
Old Colony E. Co., 219 Mass. 483, 107 
N. E. 365; Luckhurst 17. Schroeder 
(Mich.), 149 N. W. 1009; Lauff v. Ken- 
nard & Sons, 186 Mo. App. 123, 171 
S. W. 986; Anderson t?. Meier & Frank 
Co., 68 Or. 21, 136 P. 660. 

466-49 Mizell r. Farmers' Bank, 180 
Ala. 568, 61 S, 272; Neville V. Miller 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109. 

467-50 Potter v. Shauf (Ala.), 65 S. 
778; Michael t?. Smith, 124 Md. 116, 91 
A. 762, exclusion of evidence favorable 
to the adverse part, harmless error. 
Subsequent admission of exdnded evi- 
dence, etc — Ward r. Lane (Ala.), 66 
S. 499; Scragg v. Sallee, 24 Cal. App. 
133, 140 P. 706; Michael t?. Smith, 124 
Md. 116, 91 A. 762; Wild Rose Orchard 
Co. V. Critzer, 79 Wash. 462, 140 P. 
561. 

467-61 West v. Cowan (Ala.), 66 S. 
816; Texas & P. By. Co. v, Spann (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 600; Trinity & B. V. 
R. Co. V. Orenbaum (Tex. Civ.), 173 
8. W. 531; Hooker Co. t^. Hooker (Vt.), 
92 A. 443. 

467-52 Snllenbarger v. Ahrens (la.), 
150 N. W. 71; Cain v. Osier (la.), 
150 N. W. 17; Sandy Valley & E. R. 
Co. V. Bentley, 161 Ky. 555, 171 S. W. 
ITS; Sweikhart V, Hanrahan (Mich.), 
150 N. W. 833; Graseth r. Knitting Co. 
CMinn.), 150 N. W. 804; Krum v. Sul- 
livan & Schaberg Trans. & F. Co., 97 
Kcb. 491. 150 N. W. 640; Ditzler Dry 



Goods Co. V. Sanders (Okla.), 146 P. 
17; Anderson & Day r. Darsey (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1089; Behling v. Wis- 
consin Bridge & Iron Co., 158 Wis. 584, 
149 N. W. 484. 

Miscondnct of Judge. — ^Remarks of the 
trial judge may so tend to mislead 
the jury as to be prejudicial. Peter- 
son V, Pittsburg Silver Peak G. Min. 
Co. (Nov.), 140 P. 519. Court's re- 
mark, '*thiB witness is too smart," 
held to be reversible error. Chance v. 
Ice & C. Co., 166 N. C. 495, 82 S. E. 
845. 

Induced by opposing counsel. — ^Im- 
proper conduct of one counsel respon- 
sive to improper remarks of other coun- 
sel is not reversible error. Maine V. 
Rittenmeyer (la.), 151 N. W. 499. 
468-63 Christian r. Stith Co. (Ala.), 
66 S. 641; Ogburn-Griffin Gro. Co. t?. 
Orient Ins. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 434; Loeb 
V. Montgomery, 184 Ala. 217, 63 S. 
1023 (an illustration used by the judge 
in his instructions held not erroneous) ; 
Mulder 17. Stokes, 184 Ala. 195, 63 S. 
563; Sheffield Co. tJ. Harris, 183 Ala. 
357, 61 S. 88; Continental Gin Co. r. 
MUbrat, 10 Ala. App. 351, 65 S. 424; 
Central of Georgia R. Co. v, Campbell, 
10 Ala. App. 288, 64 S. 540; Charlie's 
Transfer Co. V. W. B. Leedy & Co., 9 
Ala. App. 652, 64 S. 205; Loeb v. Mont- 
gomery, 7 Ala. App. 325, 61 S. 642; 
Birmingham & A. E. Co. v. Norris (Ala. 
App.), 59 S. 66; Railways Ice Co. v. 
Howell (Ark.), 174 S. W. 241; Cook 
V, Los Angeles By. Corp. (Cal.), 145 
P. 1013; Nelson V, Nelson (Colo. App.), 
146 P. 1079; Dean f?. Connecticut Tob. 
Corp., 88 Conn. 619, 92 A. 408; Mc- 
Gehee Lumb. Co. v. Tomlinson, 66 Fla. 
536, 63 S. 619; McNeil v. Webeking, 66 
Fla. 407, 63 S. 728; German-American 
Lumb. Co. <?. Barrett, 66 Fla. 181, 63 
S. 661; Shore v, Ferguson, 142 Ga. 657, 
83 S. E. 518; Pulliam v. Adams, 142 
Ga. 623, 83 S. E. 121; Georgia R. & B. 
Co. f?. Auchinachie, 142 Ga. 513, 83 S. 
E. 127; Atlanta v. Nelson, 142 Ga. 324, 
82 S. E. 899; P. <?. Grosenheider, 266 
HI. 324, 107 N. E. 607; Jeffries v, 
Alexander, 266 111. 49, 107 N. E. 146; 
P. V. Mendelson, 264 HI. 453, 106 N. E. 
249; P. V. Spira, 264 111. 243, 106 N. E. 
241; Schultz v. Ericsson Co., 264 HI. 
156, 106 N. E. 236; Nordyke, etc. Co. 
V. Whitehead (Ind.), 106 N. E. 867; 
Thain v. S. (Ind.), 106 N. E. 690; 
Pittsburg, C. C & St. L. R. Co. t?. 
Macy (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 486; 



113 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Terre H&ute Traction Co. «. FriBchman 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 296; Marietta 
Glass Co. V. Bennett (Ind. App^y 106 
N. E. 419; Parkhill v. Bekins* Van, 
etc. Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 606; Hongh 
V. Illinois Cent. E. Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 
885; Van Vliet Fletcher Auto. Co. t?. 
Crowell (la.), 149 N. W. 861; Healer 
V. Inkman (Kan.), 146 P. 1172; Wil- 
liamson 17. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. (Kan.), 
146 P. 816; Thomas f). Warrenburg, 92 
Kan. 576, 141 P. 255; Smith V. Joplin 
& P. B. Co., 91 Kan. 31, 136 P. 930; 
Taylor v, Atchison Gravel, etc. Co., 90 
Kan. 452, 135 P. 676; Lawrence t?. 
Board of Councilmen, 162 Ky. 528, 172 
S. W. 953; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. 
Davis, 162 Ky. 572, 172 S. W. 966; 
Mulloy V. Louisville, 161 Ky. 596, 171 
S. W. 190; Hart f>. Leitch, 124 Md. 
77, 91 A. 782; Taylor v. Indiana 
Electric Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 739; 
Kennedy v. Ford (Mich.), 149 N. W. 
1013; Baski v. Great Northern B. Co. 
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 618; Gronlund v. 
Cudahy Packing Co., 127 Minn. 515, 
150 N. W. 176; Johnson v. Wild Bice 
Boom Co., 127 Minn. 490, 150 N. W. 
218; Johnson V, Minnesota Farmers' 
Mut. Ins. Co. (Minn.), 150 N. W. 174; 
Chase v, Tingdale Bros., 127 Minn. 401, 
149 N. W. 654; Tierney v. United 
Bys. Co., 185 Mo. App. 720, 171 S. W. 
977; Kieselhorst Piano Co. v. Porter, 
185 Mo. App. 676, 171 S. W. 949; St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. B. Co. 17. McMichael 
(Ark.), 171 S. W. 115; Wenquist 17. 
Omaha & C. B. St. B. Co., 97 Neb. 
554, 150 N. W. 637; Usher 17. American 
Smelt, ft Bef. Co., 97 Neb. 526, 150 
N. W. 814; Jones 17. B. Co., 97 Neb. 
306, 149 N. W. 813; Fitzsimons 17. Is- 
man (App. Div.), 151 N. Y. S. 552; 
S. 17. Heveaner (N. C), 83 S. E. 732; 
Sorg 17. Brest (N. D.), 150 N. W. 455; 
Seay 17. Plunkett (Okla.), 145 P. 496 
(that pleadings were set out in full in 
instructions, held harmless); Chicago, 
B. I. & P. B. Co. 17. Newburn, 39 Okla. 
704, 136 P. 174; Windham 17. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 173 S. W. 661; House 17. State 
(Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 206; Galveston, 
H. ft S. A. B. Co. 17. Boemer (Tex, 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 229; Moore 17. Cooper 
Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1034; 
King 17. King (Wash.), 145 P. 971; 
Crawford 17. O'Shea (Wash.), 145 P. 
579; Perrault 17. Emporium Department 
Store Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 438; Lebovitz 
V, Cogswell (Wash.), 145 P. 212 (di- 
rection as to form of verdict held harm- 



less); North Bend L. Co. i?. Chicago, 
M. ft P. S. B. Co., 76 Wash. 232, 135 
P. 1017; Cranford 17. O^Shea, 75 Wash. 
33, 134 P. 486; Falkner 17. Schultz, 160 
Wis. 694, 150 N. W. 424; Dishmaker 17. 
Heck, 159 Wis. 572, 150 N. W. 951; 
Peterson 17. Lemke, 159 Wis. 353, 150 
N. W. 481; Trzebietowski 17. Jereski, 
159 Wis. 190, 149 N. W. 743; Behling 
17. Wisconsin Bridge ft I. Co., 158 Wis. 
584, 149 N. W. 484; Manz u. Klippel, 
158 Wis. 557, 149 N. W. 375; Sobek 
17. George H. Smith Steel Casting Co.. 
158 Wis. 517, 149 N. W. 152. 
A charge that connael correctly stated 
the law on a particular subject though 
erroneous is harmless, where it is shown 
by the bill of exceptions that counsel 
did in fact state the law correctly. Be- 
public Iron ft Steel Co. v. Passafume, 
181 Ala. 463, 61 S. 327. 
Entire charge conaidered. — ^And in de- 
termining whether an instruction is 
misleading, the entire charge, and not 
merely the portion objected to, must 
be considered. Spahn 17. People's B. 
Co. (Del.), 92 A. 727. 
ArgnmentatlTe IsBtraction is harmless. 
Cummings 17. JiicDonnell (Ala.), 66 S. 
717. 

Election between conntSi — ^An error in 
not compelling an election between, 
counts, on resting of plaintiff's case, 
may be cured by a proper instruction. 
Yazoo ft M. Y. B. Co. 17. Fisher Bros., 
102 Miss. 702, 59 S. 877. 
Amonnt of damages. — Error in instruc- 
tion as to amount of damages is not 
available where no complaint is made 
as to the amount of verdict. Sovereign 
Camp of Woodmen 17. Latham (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 749. 

Cored by other Instmctlons. — ^Erron- 
eous instructions may be harmless be- 
cause cured by other instructions. S. t?. 
Pier not (la.), 149 N. W. 446; 8. -o. 
Steel, 184 Mo. App. 350, 171 S. W. 10- 
Assoming the commlasloii of the crime 
in the instruction is harmless where it;s 
commission is proved beyond doubt. P. 
V. Spira, 264 HI. 243, 106 N. E. 241. 

A failure to state the issues may ^be 
harmless. Peterson 17. Arland, 79 Wash.. 
679, 141 P. 63. 

Use of word "bralceman** instead of 
*' flagman" is not prejudicial where 
from pleadings, evidence, and instruc- 
tions as a whole the jury could not 
have been misled by erroneous use of 
word. Louisville & N. B. Co. i?. Cul- 
pepper, 142 Ga. 275, 82 S, E. 659, 



lU 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



Abstract infltractioiiB calcnUtad to xnls- 
lead will not cause a reversali unless 
thej operated to the prejudice of ap- 
pellant. Commings f?. McDonnell (Ala.), 
66 S. 7i7; Lockridge v. Brown, 184 Ala. 
106, 63 S. 524. 

A charge on an iasae not raised, though 
erroneous is not ground for reversal. 
Schenck v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 S. W. 
357. 

Instrnctions on conelatlye proposttfons. 

Where instructions are given as to the 
rights of the parties on propositions 
correlative to those in issue they are 
not prejudicial although they might 
have been omitted. Howard v. Dick- 
son (la.), 149 N. W. 69. 

468-54 Gamer v. Morris (Ala.), 65 
8. 1000; Xorman V, Bullock County 
Bank (Ala.), 65 S. 371; Coffman V. 
Louisville & N. B. Co., 184 Ala. 474, 63 
8. 527; Birmingham So. B. Co. v. Mor- 
ris, 9 Ala. App. 530, 63 S. 768; Ten- 
nessee Valley Bank v. S. M. Avery & 
Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 S. 813; Spen- 
cer ft Co. V. Bank of Hickory Bidge 
(Ark.), 171 S. W. 128; Western & A. 
B. Co. V. Knight, 142 Ga. 801, S3 S. 
E. 943; Williams v. Hanks, 142 Ga. 126, 
82 8. E. 522; Bryant v. S. (Ga. App.), 83 
8. E. 795; P. V, Fryer, 266 111. 216, 107 
N. £. 134; Studebaker Corp. of Amer- 
ica r. Dodds & Bunge, 161 Ky. 542, 171 
8. W. 167; McDowell v. Fuller (Mich.), 
150 N. W. 353; Bauer v. Great Northern 
B. Co. (Minn.), 150 N. W. 394; Dority 
r. St. Louis B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 8. 
W. 209; Levine v. Kass, 87 Misc. 297, 

149 N. Y. 8. 950; Greitz v. Linch, 151 
K Y. 8. 545; Chicago, E. L & P. 
B. Co. «. Beatty, 42 Okla. 528, 141 P. 
442; Fortney v. Breon, 245 Pa. 47, 91 
A. 525; Paysse r. Paysse (Wash.), 146 
P. 840; Gourd V. Healy (App. Div.), 

150 X. Y. 8. 1006; Bugajski v. Fuel Co., 
158 Wis. 4.54, 149 N. W. 277; Wyoming 
Coal M. Co. V. Stanko (Wyo.), 135 P. 
1090. 

Prejudicial as to damages. — Norman v, 
Bullock Co. Bank (Ala.), 65 8. 371; 
Stewart c. Swartz (Ind. App.), 106 N. 
E. 719. 

Contradictory Instructions. — ^Where one 
of two contradictory instructions is er- 
roneous the error will be deemed pre- 
judicial, if it cannot be ascertained on 
which instruction the jury relied. J. T. 
Burgher & Co. v. Floore (Tex.), 174 
8. W. 819. 

Headings of pleadings in Instmcting 
)ni7«r— It is error for court, in the 



course of its charge to read the plead- 
ings to the jury, but such error will 
not warrant a reversal unless coupled 
with prejudice. Peery v. Dlinois Cent. 
B. Co. (Minn.), 150 K W. 882. 
Remedied by ezplanatorjr ebazge.— In 
Alabama ''it is the general rule recog- 
nized by this court that tiie giving of 
a charge with misleading tendency is 
not reversible error,'* The remedy is 
to ask an explanatory charge. Ogburn- 
Griffin Gro. Co. v. Orient Ins. Co. (Ala.), 
66 8. 434. 

Corrected instructions will not cure the 
error unless the attention of the jury 
is called to it and the instruction with- 
drawn. Western, etc. Co. v» Sellers (Ga. 
App.), 83 8. E. 445. Other instruc- 
tions which when read together eon- 
diet with the erroneous instruction, will 
not cure the latter. Blake v, B. Co., 
(la.), 149 N. W. 880. 

Misleading instructions.— In detinue 
for a mule traded by defendant to 
plaintiff and retaken by defendant af* 
ter rescinding the contract for fraud or 
breach of warranty, a charge that, if 
the animal was the property of plain- 
tiff when defendant took it, the ver- 
dict should be for plaintiff, was mis- 
leading. McCoy V, Prince, 11 Ala. App. 
388, 66 8. 950. 

Submitting tort action as one In con* 
tract. — ^It is error to charge that the 
case is for breach of contract in an ac- 
tion for damages for mental suffering 
from the delay in the delivery of a 
telegram. Western Tel. Co. v. Hol- 
land, 11 Ala. App. 510, 66 8. 926. 
469-65 Amzi Godden Seed Co. v, 
6mith, 185 Ala. 296, 64 8. 100; Florida 
East Coast B. Co. v. Carter, 67 Fla. 335, 
65 8. 254; Collins v, Godwin, 65 Fla. 
283, 61 8. 632; Jennings V. Dignan Cent. 
Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S. 820- 8. 
V. Dahms (N. D.), 149 N. W. 965; Mc- 
Millen v. Strange, 159 Wis. 271, 150 
N. W. 434. 

Affidavits of Jurors cannot be used to 
show effect of erroneous instruction. 
Blake v. Chicago, etc. B. Co. (la.), 
149 N. W. 880. 

Ko evidence to base Instruction on. — ^It 
was held to be error to give an in- 
struction on a proviso in an ordinance, 
where there is no evidence bringing the 
case within the exception of the pro- 
viso. Blake v. Chicago, etc. B. Co. 
(la.), 149 N. W. 880. 
469-56 Turner v, Davis, 186 Ala. 77, 
64 S. 958s Bruce r. Citizens' Bank, 185 



113 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



Ala. 221^ 64 S. 82; Hartsell v. Bob- 
ertSy 185 Ala. 201, 64 S. 90; Southern 

B. Co. 17. Parkes, 10 Ala. App. 318, 65 
6. 202; Foutz v, Los Angeles, 167 Cal. 
487, 140 P. 20; Coleman v, S. (Ga. 
App.), 83 S. E. 154; P. v, Grosenheider, 
266 lU. 324, 107 N. E. 607: Miller V. 
Coulter (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 14; 
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Lottich (Ind. 
App.), 106 N. E. 903; Depugh v. Fraz- 
ier (la.), 149 N. W. 854; Christian v. 
Ames (la.), 149 N. W. 616; Green r. 
National Annuity Assn., 90 Kan. 523, 
135 P. 586; State v, Trocke, 127 Minn. 
485, 149 N. W. 944; Yazoo & M. V. R. 
Co. V. Hare, 104 MIbb. 564, 61 S. 648; 
S. t?. Corrigan (Mo.), 171 S. W. 51; 
Daniels v, McDanidls, 184 Mo. App. 
354, 171 S. W. 14; Mclnness r. Be- 
public Coal Co., 49 Mont. 112, 140 P. 
235; Ingle v. Southern By. Co., 167 N. 

C. 636, 83 8. E. 744; Miller v. Western 
Union Tel. Co., 167 N. C. 315, 83 S. E. 
482; Gonzales v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. 
W. 1149; Atchison, T. & S. F. By. Co. 
V. Hill (Tex. Civ.), 171 8.. W. 1028; 
Sobek V. Smith Steel Casting Co., 158 
Wis. 517, 149 N. W. 152. 

Befusal of peremi^tory InstractloiL 

Dismissal by court because of insuffi- 
ciency of evidence instead of peremp- 
tory instructions for defendant is not 
reversible. Braun v. Peet, 97 Neb. 443, 
150 N. W. 256. 

Safasal to repeat instructions is not 
prejudicial error. Little Bock Gas & 
Fuel Co. V, Coppedge (Ark.), 172 S. W. 
885. 

Kot applicable to evidence. — ^Befusal 
harmless where there is but remote 
application to evidence. Czapinski v, 
Thomas Furnace Co., 158 Wis. 635, 149 

N. W. 477. 

460-57 Athens v. Miller (Ala.), 66 
S. 702; Clokey v. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 
273; Hubenthal V. Gibbons (la.), 150 
N. W. 1067; Cole v, Johnson, 127 Minn, 
291, 149 N. W. 467; Bugajski e. Mil- 
waukee Western Fuel Co., 158 Wis. 454, 
149 N. W. 277. 

To disregard remarks of counsel. — ^Im- 
proper remarks of counsel must be ex 
mero motu excluded from the jury. If 
the trial judge refuses to do so, upon 
motion of opposing counsel, it is suffi- 
cient ground for a new trial. Alabama 
Fuel & Iron Co. r. Benenante, 11 Ala. 
App. 644, 66 S. 942. 

Instmctions as to malice as affecting 
damages, if improperly refused, is pre- 



judicial, and the fact that the verdict 
is so small as apparently not to in- 
clude punitive damages does not render 
the error harmless. Cohalan v. New 
York Press Co., 212 N. Y. 344, 106 N. 
E. 115. 

Presumption of innocence. — ^'An in- 
struction on reasonable doubt does not 
supply the place of an instruction on 
presumption of innocence when re- 
quested." Gentry v. State (MLbs.), 66 
S. 982. 

470-58 Miller r. Morine (la.), 149 
N. W. 229; WUUams v. Assn., 97 Neb. 
352, 149 N. W. 822; Harton v. Texas 
Midland E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 
1023. 

A f allnre to aUow nominal damages 
is reversible error where it affects a 
substantial right of plaintiff or pre- 
vents him from recovering costs. Braun 
V. Peet, 97 Neb. 443, 150 N. W. 256; 
Mollyneaux t?. Wittenberg, 39 Neb. 
547, 58 N. W. 205. The rule, however, 
is otherwise where plaintiff is not thus 
injured. Heater v, Pearce, 59 Neb. 583, 
81 N. W. 615. 

Idisi4>plication of res ipsa loquitur by 

jury harmless where it does not affect 
result. Embler v. Gloucester Lumb. Co., 
167 N. C. 457, 83 S. E. 740. 

4T0-60 Ocean Ace. & Guarantee 
Corp. V. Joslin Dry Goods Co. (Colo. 
App.), 146 P. 790; Cook t?. Washington- 
Oregon Corp. (Wash.), 146 P. 156. 

T7nnecessar3r findings. — ^For the pur- 
poses of appeal from the denial of a 
motion to set aside the verdict, a fail- 
ure to make an unnecessary finding is 
harmless, where the transcript con- 
tains all the evidence. Koma v. Cli- 
max Co., 88 Conn. 642, 92 A. 427. 

470-60 Bynum f?. Stroup, 10 Ala. 
App. 637, 05 S. 704; Western Union 
Tel. Co. V, Anniston Cordage Co., 6 
Ala. App. 351, 59 8. 757; Welles v. 
Bryant (Fla.), 66 S. 562; Huffstetler r. 
Our Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla. 324, 
65 S. 1; Hohm t\ Jallans, 134 La. 913, 
64 S. 829; Albiani r. Bangs (Mas8.)» 
107 N. E. 406; McGuire v, Roberts 
(Okla.), 146 P. 33; Sweetser v. Fox, 43 
Utah 40, 134 P. 599, 47 L. R. A. (1^. 
S.) 145. 

In favor of partner not sning^ — Judg- 
ment rendered in favor of a partner 
not a party is fundamental error and 
objection may be made by appeal. West- 
ern Grocery Co. v. Jata A Co. (Tex. 
Civ.), 173 S. W. 518; Hanner v. Sum- 



1X9 



APPEALS 



Vol. 2 



merlim, 7 Tex. Civ. 235, 26 S. W. 906. 

471-61 Walton v. Eennamer, 39 
Olcla. 629, 136 P. 584. 

471-64 S. V. Applegate, 28 N. B. 395, 
149 N. W. 356; Zimmerle v, Childers, 
67 Or. 465, 136 P. 349. See Huston V. 
Johnson (N. D.), 151 N. W. 774. 
ICiscondnct of jurors will be presumed 
injurious to losing party. Roberson v* 
S. (Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 877. 
Erroneons Instmctlons presumed pre- 
judicial. Bu rased t?. S., 14 Qa. App. 
832, 82 S. £. 595. 

472-65 Spork v. Int. Harvester Co. 
(In<l. App.), 107 N. E. 740; Walderen 
P. 8. (Tox. Cr.), 174 S. W. 348; Iowa 
State Sav. Bank v, Henry (Wyo.), 136 
P. 863. 

472-66 Comstock v, Jabant Heating 
Co., 10 Ala. App. 663, 64 8. 178; Birm- 
in<;ham By., L. & P. Co. v, Pratt & 
McCurdy, 10 Ala. App. 273, 64 8. 510; 
American Sales Book Co. v. 8. H. Pope 
& Co., 7 Ala. App. 304, 61 8. 45; At- 
lantic Coast Line r. Whitney, 65 Fla. 
72, 61 8. 179; Mewborn v. Weitzer (Ga. 
App.), 84 8. E. 141; Martin v, Rome 
(Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 872; Thain v, '8, 
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 690; Holler v. S. 
(Ind.), 106 N. E. 364: Chicago R. Co. 
r. Mitchell (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 743; 
Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v, Latham 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 749; Bottema v, 
Tracy (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 741; 
Spork V, International Harvester Co. 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 740; New Point 
r. Cleveland, etc. B. Co. (Ind. App.), 
107 N. K 560; Mutual Life Ins. Co. t7. 
Knkelstein (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 557; 
Henderson r. County Pub. Co. (Ind. 
App.), 107 N. E. 295; Walsh v. By. Co. 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 754; Davis v. Blum- 
enberg (Miss.), 65 8. 503; In re Mur- 
ray (N. M.), 140 P. 1042; Gray v. 
Southern R. Co., 167 N. C. 433, 83 8. 
E. 849; Elm City Lumb. Co. v, Childer- 
hose, 167 N. 0. 34, 83 8. E. 22; Rogers 
tr. Mfg. Co., 157 N. C. 484, 73 8. E. 
227; Wood f. McCain, 34 8. D. 544, 
149 N. W. 426. 

AuthoritieB and leaaoiui in support 
must be given. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 
r Finkelstein (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 
557; Ingle v. Southern Ry. Co., 167 N. 
C. 636, 83 8. E. 744. 
Extent of waiTer.—'^ Appellant's fail- 
ure to state a point or proposition re- 
lating to an alleged cause for new 
trial waives any error relating there- 
to. *' Indiana Union T. Co. v, Cauld- 
' wen (Ind. App.)| 107 N, £. 705. 



472-67 Central of Georgia B. Co. i?. 
Stephenson (Ala.), 66 S. 495; Ogburn- 
Griffin Grocery Co. i\ Orient Ins. Co. 
(Ala.), 66 S. 434; Pennsylvania P. Ins. 
Co. v> Draper (Ala.), 65 S. 923; Kin- 
non V. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala.), 
65 S. 397; Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, 
185 Ala. 468, 64 9. 105; Gilley v. Den- 
mafi, 185 Ala. 561, 64 S. 97; Morris & 
Co. V. Barton, 180 Ala. 98, 60 8. 172; 
Anderson v, Anniston Elec. & G. Co., 
11 Ala. App. 560, 66 8. 925; Wilson V. 
Lewis, 11 Ala. App. 261, 65 S. 919; 
Morton t?. Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439. 65 
S. 408; Hooper r. Herring, 9 Ala. App. 
292, 63 8 785; Alabama Great South- 
ern R. Co. «. Taylor, 7 Ala. App. 583, 
61 8. 475; Key v, Goodall, Brown & 
Co., 7 Ala. App. 227, 60 8. 986; Staples 
r. Steed, 6 Ala. App. 594, 60 8. 499; 
Western Union Tel. Co. v, Anniston 
Cordage Co., 6 Ala. App. 351, 59 8. 
757; Machomich Merc. Co, v, Hickey, 
15 Ariz. 421, 1^0 P. 63; Stephens v. 
Lemoore Canal & Irr. Co., 22 Cal. App. 
579, 135 P. 707; Bowles t?. Hickson, 22 
Cal. App. 264, 133 P. 1149; Souza r. 
Joseph, 22 Cal. App. 179, 133 P. 981; 
Rogers f?. Ponet, 21 Cal. App. 577, 132 
F, 851; Vujacich v. Southern Commer- 
cial Co., 21 Cal. App. 439, 132 P. 80; 
Wilson V. Hotchkiss, 21 Cal. App. 392, 
132 P. 88; City and County of Denver 
t?. Lathan, 57 Colo. 371, 141 P. 462; 
Williams v. S. (Fla.), 66 8, 424; Miller 
V, Fletcher Co., 142 Ga. 668, 83 8. E. 
521; Ketterer v. Stringfield, 142 Ga. 
441, 83 8. E. 116; Freeman v. Atlanta 
(Ga. App.), 83 8. E. 436; Oak Park v. 
Swigart, 266 111. 60, 107 N. E. 158; 
Sullivan c, Atchison T. & 8. F. R. Co., 
262 III. 317, 104 N. E. 707; Holland v. 
Claudel, 181 Ind. 295, 104 N. E. 577; 
Cincinnati, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v, 
Simpson (Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; Town 
of Sheridan v. Rothschild, 181 Ind. 405, 
104 N. E. 66; Evansville Furniture Co. 
V. Freeman (Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 27 j 
First Nat. Bank v. Kansford find. 
App.), 104 N. E.*604; Guyer v. Union 
Trust Co., 55 Ind. App. 472^ 104 N. E. 
82; Hall r. Grand Lodge I. O. O. F., 
55 Ind. App. 324, 103 N. E. 854; New- 
man v. Horner, 55 Ind. App. 298, 103 
N. E. 820; Indiana life Endow. Co. v. 
Reed, 54 Ind. App. 450. 103 N. E. 77; 
Scott V, Brenton (la.)t 150 N W. 56; 
Sammons Co. v. People's Bank & Trust 
Co., 134 La. 718, 64 8. 690; Merchants, 
etc. Co. V, Murphy (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
968; Wellington v. City of Cambridge 



117 



I 



Vol. 2 



APPEALS 



(Mass.), 107 N. E. 976; Ideal Leather 
Goods Co. V, Eastern S. S. Corp. 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 525; Option v, As- 
pinwaU (Mass.), 107 N. ?:. 448; Hen- 
nessey V. Preston, 219 Mass. 61, 106 
N. E. 570: Dooley v, Sullivan, 218 Mass. 
597, 106 N. E. 604; C. v. Farmer, 217 
Mass. 507, 106 N. E. 150; Hopperman 
V. Fore River Co., 217 Mass. 42, 104 N. 
E. 463; Eastern Bridge Co. t?. Worcester 
Auditorium Co., 216 Mass. 426, 103 N. 
E. 913; Stevenson v. Brown (Mo.), 174 
S. W. 414; Frank v, Butte, etc. M. & 
L. Co., 48 Mont. 83, 135 P. 904; W. A. 
Manda Inc. v» U. 3. Express Co., 85 N. 
J. L. 720, 90 A. 269; Brobst i'. El i'aso 
& S. W. Co. (N. M.), 145 P. 258; Win- 
borne Guano Co. V, Plymouth Merc. Co. 
(N. C), 84 S. E. 272; S. v. Heavener 
(N. a), 83 S. E. 732; Tilghman v. Sea- 
board A. L. R. Co., 167 N. C. 163, 83 
S. E. 315, 1090; Lynch V Rosemary Mfg. 
Co., 167 N. C. 98, 83 S. E. 6; O'Neil v, 
James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Hop- 
ley V. Benton, 38 Okla. 223, 132 P. 808; 
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. r. O 'Neil, 36 
Okla. 792, 130 P. 270; Domurat V. 
Oregon-Washington R. ^ Nay. Co., 66 
Or. 135, 134 P. 313; Coons r. McKees 
Rocks, 243 Pa. 340, 90 A. 141; Gibbs V. 
Perez Samanillo, 25 Phil. Tsl. 392; San- 
tiago V. Felix, 24 Phil. Isl. 378; Will- 
iams f). Weekley (S. C), 84 S. E. 299; 
So. Realty & In v. Co. f>, Keenan (S. 
C), 83 S. E. 39; Vance' f?. Heath, 42 
Utah 148, 129 P. 365; Smythe v. Cen- 
tral Vermont R. Co. (Vt.), 90 A. 901; 
Bickford f?. Hupp (Wash.), 145 P. 454. 
See also infra, 854-14; vol. 8, p. 639, n. 
84, and supplement thereto. 
Points argued though not involved in 
the appeal will not be considered. Des 
Moinee City R. Co. v. Susong (la.), 150 
N. W. 6. 

A dlfferont rule prevails in some juris- 
dictions. Crockett v. Blackwolf Coal 
& C. Co. (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 987. 

Where only one ground of demurrer is 
discussed in appellant's brief and upon 
oral argument the court is warranted 
in assuming that the propriety of the 
ruling with respect to the grounds of 
depiurrer not discussed was confessed. 
Beymond v. Holt (N. M.), 141 P. 156. 
473-68 Roberson «• S. (Ga. App.), 
83 S. E. 877; Ingle V. S. (Ind.), 106 N. 
E. 373; S. V. Vancak (Ohio), 107 N. E. 
511; Overton v. Colored Knights of 
Pythias (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 472. 
473-69 Failure to urge in motion for 
n6W triaL— Where on motion for new 



trial no mention is made of rulings on 
evidence objections and exceptions 
saved are abandoned. Hartnett v. 
Boston Store, 265 111. 331, 106 N. E. 
837. , J 

473-71 O. n. Broun, Jr. Timb. Co. 
V, Coleman (Ala.), 67 S. 243; Cochran 
V. Burdick Bros., 7 Ala. App. 274, 61 
S. 29; Clark 17. Smith, 142 Ga. 200, 82 
S. E. 563; Ideal Leather Goods Co. v. 
Eastern S. S. Corp. (MassOi 107 N. E. 
525. 

Conceding correctness of instruction^ 
constitutes a waiver of error therein. 
Domestic Block Coal Co. v, Holden 
(Ind. App.), 103 N. E. 73. 

473-72 Shoop v. Fidelity & Deposit 
Co., 124 Md. 130, 91 A. 753. 
473-74 Central Trust Co. t?. Culver 
(Colo.), 145 P. 684; Devine I?. Ry. Co., 
266 111. 248, 107 N. E. 595; P. V. Carr, 
265 III. 220, 106 N. E. 801; Dance-Jonea 
Lumb. Co. 17. Katzenstein, 134 La. 143, 
63 S. 855; Union Sawmill Co. V. Tay- 
lor» 133 La. 1088, 63 S. 594. 

Question as to yalidity of a statute 
being presented for the first time in 
appellate court may be considered in 
supreme court. Sixbv t?. Chicago City 
R. Co., 260 111. 478, 103 N. E. 249, Ann. 
Cas. 1914D, 539. 

474-7B FaUnre to file affidavits of 
merits in a probate appeal to the circuit 
fourt deprives that court of jurisdic- 
tion and the supreme court cannot pre- 
sume such afiidavits were filed. Huflf- 
man t?. Sudbury (Ark.), 174 S. W. 1149. 

474-76 Ex parte Phillips (Ala.), 66 
S. 3; Ex parte Shoaf (Ala.), 64 S. 
615; Ex parte Western Union Tel. Co. 
(Ala.), 63 S. 8S; Knox E. Co. v. Rock 
Island S. R. Co., 264 111. 198, 106 N. E. 
188; Schultz v. Ericsson Co., 264 III. 
156, 106 N. E. 236; Johanson v. Will- 
iam Johnston Prtg. Co., 263 111. 236, 104 
N. E. 1046; Roloff v, Luer Bros. Pack. 
& Ice Co., 263 111. 152, 104 N. E. 109.^; 
Gamble-Robinson Com. Co. f?. Union 
Pac. R. Co., 262 111. 400, 104 N. E. 666, 
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 89; West v, Ranney 
Refrig. Co., 261 111. 5G0, 104 N. E. 182; 
Tomasi v. DonH Coal Co., 257 111. 70, 
100 N. E. 353; Tracy v. Queen City Fire 
Ins. Co., 132 La. 610, 61 8. 687, Ann. 
ras. 1914D, 1145; Faber t?. City of New 
York, 213 N. Y. 411, 107 N. E. 756$ 
Lundstrom t?. S. (N. Y.), 106 N. E. 924; 
Binns V. Vitagraph Co., 210 N. Y. 51, 
103 N. E. 1108, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1024, 
L. R. A. 1915C, 839; Cohen v. Thomas, 



118 



Appeals 



fol. 2 



SOD K r. 407, 103 N. E. 708; People 
T. State Water Supply Com., 209 N. Y. 
299. 103 N. E 162; Cook v. Smith 
(T«x.), 174 S. W. 1094; Bacipe, etc. Co. 
r. Guetzkow Co. (Wis.), 151 N. W. 799. 
474-77 Ex parte Atlantic Coast Line 
B. Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 256; Jeffries v. 
Alexander, 266 111. 49, 107 N. E. 146; 
Simon p. Etgen, 213 N. Y. 689, 107 N. 
E. 1066; Peevey r. Buchanan (Tenn.), 
173 S. W. 447; S. 17. Lee, 124 Tenn. 
385. 136 S. W. 997. 
But tills mla is inapplicable where the 
opinion of the appellate court is based 
on an erroneous view as to the burden 
of proof. Peevey v. Buchanan (Tenn.), 
173 S. W. 447. 

Qnastloiis «f law.— ''In so far as the 
appellate division reversed the judg- 
ment of the trial term, that decision is 
not subject to review in this court. In 
so far a» the decision of the appellate 
division dismissed the complaint, it 
presents for review in this court a 
question of law and the right to re- 
view that question is not affected by 
the powers conferred upon the appel- 
late division, etc." Faber v. New 
York, 213 N. Y. 411, 107 N. E. 766. 

47S-80 r r sHum p ll ops QPOB revsrssL 
That the intermediate court reversed 
because of error of law will be pre- 
sumed where it made no findings of 
fact, but stated that the facts were 
undisputed. Dromgold v. Boyal Neigh- 
bors, 261 m. 60, 103 N. E. 584. 

475-S3 Vandiver v. American Can 
Co. (Ala.), 07 S. 299. 
bankruptcy after Judgmeitt does not 
effect determination of appeal. Van- 
diver V, American Can Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 
299. 

476-84 Vandiver r. American Can 
Co. (Ala,), 67 S. 299; Steiert t?. Coul- 
ter, 54 Ind. App. 643, 102 N. E. 113, 
103 N. E. 117; Ashwell t?. MiUer, 54 
Ind. App. 381, 103 N. E. 37. 

476-87 Snceesslon of Nieves v. Suc- 
cession of Sanchez, 17 P. B. 837. 
Tke f ona in wlilch the question Is pat 
controls the decision; that is, whether 
the question is put for affirming or re- 
versing. Dewey Land Co. v. Steven^ 
83 K. J. £q. 314, 90 A. 1040. 

476-88 Vandiver r. American Can 
Co. (Ala.), 67 S. 299; Maehado v. 
Maehado (Cat. App.), 145 P. 738. 
AmsiideA^ — ^Brown v, Sutton, 142 Ga. 
781, 83 8. E. 790. 

ADimiag eoiinsal fe aiii The appellate 



court, upon consent of the attorney, 
may allow counsel fees though there be 
no evidence before it, iustead of re- 
manding the cause. Wright v. Grand 
Lodge it P. (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 270. 
Where In an aotloti for sn injunction an 
acoonntlxig is also askod and the in- 
junction is properly dismissed, appell- 
ant cannot? present sufficient evidence 
to raise one question, suffer an adverse 
judgment and on appeal ask the court, 
while sustaining the correctness of 
lower court's ruling on the questions 
presented, to reverse and remand the^ 
cause for further trial. Holmes i'. 
Webb City, etc. Assn. (Mo. App.), 174 
S. W. 122. 

476-8d JCOde of objection to defoct- 
ive abstract. — If an abstract is so de« 
f ective that only the record proper can 
be considered, that fact should be 
brought to the court's attention by 
briefs and not by a motion to affirm. 
Walls tJ. Tinsley, 187 Mo. App. 462, 173 
S. W. 19. 

476-90 Barnes «. Carr, 65 Fla. 87, 
61 S. 184* Hess 17. Hartwig, 89 Kan. 
599, 132 P. 148; Board of Comrs. v. 
Bank (La.), 66 S. 187; S. if. Sam, 134 
La. 376, 64 S. 145; Dudley A. Tyng ft 
Co. 17. Woodward, 121 Md. 422, 88 A. 
243; Holmes v. Webb City BIdg. ft 
Loan 'Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 122; 
Black 1?. S., 97 Neb. 273, 149 N. W. 
785; Marine Trust Co. v, St. James 
African M. E. Church, 85 N. J. L. 272, 
88 A. 1075; Foil v. Northwest German 
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 28 N. D. 355, 
149 N. W. 358; Hill v. S. (Okla.), 145 
P. 492 (decree modified and affirmed 
although appellant alone filed a brief); 
Hoehler t?. Short, 40 Okla. 681, 140 P. 
146; English v. Allen (Tex. Civ.), 173 
8. W. 1172. 

477-02 Simonean v. Pacific Electric 
B. Co., 166 Cal. 264, 136 P. 544; Ideal 
Cream Separator Bepair Wks. 9. Des 
Moines (la.), 149 N. W. 640; Ayers 
r. Coon (Okla.), 146 P. 707; St. Louis 
ft S. F. B. Co. 1?. Hart (Okla.), 146 P. 
436; Fitch V, Green, 39 Okla. 18, 134 
P. 34: Atchison, T. ft 8. 'F. B. Co. v. 
Boyce (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1094; 
Wagner v, Seattle (Wash.), 146 P. 621. 
Further time for electlQii to remit can- 
not be granted by the supreme court 
where the party has not remitted with- 
in time first given. Jett v. Old Nat. 
Bank Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 605. 
Chnmting further time to r«mit« — ^Wfaere 
court Affirms an order granting a ne^ 



119 



1 



Vol 2 



APPEALS 



trial unless plaintiff remits a portion 
of the damages within a certain time 
the appellate court cannot extend the 
time for such election., Jett v. Old 
Nat. Bank Co. (Wash.), 145 P. 605. 
477-93 Reading v, Chicago, B. & Q. 
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 451. 

477-94 J. H. Walker & Co. v. Nor- 
ris, 10 Ala. App. 515, 6.3 S. 935; Dake 
Advertising Agency v. P. J. Stilson Co., 
22 Cal. App. 31, 133 P. 327; Dubois P. 
Bowles, 55 Colo. 312, 134 P. 112; Cart- 
wright r. New Orleans By. & L. Co., 131 
La. 210, 59 S. 124; Hill v, S. (Okla.), 
145 P. 492; Stuart t?. University L. & 
8. Co., 66 Or. 546, 132 P. 1, 1164, 135 P. 
165; Gibbons v. Bhode Island Co. (B. 
I.), 91 A. 9. 

477-95 Kelly v. Higpinsville, 185 Mo. 
App. 55, 171 S. W. 966; Higgins ». W. 
M. Ostrander, 244 Pa. 279, 90 A. 636. 

477-96 Southern States Fire & Cas- 
ualty Ins. Co. V. Whatloy, 178 Ala. 671, 
59 S. 63; Southern States Fire & Cas- 
ualty Ins. Co. V, Brannon, 178 Ala. 115, 
59 S. 60; Cook. & Laurie Contract. Co. 
V. Bell, 177 Ala. 618, 59 S. 273. 
Errors In compntation of interest on 
wronff amount may be reached by a 
modification of judgment without re- 
versal. Central Ga. P. Co. V. Stone, 
142 Ga. 662, 83 S. E. 524. 

478-99 Francois t?. Maison Blanche 
Bealty Co., 134 La. 215, 63 S. 880. 
As between co-appellees the appellate 
court cannot amend the judgment. 
Louisiana Land Co. v. Blakewoody 131 
La. 539, 59 S. 984. 

478-1 Chappell v, Falkner, 11 Ala. 
App. 382, 66 S. 890; Southern Express 
Co. 17. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 S. 
433; O'Bourke v. Fulton Bag & Cotton 
Mills, 133 La. 955, 63 S. 480. 

Misjoinder of defendants.— The eonrt 
on appeal may correct a judgment by 
striking out one of the parties where 
there is a misjoinder. Carpenter v. 
St. Joseph (Mo.), 174 S. W. 53. 

Conforming Judgment to ▼erdlct.— In 
suit for property or its alternative 
value, the verdict was for the property 
sued for, but the judgment awarded 
plaintiff *'the property sued for de- 
scribed as one heifer calf." Held, thd 
appellate court may correct the error 
80 as to conform to the verdict. Chap- 
pell V, Falkner, 11 Ala. App. 382, 66 
S. 890. 

478-2 Exchange Bank v. Schultz 
(la.), 149 N. W. 99; O'Brien 17. Masa- 



achusi^ts Catholic Order of Foresters 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 400; Western Union 
Tel. Co. V. Louisville & N. B. Co. 
(Miss.), 65 S. 650; Wagenaar v. Bee- 
man-Woodward Co., 65 Or. 109, 131 P. 
1023; Mucllor Beal Estate Co. t?. Cohen, 
158 Wis. 461, 149 N. W. 154. 
By statute, 1909, ch. 236. Taylor r. 
Pierce (Mass.), 107 N. E. 947. 
Entering final decree.— Where it ap- 
pears from the bill of exceptions that 
the findings which have been made 
dispose of the whole controversy, the 
appellate court may enter a final decree. 
O'Brien r. Massachusetts Catholic Order 
of Foresters (Mass.), 107 N. E. 400. 
478-3 Long v, Qwin (Ala.), 66 S. 
88; Charpie v. Stout, 88 Kan. 682, 129 
P. 1166; Tornroos V, White Co. (Mass.), 
107 N. E. 1015; Wasserstrom v. Cohen, 
Frank & Co. (App. Div.), 150 N. Y. S. 
638; Brady v. Erlanger (App. Div.), 
149 N. Y. S. 929; Wah-tah-noh-zhe r. 
Mooro, 36 Okla. 631, 129 P. 877. 

479-4 Central Ind. R. Co. v, Wishard 
(Ind. App.), 104 N. E. 593; Healer v. 
Inkman, 89 Kan. 398, 131 P. 611; Lov- 
(^tt V, Jeter (Okla.), 145 P. 334; Boat- 
right V. Portland By. L. & P. Co., 68 
Or. 26, 135 P. 771; St. Louis S. F. & 
T. By. Co. V. West (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. 
W. 287. 

479-5 Miller v, Johnson (Ala.), 66 S. 
486; Garver v. Thoman, 15 Ariz. 38, 135 
P. 724; Ft. Collins v. Wallace, 23 Colo. 
App. 452, 130 P. 69; Ferry Pass Ship- 
pers' & I. Assn. V, Pensacola Lumb. 
Co., 65 Fla. 313, 61 8. 639; Terwilliger 
V. Ballard, 64 Fla. 158, 59 S. 244; Me- 
Cormick t?. Smith, 23 Ida. 487, 130 P. 
999; Shirley Hill Coal Co. v. Moore, 181 
Ind. 513, 103 K. E. 802; Inland Steel 
Co. V, Ilko, 181 Ind. 72, 103 N. B. 7; 
First Nat. Bank v, Bansford (Ind. 
App.), 104 N. E. 604; Hall v. Grand 
Lodge I. O. O. F., 55 Ind. App. 324, 103 
N. E. 854; Whiteley v. Watson, 93 Kan. 
671, 145 P. 568; Stevens v. Bockport 
Co., 216 Mass. 486, 104 N. E. 371, Ann. 
Cas. 1915B, 1054; Mobile & O. B. Co. 
V. Greenwald, 104 Miss. 417, 61 8. 426; 
Newton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Sessum, 102 
Miss. 181, 59 S. 9; Mantle r. White, 47 
Mont. 234, 132 P. 22; Kargman v. 
Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632, 90 A, 292; Mc- 
Alpin V. Hixon (Okla.), 145 P. 386; 
Chicago, B. I. 8b P. E. Co. v, Newburn, 
39 Okla. 704j 136 P. 174; Porter t>. Wil- 
son, 39 Okla. 500, 135 P. 732; Thomas v. 
Hill. 39 Okla. 491, 135 P. 940; Allen 
V, Wildman, 38 Okla. 652, 134 P. 1102$ 



120 



APPEALS 



Vol 2 



Midland Val. B. Co. r. Hardesty, 8S 
Okla. 559, 134 P. 400; Midland Val. R. 
Co. t?. Green, 38 Okla. 305, 132 P. 1086; 
Lawless v. Baddis, 36 Okla. 616, 129 P. 
711; Schaedler v. Columbia Contract Co., 
«7 Or. 412, 135 P. 536; Morgan v, Brosa, 
64 Or. 63, 129 P. 118; Mas v. Borin- 
quen Sugar Co., 18 P. B. 299; Prance- 
B€lu V. Vaillant, 17 P. B. 279; Flynn v. 
J. M. Badford Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ.), 
374 S. W. 902; Ft. Worth & B. G. B. 
Co. V. Hales (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 991; 
King County t?. Martin (Tex. Civ.), 173 
a W. 960; Ft. Worth & D. C. B. Co. 
c. Firestone (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 919; 
Biehman v. Wenaha Co., 74 Wash. 370, 
133 P. 467. 

4Td-8 Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. r. 
Comer, 10 Ala. App. 261, 64 S. 633; 
Florida East Coast B. Co. v. Hayes, 65 
Fla. 1, 60 S. 792; Cain v. Osier (la.), 
150 N. W. 17. 

If passion and prejudice induce the 
verdict awarding exemplary damages, 
a remittitur will not be ordered, but 
the case will be remanded. Jolly f). 
Doolittle (la.), 149 N. W. 890; Bhyne 
1?. Turley, 37 Okla. 159, 131 P. 695. 

Kaminal damages^— Generally a failure 
to assess merely nominal damages is 
not a ground for reversal, but it is a 
reversible error where plaintiff is sub- 
stantially prejudiced, as where the 
judgment carries costs. Wallace v. 
Weaver, 47 Mont. 437, 133 P. 1099. 

Baeovery of less amount than might 
have legally been recovered is no 

? round for reversal on behalf of de- 
endant. Baker v. Central Grocery Co. 
(G{L App.), 83 S. £. 504. \ 

480-9 Loss of the original papers 
resulting in a failure to make up the 
record, is cause for reversal where ap- 
pellee is to blame for the loss. Quarles 
V. Hiern, 70 Miss. 259, 121 S. 145. But 
where the loss cannot be attributed to 
appellee, the court will not reverse the 
case. Germaine v, Harwell, 104 Miss. 
679, 61 S. 659. 

480-11 Colorado Springs, etc. B. 
Co. V. Allen, 55 Colo. 391, 135 P. 790; 
Utah Foundry & Mch. Co. t?. Utah Gas 
& Coke Co., 42 Utah 533, 131 P. 1173. 

480-12 Silverman v. Charles Jacobs 
Co., 150 N. Y. S. 631. 

481-16 Gray r. Cotton, 166 Cal. 130, 
134 P. 1145; Union Nat. Bank v. Fin- 
Jey, 180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110; Stur- 
^ott's Admr. v. McCorkle, 163 Ky. 8, 
173 S. W. 149; Camden v. McAndrews 



& Forbes Co., 85 N. J. L. 260, S8 A. 
1034; Needhara t?. Cooney (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 979; Auwarter v. KroU, 79 
Wash. 179, 140 P. 326; Casassa v. 
Seattle, 75 Wash. 367, 134 P. 1080; 
Lowther v, Lowther-Kaufmann Oil Co. 
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 49; Menasha Wooden 
Ware Co. r. Winter, 159 Wis. 437, 150 
N, W. 626. 

481-16 Kansas City, M. & O. B, Co. 
17. Cave (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 872; In- 
ternational ft G. N. B. Co. v, Hammon 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. Q13. 

if court cannot place the liability as be- 
tween two defendants, appellees, the 
case will be reversed. Walters v, Balti* 
more & O. B. B., 120 Md. 644, 88 A. 
47; Keevil r. Ponsford (Tex. Civ.), 173 
S. W. 518. 

Joint judgment reversed as to appel- 
lant cannot remain in force as against 
party not appealing. Bowell v. Boss 
(Conn.), 93 A. 236. 

481-17 Snider v. Ostrander (Colo. 
App.), 145 P. 283; Marston r. McLeod, 
135 La. 239, 65 S. 228; Hay den v, As- 
toria (Or.), 145 P. 1072; Anderson r. 
Phegley (Or.), 145 P. 642, holding that 
the supreme court having determined 
all the questions presented by the rec- 
ord would not remand the case so that 
one of the parties could present new 
issues. 

A reyersal of an order granting a new 
trial leaves the judgment standing as 
if no order granting a new trial had 
been made. Sherwin v. Southern Pac 
Co., 168 Cal. 722, 145 P. 92. 

To sabstltnte competent evidence. 
Where court admits incompetent evi- 
dence and plaintiff producing such ob- 
tains judgment the cause will be re* 
manded to allow him to substitute 
competent evidence. Morgan v, Boyai 
Ben. Soc, 167 N. C.«262, 83 S. E. 479. 
Questions finaUir disposed of. — On trial 
below after remand the court cannot 
consider an exception which has al- 
ready been finally disposed of; as for 
example, that no cause of action is 
stated. Commercial Nat. Bank v. San- 
ders, 136 La. 226, 66 S. 854. 

In equity when the record discloses 
lack of development of the merits of 
vital issues, and there is strong prob- 
ability of the existence of evidence 
decisive thereof, the decree will be re- 
versed and the cause remanded for fur- 
ther proceedings. Wildell Lumb. Co. v, 
Turk (W. Va.), 83 S. E. 83; La Belle 



121 



Vol. 2 ? 



APPHALS 



Iron Works v. Savings Bank (W. Va.), 
82 S. E. 614; Cook v. Raleigh Lumb. Co. 
(W. Va.), 82 S. E. 327. 

482-18 Alabama Consol. Coal & I. 
Oo. V, Herzberg, 5 Ala. App. 330, 59 8. 
306; Hairston v. Montgomery, 102 Miss. 
364, 59 S. 793; Adami v. Gercken, 164 
App. Div. 472, 150 N. Y. S. 8; Ajax 
Grieb Bubber Co. v. Marshall, 150 K 
T. S. 72. 

Bedtlng facts found. — ^Where the final 
determination of fhe cause in the ap- 
pellate conrt is the result of the dif- 
ferent findings of facts, the statute re- 
quires the judgment to recite the facta 
found. Blake v. De Jonghe Hotel & 
B. Co., 260 111. 348, 108 N. E. 225, Ann. 
Cas. 1914B, 365. 

Beversal finaL — Judgment maj be re- 
versed and no new trial granted where 
it is obvious that no different case can 
be presented in another trial. Jun- 
tunen v, Quincy Min. Co. (Mich.), 151 
N. W. 571. 

On revenal of Judgment non obstante 
veredicto for defendant, judgment will 
be rendered for plaintiff where no mo- 
tion for a new trial was made below. 
Hanick v. Leader, 243 Pa. 372, 90 A. 
146. See also Findley v, Warren, 244 
Pa. 64, 90 A. 457. 

Authorizing amendment of pleading. 

The court upon reversal may authorize 
plaintiff to amend so as to include an 
indispensable party. Hartley v» Lang- 
kamp, 243 Pa. 550, 90 A. 402. 

Decree reinstating an injmiction. 
Where the decree of the appellate court 
has the effect of reinstating an injunc- 
tion the appellee must obey the injunc- 
tion without further service of process. 
Caldwell v. George, 102 Miss. 773, 59 S. 
888. 

482-19 Wyoming Nat. Bank v. Ship- 
pey, 23 Colo. App. 225, 130 P. 1021; 
Exchange State Bank r. Taber (Ida.), 
145 P. 1090; Bryant v. Bich's Grill, 216 
Jufass. 344, 103 N. E. 925, Ann. Cas. 
1915B, 869; Perkins t?. The Golden Girl 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 660; Pietsch v. Mc- 
Carthy, 159 Wis. 251, 150 N. W. 482; 
Bennett v. Beavers Beserve Fun Frater- 
nity, 159 Wis. 145, 150 N. W. 181. 

Belief to respondent. — On appeal for 
insufficient damages, the court if it 
finds the complaint bad may reverse 
and direct the lower court to sustain 
a demurrer to the complaint. Manhat- 
tan Co. 17. White, 48 Mont. 666, 140 P. 
90. 



48JB-20 Williams v. Pacific Surety 
Co., 66 Or. 151, 127 P. 145, 131 P. 1021, 
132 P. 959, 133 P. 1186. 

482-21 Marvel v. Cobb, 219 Mass. 

458, 107 N. E. 442. 

A Judgment non obstante vezedicto 

can not be rendered by a single judge 
of tho appellate court after affirmance 
of the decision appealed from. Cobb v. 
Marvel, 219 Mass. 458, 107 K E. 442. 
482-23 De Yampert r. Duncan 
(Ala.), 67 S. 287; Garrow v, Toxey 
(Ala.), 66 S. 443; Louisville ft N. B. 
Co. V. Dilburn, 178 Ala. 600, 59 S. 438; 
Arizona- Parral Min. Co. r. Forbes 
(Ariz.), 146 P. 504; Florida East Coast 
B. Co. V. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 S. 238; 
Christopher v. Mungen, 66 Fla. 467, 63 
S. 923; Williams v. Phiel, 66 Fla. 192, 
63 S. 658; Boss V. Savage, 66 Fla. 106, 
63 S. 148; Borne Scale ft Mfg. Co. v, 
Harvey (Ga. App.), 83 S. E. 434; Oak 
Park V. Swigart, 266 111. 60, 107 N. E. 
158; P. V. Moore, 265 HI. 444, 107 N. 
E. 121; P. V. Brockamp (111.), 107 N. 
E. 121; Chicago ft E. B. Co. 17. Dinius, 
180 Ind. 596, 103 N. E. 652; Equitable 
Life Ass. Soc. v. Stough (Ind. App.), 
106 N. E. 722; Harmon v, Pohle, 55 Ind. 
App. 439, 103 K E. 1087; George E. 
Pew Co. V. Karley (la.), 150 N. W. 12; 
Lavalleur v. Hahn (la.), 149 N. W. 
257; Blizzard Bros. r. Growers* Can- 
ning Co. (la.), 148 N. W. 973; Cincin- 
nati, N. O. ft T. P. B. Co. t?. Padgett, 
163 Ky. 284, 173 S. W. 780; Bates ©. 
Northern, etc. Coke Co., 162 Ky. 459, 
172 S. W. 918; Wilraor f?. Placide, 123 
Md. 532, 91 A. 561; Taylor v. Pierce 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 947; Wenzel v. 
Kieruj (Mich.), 151 N. W. 641; Illi- 
nois Cent. B. Co. v. Jordan (Miss.), 66 
S. 406; Whittcmore v. Boston ft M. B. 
B. (N. n.), 90 A. 601; McBce v. O'Con- 
nell (N. M.), 145 P. 123; In re Hein- 
sheimer, 164 App. Div. 265, 149 N. Y. 
S. 631; St. Louis ft S. F. B. Co. f^. 
Hardy (Okla.), 146 P. 38; Vulcanite 
Paving Co. f?. Philadelphia, 244 Pa. 80, 
90 A. 456; Silvain ©. Benson (Wash.), 
145 P. 175; Van Dinter v. Worden- 
Allen Co., 158 Wis. 579, 149 N. W. 583. 
The ''law of the case" is more bind- 
ing upon the courts than the law of 
precedent. Johnson f?. Success Brick 
Mach. Co., 104 Miss. 217, 61 S. 178, 62 
S. 4. 

COnstrnctlon of complaint. — The con- 
struction given to the complaint on a 
former trial will be considered the law 
of the case. Chicago ft E. B. Co. 9. 



122 



APPEARANCES 



Vol. 2 



Binius, 180 Tnd. 596, 103 N. E. 652. 
Bight arising under federal law8.^The 
law of. the case has do application 
yrhere the right claimed by appellant 
id one which arises under the consti- 
tution and laws of the United States, 
for with reference to all such ques- 
tions the supreme court of the state 
is not one of final jurisdiction. Louis- 
ville & N. B. Co. V. S. (Miss.), 65 S. 
881. 

Error waiTed on first appeal will be 
considered waived on second appeal. 
Cleveland, etc. B. Co. v. Starks (Ind. 
App.), 106 N. E. 646. 

482-24 Oak Park v. Swigart, 266 HI. 
60, 107 N. E. 158; New Bell Jellico 
Ooal Co. r. Sowders, 162 Kj. 443, 172 
8. W. 914; Bacon V, George^ 216 Mass. 
519, 104 N. E. 382. 

482-25 Tibbetts v. Terrill (Colo. 
App.), 140 P. 936; McBee v. O'Connell 
(N. M.), 145 P. 123; Perrault v. Em- 
porium Department Store Co. (Wash.), 
145 P. 438. See Gilcrest & Co. r. Des 
Moines (la.), 151 N. W. 488. 

Qnestion of negligence. — Ferebee v. 
Norfolk So. B. Co., 167 N. C. 290, 83 
S. £. 360. 

483-26 Thornhill r. Wear, 131 La« 
739, 60 S. 228; New Bell Jellico Coal 
Co. V. Sowders, 162 Ky. 443, 172 S. W. 
914; Olson V. Carlson (Wash.), 145 P. 
237. 

AdmiBBlbflity of eyidence. — German- 
American Fire Ins. Co. v. Messenger, 
25 Colo. App. 153, 136 P. 478; Utah 
Assn. V, Boyle Furniture Co., 43 Utah 
623, 136 P. 572. 

483-27 Louisville & N. B. Co. r« 
Stewart's Admz., 163 Ky. 823, 174 8. 
W. 744. 



APPEABAN0E8 

488-1 Childers «. Lahann, 18 N. M. 
487, 138 P. 202. See Washington C:oun- 
ty Land & D. Co. v. Weiser Nat. Bank, 
26 Ida. 717, 146 P. 116. 

491-18 Childers r. Lahann, 18 N. M. 
487, 138 P. 202. 

491-21 See Woodhouse v. Nelson 
Cattle Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356. 
Asldng r^ef which can only be granted 
on hypothesis that court has jurisdic- 
tion is a voluntary appearance. In re 
Walden's Est., 168 Cal. 759, 145 P. 
100. 

Kbe term "appearance" signifies the 
.•el }^ whkJf a person against whom 



suit has been brought submits hinisolf 
to the jurisdiction of the court. Rogers 
V, Penobscot Min. Co., 28 S. D. 72, 
132 N. W. 792, Ann. Gas. 3914A, 1184. 
491-24 Lively t;. Picton (0. C. A.), 
218 Fed. 401; Order of U. C. T. v. Boll, 
184 Fed. 298, 106 C. C. A. 440; Order 
of U. C. T. V. Bell, 62 Fla. 565, 56 
S. 910; Mills v. Walker, 18 Haw. 243; 
Valley Abstract Co. v. Page, 42 Ok la. 
365, 141 P. 416; National Surety Co. r. 
Oklahoma Presbyterian College, 38 
Okla. 429, 132 P. 652; Crawford v. 
School Board, 68 Or. 388, 137 P. 217, 
50 L. B. A. (N. S.) 147; Rogers r. 
Penobscot Min. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 132 
N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 1014A, 1184; 
Page V. Com. Nat. Bank, 38 Utah 440, 
112 P. 816. 

Demnrrer bad. — Where demurrer was 
to the jurisdiction of the court as 
well as that no cause of action was 
stated, while insufficient as a demurrer 
was good as an appearance. Moore v, 
De Groote, 158 App. Div. 828, 143 N. 
Y. S. 873. 

492-25 A plea to Jurisdiction con- 
stitutes appearance. Banco Minero v. 
Ross (Tex,), 172 8. W. 711. 

492-26 Clark-Herring-Campbell Co. 
u. H. B. Claflin Co. (C. C. A.), 218 
Fed. 429; Sheldon t?. Landwehr, 150 
Cal. 778, 116 P. 44; Baxter v. Bryant, 
87 Misc. 180, 149 N. Y. 8. 527; Harris 
V. Bennett, 160 N. C. 339, 76 S. E. 
217; Rogers r. Penobscot Min. Co., 28 
8. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 
1914 A, 1184; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. 
Walker (Tex.), 173 S. W. 208; Santa 
Fe, etc. Trust Co. f>. Cumley (Tex. 
Civ.), 132 8. W. 889. 
493-27 Woodhouse v. Nelson Cattle 
Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356. See Mur- 
phy V. Herring-Hall, etc. Safe Co., 184 
Fed. 495. 

493-28 Quashing summons. — ' ' Wh ere 
a summons or citation or the service 
thereof is quashed on motion of a 
defendant, he gains a continuance of 
the cause, but nothing else, since, as 
provided by Code 1906, §3946, his ap- 
pearance for the purpose of the motion 
gives the court jurisdiction of his per- 
son for all purposes of the case." 
Standard Oil Co. t?. 8. (Miss.), 65 8. 
468; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Swanaon, 
92 Miss. 485, 46 S. 83. 
493-29 Case v. Mountain Timber Co., 
210 Fed. 565; Sit You Gune v. Hurd. 
61 Or. 182, 120 P. 737, 1135. g<* 
Welch r. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P, 



123 



Vol. 2 



APPEARAliCm 



5/3; Lookabauprh v. Epperaon, 28 Okla. 
4/2, 114 P. 738. Camp, Spears f. C. 
C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 1S)0 JII. App. 
616. * * 

Motion to vacate order for alimony 
and dismiss. Jonos f?. Jones, 59 Or. 308. 
117 P. 414. ' 

Questioning sufficiency of service 
whether by pica or motion constitutes 
an appearance. St. Louis B. Co. v, 
Bloel«er (Tex. Civ.), 138 S. W. 156. 

495-30 Standard Oil Co. t?. S. 

(Miss.), 65 S. 468. 

Stipulation for settlement is not an 
appearance. Washington County Land 
& D. Co. V. Weisor Nat. Bank, 26 Ida. 
737, 146 P. 116. 

Stipulation for amended pleading. 

Stipulation by defendants permitting 
plaintiff to amend complaint. Robert- 
son, etc. Co. V. Thomas. 60 Wash. 614, 
111 P. 795. 

496-37 Williston v, Raymond, 213 
Fed. 627; Altpetcr v. Postal Tel. Cable 
Co. (Cal. App.), 148 P. 241; Meyers v. 
American Locomotive Co., 201 N. Y. 
163, 94 N. K. 605, aff., 124 N. Y. S. 
1122; King t?. Oliphant (Tex. Civ.), 
137 S. W. 1167; Santa Pe, etc. Trust 
Co. V. Cumh^y (Tex. Civ.), 132 S. W. 
889; Page r. (^om. Nat. Bank, 38 Utah 
440, 112 P. 816. 

497-39 See Nat. Coal Co. r. Cin- 
cinnati Gas, etc. Co., 168 Mich. 195, 
131 N. W. 580.. 

498-47 Houston, etc. R. Co. f?. Walk- 
er (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 199. See Cran- 
dall V. Krai^tzor, 155 111. App. 496. 

498-49 Sfutzhak v, Regenik, 122 
Minn. 352, 142 N. W. 709. 

499-50 After motion for continuance 

has been overruled, the attorney waives 
his special appearance by participating 
in the trial. Sheldon v. Landwehr, 159 
Cal. 778, 116 P. 44. 

499-52 See Hill v. Atanasio. 127 N. 
Y. S. 344. 

499-53 A motion to dissolve a tem- 
porary injunction is not such an ap- 
pearance as will prevent a default be- 
ing taken. Donlan r. Thompson, etc. 
Mill. Co.. 42 Mont. 257, 112 P. 445. 
Petitioner for writ of assistance in tax 
proceeding. — A grantee of tax sale pur- 
chaser, appearing in tax proceeding by 
petition for writ of assistance, be- 
comes a party in an action to have the 
sale set aside. Young v, Blanchard, 
165 Mich. 340, 130 N. W.' 694. 



499-54 Beal-Doyle, etc. Co. v. Odd 

Fellows BIdg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158 S. 
W. 955; Benjamin v. Birmingham, 50 
Ark. 433, 8 S, W. 183; Job Iron & Steel 

.V«; ^o ^^^"^^^ ^^^ ^^- 2^^' ^^^ S- '^• 
.167; Shannon r. Zimmerman, 162 Mo. 

App. 686, 145 S. W. 496; Doming Inv. 
^'o^v. Love, 31 Okla. 146, 120 P. 635; 
Criffin (To. v. Howell, 38 Utah 357. 113 
P. 326. ' 

A writ of error taken by a party oper- 
ates as a general appearance as to him. 
Honry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 8. 745; 
Busard v, Houston, 65 Fla. 479, 62 S. 
483. 

^?f^5?. ^^® ^^^^^ ^- ^«e^» S» Conn. 
214, 93 A. 232. 

In divorce action, admission of service 
and filing answer does not give juris- 
diction over non-resident. Henry v. 
Henry, 81 N. J. Eq. 512, 86 A, 1102, af. 
79 N. J. Kq. 493, 82 A. 47. 

500-60 First Nat. Bk. r. Johnson, 130 
La. 288, 57 S. 930; Leusch t?. Nickel, 
16 N. M. 28, 113 P. 595; Ferguson <?. 
McKee, 33 Okla. 332, 125 Pac. 458; Tur- 
ner & Co. V, Dodson, 32 Okla. 566, 121 
P. 1087; McCord Mercantile Co. v. 
Dodson, 32 Okla. 561, 121 P. 1085. 
Comp. Engels Exp. Co. t?. Ferguson, 79 
Misc. 40, 138 N. Y. S. 1086. 
Giving a forthcoming bond in trover 
suit constitutes an appearance. Hall 
?>. Roehr, 10 Oa. App. 379, 73 S. E. 
550. 

Fnmlsliing bond to dissolve garnish- 
ment is an appearance. Carpenter v. 
Miller, 2 Ala. App. 373, 56 S. 845. See 
also supra, p. 499, n. 51. 

501-63 By asUng leave to answer. 

Dell School V. Peirce, 163 N. C. 424. 
79 S. E. 687. 

Filing cross-petition is an appearance. 
Rakow V. Tate, 93 Neb. 198, 140 N. 
W. 162. 

Iietters between counsel relative to 
continuing the case do not constitute 
an appearance. Childers u. Lahann, 18 
N. M. 487, 138 P. 202. 

502-64 Motion to strike a Us pend- 
ens filed in cross-bill is a general ap- 
I»earance to cross-bill. King t?. Bar- 
nard, 66 Fla. 252, 63 S. 429. 

502-66 An appearance to challenge 

Jurisdiction of person is special; an ap- 
pearance for any other purpose is gen- 
eral. P. T. Bloomington Cem. Assn., 266 
Til. 32, 107 N. E. 143; P. v. Smythe, 232 
III. 242, 83 N. £. 821; Hanson v. Han- 



124 



APPEARANCES 



VoLU 



BOQ, 86 Kan. 622, :22 P. 100; Aber- 
crombie r. Abererombie, 64 Kan. 29, 67 
P. 539; HaynM v. City Nat. Bank, 30 
Okla. 614, 121 P. 182; Sit Ton Qune v. 
Uutd, 61 Or. 182, 120 P. 787, 1135. 

502^7 Wliitedda v. Drage, 56 Ind. 
App. 679, 106 N. £. 882; Bishop 9. 
FiBcber, 94 Kan. 105. 145 P. 890; 
Haynefl v. City Kat Bank, 00 Okla. 
614, 1^ P. 182. 

THo t«8t Is tbe 'relief asked. Rogers «. 
PAnobseot Mln. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 132 N. 
W. 7n2, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1184; Reedy 
r. Howard, 11 S. D. 160, 76 N. W. 304. 

604-68 Legan v, Smitb (Neb.)i 151 
N. W. 955; 8. v. White, 164 N. C. 408, 
79 S. E. 297; Rogers r. Penobscot Min. 
Co., 28 S. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. 
c^as. 1914A. 1184. 

l$<Vi.69 Lillie v. Modem Woodmen, 
89 Neb. 1, 130 N. W. 1004; Albrecht 
r. Zimmerly, 23 N. D. 337, 136 N. W. 
240; Pratt v. Pratt, 41 Okla. 577» 139 
P. 261. 

60S-71 Whitesides v, Drage, 56 Ind. 
App. 679, 106 N. E. 382; Bishop v, 
Fischer, 94 Kan. 105, 145 P. 890; Rog- 
ers V. Penobscot Min. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 
132 N. W. 7d2, Ann. Cas. 1914A| 1184. 

605-73 Seaeoast Lnmb. Co. f . Camp 
Lnmb. Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59 S. 13. 
505-T4 Drennan t?. Warbnrton, 38 
Okla. 561, 122 P. 179. 

Doaignatioii not eontroUing* — ^An ap- 
pearance will not necessarily be con- 
sidered speeial simply because it is so 
designated. Dell School v, PeireO) 163 
N. C. 424, 79 S. E. 687; Grant v. Grant, 
159 N. 0. 628, 75 S. E. 734. 
606-75 Bedford V, Board of Sapor- 
visors, 168 la. 588, 144 N. W. dOlj 8. 
r. Grimm/ 239 Mo. 135, 148 B. W. 483. 

608-83. Denrarror.— Invoking jorfs- 
dietion of court on merits of case by 
demurrer is a general appearance. Order 
of U. C. T. V. Bell, 62 Pla. 565, 56 
8. 910; Valley Abstract Co. v. Page, 
42 Okla. 365, 141 P. 416; Page r. Com. 
Kat Bank, 38 TJtah 440, 112 P. 816. 

Filing an answer, whick raises an is- 
sue, constitutes a general appearance 
even though the answer recites that the 
appearance is merely for the purpose 
of questioning the jurisdiction. Me- 
f'hire Newspaper Syndicate r. Times 
Printing Co., 164 App. Div. 108, 149 N. 
y. S. 443. 

TlunigSi vscfttlon of oxdor of comt. 



made after return of process. Is also 
sought, this does not render a special 
appearance and a motion to vacate 
service of process, a general appear- 
ance. Mitchell Min. Co. f?. Emig, 35 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 527. 

Adjonmmont. — Special appearance is 
not made general by adjournment at 
defendant's request. Longcor e. At- 
lantic, etc. Co« 122 Minn. 245, 142 N. 
W. 410. 

Plea or answer, ete.— Itassell v. Dan- 
iels Roanoke River, etc. Co. (N. C), 84 
8. E. 363; Steenstrup f. Toledo Foun- 
dry Co., 66 Wash. 101, 119 P. 16, Ann. 
Cas. 1913C, 427. 

Obtaining time; eto. — ^Murphy r. Her- 
ring-Hall, etc. Safe Co., 184 Fed. 495. 
A demand for copy of complaint, if an 
appearance, would be a special appear- 
ance and not general, Tinder New York 
practice. Hoyt r. Ogden, etc. Cement 
Co., 185 Fed. 889. 

Motion to vacate order for alimony and 

dismiss constitutes general appearance. 
Jones V. Jones, 59 Or. 308, 117 P. 414. 
Ohange of venue. — A motion to remove 
action to another county is general ap- 
pearance though denominated special. 
Princeton Coal Co. v. Gilchrist, fl Ind. 
App. 216, 99 N. E. 426; Grant v. Grant, 
159 N. C. 528, 75 8. E. 734; Jones v. 
Jones, 59 Or. 308, 117 P. 414. 

Asking leave to answer. — Where a de- 
fendant in default asks leave to an- 
swer he makes a general appearance. 
Currif v. Goleonda Min. ft Mill. Co., 157 
N. C. 609, 72 8. E. 980; Fitzgerald V. 
Case Threshing Mach. Co., 94 S. C. 54, 
r/ S. E. 739. 

For eOQtinnance, etc. — ^Fanton v. By- 
mm 26 8. D. 366 128 N. W. 325, 34 
L. B. A, (N.S.) 801. 
OonMftt to eontlDnance. — ^Eldon Ice Co. 
V Van Hooter, 163 Mo. App. 591, 147 
8. W. 161. 

Vacating defttnlt — An appearance is 
general ^en it raises the question of 
the merits of the finding by a motion 
to vacate a default. Chicago Copy Co. 
r. Original Mfg. Co., 162 111. App. 500; 
Currey <?. Trinity, etc. Co., 157 Mo. App. 
423, 139 8. W. 212; Welch v. Ladd, 29 
Okla. 03, 116 P. 573; Lookabaugh f>. 
Epperson, 28 Okla. 472, 114 P. 738. 
Motion for new trial on n on -Jurisdic- 
tional grounds is a general appearance. 
Maclay Co. r. Meads, 14 Cal. App. 36.3, 
112 P. 195, rehear, denial, 113 P. 364; 



125 



Vol. 2i 



APPEARANCES 



Pierce v. Hamilton, 55 Colo. 448, 135 
P. 796; Fowler v, Cont. Casualty Co., 17 
N. M. 188, 124 P. 479; Ziska v. ^vey 
(Okla.), 122 P. 722; Trugeon v. Galla* 
more, 28 Okla. 73, 117 P. 797. 

Obtaining stay of proceedings, etc. 

Schlesinger t\ Modern Samaritan^ 121 
Minn. 145, 140 N. W. 1027. 
Notice of retainer and stipulation of 
attorneys is a general appearance. Na- 
tional Coal Co. V. Cincinnati Uas, etc. 
Co., 168 Mich. 195, 131 N. W. 580. 

Jurisdiction of subject matter. — Where 
defendant appeared specially to object 
to jurisdiction of court over the per- 
son, and in the same motion challenges 
the jurisdiction over the subject mat- 
ter, this will constitute a voluntary 
general appearance. S. v, Grimm, 239 
Mo. 135, 143 S. W. 483; Clark v. Bank- 
ers' Ace. Ins. Co., 96 Neb. 381, 147 N. 
W. 1118. 

A verified plea of privilege without 
limitation is a. general appearance. 
Early Grain Co. i?. Fite (Tex. Civ.), 
14T S. W. 673; Santa Fe, etc. Trust 
Co. f?. Cumley (Tex. Civ.), 132 S. W. 
889. 

Writ of error, etc. — ^Henry v, Spitlet, 
67 Fla. 146, 64 S. 745; Busard 1?. Uous- 
ton, 65 Fla. 479, 62 S. 483. 
Motion to be substituted as party plain* 
tiff. Chambers" V. Bacon, 153 App. Div. 
194, 138 N. Y. S. 337. 

Procuring stay of execution is a gen- 
eral appearance. Woodhouse v. Nelson 
Cattle Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356. 
511-84 Brown r. Fletcher, 206 Fed. 
461, 124 C. C. A. 367, mod. 203 Fed. 70. 

612-80 State v, American Surety 
Co., 26 Ida. 652, 145 P. 1097. 
613-91 Answer, etc. — McClure News- 
paper Syndicate v. Times Printing Co., 
164 App. Div. 108, 149 N. Y. S. 443. 

515-4 Childers v, Lahann, 18 N. M. 
487, 138 P. 202. 

515-5 Friebe v. Elder (Tnd.), 103 N. 
E. 429, aff. 181 Ind. 597, 105 N. E. 
151. 

518-22 Valentine v. Cooley, Meigs 
(Tenn.), 613, 33 Am. Dec. 166. 
518-23 Cook V. Adams, 27 Ala. 294; 
Williams r. Ewing, 31 Ark. 229; Hodges 
r. Frazier, 31 Ark. 58; McCloskey r. 
Sweeney, 66 Cal. 53, 4 P. 943; Clark 
c. Turner, 1 Root (Conn.), 200; Nich- 
olson 17. Wilborn, 13 Ga. 467; Kesler r. 
Pennin^er, 59 111. 134; Peak v. Shasted, 



21 111. 137; Wcthorill t?. Harris, 67 Ind. 
452, 472; Bchoonover v. Irwin, 58 Ind. 
287; Timmons v, Timmons, 6 Ind. 8; 
Timmons v. Timmons, 3 Ind. 251; Cav- 
endur v. Heirs of Smith, 5 la. 157; Arm- 
strong V. Wyandotte Bridge Co., Mc* 
Cahon (Kan.), 166; Cook's Heirs v. 
Totton's Heirs, 6 Dana. (Ky.), 108; 
Bustard v. Gates, 4 Dana (Ky.) 429; 
Wainwright v, Wilkinson, 62 Md. 146; 
Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; Lee 
V, Jenkins, 30 Miss. 592; Gamache i\ 
Pre vest, 71 Mo. 84; Creech v. Creech, 
10 Mo. App. 586; Garesche v. Gambs, 
3 Mo. App. 572; I^ang v. BelloflP, 53 N. 
J. Eq. 298, 31 A. 604; Bobbins V. 
Mount, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 24: Shep- 
herd V. Hibbard, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 96; 
Camp V. Bennett, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 48; 
Mockey v. Grey, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 192; 
Matter of Bowne, 6 Dem. (N. Y.) 51; 
Hope V. Seaman, 119 N. Y. S. 713; 
Morcer v. Watson, 1 Watts (Pa.), 330, 
349; Wright v. McNatt, 49 Tex. 425; 
Fall River Foundry Co. v. Doty, 42 Vt. 
412; Somers v. Rogers, 26 Vt. 585; 
Starbird v. Moore, 21 Vt. 529. 
Bule applies to appeals. — Cook. v. 
Adams, 27 Ala. 294. 
Entering appearance by attorney does 
not confer jurisdiction over the infant. 
Bonncll v. Holt, 89 111. 71. 
The guardian or next friend may ap- 
point an attorney. Alexander 17. F^ary, 
9 Ind. 481; Doe v. Scoggin, 2 Ind. 208; 
Doe r. Brown, 8 Black (Ind.), 44,*); 
Brandon v. Carter, 119 Mo. 572, 24 S. 
W. 1035, 41 Am. St. 673; P. v. New 
York, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 164; Mercer 
«. Watson, 1 Watts (Pa.), 330. See 
vol. 10, p. 761, n. 86, and supplement 
thereto. 

520-31 Houston, etc. R. Co. v. 
Walker (Tex, Civ.), 167 8. W. 199; 
Early Co. v, Fite (Tex. Civ.), 147 S. 
W. 673. 

520*35 Rogers r. 'Penobscot Min. Co., 
28 S. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 
1914A, 1184. 

520*36 A special appearance pre- 
cludes the party from obtaining a de- 
cision on the merits. Haynes v. City 
Nat. Bank, 30 Okla. 614, 121 P. 182. 

521-37 Miller V. Cbckins, 239 Pa. 
558, 87 A. 58. 

521.39 Motions consistent wltli 
special appearance. — ^<<When objection 
to the jurisdiction is clearly made^ the 
mere fact that he (defendant) is given 
and accepts an enlargement of the 



129 



APPEARANCES 



Vol. 2 



timo to answer until his motion is dis- 
posed of, eannot be held to he in- 
consistent with such objection, nor can 
it be said that he thereby assumes the 
jurisdiction exists." Longcor r. At- 
lantic, etc Co., 122 Minn. 245, 142 N. 
W. 410. 

621^0 Fowler v. Cont. Casualty Co., 
17 K. H. 188, 124 P. 479. 

JnxlsdlctUm aeqnlxed.— A special ap- 
pearance gives the court jurisdiction 
over defendant's person to the extent 
of determining; the question presented. 
Onver V. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593. 56 S. 
203. 

S22-60 Faxon v. All Persons, 166 
Cal. 707, 137 P. 919; White t;. Elec. 
Co., 139 Ga. 587, 77 S. E. 789; Mumford 
r. Solomon, 8 Ga. App. 286, 68 S. E. 
1075; P. V. Brown, 253 Dl. 578, 97 N. 
E. 1075; Finch & Co. V, Zenith Furnace 
Co., 245 111. 586, 92 N. E. 521, af. 
146 111. App. 257; Bierma v. Columbia 
Typewriter Mfg. Co., 179 III. App. 69; 
Eldon lee Co. r. Van Hooser, 163 Mo. 
App. 591, 147 S. W. 161; In re Ford, 
157 Mo. App. 141, 137 S. W. 32; S. V. 
Bourne, 151 Mo. App. 104, 131 8. W. 
896; Legan v. Smith (Neb.), 151 N. 
W. 955; Baxter c, Bryant, 87 Misc. 180, 
149 N. Y. 8. 527; Boehmko f?. Northern 
Ohio Tract Co., 88 O. St. 156, 102 N. E. 
700; C. V. Hopkins, 241 Pa. 213, 88 A. 
442; Wilfcie v. Murphy, 88 8. C. 415, 
70 S. E. 1028; Rogers v. Penobscot Min. 
Co., 28 S. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. 
Cas. 1914A, 1184; Bayer v. Bayer 
(Wash.), 145 P. 433. See Detroit 
Trust Co. V, Pontine Sav. Bank, 196 
Fed. 29, 115 C. C. A. 663; Texas Co. V. 
Central Fuel Oil Co., 194 Fed. 1, 114 
C. C. A. 21. 

624-51 Brown f>. Fletcher, 203 Fed. 
70; Blanks r. Lephiew, 132 La. 545, 61 
8. 615; First Nat. Bk. v, Johnson, 130 
La. 288, 57 S. 930; National Coal Co. 
p. Cincinnati Gas Co. (Mich.), 131 N. 
W. 580; Newman v, Shreve, 229 Pa. 
200, 78 A. 79; Bogers v. Penobscot Min. 
Co^ 28 8. D. 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. 
Cas. 1914A, 1184; Simon 17. Temple 
Lumb. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 a W. 592. 

S25-52 In a divorce action a writ- 
ten, signed appearance by defendant 
delivered to plaintiff and filed with 
court does not confer jurisdiction of 
person where no process was issued and 
defendant was not .present in court. 
Friebe v. Elder (In^.), 103 N. E. 429, 
af. 181 Ind. 597, 105 N. E. 151. 



526-56 A corporation appearing geni 
erally consents to Jurisdiction. Meyers 
V, American Locomotive Co., 201 N. Y. 
163, 94 N. E. 605, af^ 124 N. Y. S. 1122. 
426-57 Big Vein C. Co. v. Bead, 229 
U. S. 31, 83 Sup. Ct. 694, 67 L. ed. 1053; 
King V. Balston, 174 111. App. 93; Mc- 
Sherry v, McSherry, 113 Md. 895, 77 
A. 653, 140 Am. St. 428; S. «. Holtcanip, 
245 Mo. 655, 151 S. W. 163. 

Demurring to Jurisdiction of court over 
subject matter is not a general appear- 
ance by which objections to the juris- 
diction of the person are waived. Kel- 
ley v. Smith Co., 196 Fed. 466. 116 C. 
C. A. 240. . 

527-58 Dailey v. Foster, 17 N. M. 
377, 128 P. 71; Hansen v. Mauss, 40 
Utah 361, 121 P. 605. See Biley v. Lam- 
son, 164 111. App. 297, certiorari denied, 
253 HI. 258, 97 N. E. 417. Comp. 
Klatte V. MclTeand, 95 Sl C. 219^ 78 
S. £. 712. 

Addng leave to answet after default, 
Fitzgerald V, Case Threshing Mach« Co., 
94 S. C. 54, 77 S. E. 739. 

Demurrer going to merita as well as 
jurisdiction^ confers Jurisdiction. Shep< 
pard V. Lincoln, 184 Fed. 182. 
Olvlng replevy bond does not prevent 
defendant from objecting to jurisdic- 
tion of person. Brake «• IjewiS) 13 Ga. 
App. 276, 79 S. E. 167. 
Answering to merits. — ^An appearance 
accompanied bv an answer to the mer- 
its is general though at the same time 
the parties question the jurisdiction. 
Baxter u. Bryant, 149 N. Y. S. 527. 
No cause of action stated. — "An ex- 
ception to the jurisdiction of the coujf 
filed by defendant is waived by the 
subsequent filing of an exception of no 
cause of action and going to trial on 
the two exceptions.'* City Nat. Bank 
V. Walker, 130 La. 810, 58 S. 580. 
527-59 Drake 17. Lewis, 13 Ga. App. 
276, 79 S. E. 167, 

528^5 See First Nat. Bank r. John- 
son, 130 La. 288, 57 S. 930. 
528^9 Lesan Advertising Co. r. 
Castleman, 165 Mo. App. 576, 148 S. 
W. 433. 

Appearance after motion to auadi over- 
ruled. — ^That it gives jurisdiction, etc. 
Henry v. Spitler, 67 Fla. 146, 64 S. 745. 
529-72 St. Louis v. Glasgow, 254 
Mo. 262, 162 S. W. 596; Lewisburp 
Bridge Co. v. Union Co., 882 Pa. 255. 
81 A. 824« 



187 



Vol. 2 



APPEARANCES 



Where court has Jarisdictlon of sub- 
ject matter« — "But if the court in 
which the suit is instituted posscssos 
jurisdiction of the general class of casus 
to which the particular suit involved 
belongs, it is said then to possess jur- 
isdiction with respect to the subject 
matter of such cases, and therefore au- 
thorized to perform the necessary ju- 
dicial functions with respect of them, 
if the parties voluntarily came into the 
forum, as here, the one for relief and 
other to defend." Western Stoneware 
Co. V, Pike County, etc. Co., 172 Mo. 
A pp. 696, 156 8. W. 1083. 
In a suit for annulment of marriage 
the defendant, even though he h^s ap- 
peared generally and answered, may 
deny the power and jurisdiction of the 
court to annul the marriage. Beid v. 
Eeid, 129 N. Y. S. 529. 
530-74 S. V. NlYon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 
S. W. 538; a V. Nolte, 233 Mo. 4r)l, 
134 S. W. 542; Lillie v. Modern Wood- 
men, 89 Neb. 1, 130 N. W. 1004. 
531-76 Whitesides v. Drage, 56 Ind. 
App. 670,, 106 N. K. 382; Rogers v. Pen- 
obscot Min. Co., 28 8. D. 72, 132 N. W. 
792, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1184, 
Opposing change of venue. — A general 
appearance ojiposing motion for change 
of venue on merits waives objections 
to the jurisdiction of the court making 
the order. Stockwoll v. Haigb, 23 N. 
D, 64, 136 N. W. 764. 
531-77" Sheppard v. Lincoln, 184 
Fed. 182; Sessoms Grocery Co. t?. Int. 
S. P. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 479. 
PlM^ in abatement, etc.— Parfitt r. 
Sterling, etc. Co., 68 W. Va. 438, 69 
8. E. 985. 

532-70 Greer v. Vaughan, 96 Ark. 
524, 132 8. W. 456; Castner t?. Cray, 54 
Colo. 551, 131 P. 404; Reynolds «. Fire 
Underwriters, 134 La. 515, 64 S. 396; 
Smith V. Kiene, 231 Mo. 215, 132 S. 
W. 1052; On (Tin V, Van Meter, 50 Mo. 
430; Idalia Realty Co. v, Norman, 184 
Mo. App. 146, 168 a. W. 643; Duluth 
Brew & Malt. Co. v, Allen (Mont.), 149 
P. 494; Carman v. Fox, 86 Miss. 107, 
149 N. y. S. 213; Santa Fe, etc. Trust 
Co. V. Cumley (Tex. Civ.), 132 S. W. 
889; Snow v. Rudolph (Tex. Civ.), 131 
8. W. 249. See Water (*o. v. El Campo 
U I. & W. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 
259tDegetan t;. Mayer (Tex. Civ.), 145 
S. W. 10.'54. 

In attachment suits, see, vol. 3, p. 675, 
n. 43 and supplement thereto. 



Answer to merits waives defect in cita- 
tion, after refusal to quash the cita- 
tion. Kansas City So. B. Co. v, Tonn. 
102 Ark. 20, 143 S. W. 577; National 
Equitable Society, etc. v. Tennison 
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 978; Boles v. 
Adams (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 561. 

52i^8 Aiklng additional time to 
answer is not waiver of service where 
no summons had been served. Klatte 
t?. McKeand, 95 S. C. 219, 78 S. E. 712. 
0(^4-89 Boles v. Adams (Tex. Civ.); 
173 S. W. 561. 

536-92 Sharp r. McBride^ 134 La. 
249, 63 S. 892; Allen t?. Henley, 130 
La. 861, 58 S. 688; Newell v. Newell, 
88 Neb. 705, 130 N. W. 743. See Pierce 
V. Hamilton, 55 Colo. 448, 135 P. 796. 
537-93 Case 17. Mountain Timber Co., 
210 Fed. 565; Hynes <?. All Persons, 19 
Cal. App. 185, 125 P. 253; Salzer Lumb. 
Co. V. Lindenmeier, 54 Colo. 491, 131 P, 
442; Matthew v. Fleetwood, 3 Boyce 
(Del.) 154, 82 A. 537; Henry v, Spitler. 
67 Fla. 146-, 64 S. 745; Hathaway v. 
Atlanta, 12 Ga. App. 648, 77 S. E. 916; 
Sartorious v. Paper Mills Co., 10 Ga. 
App. 522, 73 a. R. 854; P. v. Jones, 254 
IlL 521, 98 N. E. 962; Szimkus.v. Rag- 
auckas, 189 111. App. 407; Pittsburg B. 
Co. f). Hodge, 175 Ind. 669, 94 N. E. 
324; Kenthlcy V, Stump, 147 Ky. 406, 

144 S. W. 87; Allen u. Henley, 130 La. 
861, 58 S. 688; Young v. Beeves & Co., 
172 Mich. 363, 137 N. W. 701, 139 N. 
W. 876, denying rehear., 137 N. W. 701; 
S. r. Grimm, 239 Mo. 135, 143 S. W. 
483; S. V. Shelton, 238 Mo. 281, 142 S. 
W. 417; St. Louis t?. Smith, 235 Mo. 64, 
138 S. W. 11; Duluth Brew & Malt. Co. 
V. Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Haner r. 
Palmer, 88 Neb. 438, 129 N. W. 1001; 
McDonald v, McArthur, 154 N. C. 122, 
69 S. E. 832; Walton i?. Kennamer, 39 
Okla. 629. 136 P. 584; Fetjmson V. Mc- 
Kee, 33 Ok la. 332, 125 P. 458; Boles ©. 
Adams (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 561; Mar- 
tin Co. 1'. Cottrell (Tex. Civ.), 142 S. 
W. 48; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. 17. Bass 
(Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 860; Rosenberg 
r. Fidelity & G. Co., 115 Va. 221, 78 S. 
E. 557. See Wainwnght f>. Watkins, 
104 Miss. 438. 61 S. 4.54; Bakow V. Tate, 
93 Neb. 198, 140 N. W. 162. 

Does not operate to put party In de- 
fault. — An appearance in an action be- 
gun by publication waives only defect 
of service, and does not go back to put 
defendant in default for failure to an- 
swer. Carroll v. Fowler, 33 S. D. 303, 

145 N. W. 545, 



128 



APPEARANCES 



Vol. 2 



Appetxtaeo befbn and after Jadgmttit. 

An appearance for special purpose be- 
fore judgment coupled with a demand 
for relief iueonslBtent with claim of 
want of juriadiction ia a general ap> 
pearanee and waiver of defects in 
lervice of summons. But where appear- 
aoeiS is after judgment, and for want 
of proper service of process the judg- 
ment is void, a different rule applies. 
Spencer v. Court of Honor^ 120 Minn. 
422, 139 N. W. 815; Godfrey v. Valen- 
tine, 39 Minn. 836, 40 N. W. 163, 12 
Am. St. 657. 

After motioit to ^toadi <nramled, etc. 
Boles 17. Adama (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 
561. 

53t^-M WhiBn nndar aa appaaraaea 
da baiia ease the defendant demurred to 
jurisdiction of subject matter, but did 
not preserve its right to question the 
jurisdiction of the person the right to 
object to the insufficiencj of service 
was waived. Kane v, Pittsburg B. Oa^ 
241 Pa. 608, 88 A. 793. 
Proteat In aaawor.— Where defendant 
expressly reserved by its answer the 
right to quaah service of summons un- 
der special appearance, which motion 
was overruled, its objection to the serv- 
iee was not waived. Beal-Doyle Co. v. 
Odd Fellowa Bldg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158 
8. W. 965. 

689-07 Beal-Doyle Go. 9. Odd Fel- 
lows Bldg. Co., 109 Ark. 77, 158 8. W. 
955. 

539-08 Lowe v. Superior Coutt, 165 
Cal. 708, 134 P. 190; Abbott v. Kellogg, 
18 Cal. App. 429, 123 P. 227; Hanson v. 
Hanson, 86 Kan. 622, 122 P. 100; Sharp 
V. McBride, 134 La. 249, 63 S. 892; 
Landman v. Benson, 91 Neb. 479, 136 
N. W. 43; Newell v. Newell, 88 Neb. 
705, 130 N. W. 743; McClure News- 
paper Syndicate v. Times Printing Co., 
164 App. Div. 108, 149 N. Y. 8. 443; 
In re McMullen, 85 Misc. 661, 148 N. 
Y. 8. 1092; In re Byrd, 81 Okla. 549, 
122 P. 516; Ziska V. Avey (Okla.), 122 
P. 722: Bogers v, Penobscot Min. Co., 
28 a I). 72, 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 
1914A, 1184; National Equitable 8oc. 
V, Tenniaon (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 978. 
540-99 Lyon «. Ifoore, 259 HI. 23, 
102 N. E. 179, rev. 168 HI. App. 462. 

541-2 Filing aflldavlt aoA appeal 
bond.— Turk v. Mayberry, 82 Okla. 66, 
121 P. 665. 

Motiini to vacata Judgmant curea de- 
fect in return of service of summons. 



HFTollingsworth v. Bing (Colo. App.), 141 
l\ 139. 

Motion to veeaU ezeontiQn after de* 
fault judgment waives defect in serv* 
ice of summons. Balfe v. Bumsey Co., 
55 Colo. 97, 133 P. 417, Ann. Cas. 
1914C, CD2. 

Incnxable defeeta^— Where a writ is 
made returnable to no term known to 
the law of the land, but to some other 
day not the commencement of a term, 
appearance and pleading will not cure 
the defect in the writ. Brown v. Mar- 
shall, 2^41 Mo. 707, 145 8. W. 810; 
Flolladay v. Cooper, 3 Mo. 286. 
Betnmable too late. — ^An error in mak* 
ing the summons returnable too late 
is waived by appearance. Olson Land 
Co. V. Alki Park Co., 63 Wash. 521, 
115 P. 1083, Ann. Caa. 1912D, 365. 
542-8 Wmiston «. Baymond, 213 
Fed. 527; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, §424; 
McClure Newspaper Syndicate v, Timea 
Printing Co., 164 App. Hiv. 108, 149 N. 
Y. 8. 443; S. D. Code Civ. Proc, §116; 
Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., 28 S. D. 
72. 132 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 
1184. 

542-9 Oearlda v. Joknson, 183 Fed. 
611; Kirby v. B. Co., 51 Colo. 509, 119 
P. 1042, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 461; Kirby 
V. B. Co., 51 Colo. 508, 119 P. 1056; 
Johnson f>. Burke, 167 Mich. 349, 132 
N. W. 1017, 18 Det. Leg. N. 675; Grant 
V. Grant, 159 N. C. 528, 75 8. E. 734; 
Jones V. Postal Co^ 91 S. C. 273, 74 
8. E. 492. 

543-10 Valley Abstract Co. iff. Page, 
42 Okla. 865, 141 P. 416. 
543-12 Tilles r. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 
241 Mo. 609, 145 8. W. 1143; McDon- 
ald 17. McArthur, 154 N. C. 122, 69 8. E. 
832. 

543-lS Bluefields 8. 8. Co. «. Steele, 
184 Fed. 584, 106 C. C. A. 564. See 
Howland Pulp Co. v. Alfreds, 179 Fed. 
482, 103 C. 0. A. 62; Irving v. Joint 
Dist. Council, 180 Fed. 896. 
544-23 Bichardson v. King (la.), 
135 N. W. 640; Mecca Fire Ins. Co. v. 
State Bank (Tex. Civ.), 135 8. W. 1083. 
545-26 Boehmke v. Northern Ohio 
Tract. Co., 88 0. St. 156, 102 N. E. 

700. 

Appearance to diow repreBentative 
capadty. — ^Where defendants sued in 
individual capacities appeared alleging 
their representative capacities, the 
court acquired jurisdiction after the 
complaint bad been amended suing 



129 



I' 



Vol 2 



APPEABANCilS 



them in the latter capacity. Pry or t?.* 
Krause (Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 498. 

545-27 Selvey's Ezrs. v. Arm- 
Btrong's Admr., 73 W. Va. 13, 79 S. E. 
1019. 

645-80 Jnxlsdlction of lower court 
is waived. Wilkerson v, McGhee, 163 
Mo. App. 356, 143 S. W. 1198, adopt- 
ing opinion, 153 Mo. App. 343, 134 
S. W. 595. 

Motion to dismiss* — ^A special appear- 
ance to move to set aside judgment 
and dismiss appeal does not confer 
jurisdiction on appellate court other 
than to pass on motion. Bittmiller v, 
Overmass, 189 HI. App. 73. 

545-31 Where defendant appeared 
generally in supreme court he waives 
his claim that cause should have been 
heard in another court. Wilkerson v. 
McGhee, 153 Mo. App. 343, 134 S. W. 
595. 

546-32 Shannon v, Zimmerman, 162 
Mo. App. 686, 145 S. W. 496; Inter- 
national Dev. Co. V. Sanger, 75 Wash. 
646, 135 P. 28. 

549-42 Welch v. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 
116 P. 573. 

Voluntary appearance after default, 
when a judgment against co-defend- 
ants had been set aside, will not pre- 
clude the defendant from moving to 
strike out a substituted complaint im- 
properly filed. Gallup t?. Jeffery Co., 
86 Conn. 308, 85 A. 374. 

549-44 Crystal v. Ohmer, 79 Misc. 
227, 139 N. Y. S. 841; Dell School v. 
Peirce, 163 N. C. 424, 79 S. E. 687; 
Welch V, Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P. 
573; Lookabaugh v. Epperson, 28 Okla. 
472, 114 P. 738; Griffin Co. v. Howell, 
38 Utah 357, 113 P. 326; Spencer v. 
Osberg, 152 Wis. 399, 140 N. W. 67. 
549-48 An appeal constitutes gener- 
al appearance and waives irregularities. 
Doming Inv. Co. v. Love, 31 Okla. 146, 
120 P. 635. 

549-49 In divorce case a motion to 
vacate and dismiss action because of 
lack of legal service of process is a 
general appearance merely as ^ to 
future proceedings, if granted and does 
not relate back to validate the divorce 
j)roceedingB. Dallas v. Luster, 27 N. D. 
fisO, 147 N. W. 95. 

550-50 Clarkson f?. Washington, 38 
Okla. 4, 131 P. 935. 
Procuring stay of execution is a waiver 
of .iurisdiction. Woodhouse «, Nelson 
Cattle Co., 91 Kan. 823, 139 P. 356. 



Appearance after decree asking leave 
to answer waives right to object to 
want of proper service. Osburn v. 
Maata, 66 Or. 558, 135 P. 16^. 

550-51 Spencer r. Court of Honor, 
120 Minn. 422, 139 N. W. 815. But see 
Welch V. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 P. 573. 

550-52 Fowler t?. Continental Cas- 
ualty Co., 17 N. M. 188, 124 P. 479; 
Dallas V, Luster, 27 N. D. 450, 147 
N. W. 95; WiUett v, Blake, 39 Okla. 
261, 134 P. 1109; Ziska t?. Avey (Okla.), 
122 P. 722. See Spencer f?. Court of 
Honor, 120 Minn. 422, 139 N. W. 815. 

550-53 Pierce 'V» Hamilton, 55 Colo. 
448, 135 P. 796: Willett v. Blake, 39 
Okla. 261, 134 P. 1109. 

551-54 See Brown v. Fletcher, 203 
Fed. 70. 

552-58 General appearance pre- 
cludes Judgment by default and judg- 
ment nil dicit, and when it is without 
any plea defendant has right to offer 
plea of the general issue. Craig & Co. 
17. Pierson Lumb. Co., 179 Ala. 535, 60 
S. 838. 

554-76 Becltal of derk in order. 
Where there appeared in an order en- 
tered by the clerk as to a motion filed 
for a new trial by an attorney for 
some of defendants who answered, a 
recital that the motion was filed for 
those defendants **and other defend- 
ants/' such cannot be construed an 
appearance for non-resident defend- 
ants who had defaulted and had been 
brought in only by publication. Bar- 
ron V, Williams Cooperage Co., 185 Mo. 
App. 625, 171 S. W. 683. 

555-79 Though not served. White 
t?. White, 84 Misc. 114, 146 N. Y. S. 
368. 

558-91 Lipps V. Panko, 93 Neb. 469, 
140 N. W. 761. 

559-95 See Plummer v. Ash, 90 Kan. 
40, 133 P. 157. 

559-96 Duimo v, Arbuckle (App. 
Div.), 151 N. Y. S. 669. 

560-10 A rule of procedure.— '^ The 
right to make a special appearance is 
not a substantial one inherently exist- 
ing; it is a privilege allowed by prac- 
tice and must be exercised under the 
rules of procedure.'' Mohr v. Union 
Pacific B. Co., 140 Fed. 921; S. v. 
Grimm, 239 Mo. 135, 143 S. W. 483. 
561-16 An action must be pending. 
Altpeter t>. Postal Tel, Cable Co. (Cal. 
App.), 148 P. 241. 



130 



ARBITRATION 



Vol 2 



563-32 Substituting special appear- 
ance, — May withdraw general appear- 
ance and substitute special appearance 
to attack court's jurisdiction after 
amendment of praecipe and summons. 
Hagstoz V. Mut. Life Ins. Co.. 179 Fed. 
569. 

564-33 Carnegie Steel Co. t?. Cam- 
bria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 40.3, 22 'Sup. 
Ct. 698, 46 L. ed. 968; S. v. Superior 
Court, 63 Wash. 96, 114 P. 905. See 
Szimkus v, Bagauckas, 189 III. A pp. 
407, 

565-47 See U. S. Fidelity Co. v. 
Nash, 20 Wyo. 65, 121 P. 541, 124 P. 
269. 



APPBENTICES 

583-6 Where an apprentice sued for 
wrongfiil discharge, and the master's 
defense was indifferent and careless 
work, it was error to refuse an in- 
struction containing the theory of the 
defense. Lapan r. Machine Co., 178 
Mich. 18, 144 N. W. 693. 



ABSITBATION 

593-3 Irwin t. Hoyt, 162 la. 679, 144 
N. W. 584; Sholz v. Mills, 176 Mo. 
App. 352, 158 S. W. 696. 

Matter must l>e In dispute and not in 
contemplation or a matter of account- 
ing or appraisal. Toledo S. S. Co. i?. 
Zenith Trans. Co., 184 Fed. 391, 106 
C. C. A. 501. 

693-8 Sholz V. Mills, 176 Mo. App. 
352, 158 S. W. 696. 

594-11 Comp, Dore t?. Southern Pac. 
Co., 163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817. 

594-16 Pending action is terminated 
by such submission. Shawhan r. Baker, 
167 Mo. App. 25, 150 S. W. 1096. 

595-17 Bore r. Southern Pac. Co., 
163 CaL 182, 124 P. 817. 

595-18 Dore i?. Southern Pac. Co., 
163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817; Lilley «. 
Tuttle, 52 Colo. 121, 117 P. 896, Ann. 
Cas. 1913D, 196; Hill r. Walker (Tox. 
Civ.), 140 S. W, 1169. 

595-21 Dore f>. Southern Pac. Co., 
163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817. 

595-22 Paine v. Kentucky Hef. Co,y 
159 Ky. 270, 167 S. W. 375. 

596-26 See Slaughter v. Crisman 
(Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 205. 

599-43 Slaughter f. Crisman (Tex. 
Civ.), 162 S. W. 205. 



599-45 Cravens v. Estes, 144 Ky. 
511, 139 S. W. 761. 

699-46 Cravens r. Estes, 144 Ky. 
611, 139 S. W. 761. 

601-53 Meloy v. Imperial Land Co., 
163 Cal. 99, 124 P. 712; Crystal Ice 
Co. V. Elmer, 82 N. J, Eq. 486, 89 A. 
247. 

603-61 Unsworn statement of par- 
ties may be received, etc. Karapschin- 
sky i\ Rothbaum, 177 Mo. App. 91, 163 
S. W. 290, 

603-62 Beall f?. Board of Trade, 164 
Mo. App. 186, 148 S. W. 386. 

603-63 Cobb t?. Dolphin Mfg. Co., 
108 N. Y. 463, 15 N. E. 438; Welch v. 
Probst, 151 App. Div. 147, 135 N. Y. 
S, 642. 

609-91 Cravens v. Estes, 144 Ky. 
511, 139 S. W. 761. 

Irrespective of statutory requirements. 
Oystal Ice ('o. v, Elmer, 82 N. J. Eq. 
486, 89 A. 247. 

Where no hearing was contemplated 

but meeting was to view premises and 
award damages, no notice of time and 
place is necessary. Hughes r. Sarpy 
County, 97 Neb. 90, 149 N. W. 309. 

611-98 Welch f?. Probst, 151 App. 
Div. 147, 135 N. Y. S. 642. 

612-6 A general statement In con- 
versation that the arbitrator and um- 
pire were ready to proceed with the 
arbitration at a certain day, in the 
presence of appellee, but with no in-* 
formation to appellee's arbitrator, is 
not sufficient notice of a meeting held 
two days later. Oavens t\ Estes, 144 
Ky. 511, 139 S. W. 701. 

613-9 Written notice not necessary. 
Cravens <?. Estes, 144 Ky. 511, 139 8. 
W. 761. 

614-14 Cravens t?. Estes, 144 Ky. 
511, 139 S. W. 761. 

619-37 Kecessity of taking oath. 

Under Comp. St., 1910, p. 106, the fail- 
ure of arbitrators to take oath and 
not give hearing to parties is fatal 
whether arbitration was made rule of 
court or not. ('rvstal Ice Co. v, Elmer, 
82 N. J. Eq. 486, 89 A. 247. That 
arbitrators need not take oath. Lilley 
r. Tuttle, 52 Colo. 121, 117 P. 896, Ann. 
Cas. 1913B, 196. 

619-38 Refusal of arbitrators to re- 
open case for further hearing is Justi* 
fled where to do so would make it im- 
possible for them to return their award 



181 



Vol.2 



ARBITRATION 



within the time contemplated by the 
agreement. In re Silliman, 159 Cal. 
155, 113 P. 135. 

610-39 Winter v. Meier, 178 IlL 

App. 281. 

Eqnitahle prindples may be applied. 
Central, etc. Co. 17. Asphalt P. Co., 82 
N. J. £q. 246, 87 A. 235; Clark M. Co. 
V. Nat. Union F. Ins. Co., 160 N. C. 
130, 75 S. £. 944, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 367. 

621-47 Appearance aad offer of evi- 
dence before two arbitrators before 
and after appointment of third waives 
any irregularity in procedure. Slaugh- 
ter V, Crisman (Tex. Civ.), 152 S. W. 
205. 

The Irregularity of not swearing wlt- 
neaeea is waived where no objection 
was made, or exception taken. In re 
SUliman, 159 Cal. 155, 113 P. 135; In 
re Connor, 128 Cal. 279, 60 P. 862; 
Hackney v. Adam, 20 N. D. 130, 127 
N. W. 519. 

621-49 rallnre of arbitrators to be 
sworn is waived by failure to object. 
Dore v. Southern Pac. Co., 163 Cal. 182, 
124 P. 817. 

621-SO Bobinson «. Patterson, 210 
Fed. 839, 127 C. C. A. 389; Cravens 
V. Estes, 144 Ky. 511, 139 S. W. 761. 

622-S8 Welch v. Probst, 151 App. 
Div. 147, 135 N. Y. S. 642. 

623-68 But see Cravens v. Estes, 
144 Ky. 511, 139 S. W. 761. 
Most consult both sides. — Umpire has 
no right to act alone upon information 
from one party and arbitrator as to 
what points were disagreed upon, in 
the absence of other party and his 
arbitrator. Cravens f. Estes, 144 Ey. 
511, 139 S. W. 761. 

626-80 But see Cotey Coal Co. 9.* 
New York, etc. Coal Co., 231 Pa. 24, 
79 A. 812. 

627-88 Hackney v. Adams, 20 K D. 
130, 127 N. W. 519. 
Acceptance of benefits under award 
will prevent motion to vacate award 
under §1287, Code Civ. Proc. In re 
Silliman, 159 Cal. 155, 113 P. 135. 

628-93 Lapse of considerable time 

does not deprive court of right to set 
aside award. Thompson 17. Barber, 87 
Kan. 692, 125 P. 33. 
629-3 Information and beliefs-Be- 
quirement of Civ. Code, 1910, S5049, 
is not met by affidavit of party filing 
exceptions that they are true to the 
best of his knowledge and belief. East- 



man C. Mills V. Suggs, 136 Ga. 388, 71 
S. E. 667. 

681-24 Jessup Co. v, Beed Co. (DeL 
Ch.), 87 A. 1011. 

A legal remedy under statute does 
not preclude equitable remedy. Shaw- 
han V, Baker, 167 Mo. App. 25, 150 
S. W. 1096. 

Oonenrrent remedies^— ''However, there 
appears to be no legal objection to the 
prosecution of proceedings, on the one 
side to enforce and on the other, to 
set aside an award, although manifest- 
ly action at law to enforce the award 
is at peril of having the award set 
aside in equity." Early i;. Circuit 
Judge, 166 Mich. 517, 131 N. W. 1104. 

631-25 Jessup Co. r. Beed Co. (DeL 
Ch.), 87 A. 1011. 

633-40 Beall v. Board of Trade, 164 
Mo. App. 186, 148 S. W. 386. 
633-41 Tn New Jersey where tho 
submission is made a rule of court the 
method of enforcing the award other- 
wise than by suit upon it or upon the 
bond given is by attachment as for 
contempt. Practice does not permit 
the entry of judgment directly upon, 
the award. Hoffman v, Westlecraft 
(N. J. L.), 79 A. 318. 

633-43 Dore f. Southern Pac. Co., 
163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817. 

633-44 Winter v. Meier, 178 HI. 
App. 281: Thompson v. Barber, 87 Kan. 
692, 125 P. 33. 

633-45 Bight to enter' Judgment. 
Where there is nothing in the agree- 
ment authorizing arbitrators to enter 
judgment, and they have ascertained 
the respective rights and fixed the 
amount due the court may enter judg- 
ment. And this even though no rule 
of court for submission of the case 
to arbitrators has been entered. Mur- 
phy & Co. V. Greenberg, 246 Pa. 387, 
92 A. 511. 

634-46 Kot reviewable on appeal 
where not served within time pre- 
scribed. Salomon v. Salomon, 150 App. 
Div. 897, 134 N. Y. S. 648. 

634-47 Thompson v. Barber, 87 Kan. 
692, 125 P. 33. 

Tn absence of statute a summary judg- 
ment cannot be entered. Peele r. 
Carolina B. Co., 159 N. C. 60, 74 S. E. 
592. 

639-66 Newcomb v. Hampton (N. 
I H.), 92 A. 802. 



132 



ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS 



Vol 2 



641-74 Street v. Parsons, 68 W. Va. 
517, 70 8. E. 113. Soe Carpenter v. 
Hutchison, 243 Pa. 260, 90 A. 154. 

642-75 Bee S. v. Haldeman (Tex. 
Civ.), 163 S. W. 1020. 

643-80 In re Eunnewell (Mass.)* 
107 N. E. 934. 

644-02 Winter v. Meier, 178 111. 
App. 281. 

646-98 Winter v. Meier, 178 111. 
App. 281. 

656-67 Befoflal of arbitratoni to 
liear eridence and to decide matter 
witliout evidence is a good defense. 
Meloy V. Imperial Land Co., 163 Cal. 
99, 124 P. 712. 

658-81 Ptendlxig proceedings to de- 
tennine its validity.— Hill to enforce 
specific performance will not be held 
to await another award determining 
the validity of tlio former. Crystal 
lee Co. r. Elmer, 82 N. J. £q. 486, 89 
A. 247. 

661-S6 Early v. Ingham Circuit 
Judge, 166 Mich. 517, 131 N. W. 1104. 

664U15 Lilley v. Tuttio, 52 Colo. 121, 
117 P. 896, Ann. Cas. 1013D, 196. 

665-18 Florence Mach., etc. Co. v. 
Agr. Corp., 10 Ala. App. 463, 65 B. 
413. 



ABUUlTiSCTS AND BUILDEBS 

677-3 Johnson v. O'Neill, 181 Mich. 
326, 148 N. W. 364, 150 N. W. 835. 

678-11 See Dudley r. Strain (Tex. 
Civ.), 130 8. W. 778. 

679-15 Bowell v. Draper, 149 la. 725, 
129 N. W. 54; Williar V. Nagic, 113 
Md. 614, 77 A. 680. 

68l>-29 Johnson v. O'Neill, 181 Mich. 
326, 148 N. W. 364, 150 N. W. 835. 

681-33 Larivee v. A 'H earn, 207 
288, 93 N. E. 703. 

Brown v. Coffee, 17 Cal. 
App. 381, 121 P. 309, 311; Denotb V. 
Carter, 85 N. J. L. 95, 88 A. 835. 

681-39 See Audubon Bldg. Co. r. 
Andrews, 187 Fed. 254. 

682-44 See Benenato v, McDougall, 
166 Cal. 405, 137 P. 8, 49 L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 1202; Trunk v. Clark, 163 la. 
620, 145 N. W. 277; Kortz v. Kimber- 
lin, 158 Ky. 566, 165 S. W. 654. 

683-45 Benenato v. McDougall, 166 
Cal. 405, 137 1\ 8, 49 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
1202. 



Implied representations.— "So far as 

the architect is concerned, there is al- 
ways an implied contract that the work 
shall be suitable and capable of be- 
ing used for the purpose for which 
it is prepared. Apart from questions 
of public policy, this principle would 
prevent him from recovering upon plans 
and specifications prepared in violation 
of law, unless he was directed to so 
prepare them by the owner." Nave 
V. McGrane, 19 Ida. Ill, 113 P. 82. 

683-52 West v, McDonald, 64 Or. 
203, 127 P. 784, 128 P. 818. 

687-71 Blight deviation will not 
prevent recoveiT', unless wilful. Pratt 
V. Dunlap, 85 Conn. 180, 82 A. 195. 

687-78 Boss Min. & Mill. Co. v. 
Sothman, 50 Colo. 33, 114 P. 287; 
Erumholz v, Tobias, 167 HI. App. 553; 
Kleinschnittger 17. Dorsey, 152 111. App. 
598; Henry 17. Jons, 164 la. 364, 145 
N. W. 909; Lofsted v. Bohman, 88 Kan. 
660, 129 P. 1168; Casavant v. Sher- 
man, 213 Mass. 23, 99 N. E. 475; Gom- 
pert V. nealy, 149 App. Div. 198, 133 
N. Y. S. 689; Clement v. Didier-March 
Co., 244 Pa. 616, 90 A. 927; Pressy v. 
McCornack, 235 Pa. 443, 84 A. 427; 
Morgan v. Gamble, 230 Pa. 165, 79 A. 
410; Stude 17. Koehler (Tex. Civ.), 138 
S. W. 193. 

Wliat is substantial performance. 
Pippy 1?. Winslow, 62 Or. 219, 125 P. 
298. 

688-79 Boss Min. Sb Mill. Co. i?. 
Sethman, 50 Colo. 33, 114 P. 287; Ellas 
V. Coleman, 137 N. T. S. 883; Mitchell 
V. Lumb. Co., 31 Okla. 834, 124 P. 10; 
Smith V. Cunningham Piano Co., 239 
Pa. 496, 86 A. 1067; Pressy 17. Mc- 
Cornack, 235 Pa. 443, 84 A. 427; Mor- 
gan 17. Gamble, 230 Pa. 165, 79 A. 410; 
Smyers 17. Zmitrovitch, 55 Pa. Super. 
440. 

689-80 Lofsted 17. Bohman, 88 Kan. 
660, 129 P. 1168. 

693-93 Schulze 17. Farrell, 142 App. 
Div. 13, 126 N. Y. S. 678. 

694-96 Funk 17. House (Tez. Civ.), 
168 S. W. 481. See Growall r. Pacific 
Surety Co., 21 Cal. App. 185. 131 P. 
73. 

695-98 West 17. McDonald, 64 Or. 
203, 127 P. 784, 128 P. 818. 

700-24 Callahan Const. Co. 17. U. S., 

47 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 229; City St. I. Co. 
17. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 P. 933; 
Schaefor & Co. v. Ely, 84 Conn. 501, 



133 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



80 A. 775, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 899; Busse 
V, Douglas, 165 Mich. 95, 130 N. W. 
188, 17 Detroit Leg. N. 1241; Hedden 
Const. Co. V, Realty Co., 136 App. Div. 
601, 121 N. Y. S. 64, a/f., 202 N. Y. 
622, 95 N. E. 1130; Creamery Package 
Mfg. Co. t?. Russell, 84 Vt. 80, 78 A. 
718, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135. 

700-25 Wiley V. Hart, 74 Wash. 142, 
132 P. 1015. 

700-27 See Draper v. Miller, 92 
Kan. 275, 140 P. 890. 

701-28 Borup t?. Von Kokeritz, 162 
App. Div. 394, 147 N. Y. S. 832. See 
Tubbs V. Delillo, 19 Cal. App. 612, 127 
P. 514. 

702-40 Growall v. Pacific Surety 
Co., 21 Cal. App. 185, 131 P. 73. 

702-42 Oldewurtel t?. Bevan, 117 
Md. 645, 84 A. 66. 

703-45 Tubbs <?, Delillo, 19 Cal. 
App. 612, 127 P. 514. 

703-47 Mannix v. Radke Co., 166 
Cal. 333, 136 P. 52. 

704-51 Brady t?. Oliver, 125 Tenn. 
595, 147 S. W. 1135, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 
376, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 60. 

704-52 American R. Co. v. Keener, 
263 111. 515, 105 N. E. 334. 

712-17 See Scbmulbach r. Caldwell, 
196 Fed. 16, 115 C. C. A. 650. 

713-22 Second Nat. Bank a. Pan 
American Bridge Co., 183 Fed. 391, 105 
C. C. A. 611; Gnuske i\ Duflfy, 177 111. 
App. 648; Borup r. Von Kokeritz, 162 
App. Div. 394, 147 N. Y. S. 832, 

Certificate conclnsive on owner in ab- 
sence of fraud and mistake. Salfisberg 
V. St. Charles, 154 111. App. 531; Land- 
stra V. Bunn, 81 N. J. L. 680, 80 A. 
496; Gerisch v, Herold, 81 N. J. L. 171, 
79 A. 1028. 

A special plea is necessary to set up 
defense that architect's certificate was 
a necessary condition precedent to pay- 
ment. George v. Roberts, 186 Ala. 521, 
65 S. 345. 

714-23 Gnuske v, Duffy, 177 III. 
App. 648; Federal Contracting Co. f?. 
Coal Creek Dist, 166 III. App. 369. 
Death of architect is a suflicieDt reason. 
See Potter College v. Collctt & Bro., 
142 Ky. 322, 134 S. W. 173. 

Subsequent modification of contract 
providing for additional work -wherein 
no mention is made of necessity of 
architects's certificate, will permit 
builder to recover for the additional 



work regardless of certificate. Sweatt 
V. Bonne, 60 Wash. 18, 110 P. 617. 

715-24 Masek c. Chmelik, 169 111. 
App. 589; Klcinschnittger t\ Dorsey, 
152 111. App. 598. 

717-28 Second Nat. Bank t?. Pan 
American Bridge Co., 183 Fed. 391, 105 
C. C. A. 611. 

719-31 Anderson v. Odd Fellows, 84 
N. J. L. 176, 86 A. 367. 

720-32 Scully v. U. S., 197 Fed. 327. 

720-33 Bee Central, etc. Co. v. As- 
phalt P. Co., 82 N. J. Eq. 246, 87 A. 
235. 



ABaTJMENTS 

726-1 S. f?. Boasso, 38 La. Ann. 202 
(on motion for new trial); Belber v. 
Calvo, 16 P. R. 342; Hickman t?. S., 
64 Tex. Cr. 161, 141 S. W. 973; Hull f\ 
Seattle, E. & S. R. Co., 60 Wash. 162, 
110 P. 804. 

Discretionary with court to permit dis- 
cussion of law. Davis v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
151 S. W. 313. 

Greater latitude allowed in argument 
before court than before jury. Lowthcr 
t\ Waycross, 12 Ga. App. 727, 78 S. K. 
141. 

726-4 Stating facts of reported de- 
cisions proper. Betts V. Western Union 
Tel. Co., 167 N. C. 75, 83 S. E. 164. 

727-6 Cross v. S., 68 Ala. 476. 
Time for arg^ument on motion for new 
trial is within discretion of court. Coun- 
sel are presumed to be ready when mo- 
tion is made, and where court requires 
argument even though counsel is not 
prepared, there is no abuse of discre- 
tion. S. V. Long, 93 S. C. 502, 77 8. K. 
61; S. r. Davis, 88 S. C. 229, 70 S. K. 
811, 34 L. E. A. (N. S.) 295. 
Discretionary with court to permit the 
reading of cases. Davis v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 151 S. W. 313. 
727-9 See Davis v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
151 S. W. 313. 

727-10 Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. r. 
Stalcup (Tex. Civ.), 167 S. W. 279. 
728-14 Cross v. S., 68 Ala. 476; P. 
V. Green, 99 Cal. 564, 34 P. 231; Lynch 
r. S., 9 Ind. 541; S. 17. Tififhe, 27 Mont, 
327, 71 P. 3; S. «?. Williams (N. C), 
83 S. E. 714; S. t?. Gutterman, 20 N. D. 
432, 128 N. W. 307, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 
816; Dille t\ S., 34 O. St. 617. 32 Am. 
Hep. 395; Thompson f?. S., 6 Okla. O. 
50, 117 P. 216; Anselin V, S. (Tex, 



134 



AUQVMENTS 



yoi. 2 



Cr.), 160 S. W. 713; Chapman v. S. 
(Tex. Or.), 147 S. W. 580; Zimmer V. 
S., 64 Tex. Cr. 114, 141 8. W. 781. 
See note in 46 Am. St. 23. 

728-15 Hyman & Co. t?. Snyder Co., 
159 Ky. 354, 167 S. W. 146. 

728-16 Murphy r. Bay, 161 Ky. 384, 
170 S. W. 946. 

730-22 St. Louis & S. P. B. Co. v. 
Vanzego, 71 Kan. 427, 80 P. 944; 
Southern Kan. By. Co. f. Michaels, 49 
Kan. 388, 30 P. 408; Atchison, etc. B. 
Co. r. Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 
428. 

Effect of nominal opening on Ids right 
of reply. — Seaboard Ait Line By. t?. 
Bentz, 60 Fla. 449, 54 S. 20, in which 
the court said that if the plaintiff re- 
fuses to fairly open his case, he should 
not be permitted to reply; or if he is 
permitted to do so, then the opposite 
attorney should be permitted to reply 
to him. 

730-23 Pittsburg ft St. L. B. Co. 
f?. Martin, 82 Ind. 476; Conrad t?. Cleve- 
land, C. C. & St. L. B. Co.« 34 Ind. 
App. 133, 72 N. E. 489; Harden 17. Bris- 
coe, 36 Mich. 254; Henry v. Dussell, 71 
Neb. 691, 99 N. W. 484; Atchison, etc. 
B. Co. V. Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 
P. 428. But see Board of Corars. v. 
Allbert, 6 Kan. App. 165, 51 P. 307; 
Hackney t?. Delaware & A. T. & T, 
Co., 69 N. J. L. 335, 55 A. 252. 

731-29 Atchison, etc. B. Co. r. Lam- 
bert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 428. 

T31-33 Atchison, etc. B. Co. r. 
Lambert, 32 Okla. 665, 123 P. 428. 

731-34 McVay t?. S., 104 Ark. 629, 
150 S. W. 125 (even in a capital case); 
Anselin t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 
713. 

Bight to reply lost by waiving argu- 
ment. Tyre t?. Morris, 5 Ilarr. (Del.) 
3; Seattle & M. B. Co. v. Boeder, 30 
Wash. 244, 70 P. 498, 94 Am. St. 864. 
See Seaboard Air Line B. Co. v. Beutz, 
60 Fla. 449, 54 S. 20. 

732-37 S. V, Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 
132 N. W. 149. 

733-45 Adams v. S., 179 Ind. 44, 99 
N. E. 483. 

734-46 Lindsay v. S., 138 Ga. 818, 
76 S. E. 369 (power to limit time); 
Weaver v. S., 24 O. St. 584; Cooper v, 
Bobischung Bros. (Tex. Civ.), 155 S. 
W. 1050. See S. t?. McKinnon, 158 la. 
619, 138 N. W. 523, 
Axfnment may be limited to eyidence. 



Campbell v. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 561, 138 
S. W. 607. 

Whether a reply is warranted by the 
presentation of new points in argu- 
ment is within discrotion of court. S. 
V. Leek, J52 la. 12, 130 N. W. 1062. 

734-48 Idaho, Gold Coin Min. & 
Mill. Co. r. Colorado Iron Wks. Co., 
49 Colo. 66, 111 P. 553 (ruling held 
proper); Irvin v. B, Co., 164 N. C. 
5, 80 S. E. 78. 

734-50 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. r. 
Bcnonanto, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 942; 
Lemuels v. S. (Ark.), 166 S. W. 741; 
Sullenbarger i;. Ahrens (la.), 150 N. 
W. 71; Citizens' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. 
Bridge Co., 116 Md. 422, 82 A. 372 
(whether argument within record); P. 
f?. Swift, 172 Mich. 473, 138 N. W. 662; 
Brinkmann v. Gotten stroeter, 160 Mo. 
App. 596, 140 S. W. 1194; Craig t?. 
Augusta-Aikon B. Co., 89 S. C. 161, 71 
S. £. 983 (discretion not abused); Texas 
& Pac. By. V, Garcia, 62 Tex. 285; 
Glover v, Pfeuffer (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. 
W. 984; Texas Midland B. B. 17. Wig- 
gins (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 445; Har- 
rison t?. S., 8 Tex. App. 183; S. <?, Con- 
roy (Wash.), 144 P. 538, court has a 
large discretion in determining what 
is proper argument. See Crider v. 
McColley, 154 la. 671, 135 N, W. 364. 

734-61 Jackson 17. S., 2 A4a. App. 
226, 57 S. 110; Stadler v, Chicago City 
B. Co., 159 III. App. 617; Vick €. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 159 S. W. 50. 

735-62 McDonald f>. P., 126 HI. 150, 
18 N. E. 817, 9 Am. St. 547 (much 
latitude); Jacobs v, S., 103 Miss. 622, 
60 S. 723 (great latitude); Norfolk-S. 
B. Co. u. Tomlinson, 116 Va. 153, 81 8. 
E. 89 (much latitude); S. v. Cooper 
(W. Va.), 82 S. E. 358. 
Wide latitude allowed^— P. v. Burke, 18 
Cal. App. 72, 122 P. 435-448; Bell's 
Admr. v. Louisville By. Co., 148 Ky. 
189, 146 S. W. 383; Martin 17. S., 63 
Miss. 505, 56 Am. Bep. 813. 

736-53 See Wilbnrn f). S., 141 Ga. 
510, 81 S. E. 444 (holding that allow* 
ing the state three speeches and the 
accused but two for the accused is not 
error) ; Dille v. 8., 34 O. St. 617, 32 Am. 
Bep. 395, where evidence was circum- 
stantial and required a half day for its 
presentation, defendant was entitled to 
bo heard by both counsel. 
736-54 Indisposition of defendant's 
connsel does not deprive the state of 
its statutory right to two addresses. 



135 



Vol. 2 



iROUMENTS 



Leggett V. B^ 62 Tex. Cr. 99, 136 8. 
W. 784; Vines v. 8., 31 Tex. Cr. 31, 19 
8. W. 545. 

736^S 8. V. MiUer, 75 N. C. 73; 
Holmes «. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 
926; Jenkins V. 8.. 60 Tex. Cr. 236, 131 
8. W. 542. 

If defendant'! coimsel dedlnes to ad- 
dress tl&e Jnzy, the court, in its discre- 
tion, may permit two speeches by the 
prosecution. Walker V, 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 
70, 141 8. W. 243. 

737-58 8. 9. Garlington, 90 8. C. 138, 
72 8. E. 564; Tex. Code Civ. Proe. 1895, 
art. 704; llughes v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 
8. W. 173, but the prosecution has clos- 
ing argument. 

737-60 Childers v, Co., 161 Ky. 440, 
171 8. W. 149; Hyman & Co. v, 8ny- 
der Co., 159 Ky. 354, 167 8. W. 146; 
8tout V. C, 148 Ky. 199, 146 8. W. 407; 
Bowen €. 8., 3 Tex. App. 617. 

An extension of time granted in the 
discretion of the court on compliance 
with rules. Wilbnrn v. 8., 141 Ga. 510, 
81 8. £. 444. 

Intexruplion of connstf to inform him 
he had nearly consumed his time is not 
ground for new trial. Wilbnrn v, 8., 
141 Ga. 510, 81 8. K 444. 

Befnsal to allow associate counsel to 
nse nnnsed time is not error when the 
time allotted to each was agreed upon 
in advance. Bmder 9. 8., 110 Ark. 402, 
161 8. W. 1067. 

738-61 Hamer v. 8., 104 Ark. 606, 
150 8. W. 142 (allowing an extension 
of two minutes not an abuse of dis- 
cretion); Porter «. 8., 6 Ga. App. 770, 
65 8. E. 814 (in which counsel cUd not 
use the full time allotted him intend- 
ing to argue the facts in rebuttal, the 
prosecution's announcing there would 
be no argument. It was held error for 
the court to refuse to allow him to pre- 
sent his argument on the facts within 
the time limited for argument); Child- 
ers V. C, 161 Ky. 440, 171. 8. W. 149; 
llurphy V, Bay, 161 Ky. 884, 170 8. 
W. 946; Hyman ft Co. v. 8nyder Co., 
159 Ey. 354, 167 8. W. 146; 8tont v. 
C, 148 Kj . 199, 146 8. W. 407; Scott v. 
C, 148 Ky. 80, 146 8. W. 406; 8. v. 
Williams, 69 Mo. 110; Graham «. 8., 
90 Neb. 658, 134 N. W. 249; Creech v. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 277; Holmes f?. 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 & W. 926; Hughes 
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 8. W. 173; King 
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 324; Jenk- 
ins 17. 8., 60 Tex. Cr. 286^ 131 8. W. 



542; Bailey v. 8., 37 Tex. Cr. 579, 40 
S. W. 281; 8cott V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 36 8. 
W. 276. 8ee notes to 46 Am. St. 23; 
42 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 209; 25 L. B. A. 
(N. 8.) 1027. 

A oonstttational gnaxmnty ''that in all 
criminal prosecutions, the accused has 
the right to be heard by himself and 
counsel, or either,'' is not infringed by 
limiting of argument. Lindsay c. 8., 
138 Ga. 818, 76 8. £. 369. 

739^2 Wido latitude allowed to 
court 's discretion. Helms v. Central of 
Georgia B. Co. (Ala.), 66 8. 470. 
Proasnxo of boalnesi not a ground for 
depriving counsel of a reasonable time. 
Mitchell f). Bobinson (Tex. Civ.), 162 
8. W. 443. 

789^8 Huskey v. 8., 129 Ala. 94, 
29 8. 838 (larceny with a limit of one 
hour and a half); Waters v. 8., 117 Ala. 
108, 22 8. 490 (larceny case with a two 
hour limit); Crawford f>. 8., 112 Ala. 
1, 21 8. 214; Peagler v. 8., 110 Ala. 11, 
20 8. 363 (murder case, one and one- 
half hour limit); P. «. Tbck Chew, 6 
Cal. 636 (thre^-quarters of an hour for 
prosecution and half an hour for de- 
fense in a grand larceny case in which 
issues were few and simple); Wilburn 
V. 8., 141 Ga. 510, 81 8. E. 444 (Umit 
of three and a half hours); Lindsay 9. 
S., 138 Ga. 818, 76 8. E. 369 (murder 
case with two and half hour limit); 
Wallace «. 8., 95 Ga. 470, 20 8. E. 250 
(thirty minutes limitation in a misde- 
meanor case); S. v. Biddle, 20 Kan. 
711 (four hours and a half to each 
side) ; Lucas 9. C, 149 Ky. 495, 149 S. 
W. 861, 42 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 209 (cir- 
cumstances not being complicated, a 
thirty minute limitation held proper); 
Stout V. C, 148 Ky. 199, 146 8. W. 407 
(larceny with a limit of ten minutes) ; 
Scott V. C, 148 Ky. 80, 146 8. W. 406 
(ten minutes is not too short in a case 
for conversion from a carrier where the 
evidence is brief and simple); 8. f>. 
Varnado, 131 La. 952, 60 8. 627 (trial 
consumed three hours, the argument 
was limited to a half hour on each 
side) ; P. V. Smith, 122 Mich. 284, 81 N^. 
W. 107 (thirty five minutes under eoart 
rule, in case of statutory rape); Gra- 
ham V. 8., 90 Neb. 658, 134 N. W. 249 
(forty minute limit in prosecution for 
abandonment of wife); Hanks v. 8., 88 
Neb. 464, 129 N. W. 1011 (limit of an 
hour and fifteen minutes on a side); 
8. V. Collins, 70 N. O. 241, 16 Am. Bep. 
771 (murder case with limit of one and 



18Q 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



a half honra); Holmes v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
150 8. W. 926 (homicide case with a 
limit of four and a half hours on a 
side); Hughes v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 S. 
W. 173 (limit of argument to thirty 
minutes. Counsel used this time argu- 
ing for peremptory instruction to ac- 
quit. On asking more time court of- 
fered more time to argue to jury but 
declined to hear more argument for in- 
struction. Counsel declined to argue 
to jury and state closed argument to 
jury. No error); King v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
148 8. W. 324 (two hours on each side); 
Jenkins v. 8., 60 Tex. Cr. 236, 131 8. 
W. 542 (rape case with a one hour 
limit); Whitley v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 66 
8. W. 69 (thirty minutes in larceny 
case); Glover v. Houston Belt & Term- 
inal E. Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 1063 
(personal injury suit with limitation 
of one hour and fifteen minutes); 
Mitchell V, Bobinson (Tex. Civ.), 162 
S. W. 443. 8ee notes in 46 Am. 6t. 
26; 2 Am. is Eng. Ann. Cas. 435. 

T41-64 White t?. P., 90 HI. 117, 32 
Am. Bep. 12 (larceny with limit of five 
minutes); Childers v, C, 161 Ky. 440, 
171 8. W. 149 (one hour in voluntary 
zoanslanghter case with many witnesses 
and conflicting evidence); Murphy V. 
Bay, 161 Ky. 384, 170 8. W. 946 (per- 
sonid injury suit seeking to recover 
$2000 which is hotly contested, ten min- 
utes IB too short a time. At least 
twenty-five minutes should be allowed) ; 
Hyman ft Co. V. 8nyder Co., 159 Ky. 
354^ 167 8. W. 146 (limit of ten min- 
utes in an action involving $2000, the 
trial of which consumed two days); P. 
V. Labadie, 66 Mich. 702, 33 N. W. 806 
(a prosecution for assault with intent 
to murder with a limitation of one 
hour to each side); 8. v, Bogoway, 45 
Or. 601, 78 P. 987, 81 P. 234, 2 Am. & 
Eng. Ann. Cas. 434 (arson with limit 
of one hour on each side); Cooper v, 
Bobisehung Bros. (TeX. Civ.), 156 8. 
W. 1050, in which eighteen witnesses 
were examined at len^h and the testi- 
mony conflicting, limit to thirty min- 
utes improper. See notes in 46 Am. 8t. 
27; 2 Am. ft Eng. Ann. Cas. 435. 

Tilnritfng argimiant of connsel is a mat- 
ter within the discretion of the trial 
eourt, but it is an abuse of such power 
to restrict the argument to one houir 
where numerous witnesses are to be 
examined and there is a great deal of 
conflicting evidence. CMlders v: O., 



161 Ky. 440, 171 8. W. 149. 8ee also 
vol. 2, p. 451, n. 92. 

742-66 But see Lindsay V. 8., 138 
Ga. 818, 76 8. E. 369. 

742-66 In South Carolina^ Gen. 8t., 
12166, limits the time, for argument to 
two hours for each counsel unless he 
shall first obtain the special permis- 
sion of court. 8. r. Jones, 29 8. C. 
201, 7 8. E. 296. 

748-68 Wilburn v. 8., 141 Ga. 510, 
81 8. E. 444; Price v. 8., 137 Ga. 71, 
72 8. E. 908; 8. v. Varnado, 131 La. 
952, 60 8. 627, the rule limits the 
maximum time only. 

Bequest for additional time, by rule of 
court, must be made before argument 
begins. Lindsay v. 8., 138 Ga. 818, 76 
8. E. 369. 

743-60 ZSxtenslon of time should be 
granted when properly requested. 
Chance v. 8., 97 Ga. 346, 23 8. E. 832. 

744-76 8ee notes in 122 Am. 8t. 
723. 

744-76 Home v, Bogers, 110 Ga. 362, 
35 8. E. 715, 49 L. B. A. 176; Meredith 
17. P., g4 m. 479; EUerbe i?. 8., 75 Miss. 
522, 22 8. 950, 41 L. B. A. 569; 8. v, 
Claudius, 1 Mo. App. 551; Wright v. 
8., 7 Okla. Cr. 280, 123 P. 434; Carney 
r. 8., 47 Tex. Cr. 566, 85 8. W. 7, 122, 
Am. 8t. 715; Goodman v, 8., 47 Tex, 
Cr. 388, 83 8. W, 196. 8ee 2 Am. & 
Eng. Ann. Cas. 8; 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
Cas. 629. 

Betixement to rear of court room out 
of hearing and control of proceedings 
is as prejudicial as absence from court 
room. Wright v. 8., 7 Okla. Cr. 280, 123 
P. 434. 

744-78 Brantley v, 8., 10 Ga. App. 
24, 72 8. E. 520; Poe v. Arch, 26 8. D. 
291, 128 N. W. 166; White r. 8., 61 
Tex. Cr. 498, 135 8. W. 562. 

744-79 Graves t;. P., 32 Colo. 127, 75 
P. 412. 

745-80 May ©. C, 153 Ky. 141, 154 
8. W. 1074; Hughes V. 8. (Tex, Cr.), 

149 8. W. 173; White v. 8., 61 Tex. 
Cr. 498, 135 8. W. 562; Cravens v, 8., 
55 Tex. Cr. 519, 117 8. W. 156. 

745-81 McVay v. 8., 104 Ark. 629, 

150 8. W. 125, distinguishing between 
affirmative consent and acquiesence by 
silence. 

745-83 The variety of lUnstrationa 
is limited only by the resources of his 
genius. . Mitchum V. 8., 11 Ga. 615; 



137 



Vol 2 



AmvMEifTa 



Pelham & H. R. Co. v, Elliott, 11 Ga. 
App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062. 

745^4 Tiner t?. S., 109 Ark. 138, 
158 S. W. 1087; Henwood v. P., 57 
Colo. 644, 143 P. 373; S. r. Ferrell, 233 
Mo. 452, 136 S. W. 709; Stanton V. 8. 
(Tex. Cp.), 158 S. W. 994. 

746-85 Hardy t?. Randall, 173 Ala. 
516, 55 S. 997; Walker f. S., 61 Fla. 
78, 54 S. 387, request denied as to 
money not in evidence and enclosed in 
a vault. But see Carswell v. S., 10 Ga. 
App. 30, 72 S. E. 602; Stanton ©. S. 
(Tex. Cp.), 158 S. W. 994. 

746-86 Positions of persons may, in 
the court's discretion be demonstrated. 
S. f7. Williams (N. C), 83 S. E. 714. 
Handing pistol to Juror, and asking him 
to see if a certain wound could be 
self-inflicted, although not reversible 
error, should not be indulged in. Bor- 
ders V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W 483. 

747-87 Edwards r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
172 S. W. 227, quot. Standard PEoa 

747-88 O'Brien v, Boston El. By. 
Co., 214 Mass. 277, 101 N. E. 365; Ed- 
wards t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 227 
{quot. Standard Proc); Hardy t?. S., 
150 Wis. 176, 136 N. W. 638, jury in- 
structed the case was by way of illus- 
tration. 

747-89 O'Brien v. Boston El. By. 
Co., 214 Mass. 277, 101 N. E. 365; Ed- 
wards t?. S (Tex, Cr.), 172 S. W. 227, 
quot. Standard Prog. 

748-90 Edwards v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
172 S. W. 227, quot. Standard Proc. 
748-91 Edwards t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 172 
S. W. 227, quot. text. 
The nse of an "apt lllnstration,'* etc. 
Berry v. S. (Miss.), 22 S. 826. 
748-94 Helms t?. Central of Georgia 
Ry. Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 470; Fakes v. S., 
112 Ark. 589, 166 S. W. 963; St. Louis, 
etc. R. Co. t?. Earle, 103 Ark. 356, 146 
S. W 520 (ironical comment upon the 
truth of witness' testimony not im- 
proper); Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v, 
Lindahl, 102 Ark. 533, 145 S. W. 191, 
Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 561; St. Louis, L M. 
& S R. Co. V, Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 
S. W. 698; Beasley v. S., 98 Ark. 324, 
135 S. W. 895; Gjurich V. Pieg, 164 Cal. 
429, 129 P. 464 (proper to comment on 
findings of a former case introduced in 
evidence); P. v. Burke, 18 Cal. App. 
72, 122 P. 435, 448 (piece of dynamite 
having been exhibited to the jury was 
therefore subject of legitimate argu- 
ment); Pelham ft H. B. Co. «. Elliott, 



11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062 (proper 
to comment on facts proved or admit- 
ted but not facts not proved); P. i?. 
Duncan, 261 HI. 339, 103 N. E. 1043; 
S. f?. Cooper (la.), 151 N. W. 835; S. 
V. Gulliver, 163 la. 123, 142 N. W. 
948 (where counsel assailed an alibi 
and minimized the character and value 
of the evidence); S. f?. Vvilson, 157 la. 
698, 141 N. W. 337 (a hat in evidence 
being in evidence for all purposes, it 
is proper to refer to blood spots on it) ; 
S. 17. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 132 N. W. 
180; Madisonville, H. & E. R. Co. t?. 
Allen, 152 Ky. 706, 154 S. W. 5 (affi- 
davit of what absent witness will tes- 
tify to read as deposition); Slaughter 
V, C, 149 Ky. 6, 147 S. W. 751; P. v. 
Cona, 180 Mich. 641, 147 N. W. 525; 
S. tJ. Fenton, 248 Mo. 482, 154 S. W. 51 
(ridiculing testimony as illogical not 
improper); Norris v. St. Louis, I. M. ft 
S. R. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 S. W. 783 
(remarks warranted by evidence); El- 
lis r. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 234 Mo. 
657, 138 S. W. 23 (inexperience of mot- 
orman justifies argument on negligence 

by "unskillfulness'O; S. t?. Ferrell, 
233 Mo. 452, 136 S. W. 709 (on exhib- 
its); S. V, Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 
S. W. 795; S. t?. Jones, 249 Mo. 80, 155 
S. W. 33; P. f?. Mull, 167 N. Y. 247, 60 
N. E. 629; P. v. Stilwell, 81 Misc. 456, 

142 N. Y. 8. 628 (district attorney has 
same rights as other counsel); Bouie 
V. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 345, 131 P. 953; S. ©. 
Duncan, 86 S. C. 370, 68 S. E. 684, Ann. 
Cas. 1912A, 1016 ("within the four 
corners of the evidence, great latitude 
in argument is allowed"); Sutton r. 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 172 8. W. 791; WhitfiU 
t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169 S. W. 681; Zim- 
mer v. S., 64 Tex. Cr. 114, 141 S. W. 
781 (error to deny counsel right to 
discuss a pipe in evidence identified as 
the pipe used by deceased); Missouri, 
K. ft T. B. Co. «. Coker (Tex. Civ.), 

143 S. W. 218 (sufficient evidence to 
predicate remarks); International ft 
G. N. B. Co. f?. Davison (Tex. Civ.), 
138 S. W. 1162; 8. <?. Kakarikos (Utah), 
146 P. 750; Driscoll t?. Allis-Chalmers 
Co., 144 Wis. 451, 129 N. W. 401. See 
Merrill t;. 8., 11 Ala. App. 224, 65 S. 
709; St. Louis, etc, Ry. Co. u. Deu- 
wright, 112 Ark. 452, 166 8. W. 938; 
Setzer r. S., 110 Ark. 226, 161 S. W. 
190; Henwood <?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143 
P. 373; May C. C, 153 Ky. 141, 154 
8. W. 1074; S. f?. Weiss, 63 Or. 462, 128 
P. 448, after opening one of the ''cap- 



138 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



tured bottles," it is not improper con- 
duct on the part of the district attor- 
ney to offer it to the jury and say 
''smell of that; that's beer." 
Testimony may lie stated or quoted. 
8. V. Burns, 119 la. 663, 94 N. W. 238; 
8. V. Mireovich, 35 Nev. 485, 130 P. 
765; Hambleton v. Southwestern Tex. 
Baptist Hospital (Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 
574; 8. V. 8irmay, 40 Utah 525, 122 P. 
748. 

A statement said by witness to be true 
becomes part of his testimony and is 
a proper matter for argument. Hyde 
r- U. 8., 35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 451. 

Misstating evidence is not prejudicial 
error. 8. v. Hayward, 153 la. 265, 133 
N. W. 667; Williams v. 8., 4 Okla, Cr. 
523, 114 P. 1114, particularly when in- 
nocently made. 

Evldenoe adduced on cross-examination 

may be commented on by adverse party 
although he could not have introduced 
it in his own behalf. Bohanan v. Dar- 
den, 7 Ala. App. 220, 60 8. 955. 

liatters Judicially noticed may be com- 
mented upon. P. V, Burke, 18 Cal. App. 
72, 122 P. 435-448; 8. v. Wilson, 157 
la. 698, 141 N. W. 337; O'Brien v. 
Boston £1. By. Co., 214 Mass. 277, 101 
N. E. 365. 

« 

Asking witness qnestions regarding Ills 
testimony, during argument, improper. 
Tancev v. Bruce, 109 Ark. 569, 160 8. 
W. 863. 

Improbability of evidence is proper 
subject of argument. 8. v, Ferrell, 246 
Mo. 322, 152 8. W. 33. 

Testimony of aocnsed at a former trial 
introduced in evidence may be com- 
mented on although accused did not 
take stand. 8. v. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 
132 N. W. 180. 

760-98 Billingsley i^. 8., 96 Ala. 126, 
11 S. 409; Clayton v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 
8. W. 119; Green V. Wilson (Tex. Civ.), 
150 S. W. 255. 

760-99 8ee Holland v. 8., Ill Ark. 
214, 163 8. W. 781. 

750-3 P. i\ Pfansehmidt, 262 HI. 411, 
104 N. E. 804, Ann. Cas. 1915 A, 1171; 
C. V. Lynch, 49 Pa. Super. 370; 0. V. 
Duffy, 49 Pa. 8uper. 344; Goldstein V. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 35 8. W. 289. 8ee Rid- 
gell r. 8., 1 Ala. App. 94, 55 8. 327. 

751-4 Cross r. 8., 68 Ala. 476; Boden 
r. 8., 5 AJa. App. 247, 59 8. 751; Faulk 
r. S., 4 Ala. App. 177, 59 8. 225; 8t. 
XiOuis, etc. B. Co. p. McMichael (ArkO^ 



171 8. W. 115 (calling an engineer who 
d|d not see plaintiff on platform 
"blind" not an improper deduction); 
8t. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co. i;. Devaney, 
98 Ark. 83, 135 8. W. 802; P. v. Rog- 
ers, 163 Cal. 476, 126 P. 143; Hen- 
wood f?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143 P. 373, 
382; P. V. Hotz, 261 111. 239, 103 N. 
E. 1007; 8. V. Gulliver, 163 la. 123, 142 
N. W. 948; 8. t?. Wilson, 157 la. 698, 
141 N. W. 337; Fish v, Welch's Admr., 
157 Ky. 19, 162 8. W. 553 (deduction 
proper); 81aughter I?. C, 149 Ky. 5, 
147 8. W. 751; Lee v, C, 142 Ky. 742, 
135 8. W. 315; 8. <?. Risso, 131 La. 946, 
60 8. 625; P. «. Cona, 180 Mich. 641, 
147 N. W. 525; Berry v. 8. (Miss.), 22 
S. 826; 8. t?. Terrell, 246 Mo. 322, 152 
8. W. 33; Homer I?. Franklin, 186 Mo. 
App. 434, 171 8. W. 568; Cowan <?. 
Ertel, 95 Neb. 380, 145 N. W. 841, de- 
duction that "defense has been fixed 
up'' is not in violation of rules re- 
garding argument); P. v. Mull, 167 N. 
Y. 247, 60 N. E. 629; 8. u. Lee, 166 N. 
C. 250, 80 8. E. 977; Enid City R. Co. V. 
Reynolds, 34 Okla. 405, 126 P. 193 (sug- 
gesting possible reasons for defendant's 
sending his physician to plaintiff 
proper); Cooper v. 8. (Tex, Cr.), 147 S. 
W. 273; Chilson V. Oheim (Tex. Civ.), 
171 8. W. 1074 (that as C had stood for 
M in 1910, he would do so in 1911, is a 
proper deduction); Gulf, T. & W. R. 
Co. V. Culver (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 
514; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. 8hinn 
(Tex. Civ.), 153 8. W. 636: 8. v. Jaku- 
bowski, 77 Wash. 78, 137 P. 448; 8. v. 
Marion, 68 Wash. 675, 124 P. 125; Kal- 
berg 17. The Bon Marche, ' 64 Wash. 
452, 117 P. 227 (in which counsel 
stated, ''from the facts proven, I am 
thoroughly convinced as anything in 
the world, that the defendants' wagon 
ran over the child in the manner 
stated"); Jakopac v, Newport Min. 
Co., 153 Wis. 176, 140 N. W. 1060. See 
Cunningham v. 8., 117 Ala. 59, 23 8. 
693; Wall v. 8., 2 Ala. App. 157, 56 S. 
57; People v, Collins, 166 Mich. 4, 131 
N. W. 78; Bouie v. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 
345, 131 P. 953; Wrba v. S., 70 Tex. 
Cr. 211, 156 S. W. 1164; 8. v. Peoples, 
71 Wash. 451, 129 P. 108; Chicago M. 
& P. 8. R. Co. V. True, 62 Wash. 646, 
114 P. 515. 

Season for disparity of the evidence 
is legitimate argument. Globe & Rut- 
gers Fire Ins. Co. t\ Chicago & A. R. 
Co., 174 Mo. App. 542, 160 S. W. 907. 

762-5 P. V. Ah Yute, 60 Cal. 95; P. 



139 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



V. Bamharty 59 Cal. 402; P. v, Eosta, 
14 Cal. App. 696, 112 P. 907; Spalm 
V. P., 137 111. 538, 27 N. E. 688: Behler 
V. S., 112 Ind. 140, 13 N. E. 272: S. €, 
Gulliver, 163 U. 123, 142 N. W. 948; 
Moore i'. Chicago, etc. By. Co., 151 la. 
353, 131 N. W. 30; S. v. Mallon, 75 
Mo. 355; Boss v. S., 8 Wyo. 351, 67 P. 
924. See 46 L. B. A. 655, note e. 

762-6 Brock v. S., 101 Ark. 147, 141 
S. W. 756. 

753-7 See S. v, Gulliver, 163 la. 123, 
142 N. W. 948. 

753-9 Jessie v. €., 112 Va. 887, 71 
8. E. 612. 

763-10 McElroy v. S., 106 Ark. 131, 
152 S. W. 1019 (remarks held but an 
expression of counsel's opinion as to 
the weight of the testimony) ; St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. B. Go. V. Earle, 103 Ark. 
356, 146 8. W. 520; St Louis, L M. & 
S. B. Co. V. Devaney, 98 Ark. 89, 135 
S. W. 802; Marriage v. Electric Coal 
Co., 176 HI. App. 451 (but not the ef* 
feet of evidence not before the jury); 
Eaneaid 17. Bull, 159 Ky. 527, 167 S. 
W. 903; S. V. Myer, 259 Mo. 306, 168 
S. W. 717; S. V. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 

161 8. W. 721; MUlner v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 

162 8. W. 348; Clayton v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
149 8. W. 119; Lee v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
148 8. W. 706; Wrighti v. 8., 63 Tex. 
Cr. 429, 140 8. W. 1105; Citizens' Sav- 
ings Bk. & T. Co. V. Fitchburg Mut. F. 
I. Co., 87 Vt. 23, 86 A. 1056. 
Beferring to court's opinion on weight 
of evidence by fact he did not .ttJce 
case out of jury's hands is improper. 
Thomas v. 8., 107 Ark. 469, 155 8. W. 
1165. 

754-11 Madetfonville, H. Sb E. B. 
Co. V, Allen, 152 Ky. 706, 154 8. W. 
5, calling it the affidavit of opposing 
counseL 

754-13 Harris v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 167 
8. W. 43, reference to witness convic- 
tion of felony. 

754-14 Cook f>. 8., 152 Ala. 66, 44 
8. 549; Cross f>. S., 68 Ala. 476; South- 
ern B. Co. V. Ellis, 6 Ala. App. 441, 60 
8. 407; St. Louis, 1. M. ft 8. B. Co. 17. 
Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. W. 698; 
Hope V. First National Bank, 142 Ga. 
310, 82 8. E. 929; Mitchum 17. 8., 11 
Ga. 615, 616; Pelham & H. B. Co. i>. 
Elliott, 11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062; 
Appel r. Chicago City B. Co., 259 HI. 
561, 102 N. E. 1021; 8. «. Knudson, 21 
N. D. 562, 132 K. W. 149; Anderson v. 
8.| 7 Okla. Cr. 491, 124 P. 86 (that 



witness was convicted of bootlegging 
may be referred to) ; Millner v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 162 8. W. 348; Hysaw v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 155 8. W. 941; Clayton v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 149 8. W. 119: Gratland v. 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 146 8. W. 196; Owens v. 
8., 6a Tex. O. 633, 141 8. W. 530 (ac- 
cusing witness of perjury); Wright 9. 
8., 63 Tex. Ct. 429, 140 8. W. 1105; 
Citizens' Savings Bank & T. Co. «. 
Fitchburg Mut. F. Ins. Co., 87 Vt. 23, 
86 A. 1056, argument that experts were 
hired when they testified they sxpected 
to charge so much. 

The interest or bias of » witness, etc. 
Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 75 N. H. 
521, 77 A. 999 (retaining of witness 
by party) ; 8. v. Bivers, 84 Vt. 154, 78 
A. 786. 

Witness* lapse of memory legitimate 
topic for argument. Stanfield v, 8., 3 
Ala. App. 54, 57 S. 402. 

754-15 P. 9. Preston, 19 Cal. App. 
675, 127 P. 660; Henwood t?. P., 57 Colo. 
544, 143 P. 373 (referring to the fact 
of witness at conclusion of testimony- 
shook hands with defendant as a trick 
not improper, but to compare it with, 
similar episode in another case is not 
proper); Mitchum v, 8., 11 Ga. 615, 
616; Pelham ft H. B. Co. v. Elliott^ 
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 8. E. 1062: Cin- 
cinnati, etc. By. Co. i;. Troxell, 143 Ky. 
765, 137 8. W. 543. 

754-ie Mitchum v. 8., 11 Ga. 615, 
616; Pelham & H. B. Co. «. Elliott, 11 
Ga. App. 621, 75 8. E. 1062; Smith v. 
Boyal Highlanders, 96 Neb. 790, 148 
N. W. 952 (humorous reference to wit- 
ness as a most illustrious protector and 
to the color of his hair is not com- 
mendable); In re Bean's Will, 85 Vt. 
452, 82 A. 734. 

754-19 See Hammock i^. S., 7 Ala. 
App. 112, 61 S. 471, I state to you, 
gentlemen, that the witness told the 
God's truth when he said he bought 
that whiskey is improper argument. 

755-21 P. V. Hulf, 173 Mich. 620, 
139 N. W. 1033, to unduly praise and 
extol the skill and standing of state's 
witness is improper. 
755-22 Kulp «. U. 8., 210 Fed. 249, 
127 C. C. A. 67; Cross v. 8., 68 Ala. 
476; P. V, Lopes, 21 Cal. App. 188, 131 
P. 104 (doubt of counsel as to truth of 
defendant's testimony may be ex- 
pressed); 8. V. McKinnon, 168 la. 619, 
138 K. W. 523; Bean v. Kinseder, 92 
Kan. 254, 139 P. 1024 (so far as de- 



140 



AB0UMENT8 



7ol. 2 



fendant'fl admiftions affected his cred- 
ibility, liberal comment is allowed); 
8. V. Miller, 90 Kan. 230, 133 P. 878, 
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 818 (accusing defend- 
ant of perjury while on the stand) ; 
Lee c. C., 142 Ky. 742, 135 S. W. 315, 
stating accused and victim were on a 
parity from a moral standpoint. See 
46 L. B. A. 665, note j. 

75l!»-23 Kuntz v. Howard, 143 App. 
Div. 830, 128 N. Y. S. 101. 

755-24 Hardy t?. Schirmer, 163 Ckl. 
272, 124 P. 993 (urging motive causing 
defendant to allege self-defense): 
Mitchum v. S., 11 Ga. 615, 616; Pelham 
k H. K. Co. 17. ElHott, 11 Ga. App. 621, 
75 8. E. 1062; 8. 17. Thomas, 135 la. 
717, 109 N. W. 900 (bribery of wit- 
ness) ; McDonald v. 8., 55 Tex. Cr. 508, 
117 8. W. 131 (manufacturing de- 
fense); Kewton's Admz. v, American 
Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90 A. 
S83; S. f7. Marion, 68 Wash. 675, 124 
P. 125 (referring to the interposition 
of an objection by the opposing coun- 
sel, it was not reversible error for ap- 
pellant's counsel to say, ''I don't 

blame Mr. V for wincing"); Boss 

V. S., 8 Wyo. 351, 57 P. 924, furnish- 
ing eopies of evidence to witnesses. 

T56-26 Dnnmore f7. 8., 115 Ala. 69, 
22 8. 541; Ferguson & W. L. L. H. Co. 
V. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 S. W. 628 
(saying it was due to motions, quib- 
blings and appeals of opposing counsel 
that the case had been in court so 
long) ; Schuman v. S., 106 Ark. 362, 153 
S. W. 611 (effect of argument was to 
charge the state with suppressing evi- 
dence by failure to offer it) ; P. v, 
Wong Louag, 159 Cal. 520, 114 P. 829 
(murder of witness); Hendrix i7. Gold- 
man, 163 HL App. 592- 8. 17. Helm, 92 
la. 540, 61 N. W. 246; Porter v. C, 145 
Ky. 548, 140 S. W. 643 (that counsel 
for d^ense manufactured defense of 
insanity); Turpin v, C, 14o Ky. 294, 
lao 8. W. 1086, 140 Am. St. 378, 30 L. 
B. A. (N. 8.) 794 (bribery of juror) ; 
8. «. CHapper, 203 Mo. 549, 102 8. W. 
560; Oens v. Beibstein, 143 N. Y. 8. 
1103 (characterizing innocent act as 
forgery); 8. t7. Nolan, 85 N. C. 576; 
Harwell v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 233, 134 S. 
W. 701; Gulf T. ft W. B. Co. v, Cul- 
Ter (Tex. Civ.), 168 8. W. 514; Amer- 
ican Express Co. v, Parcarello (Tex. 
Civ.), 162 8. W. 926; 8. v. Montgom- 
ery, 56 Wash. 443, 105 P. 1035, 134 
Am. St. 1119. 
Acddantal omtaiAn of cotmiel to sup- 



ply tbe nams of one of his witnesses 
cannot be commented upon. Delaney 
17. Berkshire St. B. Co., 215 Mass. 591. 
102 N. E. 901. 

T5T-30 Harwell v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 
233, 134 8. W. 701. 

757-32 Denison f>. Keiser, 104 Ark. 
94, 148 S. W. 1023; Yuekman 17, Con- 
sidine, 175 HI. App. 613; Gosualdi i?. 
Personerii, 128 N. Y. S. 683. 
Defendant's statement may be com- 
mented on. Prank v. 8., 141 Ga. 243, 

80 S. E. 1016. 

^58-33 * JUludlng to amonnt of dam- 
age Claimed, not improper. Kulvie v. 
Coal Co., 253 HI. 886, 97 N. B. 688; 
Kulvie 17. Bunsen Coal Co., 101 111. App. 
617 (a mere reference is not reversible 
error); Carothers <7. Pittsburg B. Co., 
229 Pa. 558, 79 A. 134, stating amount 
claimed by plaintiff. 

758-36 New York Prod. Ex. Bk. 17. 
Twelfth Ward Bk., 162 App. Div. 13, 
147 N. Y. 8. 278, refusal to permit ex- 
pert to demonstrate by chemicals 
proper argument. 

Failure to cross-examine rebutting wit- 
nesses is legitimate subject for argu- 
ment. Prank v. 8., 141 Ga. 243, 80 8. 
E. 1016. 

Beference to the challenging of Jurors 
who were neighbors of state's only 
witness, as proof that he told the truth 
is reversible error. Evans 17. S., 98 
Miss. 697, 54 8. 154, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 
257.. 

Filing of plea asking a suspended sen- 
tence if convicted is not a basis for 
argument as to guilt of accused, but 
if evidence justifies it prosecution may 
argue against suspending the sentence. 
Bradley v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 515. 
A refusal to direct ▼erdlct may not 
be construed by counsel as an indica- 
tion of the court's opinion. Gulf, T. & 
W. B. Co. V. Culver (Tex. av.), 168 
S. W. 514. 

XTnfayorable deductions ftom excep- 
tions taken by party are not proper 
argument. Vesper v. Lavender (Tex. 
Civ.), 149 S. W. 377. 

750-40 Carter v. Carter, 101 Ind. 
450; Decries f7. Phillips, 63 N. C. 53. 
See note to 9 Am. St. 568. 
759-41 Olden v. S., 176 Ala. 6, 58 
8. 307, quoV Dollar case cited in text. 
Coifip. Hinsman v, S., 14 Ga. App. 481, 

81 S. E. 367; Manning V. S., 13 Ga. App. 
709, 79 S. E. 905. 



141 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



769-42 Gordon t?. De Witt, 106 
Ark, 283, 153 S. W. 807; McElroy v. S. 
106 Ark. 131, 152 S. W, 1019; Bowen 
t\ S., 100 Ark. 232, 140 S. W. 28; Will- 
iams V, C, 153 Ky. 710, 166 S. W. 372; 
Slaughter t?. C, 149 Ky. 5, 147 8. W. 
751; Calico v. C, 145 Ky. 641, 140 S. 
W. 1036; S. t?. Swain, 239 Mo. 723, 144 
S. W. 427; S. v. Stamper, 159 Mo. App. 
382, 141 S. W. 432; Henderson v, S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 793 (to' say "to 
turn this defendant loose would invite 
crime for all criminals" not improper); 
Calderon v. S., 63 Tex. Cr. 639, 141 S. 
W. 251. 

759-43 S. i;. Prince, 258 Mo. 315, 167 
S. W. 535. 

759-46 Goodwin V. U. 8., 200 Fed. 
121, 118 C. C. A. 295; Nixon v. 8., 14 
Ga. App. 261, 80 8. E, 513; 8. v. Ac- 
cardo, 129 La. 666, 56 S. 631 (state- 
ment based on counsel's independent 
investigation); S. v. Clark, 114 Minn. 
342, 131 N. W. 369; 8. v. Webb, 254 Mo. 
414, 162 8. W. 622; 8. V. Hess, 240 Mo. 
147, 144 8. W. 489; 8. v. Phillips, 233 
Mo. 299, 135 S. W. 4; 8. V. Gunderson, 
26 N. D. 294, 144 N. W. 659 (*'I do 
not come here to try a case unless the 
defendant is guilty''); Cox i?. Ter., 2 
Okla. Cr. 668, 104 P. 378 (counsel said, 
if the evidence in this case did not 
bring about a conviction, he would quit 
prosecuting horse thieves, thereby im- 
plying he was convinced of defendant's 
guilt); Young v. 8., 19 Tex. App. 536, 
*'yet we would hesitate at this day to 
reverse a judgment because of a viola- 
tion of this rule." See note in 46 L. 
R. A. 667. 

Violation of rule by prisoner's coun- 
sel does not authorize a similar viola- 
tion by state's counsel. Bennett v, 8., 
86 Ga. 401, 12 8. B. 806, 22 Am. St. 466, 
12 li. R. A. 449; Nixon v, 8., 14 Ga. 
App. 261, 80 8. E. 513. 
A statement tbat court Is of tlia opin- 
ion that defendant is guilty is error. 
Paul V. 8., 99 Ark. 558, 139 8. W. 287. 

76Qr48 Nixon V. 8., 14 Ga. App. 261 
80 8. E. 513; Williams t;. 8., 4 Okla. 
Cr. 523, 114 P. 1114. 

761-49 P. t?. Cucchiette, 24 Cal. 
App. 495, 141 P. 933. But comp, 8. v, 
Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 8. W. 795, 
holding the prosecutor should never be 
allowed to appeal to the jury to con- 
vict because defendant has committed 
other crimes. 
761-51 See vol. 2, p. 823, n. 14 and 



supplement thereto. See also note in 
38 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1130. 

761-63 P. t?. Fritch, 170 Mich. 258, 
136 N. W. 493; P. v. Becker, 210 N. 
Y. 274, 104 N. E. 396; Stanfield t?. 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 165 S. W. 216; Fuller i?. 8., 
30 Tex. App. 559, 17 8. W. 1108; 
Moore v. 8., 21 Tex. App. 666, 2 8. W. 
887; Hatch t?. 8., 8 Tex. App. 416, 34 
Am. Bep. 751. See note in 46 L. B. A. 
663. 

762-56 Picket v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 51 
8. W. 374, 11 Am, Cr. 106, following 
statute. 

762-58 See Wechter v. P., 53 Colo. 
89, 124 P. 183 (but to say criminals 
seldom serve their sentences is im> 
proper) ; Parshall v. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 
138 8. W. 759. But see Jacobs t?. 8., 
103 Miss. 622, 60 8. 723; 8. v, Thome, 
41 Utah 414, 126 P. 286. 

762-59 Jacobs v. 8., 103 Miss. ^22, 
60 8. 723; Moray v. B. (Tex. Cr.), 145 

8. W. 592. 

Advice as to verdict held proper. 
Trinity & B. V. B. Co. V. Dodd (Tex. 
Civ.), 167 8. W. 238 (telling jury he 
thought $35,000 a proper verdict); 
Cameron Steam Pump Wks. v, Lubbock, 
Light & Ice Co. (Tex. Civ.), 167 8. W. 
256 (telling jury that if they find any 
sum for appellant, appellee would 
have to pay costs, improper); San An- 
tonio ft A. P. B. Co. V, Wagner (Tex. 
Civ.), 166 8. W. 24 (it is improper to 
tell the jury to fix the verdict as high 
as possible because if too high the trial 
court will reduce it). See also Mis- 
souri K. & T. B. Co. V. Nesbit, 40 Tex. 
Civ. 209, SS 8. W. 891. 

Asking Jury to disregard court's In- 
fltructionB is unprofessional and merits 
discipline by the trial court. P. r. 
Howard, 179 Mich. 478, 146 N. W. 315. 
Urging Jury to agree on verdict be- 
cause of the expense of litigation is 
proper. Blodgett v. Park, 76 N. H. 435, 
84 A. 42, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 853. 

Warning the Jury against hasty and 
harsh verdicts is permissible. Cross v» 
8., 68 Ala. 476. 

762-60 See Pullman Co. V. Finley, 
20 Wyo. 456, 125 P. 380, to tell the 
jury to study the questions carefully 
"because they catch," is proper. 

763-61 Guse v. Power ii Min. Mach. 
Co., 151 Wis. 400, 139 N. W. 195. 

763-62 Pullman Co. t?. Finley, 20 
Wyo. 456, 125 P. 380, argument held 



142 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



not open to the eonstmction that it toFd 
the jury the answers and the generid 
verdict should harmonize regardless of 
the evidence. 

764-70 Hoskins v. C, 152 Kj. 805, 
154 8. W. 919 (arguing the responsibil- 
ity of enforcing the law lies with the 
jury) J 8. r. Butler, 258 Mo. 430, 16? 
8. W. 509; 8. v. Bogers, 253 Mo. 399, 161 
8. W. 770, saying it would be a disgrace 
to the jurors to acquit the defendant 
under the testimony. 
765-71 Dupuy v. Wright, 7 Ala. App. 
238, 60 8. 997. 

Intsntof counBel in making improper 
remarks immateriaL P. v. Hail, 25 Cal. 
App. 342> 143 P. 803. 
765-72 8. 17. Dwyer, 133 La. 731, 63 
8. 305 (remark that any of the jury 
who could say on the evidence that the 
accused was not guilty was a worse 
coward than the accused); Hemphill v, 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 165 8. W. 462, <'it would 
be much worse to convict an innocent 
man than for you to turn this defend- 
ant loose and then in a week or two 
for him to rape one of your wives, 
sisters or daughters." 

766-73 But see Hoskins v. C, 152 
Ky. 805, 154 8. W. 919; 8. v. Dipley, 242 
Mo. 461, 147 8. W. Ill (holding state- 
ment, that the eyes of the people of W 
county and of the United States were 
upon the jury to see if they would do 
their duty, was a proper rhetorical ap- 
peal); Citizens' Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v, 
Ins. Co., 86 Vt. 267, 84 A. 970. Comp. 
P. r. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143 P. 
803. 

766-74 P. 17. Molina, 126 Cal. 505, 
59 P. 34; P. V. Burke, 18 Cal. App. 72, 
122 P. 435, 448; Hunn t?. C, 143 Ky. 
143, 136 8. W. 144; Sturgeon v. C, 31 
Ky. L. B. 536, 102 8. W. 812; P. t?. 
Gosch, 82 Mich. 22, 46 N. W. 101; 8. 
r. HUton, 248 Mo. 522, 154 8. W. 729; 
8. r. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243, 13 8. W. 937; 
Graham t7. 8., 57 Tex. Cr. 104, 123 8. 
W. 691; Howard t?. 8., 53 Tex. Cr. 378, 
111 8. W, 1038; 8. <7. ValweU, 66 Vt. 
558, 29 A. 1018; Hoffman t7. 8., 65 
Wis. 46, 26 N. W. 110. Comp, Dollar 
r. 8., 99 Ala. 236, 13 8. 575; Wells 17. 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W. 950. 

766-75 Washington v, 8., 87 Ga. 12, 
13 a E. 131; Williams V. C, 153 Ky. 
710, 156 8. W. 372, holding reference 
to fact of there being nine murder cases 
on docket is improper. 
767-76 Hemphill v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
165 8. W, 462. 



767-77 S. V. Hess, 240 Mo. 147, 144 
8. W. 489. 

767-78 Southwestern Tele, ft Tel. 
Co. 17. Andrews (Tex. Civ.), 169 8. W. 
218, advising the award of such dam- 
ages as they (the jury) would suffer 
under like circumstances. Comp. Wells 
17. Ann Arbor B. Co. (Mich.), 150 N. 
W. 340 (asking jurors which one of 
them would accept plaintiff's injury for 
a stated money consideration is im- 
proper); Morrison r. Carpenter, 179 
Mich. 207, 146 N. W. 106, holding, 
"Would you fall in that sewer for 
$10,000 and take your chances! Would 
you go through life that way! Would 
you have your son go through life that 
wayf to be inflammatory and preju- 
dicial. 

767-80 Gulf, etc. B. Co. t?. Dooley 
(Tex. Civ.), 131 8. W. 831; Newton's 
Admr. v. American Car Sprinkler Co., 
87 Vt. 546, 90 A. 583. 
768-81 Marriage v. Electric Coal 
Co., 176 HI. App. 451 (but comment on 
absence of witnesses not shown to have 
any knowledge of the case is improp- 
er); Buckley 17. B. Co., 215 Mass. 60, 
102 N. E. 75 (no ground appeared for 
the inference that defendant had not 
called all the witnesses named in the 
report (not in evidence) or that they 
were not called for the reason sug- 
gested); Dykstra t7. Grand Bapids, G. 
H. & M. B. Co., 165 Mich. 13, 130 N. 
W. 320, 18 Det. L. N. 22; Sherman v. 
Southern Pac. Co., 33 Nev. 385, 111 P. 
416, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 287; Houston, 
etc., B. Co. 17. Boome, 105 Tex. 188, 146 
8. W. 533; International & G. N. By. 
Co. 17. Williams (Tex. Civ.), 160 8. 
W. 639; Miller i?. Burgess (Tex. Civ.), 
154 8. W. 591, argument within reC' 
ord. 

769-86 Craig v, Augusta-Aiken B. 
Co., 89 8. C. 161, 71 8. E. 983. 

771-92 Brock 17. 8., 123 Ala. 24, 26 
S. 329; Crawford 17. 8., 112 Ala. 1, 
21 8. 214; Du Bose 17. Conner, 1 Ala. 
App. 456, 55 8. 432; Jones 17. Boston & 
N. St. B. Co., 211 Mass. 552, 98 N. E. 
506; Brown 17. 8., 98 Miss. 786, 54 S. 
305, 34 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 811 (rule ap- 
plies to both civil and criminal cases); 
8. 17. Gunnoo (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 64. 
See Scoville 17. Baldwin, 27 Conn. 316. 
And see infra, p. 775, n. 10. 

771-93 Mississippi Cent. B. Co. v, 
Bobinson (Miss.), 64 8. 838. 

771-94 Bales 17. Evans (Mich.), 148 
N. W. 790. 



143 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



778-09 Sacrey «. Louisville B. Co., 
152 Ky. 473, 153 S. W. 760j Powell v. 
Strickland, 163 N. C. 393, 79 S. E. 87-, 

* Ann. Cas. 1915B, 709. 

To state the law as to plalntii^'s sight 
to testify and what the court would 
have ruled is improper. Johnson v, 
Johnson, 166 Mo. App. 732. 150 S. .W. 
1130. 

778-1 See 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
309n. 

778-2 Best 1^. S., 64 Tex. Cr. 464, 
144 S. W. 589. See P. v. Greenwall, 115 
N. Y. 520, 22 N. E. 180. 

778-8 Lee v. U. S., 37 App. Cas. (D. 
C.) 442; Frisby v. U. S., 35 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 513; 8. €. Thomas, 127 La. 576, 
53 S. 868, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1059, 37 
L. B. A. (N. S.) 172; S. v, Wana, 245 
Mo. 558, 150 S. W. 1065 (faUure to 
produce coat); S. v. MeCord, 237 Mo. 
242, 140 S. W. 885; P. V. Leonardo, 199 
N. Y. 432, 92 N, E. 1060; McGuire r. 
S., 2 O. C. D. 318; Crump t?. S., 7 Okla. 
Cr. 535, 124 P. 632; Ward v, 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 151 S. W. 1073; Sweeney «?. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 146 S. W. 883; Walker v. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 145 S. W. 904; Boat v. 
8., 64 Tex. Cr. 464, 144 8. W. 589; 
Houston, E. & W. T. E. Co. <?. Boone, 
105 Tex. 188, 146 8. W. 533; 8. v. In- 
low, 44 Utah 485, 141 P. 530; 8. «?. 
Sanderson, 83 Yt. 35, 75 A. 961, 138 Am. 
St. 1061. See note in 34 L. B. A. (N. 
S. 811. 

774-4 S. V. Mow, 44 Utah 485, 141 
P. 530. 

"Where evidence is Inadmissible for any 
purpose, comment improper. Bushing 
V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 137 S. W. 372. 
774-5 Jessie v. C, 112 Va. 887, 71 8. 
E. 612. 

776-10 Earle v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 183, 
56 8. 32 (unless one party only has a 
right to offer such evidence) ; Schu- 
man t?. 8., 106 Ark. 362, 153 8. W. 611; 
Brown v. 8., 98 Miss, 786, 54 8. 305, 
34 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 811; MUlner v. 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W. 348; Kemper <?. 
S., 63 Tex. Cr. 1, 138 8. W, 1025. See 

* supra, 771-92. 

775-11 See note in 121 Am. St. 809. 
775-15 Butler v. 8., 142 Ghi. 286, 
82 8. E. 654 (holding a statement to 
the effect that the defendant has not 
put his character in issue so we can- 
not discuss it, is an improper discus- 
sion of defendant's failure to intro- 
duce character evidence); De Jean t?. 
S. (Miss.), G6 S. 411; C. p. Weber, 167 



Pa. 153, 31 A. 481; C. v. Bnmer, 1 Pa. 
Dist. 641. See notes in 34 L. B. A. 
(N. 8.) 818; 46 L. B. A. 666. 
OhATOCter of prosecutrix. — No infer- 
ence as to the good character of prose- 
cutrix may be drawn from defendant's 
failure to introduce evidence as to the 
bad character of such witness S. v. 
Hector, 158 la. 6C4, 138 N. W. 930; 
S. V. Williams, 122 la. 115, 97 N. W. 
992. 

776-17 S. V. Griswold, 73 Conn. 95, 
46 A. 829; P. v. Annis, 261 111. 157, 103 
N. E. 568; Showwalter v. 8., 84 Ind. 
562; 8. 17. Nicola (la.), 151 N. W. 70;' 
8. V. Hector, 158 la. 664, 138 N. W. 
930; S. t;. Snider, 119 la. 15, 91 N W. 
762; S. V. Mosoley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 P. 
782; Taylor v. C, 17 Ky. L. B. 1214, 
34 8. W. 227; Gurley t;. 8., 101 Miss. 
190, 57 8. 565; S. v. Larkin, 250 Mo. 
218, 157 S. W. 600, 46 L. B. A. (N. 
8.) 13; 8. V. Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152 
8. W. 46; 8. t?. Fields, 234 Mo. 615, 
138 8. W. 518; S. v. Perrell, 233 Mo. 
452, 136 8. W. 709; S. v. Dodson, 23 
N. D. 305, 136 N. W. 789; Wilson v. 
Ter., 9 Okla. 331, 60 P. 112; C. v. Green, 
233 Pa. 291, 82 A. £50; Cober v. &. 
(Tex. Cr.), 162 8. W. 869; Manley v. S. 
(Tex. Cr.). 153 S. W, ai38; llinter v. 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 783; Eads r. 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S. W. 692; Morgan c, 
8., 62 Tex. Cr. 120, 136 8. W. 1065; 
Sawyers v. C, 88 Va. 356, 13 8. E. 
708. See notes in 20 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
Cas. 1273; 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 
164; 9 Am. St. 567. 
Friendly as well as unfriendly com- 
ment forbiddMU — Gurley v. 8., 101 Miss. 
190, 57 8. 565, guol. Yarbrough v. 8., 
70 Miss. 593, 12 8. 551. 
Bule has no application to cItH action 
for violation of ordinances.— Chicago 
V, Everleigh, 162 111. App. 623. 
That defendant has not made state- 
ment cannot be referred to. Saffold 
V. S., 11 Ga. App. 329, 75 S. E. 338. 

777-18 Tin^ v. 8., 110 Ark. 251, 161 
8. W. 195; Culbreath v. S., 90 Ark. 
177, 131 8. W. 676; Bennett €. S., 86 
Ga. 401, 12 8. E. 806, 22 Am. St. 465, 
12 L. B. A. 449; S. v. Potts, 239 Mo. 
403, 144 8. W. 495; 8. r. Buchf elder, 
231 Mo. 55, 132 8. W. 229; 8. v, Knapp, 
33 S. D. 177, 144 N. W. 921; 8. r. 
Carlisle, 28 8. D. 169, 132 N. W. 686, 
Ann. Cas. 1914B, 395; Knight «. 8., 
64 Tex. Cr. 541, 144 8. W. 967. See 
note in 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 164. 
Bare allusion to defendant's failure 



144 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



not sufficient error to cause reversal. 
Cutler V. S., 15 Ariz. 343, 138 P. 1048; 
MitcheU v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W. 
1006; Combs V. 8., 55 Tex. Cr. 334, 

116 S. W. 584. 

Viilen the a aoe r tl on is directly made 
or the inference plain that counsel in- 
tended a reference to defendant's fail- 
ure to testify, the objection is unten- 
able. S. V. Bobertson, 133 La. 806, 63 
S. 363. 

Tbat 0WI7 penon knowing the facts 
saTB the defendant* had testified is 
proper argument, although inf erentially 
calling attention to defendant's failure 
to testify. C. V. Bichmond, 207 Mass. 
240, 93 N. E. 816. 

77T-«0 Bulofl V. P., 45 N. T. 213, 
222; Crandall v. P., 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 
309; People f. Myer, 164 App. Div. 
296, 150 N. Y. S, 317. 
Hotlon for new trial necessary'— Im* 
proper reference to defendant's failure 
to testify not ground for reversal, if 
a new trial is not asked on this ground. 
S. 17. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 132 N. W. 
ISO; Grier v. Johnson, 88 la. 99, 55 N. 
W. 80. 

TTT-21 S. V. Nicola (la,), 151 N. W. 
70 (quot. Code, |5484); S. V. Kimes, 
152 la. 240, 132 N. W. 180; S. v. Snider, 
119 la. 15, 91 N. W. 762; Grier v. John- 
son, 88 la. 99, 55 N. W. 80; Okla. 
Comp. Laws, 1909, {6833; Hopkins «. 
S. (Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 917 (gwot. §5881, 
Bev. Laws); Kelly f?. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 
175, 117 P. 887. 

T7T-a2 Kelly v. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 175, 

117 P. 887; C. v. Moyer, 52 Pa. Super. 
548 (obscure remark not intended as a 
reference); S. v. Nieburg, 86 Vt. 392, 
85 A. 769. 

778-23 Coleman v. S. (Ga. App.), 83 

O. Je«. 1o4« 

778-24 Ineidental reference not re- 
versible error. Pullen «. S., 70 Tex. 
Cr. 156, 156 8. W. 935. 

Bxamplea of indirect aUnsionB held er« 
roneoaB.r-^ones v. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 343, 
156 S. W. 1191, <'You just as well ex- 
pect S. Jones (appellant) to go upon 
the witness stand and testify that he 
sold intoxicating beer as to expect 8 
to do so.'' 

Examples of allnslonB held proper. 
Guerrero V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 
731 (counsel after repeating a conver- 
eation, turned to defendant -and said 
''did you deny it," and then to the 
jury, "You know he would have de- 



nied it to his father-in-law but said 
instead if you can prove it, go to law. ' ' 
It was held this is not a reference to 
defendant's failure to testify); Mason 
V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. W. 115, in 
which defendant put on witnesses show- 
ing his whereabouts from 9 to 10 p. m. 
a remark by the district attorney that 
it was not shown where he was from 
the arrival of the train till 9 p. m. is 
not a Reference to defendant's failure 
to testify. 

780-28 Smithson v. S., 127 Tenn. 
357, 155 8. W. 133; Eads v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 147 8. W. 592. 

780-20 Coleman 17. 8. (Ga. App.), 
83 8. E. 154. 

781-31 Cutler v. 8., 15 Ariz. 343, 138 
P. 1048; 8. 17. Bobertson, 133 La. 806, 
63 8. 363; 8. 17. Williams, 35 Nev. 276, 
129 P. 317: 8. v. Dodson, 23 N. D. 305, 
136 N. W. 789 (calling attention to 
fact the defendant had not accounted 
for his whereabouts on the night in 
question is not objectionable as refer- 
ring to defendant's failure to testify. 
Counsel asked why didn't defendant 
put on witnesses, etc. and on objection 
by defendant he said ''I am not talk- 
ing about the defendant, I am asking 
why he did not put other witnesses on." 
Such remarks not improper); 8. 17. 
Knapp, 33 8. D. 177. 144 N. W. 921; 
Sloan 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 170 8. W. 156; 
Ethridge 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 169 S. W. 
1152; Henson 1?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. 
W. 89; Link 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 164 S. W. 
987 (in which one counsel turned to 
the other and after naming the wit- 
nesses who had testified for the accused 
said, **was there any one else," to 
which a negative reply was made); 
8. r. Gunnoe (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 64. 
781-32 Link 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 164 
8. W. 987 

781-33 'Carlisle i?. U. 8., 194 F. 827, 
114 C. C. A. 531; Cutler 17. 8., 15 Ariz. 
343, 138 P. 1048; Davidson 17. 8., 108 
Ark. 191, 158 S. W. 1103, Ann. Cas, 
1915B, 436; Saffold 17. 8., 11 Ga. App. 
329, 75 8. E. 338; 8. 17. Kimes, 152 la. 
240, 132 N. W. 180; 8. i?. Hasty, 121 
la. 507, 96 N. W. 1115; 8. i?. Snider, 
119 la. 15, 91 N. W. 762; Topeka v. 
Briggs, 90 Kan. 843, 135 P. 1184: 8. f?. 
Hughes, 258 Mo. 264, 167 8. W. 529; 
8. 17. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 161 8. W. 
721; 8. 17. Winner, 153 N. C. 602, 69 
8. E. 9; Diegel 17. 8., 33 O. C. C. 82; 
8. 17. Knapp, 33 8. D. 177, 144 N. W. 
921 ("Does he deny ever having forced 



10 



145 



• 1 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



his presence upon her. Not by 

no," is not a reference to defendant's 
failure to testify); Harris v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 167 S. W. 43; Walker v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 145 S. W. 904. 

781-34 S. V. Nicola (la.), 161 N. W. 
70; S. f?. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 161 S. 
W. 721 (dist, S. V. Snyder, 182 Mo. 
462, 82 S. W. 12) ; S. <?. Fields, 234 Mo. 
615, 138 S. W. 518; Vickers t?. S. (Tex. 
Or.), 154 S. W. 578; Williams v, 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 146 S. W. 168; Deary t?. S., 62 
Tex.- Crim. 352, 137 S. W. 699. See 
note in 20 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1274. 
In Illinois and Iowa the rule is other- 
wise. S. V. Krampe, 161 la. 48, 140 N. 
W. 898. 

782-38 C. 17. Bichmond, 207 Mass. 
240, 93 N. E. 816, 20 Am. & Eng. Ann. 
Cas. 1269; S. v. Glover, 91 S. C. 562, 
75 S. E. 218. Comp. P. v. Smith, 84 Misc. 
348, 147 N. Y. S. 641, where evidence 
proving guilt is weak. See notes in 
20 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1274; 3 Am. 
ft Eng. Ann. Cas. 167. 

783-41 Ingram V. S., 110 Ark. 638, 
162 S. W. 66; 8. v. Johnson, 3 Boyce 
(Del.), 515, 85 A. 883; C. v, Bichmond, 
207 Mass. 240, 93 N. E. 816, disclaimer 
by counsel of intent to urge inferences 
from failure to testify, with instruc- 
tion. 

783-42 Sustaining of objections in- 
sufficient.— P. V, Annis, 261 111. 157, 
103 N. E. 568. 

783-43 See C. v. Bichmond, 207 
Mass. 240, 93 N. E. 816, 20 Am. & Eng. 
Ann. Cas. 1269, citing cases. 

783-47 S. r. Baftery, 252 Mo. 72, 
158 S. W. 585; S. v, Donaldson, 243 Mo. 
460, 148 S. W. 79. See 3 Am. & Eng. 
Ann. Cas. 167 n. 

784-48 S. t7. Potts, 239 Mo. 403, 144 
S. W. 495. 

784-60 S. V. Miller, 234 Mo. 688, 137 
S. W. 887. But see S. v, Larkin, 250 
Mo. 218, 157 S. W. 600, 46 L. B. A. (N. 
S.) 13. 

786-51 See S. r. Larkin, 250 Mo. 218, 
157 S. W. 600, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 13. 

785-54 See note in 34 L. B. A. (N. 

S.) 811. 

In the absence of statute, the failure 
of a co-defendant to testify is legiti- 
mate argument. P. v. Buef, 14 Cal. 
App. 576, 114 P. 48; P. V. Ye Foo, 4 
Cal. App. 730, 89 P. 450. 

786-65 In Oklahoma a co-defendant 
can become a witness only at his own 



request, and his failure to testify is 
not legitimate argument. Hopkins t\ 
S. (Okla. Cr.), 146 P. 917; Irvin v, S., 
11 Okla. Cr. — , 146 P. 453, but such 
comment cannot be considered a refer- 
ence to defendant's failure to testify. 

785-66 Contra, S. v. Medden (la.), 
148 N. W. 995. 

786-68 See note in 34 L. B. A. (N. 

S.) 816. 

Where the wife may be a witness only 
on her request, a reference to her fail- 
ure to testify is improper. Zumwalt t?. 
S. (Ariz.), 141 P. 710. 

787-60 Downing v. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 
519, 136 S. W. 471. See note in 17 Am. 
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 421. 

787-61 S. r. Virgens (Minn.), 151 
N. W. 190; Fannie v. S., 101 Miss. 378, 
58 S. 2. 

787-62 See note in Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
559. 

787-63 Zumwalt v, S. (Ariz.), 141 
P. 710 (where defendant may use her 
as witness); Hopkins v. S. (Okla. Cr.), 
146 P. 917; Hampton v. S., 7 Okla. Cr. 
291, 123 P. 571, 40 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
43; Bhea v. Ter., 3 Okla. Cr. 230, 105 
P. 314; Eads t?. S. (Tex. Or.), 170 S. W. 
145; Bybee i;. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 
526; Yates v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 152 S. W. 
1064 (failure to take wife's deposi- 
tion); Black r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 143 S. W. 
932; Burnam v, S., 61 Tex. Cr. 616, 135 
S. W. 1175; Coffey v. S., 60 Tex. Cr. 73, 
131 S. W. 216; Eggleston c. S., 59 Tex. 
Cr. 542, 128 S. W. 1105. See notes 
in Ann. Cas. 1913D> 559; 17 Am. ft 
Eng. Ann. Cas. 421. 

788-64 But see Sullivan v, Boyer, 
72 Cal. 248, 13 P. 655, 1 Am. St. 51. 

788-66 Cross t?. S., 68 Ala. 476; P. 
V. Hatch, 163 Cal. 368, 125 P. 907; 
Mitchum V. S., 11 Ga. 615, 616; Pel- 
ham & H. B. Co. V. Elliott, 11 Ga. App. 
621, 75 S. E. 1062; Marriage t?. Electric 
Coal Co., 176 111. App. 451; United 
States r. & G. Co. v. Poetker, 180 Ind. 
255, 102 N. E. 372 (not improper to 
discuss the difference between the bond 
as given and as the statute required it 
to be); Louisville V. Arrowsmith, 145 
Ky. 498, 140 S. W. 1022 (in which coun- 
sel Bald he preferred a verdict against 
the city because he was doubtful if 
the evidence against the railroad com- 
pany justified a verdict against it); 
S. t?. Corpening, 157 N. C. 621, 73 S. 
E. 214, 38 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1130; 
Harrington 17. Comrs. of Wadesboroi 153 



146 



AROUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



X. C. 437, 69 S. E. 399; Chapman i?. 
S. (Tex. Or.), 147 S. W. 580; Cooper 
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S, W. 273 (may 
state there are two kinds of burglary, 
in a burglary with intent to commit 
theft case), Crane v. Wood (Tex. Civ.), 
138 S. W. 444. See P. V. Hatch, 163 Cal. 
368, 125 P. 907 and note in 1 Am. 
St, 54. 

Beferezice to elements of damage 
proper. — ^Burton v. Kansas City, 181 Mo. 
App. 427, 168 S. W. 889. 

Urging verdict warranted by evidence 

proper. Ledwell v. Chicago City Ey. 
Co., 160 111. App. 596. 

Aavislnfi: as to legal effect of verdiet 
improper Fain v. Nelms (Tex. Civ.), 
15€ S W. 281 

788-68 Kincaid v. BuU, 159 Ky. 527, 
167 S W. 903. 

788^9 I'rick t?. Aurora, E. & C. B. 
Co., 154 111. App. 277; Manning v, Mc- 
Clure 168 Mo. App. 533, 154 S. W 
803; 'Harris V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169 S. 
W. 657 See Martinez v. The Paul 
Taylor Brown Co., 6 P R. Fed. 405; 
and note in 46 L. B. A 663. 

Argument of hm calculated to prejn- 
dioe is improper. Shelby Iron Co. v. 
Greenlea^ 184 Ala. 496, 63 S. 470, 
where a physician testified against his 
patient^ argument that his testimony 
was privileged and that he should not 
be believed as he had no right to tes- 
tify is improper. 

Incorrect method' of arriving at meas- 
ure of damages. — ^Brown v. Central 
Pennsylvania Tract. Co.. 237 Pa. 324, 
85 A. 362 (urging verdict as punish- 
ment when compensatory damages only 
are allowable); Fowlie's Admx. v. Mc- 
Donald, Cutler & Co., 85 Vt. 438, 82 A. 
677. 

789-71 Brock v,.B., 101 Ark. 147, 
141 S. W. 756; Marriage v Electric 
Coal Co., 176 ni. App. 451; Hensler t\ 
Gordon, 152 Mo. App. 498, 133 S. W. 
631. 

790-72 Weehter v. P., 53 Colo. 89, 
124 P. 183 (in stating the law counsel's 
attention was called to an instruction 
stating a contrary rule. It was held 
improper for him to say the court had 
given such instruction inadvertently 
and that to effect such was destroying 
the effect of the statute); Hyde t?. if. 
S., 35 App. Gas. (D. C.) 451, 485; Odett 
r. Chicago City By. Co., 166 HI. App. 
270. 

Xostmctions may be commented on and 



construed. — ^Kincaid v. Bull, 159 Ky. 
527, 167 S. W. 903. 

790-73 See Hutchinson v, Nettleton, 
175 111. App. 277. 

790-74 To speak disrespectfully of 
the administration of Justice, improper. 
DriscoU t?. Cincinnati Tract. Co., 88 O. 
St. 150, 102 N. E. 297; McGowen v. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 164 S. W. 999. 

790-75 Delaney t?. Berkshire St. B. 
Co., 215 Mass. 591, 102 N. E. 901, re- 
ferring to statute not relating to evi- 
dence or conduct of parties. 

791-77 Minor v. S., 101 Miss. 107, 
57 8. 548. 

791-79 Keeley v. City Elec. R. Co., 
168 Mich. 79, 133 N. W. 1085, failure 
to charge jury that court's statement 
of the law only was to be considered 
is error. 

791-81 But see Harrington v. Wades- 
boro, 153 N. G. 437, 69 S. E. 399, holding 
that -counsel in arguing the law of the 
case is entitled to state the facts in 
another case for the purpose of apply- 
ing the law of such case to the one at 
bar. 

791-85 Childress <?. S., 86 Ala. 77, 5 
S. 775; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Mason, 
10 Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154; Powers v. 
Boise City, 22 Ida. 286, 125 P. 194; 
Bale V, Chicago Junction B. Co., 259 
111. 476, 102 N. E. 808; McGuire v. Chi 
cago City B. Co., 179 111. App. 79; 
Swan t?. Boston Store, 177 111. App. 349; 
Lewman 17. Danville St. By. & L. Co., 161 
111. App. 582; Bisel v, Kerens-Donne- 
wald Coal Co., 159 111. App. 8; Budolph 
V. Landmerlen, 92 Ind. 34; S. v. Leek, 
152 la. 12, 130 N. W. 1062 (reference 
to secret fraternities); Weil v, Hagan, 
161 Ky. 292, 170 S. W. 618; Morrison 
V. Carpenter, 179 Mich. 207, 146 N. W. 
106; McDonnell v. Drug Co., 170 Mich. 
291, 138 N. W. 383; Grimme v. General 
Council, 167 Mich. 240, 132 N, W. 497; 
Antosik t?. Michigan Alkali Co., . 166 
Mich. 415, 132 N. W. 80; S. v. Brown, 
247 Mo. 715, 153 S. W. 1027; Partello 
V. Missouri P. B. Co., 240 Mo. 122, 145 
S. W. 55 (if remarks based on the 
record and not indecorous, appeals to 
sympathy are not improper); Haake v, 
Dulle Mill. Co., 168 Mo. App. 177, 153 
•S. W, 74; Cameron t\ Cameron, 162 Mo. 
App. 110, 144 S. W. 171; Wilson v. S., 
87 Neb. 638, 128 N. W. 38 (stating if 
a verdict ot guilty is not returned, the 
jury need not apologize to the prose- 
cutor or the audience); Driscoll v Cin- 
cinnati Tract, Co., 88 O. St. 150, 102 N. 



147 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



E. 297; Watson v. S., 7 Okla. Cr. 590, 
124 P. 1101; Mulkey v, S., 5 Okla. Cr. 
75, 113 P 532; Cox v. S., 2 Okla. Cr. 
668, 104 P. 378; Carter «. S, (Tex. Cr.), 
170 S. W 739; Cooper v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
163 S. W. 424 (in seduction suit refer- 
ring to jurors going home to their own 
flaxen-haired girls and loved ones); 
San Antonio, U. & 6. B. Co. 17. Moya 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 608 (in personal 
injury case the remark ' * Here, sign this 
paper, and we will give you $1 after a 
while. You haven't got any right any- 
way.' Why, gentlemen of the jury, a 
dollar would not have paid for his 
shoe," is not prejudicial or improper); 
Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 
135 S. W. 1146; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. 
Co. 1?. Dooley (Tex. Civ.), 131 S. W. 
831; Davis r. Randall, 85 Vt. 70, 81 A. 
250; Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282, 
28 Am. Rep. 582. See S. «?. Robertson^ 
133 La. 806, 63 S. 363 (holding a refer- 
ence to sisters and family of deceased 
is not reversible error); Norfolk -South- 
ern R. Co. V. Tomlinson, 116 Va. 153, 81 
S. E. 89, and note in 46 L. R. A. 668. 
But if based on the evicLence, such 
argument not improper. Foster v. 
Shepherd, 258 Hi. 164, 101 X. E. 411, 
• Ann. Cas. 1914B, 572, 45 L. R. A. (N. 
S.) 167; Mahoney v. Goldblatt, 163 111. 
App. 563. 

793-88 Phelps V. Chicago, R. T. & 
P. R. Co., 162 la 123, 143 N W. 853; 
Bevich t?. Dick, 177 Mich. 173, 143 N. 
W. 56; Jenkins V, North Carolina Ore 
n Co., 65 N. C. 563; Dallas Consol 
Elec. St. R. Co. t?. Black, 40 Tex. Civ. 
415, 89 S. W. 1087; Winston v. Ter- 
race, 78 Wash. 146, 138 P. 673. 

793-89 Jones v. Tucker, 3 Boyce 
(Del.) 422, 84 A, 4, 1012; Appel <?. R. 
Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. E. 1021; Jenk- 
ins V. North Carolina O. D. Co., 65 N. C. 
663. 

794-92 Houston f?. Quinn, 168 HI. 
App. 593 (reference to physical infirm- 
ities of parties not improper where 
proved by legitimate evidence); Flem- 
ing V. Chicago City Ry. Co., 163 HI. 
App 185, but the language did not 
inform the jury of any fact not de- 
ducible from the evidence. 

795-98 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. r. 
Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 
942; Cvitanovich t\ Bromberg (la.), 151 
N. W. 1073; Almon r. Chicago & N. W. 
R. Co., 163 la. 449, 144 X. W. 997; Ellis 
t\ Barkley, 160 Ta. 658, 142 N. W. 203; 
Norris v. B. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 S. W. 



783, 790; Texarkana & Ft. S. R. Co. f?. 
Terrell (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 742; MU- 
ler V. Burgess (Tex. Civ.)., 136 S. W. 
1174; Chicago, etc. R. Co. f?. Goodrich 
(Tex. Civ.), 136 S. W. 81; Campbell t\ 
Prieto (Tex. Cv.), 143 S. W. 668. See 
Gaines t\ S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 S. W. 717. 

Beferrlng to the vocations of the par- 
ties proper where brought out in evi- 
dence and where it is helpful in deter- 
mining the weight to be given the tes- 
timony. Eaton V, Hope, 177 Mich. 411, 
143 N. W. 241, value of horse is in 
question. Counsel showed parties to be 
farmer and banker. 

796-2 Sorell v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 167 S. 
W. 356. , 

796-5 Weil t?. Hagan, 161 Ky. 292, 
170 S. W. 618 (appeal to mulct auto- 
mobile owner to protect pedestrians); 
S. 17. Risso, 131 La. 946, 60 S. 625 (but 
when defendant is not connected with 
the particular organization against 
whom the appeal is made, such is not 
reversible error); Solomon t?. Stewart 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 716; St. Louis, I. 
M. & S, R. Co. V. O'Connor, 43 Okla. 
268, 142 P. 1111, referring to fact that 
counts and princes are stockholders of 
defendant. See S. v. McPherson, 114 
Minn. 498, 131 N. W. 645. 

797-6 Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. f?- 
Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 942; 
Louisville & N. R. Co: v. Mason, 10 
Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154 (referring to 
corporation's picking up scraps of 
paper in the jury room to see if the 
verdict is a quotient verdict) ; Union C. 
Co. V. Wolf, 63 Ark. 174, 37 S. W. 877; 
Washington, etc. R. Co. v. Patterson, 
9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 423; Swift t?. Ren- 
nard, 128 111. App. 181; Louisville & N. 
R. Co. t;. Hull. 113 Ky. 561, 68 S. W. 
433, 57 L. R. A. 771; Johnson r. R. 
Co., 135 Mich. 353,-97 N. W. 760; Will- 
iams V. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 123 Mo. 
573, 27 S. W. 387; Stewart f?. Metro- 
politan St. R. Co., 72 App. Hiv. 459, 7b 
X. Y. S 540; Dillingham v. Scales, 78 
Tex. 205, 14 S. W. 566; First Nat. Bank 
r. Sokolski (Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 312; 
Gulf etc. R. Co. f?, Dooley (Tex. Civ.), 
131 S. W. 831, Hartford F. Ins. Co. v 
Becton (Tex. Civ.), 124 S. W. 474; 
Chicago M. & P. S. R. Co. t?. True, 62 
Wash. 646, 114 P. 515, court does not 
know the name Standard Oil Co. to 
be such as to prejudice the jury. 
To say that a corporation is without 
soul, etc. Olden t?. S., 176 Ala 6, 58 
S. 307; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. tr.' EIrod 



148 



• « 



AROmiENTS 



Vol. 2 



(Ark.), 173 S. W. 836; Swift v. Ken- 
nard, 128 111. App. 181. But see Straus 
r. Kansas City, etc. B. Co., 86 Mo, 421; 
Hinton r. Cream City R. Co., 65 Wis. 
323, 27 N. W. 147. But a statement 
that the defendant is not soulless, but 
owned its men, body and soul advanced 
in attacking a witness' credibility is 
not improper. Britten t?. South Penn 
Oil Co., 73 W. Va. 792, 81 S. E. 525. 
Appeal to teach corporation to obey 
law not reversible- — ^Western & A. R. 
Co. T. Cox, 115 Ga. 715, 42 S. E. 74; 
Brown v. Central Pennsylvania Tracts 
Co., 237 Pa. 324, 85 A. 362: Postal Tel. 
Cable Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 135 8. 
W. 1146; Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Beezley, 

46 Tex. Civ. 108, 101 S. W. 1051; Hous- 
ton Elec. B. Co. V. Robinson (Tex. Civ.), 
76 S. W. 209; Texas, etc. B. Co. r. 
Beckwith (Tex. Civ.), 32 S. W. 809. 
Bat see Kinne V, International R. Co., 
100 App. Div. 5, 90 N. Y. S. 930. 
799-7 Chicago, etc. B. Co. t?. Garner, 
83 111. App. 118; Harper f?. Western Un- 
ion Tel. Co., 92 Mo. App. 304; Pullman 
Co. v. Pennock, 118 Tenn. 565, 102 S. 
W. 73; Galveston, etc. R. Co. v. Kutac, 
72 Tex. 643, 11 S. W. 127; Missouri, 
etc. R. Co. <?. Cherry, 44 Tex. Civ. 232, 
97 S. W. 712 (**why, this morning 
Pres. Roosevelt said those corporations 
should be controlled")? Colorado Canal 
Co. V. Sims (Tex. Civ.), 82 S. W. 631 
(that everyone dealing with an irriga- 
tion eompany had been swindled) ; Atch- 
iaon, etc. R. Co. f?. Bryan (Tex. Civ.), 28 
S. W. 98, charging unfair dealing. 
Power of emSient domain, etc. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. V. Elrod (Ark.), 
173 S. W. 836. 

799-8 St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 
f?. Elrod (Ark.), 173 S. W. 836 (by rul- 
ing made at conclusion of speech) ; Den- 
ver, etc. B. Co. V, Nye, 9 Colo. App. 94, 

47 P. 654; Quincy G. & E. Co. r. Bau- 
mann, 203 HI. 295, 67 N. E. 807; New- 
man t?. Vicksburg, etc. R. Co., 64 Miss. 
115, 8 S. 172; Wendler v. People's House 
Furnishing Co., 165 Mo. 527, 65 S. W. 
737. 

799-10 Bisel v. Kerens-Bonnewald 
Coal Co., 159 HI. App. 8, remark that 
corporation wants to be treated as an 
individual is improper. 

799-11 Almon v. Chicago & N. W. 
B. Co., 163 la. 449, 144 N. W. 997. 

799-12 Newell i). Cleveland, C. C. & 
St. L. B. Co., 179 HI. App. 497; Cin- 
cinnati, N. O. & T, P. R. Co. 17. Spears, 
152 Ky. 200, 153 S. W. 236 (referring 



to witness as a strikebreaker is im- 
proper); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. 
V. Coffelder, 31 0. O. C. 26. See Mo- 
bile & O. R. Co. V, Carpenter, 104 Miss. 
706, 61 S. 693, in which it was held that 
the argument that, ' ' if a statement was 
made by a railroad man as to how and 
where an injury happened, every rail- 
road man from Mobile to St. Louis 
would swear it to be exactly that way," 
although not approved is not reversible 
error. 

Reference to a train crew as a '*gang" 
is not error. Myers v. Chicago, B, & 
Q: B, Co., 152 la. 330, 131 N. W. 770. 

800-14 See Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1167 n. 
800-16 Gibson v. Zeibig, 24 Mo. 
App. 65. 

801-18 Solomon v. Stewart (Mich.), 

151 N. W. 716. Comp, Hoxie t\ Pfael- 
zer, 167 111. App. 79. 

801-19 S. t?. Lee, 130 La. 477, 58 S. 
155; S. V. Jones, 127 La. 694, 53 S. 
959; Clark f?. S., 102 Miss. 768, 59 S. 
887; Hardaway v, S., 99 Miss. 223, 54 S. 
833; Majors v, S., 63 Tex. Cr. 488, 140 
S. W. 1095. See Jordan v. S., 62 Tex. 
Cr. 380, 137 S. W. 133 (all persons in- 
terested being negroes); and npte in 
Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1167. 

802-20 Hardaway 17. S., 99 Miss. 223, 
54 S. 833, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1166, sug- 
gesting a white person be believed as 
against a negro. 

802-21 James v. S., 170 Ala. 72, 54 
S. 494. 

802-23 Jordan v, S., 62 Tex. Cr. 
380, 137 S. W. 133. 

803-26 American Express Co. v. Par- 
carello (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926. 

803-27 See note in 46 L. B. A. 653, 

656. 

803-29 Scott V. S., 110 Ala. 48, 20 
S. 468; Henwood t?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143 
P. 373, 383; Heller v. P., 22 Colo. 11, 43 
P. 124; Miller V, S., 8 Ga. App. 540, 69 
S. E. 922 (referring to defendant as 
**this notorious character,, this notor- 
ious blind tiger '0; P- «• Hotz, 261 111. 
239, 103 N. E. 1007; P. t;. Kahler, 93 
Mich. 625, 53 N. W. 826; S. v. Harri- 
son (Mo.), 174 S. W. 57 (calling de- 
fendant a man with an evil face); S. 
V, Schneiders, 259 Mo. 319, 168 S. W. 
604; S. V, Helton, 255 Mo. 170, 164 S. 
W. 457; S. r. Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 
161 S. W. 795; S. t?. Phillips, 233 Mo. 
299, 135 S. W. 4; S. v. Mircovich, 35 
Nev. 485, 130 P. 765; Norton i?. Wilson, 

152 App. Div. 129, 139 N. Y. S. 1047 



149 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



(saying defendant was guilty of lar- 
ceny); Coble V. Coble, 79 N. €. 589, 
28 Am. Bep. 338; Millner V. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 16& S. W. 348; Bishop v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 160 S. W. 705; Calliham v. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 617 (counsel 
should not call defendant a hyena or a 
brute, but such alone would not war- 
rant reversal); Grimes v, S., 64 Tex. 
Cr. 64, 141 S. W. 261; Paris r. S., 62 
Tex. Crim. 354, 137 S. W. 698; McCon- 
nell V. S., 22 Tex. App. 354, 3 S. W. 
699, 68 Am. Rep. 647; Stone v. S., 22 
Tex. App. 185, 2 S. W. 685; Andrews v. 
United States Casualty Co., 154 Wis. 
82, 142 N. W. 487, ''The United States 
Casualty Co.! The United fitates 
damnation and hell, creature of hell 
. . . and behind that put devilish, ma- 
licious, fraudulent, trying to deprive 
this woman . • . of a just claim at the 
hands of these harlots.'' See Hoskins 
V, C, 152 Ky. 805, 154 S. W. 919; Bur- 
rell V. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 635, 138 S. W. 707, 
and notes in 9 Am. St. 559; 46 L. K. A. 
652. 

805-30 Morris V. S., 103 Ark. 352, 
147 S. W. 74; S. <?. Biewen (la.), 151 N. 
W. 102; S. V. Harrison (Mo.), 174 S. 
W. 57 (referring to scene at the time 
of the ravishment as ''horrible ordeal" 
not improper); Ostertag v. Union Pac. 
R. Co., 261 Mo. 457, 169 S. W. 1 (re- 
ferring to claim agent as "ghoul" not 
improper); S. t?. Schneiders, 259 Mo. 
319, 168 S. W. 604; S. f?. Gordon, 253 
Mo. 510, 161 S. W. 721 (referring to de- 
fendant as a foreign thief); S. v. Mir- 
covich, 35 Nev. 485, 130 P. 765; P. r. 
Cummins, 209 N. Y. 283, 103 N. E. 169 
(calling accused thief in larceny case); 
' S. V. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 132 N. W. 
149; Andrews t?. S., 33 O. C. C. 564; 
Borders V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W. 483; 
Conger v, S., 63 Tex. Cr. 312, 140 S. W. 
1112, calling defendant a "libertine" 
and "rapist" although improper is 
not reversible error. 

806-31 S. r. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 
161 S. W. 721; S. V. Rasco, 239 Mo. 535, 
144 S. W. 449; Borders v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 
161 S. W. 483. 

807-33 Brown v. S., 99 Ark. 648, 138 
S. W. 633. 

809-36 Shedding of tears by daugh- 
ters of deceased during argument is not 
ground for reversal. Tiner t?. S., 109 
Ark. 138, 158 S. W. 1087. 
810-39 Colorado & S. R. Co. t?. Chiles, 
50 Colo. 191, 114 P. 661. 
810-40 _ Washburn v, Cuddihy, 8 



Gray (Mass. J 430; In re Mason, 60 
Hun 46, 14 N. Y. S. 434; Huffman r. 
Click, 77 N. C. 55; Burt t?. S., 38 Tex. 
Cr. 397, 40 S. W. 1000, 43 S. W. 344, 39 
L. R. A. 305; Queen v. Crouch, 1 Cox 
C. C. (Eng.) 94, See note in 40 L^ B. 
A. 570. 

811-43 Duncan <?. C, 13 Ky. L. B. 

195, 16 S. W. 584 (improper to read from 
paper definition of malice' copied from 
book); S. t?. Rholeder (Wash.), 144 P. 
914, §339 (4) Rem. & Ball. Code, provid- 
ing the respective parties may address 
the court and jury upon the law and 
facts of the case is to be construed 
with §§342, 343 vesting decisions of 
questions of law in the court and ques- 
tions of fact in the jury. Consequent- 
ly reading law to the jury is not per- 
missible. 

In libel suits, reading law books is 
proper in some states (S. v. Whitmore, 
53 Kan. 343, 36 P. 748, 42 Am. St. 
288); but not in others. Oakes t?. S., 
98 Miss. 80, 54 S. 79, 33 L. R. A. (N. 
S.) 206; Heller t?. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 153 
Mo. 205, 54 S. W. 457. 
In a criminal case. — Worley t?. S., 136 
Ga. 231, 71 S. E. 153; Cribb v, S., 118 
6a. 316, 45 S. E. 396; McMath t?. S., 55 
Ga. 303; aark f?. S., 8 Ga. App. 757, 
70 S. E. 90; Reed v, C, 140 Ky. 736, 131 
S. W. 776. 

811-44 Marriage t?. Electric Coal Co., 
176 HI. App. 451. 

Beading of inapplicable law properly 
prevented, etc. Clark t?. S., 8 Ga. App. 
757, 70 S. E. 90. 

Bequlring law to be read to the court 
in the presence of the Jury instead of 
to the jury in the presence of the court 
not an abuse of discretion, Godwin t?. 
S., 123 Ga. 569, 51 S. E. 598; Clark t?. 
S., 8 Ga. App. 757, 70 S. E. 90. 

811-45 P. V. Anderson Tea Co., 178 
111. App. 124; Manley i?. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 
382, 137 S. W. 1137. 

812-51 Beading Employer's Liabil- 
ity Act not error where the court fully 
explained it to the jury. Lang t;. Cam- 
den Iron Wks. (Or.), 146 P. 964. 

812-54 Permission to read irrelevant 
statute properly denied. P. v. Montijo, 
8 P. R. 1. 

812-55 Sullivan v. Capital Traction 
Co., 34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 358; Waxel- 
baum V, Southern Ry. Co., 168 HI. App. 
6G; S. V. McClure, 159 la. 351, 140 N. 
W. 203. See Clark r. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 
162 la. 630, 144 N. W. 332, supreme 



150 



ABGUMElfTS 



Vol 2 



eonrt directed that the opinion, just 
rendered should not be read in the 
presence of the jury on second trial. 
Beading opinion on former appeal prop- 
erly refused, etc. McCullough v, S., 11 
Ga. App. 612, 76 S. E. 393. 

S13-56 S. t?. McClure, 159 la. 351, 
140 N. W. 203. 



Jenkins v. S. (Wyo.), 134 P. 
260, holding it proper to read an argu- 
ment in favor of circumstantial evi- 
dence from an opinion. 

In criminal but not in civil actions. 
McMath I'. S., 55 Ga. 303; Glover v. S. 
(Ga. App.), 82 S. E. 602. 

813-60 Perkins t?. S. (Ter. Cr,), 144 
S- W. 241; Millican t\ S., 63 Tex. Cr. 
440, 140 S. W, 1136, court was familiar 
with the case. 



Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
Bay (Tex. Civ.), 147 S. W. 1194, 

814-60 Glover v. S. (Ga. App.), 82 
S. E. 602. 

815-77 Memorandmn on back of in- 
dlctment^ not introduced in evidence, 
should not be "ref erred to or read. John- 
son 17. S., 125 Tenn. 420, 143 8. W. 1134, 
Ann. Cas. 1913C, 261. 

816-81 Hardy i'. Schirmer, 163 €al. 
272, 124 P. 993; Heide v. Schubert, 166 
m. App. 586 (if objection be made, the 
court should not permit the reading 
from a stenographic report of the tes- 
timony) ; Baker v. Illinois Cent. B. Co., 
161 lU. App. 521; Smith V. B. Co., 79 
Wash. 448, 140 P. 685; S. V. Harris, 74 
Wash. 60, 132 P. 735, defendant's con- 
fesaion admitted in evidence. 

Qaoting evidence from memory is 
proper. S. r. Pollard, 155 Mo. App. 
319, 136 S. W. 735. 

Beading letters not introduced In evi- 
dence although referred to, not permis- 
sible. Bond V. Cole, 49 Pa. Super. 144. 
Where there is a controversy as to the 
evidence, it is within the court's dis- 
cretion to permit the stenographer to 
read portions of the testimony. S. v, 
Porgraves, 32 S. D. 21, 141 N. W. 990. 
Testimony on former trial received in 
evidence- Pod rat v. Narragansett Pier 
B. Co., 32 B. I. 255, 78 A. 1041. 

817-84 Ada Coal Co. -P. Linville, 152 
Ky. 2, 153 8. W. 21, affidavit not read 
when introduced may fee read to jury. 
In the discretion of the court* — ^Van 
Vliet Fletcher Auto. Co. v. Crowell 
(la.), 149 N. W. 861. 

Where there is no dispnte as to con- 



tents, refusal of permission to !read dep- 
osition not error, but if there is a 
sharp dispute as to the contents read- 
ing should be allowed. Wells Fargo & 
Co. <?. Baker Lumb. Co. (Ark.), 171 S. 
W. 132. 

817-86 Curtin t?. People's Nat. Gas 

Cq^, 233 Pa. 397, 82 A. 503, copy of 

schedule attached to statement of 
claim. 

818-92 Georgia Southern & F. B. Co. 
r. Bansom, 10 Ga. App. 558, 73 S. E. 
858. 

819-97 Jordan f?. Smith, 185 Ala. 
591, 64 S. 317 (statement supported by 
evidence); Shelby Iron Co. v. Greenlea, 
184 Ala. 496, 63 S. 470; Louisville & 
N. B. Co. r. Grimes, 184 Ala. 413, 63 S. 
554; Olden t?. S., 176 Ala. 6, 58 8. 307; 
Pruitt t?. S., 92 Ala. 41, 9 S. 406; Cole- 
man V, S., 87 Ala. 14, 6 S. 290; Lane v. 
S., 85 Ala. 11, 4 S. 730; Cross v. S., 68 
Ala. 476; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Ma- 
son, 10 Ala. App. 263, 64 S. 154; New- 
sum f?. S., 10 Ala. App. 124, 65 S. 87; 
Blalock V. S., 8 Ala. Ap?. 349, 63* S. 26; 
Nuckols V. Andrews, G Ala. App. 275, 
60 S. 592; Boden V. S., 3 Ala. App. 199, 
58 S. 72; St. Louis, L M. & S. B. Co. 
V, Brown (Ark.), 169 S. W. 940 (argu- 
ment proper); St. Louis, I. M. & S. B. 
Co. V. Bearden, 107 Ark. 363, 155 S. 
W. 499: McElroy V. S., 106 Ark. 131, 
152 S. W. 1019; St. Louis, etc. B. Co. 
V, Devaney, 98 Ark. 83, 135 S. W. 802; 
P. V. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411; P. v. Guar- 
agna, 23 Cal. App. 120, 137 P. 279; 
P. i?. Stein, 23 Cal. App. 108, 137 P. 271; 
Wechter v. P., 53 Colo. 89, 124 P. 183; 
Colorado & S. B. Co. t?. Chiles, 50 Colo. 
191, 114 P. 661; Mitchum t?. S., 11 Ga. 
615, 616; Pelham & H. B. Co. v, Elliott, 
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062; S. v. 
O'Neil, 24 Ida. 582, 135 P. 60; P. V. 
Melnick, 263 lU. 24, 104 N. E. 1111; 
Appel V. B. Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. E. 
1021; Herricks v, Chicago & E. I. B. 
Co., 257 lU. 264, 100 N. E. 897; P. v. 
McCann, 247 111, 130, 170, 93 N. B. 
100; Baggio V. P., 135 111. 533, 26 N. 
E. 377; Lucas v. Pporia & E. By. Co., 
171 111. App. 1; S. <?. Wilson, 157 la. 
698, 141 N. W. 337; Bean v. Kinseder 
(Kan.), 135 P. 1180; S. v, Alexander, 
89 Kan. 422, 131 P. 139; S. t?. Com- 
stock, 20 Kan. 650; Boss v, Kohler, 163 
Ky. 583, 174 S. W. 36; Knights of Mac- 
cabees V. Shields, 162 Ky. 392, 172 S. 
W. 696; Bogers v. C, 161 Ky. 754, 171 
S. W. 464; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 
B. Co. V. Martin, 154 Ky. 348, 157 S. W, 



151 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



710; Conley v. Central Kentucky Tract. 
Co., 152 Ky. 764, 154 S. W. 41; Burton 
V. C, 151 Ky. 687, 152 S. W. 545; Chi- 
cago, St. L. & N. O. B. Co. v., Bowell, 
151 Ky. 313, 151 S. W. 950; Kim- 
trough 17. Bank, 150 Ky. 336, 150 8. 
W. 325 (argument proper); Slaughter 
t?. C, 149 Ky. 5, 147 S. W. 751; Allen 
V. C, 145 Ky. 409, 140 S. W. 527; Tur- 
pin V. C, 140 Ky. 294, 130 S. W. 1086, 
140 Am. St. 378, 30 L. B. A. (N, S.) 
794; Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v, Du- 
ganics (Ky.), 113 S. W. 128; Hous- 
man <?. C, 128 Ky. 818, 110 S. W. 23d; 
Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Crow, 32 Ky. 
L. B. 1145, 107 S. W. 807; Citizens' 
M. F. Ins. Co. V. Bridge Co., 116 Md. 
422, 82 A. 372; Scofield v, Clarke, 179 
Mich. 681, 146 N. W. 377, 388; Morri- 
son 17. Carpenter, 179 Mich. 207, 146 
N. W. 106; P. 17, Huff, 173 Mich. 620, 
139 N. W. 1033; P. v, Montague, 71 
Mich. 447, 39 N. W. 585; P. v. Aiken, 
66 Mich. 460, 33 N. W. 821, 11 Am. St. 
512; Evans 17. S., 98 Miss. 697, 54 S. 
154, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 257; Martin 17. 
S., 63 JVIiss. 505, 56 Am. Bep. 813; S. 17. 
Harrison (Mo.), 174 S. W. 57; S. 17. 
Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 S. W. 795; 
S. 17. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 S. W. 316, 
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 191 (referring to claim 
of accused, that be bought cyanide to 
kill dogs, counsel's remark that he had 
the name and genealogy of every dog 
killed in the community was improper) ; 
S. 17. Woolard, 111 Mo. 248, 20 S. W. 
27; S. 17. Leaver, 171 Mo. App. 371, 157 
S. W. 821; Haake 17. BuUe Mill. Co., 168 
Mo. App. 177, 153 S. W. 74 (duty of 
court to keep counsel within record); 
S. 17. Beilly, 4 Mo. App. 392; Leete 17. 
Southern Pac. Co. (Nov.), 139 P. 29; 
Beckley 17. Alexander (N. H.), 90 4- 
878 (where the jury took a view, re- 
marks of counsel that plaintiff's claim 
that the automobile was out of the 
traveled part of the road was untrue is 
legitimate); Kambour 17. Boston & M. 
B., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A. 624 (but it is 
proper to ask the jury to find this was 
what the evidence proved); Tucker i?. 
Henniker, 41 N. H. 317, 325; P. 17. Mull, 
167 N. T. 247, 60 N. E. 629; P. 17. 
Goldfarb, 152 App. Div. 473, 137 K. 
Y. S. 284; S. 17. Bodgers (N. C), 83 
S. E. 161; S. 17. Lane, 166 N. C. 333, 81 
S. E. 620; S. 17. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 
132 N. W. 149; Morris 17. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 
241, 131 P. 731, 735; Morgan r. S., 9 
Okla. Cr. 22, 130 P. 522; Ostendorf 17. 
S., 8 Okla. Cr. 360, 128 P. 143; Watson 
17. S., 7 Okla. Or. 590, 124 P. 1101; 



Mulkey i?. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 75, 113 P. 
532; Cox v. Ter., 2 Okla. Cr. 668, 104 
P. 378; Zimmerle i?. Childers, 67 Or. 
466, 136 P. 349; 8. 17. Hatcher, 29 Or. 
309, 44 P. 584; C. v. Shoemaker, 240 
Pa. 255, 87 A. 684; S. 17. Davis, 88 S. C. 
229, 70 S. E. 811, 34 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
295; S. 17. Duncan, 86 S, 0. 370, 68 S. 
E. 684, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1016; Brew- 
ster 17. Miller, 31 S. D. 613, 141 N. W. 
778; Johnson 17. S., 125 Tenn. 420, 143 
S. W. 1134, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 261 (coun- 
sel said witnesses for the state would 
be able to remember better having tes- 
tified before the grand jury. On ob- 
jection such fact was not in evidence, 
he read the memorandum on the in- 
dictment which was not in evidence, 
held reversible error); Northington v. 
S., 14 Lea (Tenn.), 424; Bodkins 17. 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 216; Gusman v. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. W. 770; Carter v. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W. 739; Smith 17. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 522; Stanfield 
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 165 S. W. 216; Cooper 
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 163 S. W. 424; Bradley 
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 515; Millner 
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 162 S. W. 348; Dunn 
17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 161 S. W. 467; Mc- 
Gregor 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 711; 
Sylvas 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 906 
(''that J. 0. testified to the same facts 
in the examining trial as he did in 
this trial" should not be stated); Bob- 
erts 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. W. 627; 
Thompson 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 
181; aayton 17. S. (Tex. Or.), 149 S. 
W. 119; Johnson 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 
S. W. 328; Williams v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
148 S. W. 306; Washington 17. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 147 S. W. 276 (in which prosecu- 
tion asked accused to put on blood 
stained clothes he wore at time of crime 
but on objection of counsel he was 
told he need not do so. The prosecut- 
ing attorney pointing at accused said 
to accused he declined to put them on 
because of superstitutious fear. Held 
the argument making it to appear to 
have been the voluntary refusal of ac- 
cused to don clothes was not without 
the record); Knight 17. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
147 S. W. 268; Majors 17. S., 63 Tex. 
Cr. 488, 140 S. W. 1095; Johnson 17. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 138 S. W. 1021; Hutcherson 
17. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 1, 136 S. W. 53; Bur- 
nam 17. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 616, 135 S. W. 
1175; Kirksey 17. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 298, 
135 S. W. 124; Clements t?. S., 61 Tex. 
Cr. 161, 134 S. W. 728; Boss 17. S., 61 
Tex. Cr. 12, 133 S. W. 688jSmith v. S., 
44 Tex. Cr. 147, 68 S. W, 995j PU 



153 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



Worth & J>. C. B. Co. V, Firestone 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. fil9; Texarkana 
& Ft, S. R. Co. 17. TerreU (Tex. Civ.), 
172 8. W. 742; American Express Co. 
V. Parcarello (Tex. Civ.), 162 8. W. 
926; Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Suitor 
(Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 185, 191; Ft. 
Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Wininger (Tex. 
CHv.), 151 8. W. 686, -594; Kansas City 
etc. B. Co. V. West (Tex. Civ.), 149 
a W. 206; Western Union Tel. Co. 1?. 
Bay (Tex. Civ.), 147 8. W. 1194; Moss 
c. Slack (Tex. Civ.), 141 8. W. 1068; 
Kansas City, etc. B. Co. v, Bigham 
(Tex. Civ.), 138 8. W. 432; Gulf, etc. 

B. Co. V, Dooley (Tex. Civ.), 131 8. W. 
831; Hardy v. 8. (Tex. App.), 13 8. 
W. 1008; Bryson v. 8., 20 Tex. App. 
566; 8. V. Coyle, 41 Utah 320, 126 P. 
305; Padden v. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316, 
89 A. 351; In re Bean's Will, 85 Vt. 452, 
82 A. 734; Norfolk-8. B. Co. v. Tom- 
linson, 116 Va. 153, 81 8. E. 89; Mul- 
lins V. C, 113 Va. 787, 76 8. B. 193; 
Brown v, Swineford, 44 Wis. 282, 28 
Am. Bep. 582. See Couch v. &., 6 
Ala. App. 43, 40 8. 539; 8. i;. Dwyer, 133 
La. 731, 63 8. 305; Wilson i?. 8., 41 Tex. 
Or. 179, 53 8. W. 122, and notes in 46 
Ii. B. A. 658; 9 Am. St. 559. 

Bnle applies to prosecuting attorney. 
P. 17. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143 P. 
803; P. V. Stilwell, 81 Misc. 456, 142 
N. Y. 8. 628. 

Stating A material fact not in the rec- 
ord but pertinent to the issue is rever- 
sible error. St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B. 
Co. V, Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. W. 
698. 

B«iiiark8 must be wilful to warrant a 
reversal. P. v. R^ef, 14 Cal. App. 576, 
619, 114 P. 48; P. v. Ye Foo, 4 Cal. 
App. 730, 89 P. 450. 
Statement must be made aa a fact, 
either by direct statement or innuendo, 
to warrant reversal. P. v. Buef, 14 
' Cal. App. 576, 619, 114 P. 48. 

Consent to comments on facts not in 
evidence will cure the error in a strong 
rase. Scarborough v, 8., 46 Ga. 26. 
820-98 P. V. Fleming, 166 Cal. 357, 
136 P. 291, 303, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 881; 
HolHday & Wyon Co. v, O'Donnell, 54 
Ind. App. 95, 101 N. E. 642; ChUders v. 

C, 161 Ky. 440, 171 8. W. 149; P. v. 
Bollman, 178 Mich. 159, 144 N. W. 537; 
8. r. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 8. W. 622 
(telling what a "crowd of witnesses" 
would have testified to had not the 
court stopped us); Johnson v, 8. (Tex. 
Cr*), 167 8. W. 733; Bradley t?. 8. (Tex. 



Or.), 162 8. W. 615; Yates f?. 8. (Tex. 
O.), 152 8. W. 1064; Johnson r. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 138 S. W. 1021; First Nat. 
Bank v, Harkrider (Tex. Civ.), 157 8. 
W. 290. See notes in 46 L. B. A. 661. 
621-99 Stanfield v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
165 8. W. 216; Millner v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
162 8. W. 348. 

821-1 Birmingham, etc. Co. 17. Bren- 
nen, 175 Ala. 338, 57 8. 876, Ann. Cas. 
3014C, 1037 (in which counsel said I 
know defendant's counsel. If he were 
on the jury he would find for the plain- 
tiflf); Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Holland, 
173 Ala. 675, 55 8. 1001; Alabama Fuel 
Sb Iron C!o. v, Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 
644, 66 8. 942; Longer v. Beakley, 106 
Ark. 213, 153 8. W. 811; St. Louis, I. 
M. ft 8. B. Co. V. Earle, 103 Ark. 356, 
146 8. W. 520; P. v, Mitchell, 62 Cal. 
411; Mitchum v. 8., 11 Ga. 615; Cofield 
V, 8., 14 Ga. App. 813, 82 S. E. 355; 
Parker v. 8., 11 Ga. App. 251, 75 8. 
E. 437 (in criminal seduction ease, to 
ask conviction that child may have 
name and be protected is improper); 
P. V. Scott, 261 Dl. 165, 103 N. E. 617; 
Angelos i?. Pelias, 150 HI. App. 527; 
Cedar Bapids Nat. Bank v. Carlson, 156 
la. 343, 136 N. W. 659; May t?. C, 153 
Ky. 141, 154 S. W. 1074; Maryland & 
P. B. Co. V. Knight, 122 Md. 576, 89 A. 
1091 (reference to good character of 
client); Taylor v. Metropolitan St. By. 
Co., 256 Mo. 191, 165 S. W. 327; 8. v. 
Dipley, 242 Mo. 461, 147 8. W. Ill; 
8. t?. Leaver, 171 Mo. App. 371, 157 S. 
W. 821; Fields v. Metropolitan St. B. 
Co., 169 Mo. App. 624, 155 8. W. 
845; O'Donnell V, McElroy, 157 Mo. 
4pp. 547, 138 S. W. 674 (that defend- 
ant 's counsel dropped the case) ; Tucker 
V. Henniker, 41 N, H. 317; St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. By. Co. V, O'Connor, 43 
Okla. 268, 142 P. 1111; Daniels r. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 707; Harwell v, 
S. (Tex. Cr.), .160 8. W. 378; Liuer t?. 
S., 70 Tex. Cr. 75, 166 8. W. 211; Grimes 
V, S., 64 Tex. Cr. 64, 141 8. W. 261; 
Davis r. 8., 64 Tex. Cr. 8, 141 S. W. 
264; American Express Co. v, Parcar- 
ello (Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926; Gulf, T. 
ft W. B. Co. V. Culver (Tex. Civ.), 168 
S. W. 614; Western Union Tel. Ce. v. 
Vickery (Tex. Civ.), 158 S. W. 792; 
Brailaford v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 
641; Quinn v. Dickinson (Tex. Civ.), 
146 8. W. 993; Chicago, etc. B. Co. v, 
Goodrich (Tex. Civ.), 136 8. W. 81; 
Evart i;. Dalrymple (Tex. Civ.), 131 8. 
W. 223; Padden v, McKinney, 87 Vt. 
316, 89 A. 351; Lemons v, Harris, 115 



153 



.MMm 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



Va. 809, 80 8. E. 740 (reference to an 
irrelevant code section calculated to 
mislead is improper); Brown v. Swine- 
ford, 44 Wis. 282, 28 Am. Bep. 582. 
Landing client's bnsiness not improper. 
Northcntt v. Springfield Omshed Stone 
Co., 178 Mo. App. 38», 162 S. W. 747. 
Where negligence is admitted, it is er- 
roneous to refer to it. Taylor v, Spo- 
kane, P. ft 8. B. Co., 72 Wash. 378, 130 
P. 506. 

821-2 Reference to cost of prosecur 
tion, although of doubtful propriety, is 
not reversible error. Calico v, C, 145 
Ky. 641, 140 S. W. 1036. 

821-3 S. V. Harrison (Mo.),. 174 S. 
W. 67. 

822-4 St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. Brown 
(Ark.), 169 S. W. 940; Turner v. Lov- 
ington Coal Min. Co., 156 HI. App. 60; 
Vandalia C. Co. v. Price, 178 Ind. 546, 
97 N. E. 429 (even though there is some 
evidence to this effect); Worden Lum- 
ber & Shingle Co. v, Minneapolis, St. 
P. & S. S. M. B. Co., 168 Mich. 74, 
133 N. W. 949; Horner V. Franklin, 186 
Mo. App. 434, 171 S. W. 568; Pitz- 
gibbons v, Schenectady B. Co., 160 App. 
Div. 66, 145 N. Y. S. 401; Haigh v. 
Elevator Co., 123 App. Div. 376, 107 N. 
Y. S. 936; Shawnee v. Sparks, 26 Okla. 
665, 110 P. 884; Zimmerle v. Childers, 
67 Or. 465, 136 P. 349; Tuohy v. Steel 
Co., 61 Or. 527, 122 P. 36; Brown v, 
Scranton, 231 Fa. 593, 80 A. 1113; 
Horsf ord v. Glass Co., 92 S. C. 236, 75 
S. E. 533, 542; Gordon Jones Co. i;. 
Lopez (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 98f. See 
note in Ann. Cas. 19 14 A, 951. 
823-6 Boster v, Chicago, M. ft St. P. 
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 158 S. W. 440; Gra- 
ham V, B. Co., 71 Or. 477, 142 P. 774. 
823-8 Dupuy i;. Wright, 7 Ala. App. 
238, 60 S. 997; Houston Chronicle Pub. 
Co. V. McDavid (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
467. 

823-12 Goldman v, Wolff, 6 Mo. App. 
490. 

823-13 Lake Erie ft W. B. Co. v. 
Huffman, 177 Ind. 126, 97 N. E. 434 
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1272, disagreement of 
former jury. 

823-14 P. V, Melnick, 263 HI. 24, 
104 N. E. 1111; S. V. Matheson, 142 la. 

414, 120 N. W. 1036, 134 Am. St. 426; 
S. V. Clanser, 72 la. 302, 33 N. W. 686; 
Whit V, S., 87 Miss. 564, 40 S. E. 324, 
112 Am, St. 460 (reference to reversal 
of appeal); Lamar v, S., 65 Miss. 93, 
3 S. 78; C. V. Martin, 47 Pa. Super. 



346; Eads t?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 170 S. W. 
145; Kirksey v. S., 58 Tex. Cr. 188, 125 
S. W. 15; Johnson v, 8., 42 Tex. Cr. 
298, 59 S. W. 898; Bichardson v. S., 33 
Tex. Cr. 518, 27 S. W. 139; PuUer v. 
S., 30 Tex. App. 559, 17 S. W. 1108; 
Moore v, S., 21 Tex. App. 666, 2 S. W. 
887; 9ouse i;. S., 9 Tex. App. 567; Hatch 
V, S., 8 Tex. App. 416, 34 Am. Bep. 751, 
reference to reversal of judgment of 
conviction on a technicality although 
reprimanded. See also vol. 2, p. 761, n. 
51, and notes in 38 L. B. A. (K. 8.) 
1130, and 9 Am. St. 567. 
li conviction appears on the record 
reference thereto may be made. S. v. 
Valure, 95 la. 401, 64 N. W. 280; P. v. 
Campbell, 173 Mich. 381, 139 N. W. 
24; P. i;. Yund, 163 Mich. 504, 128 N. 
W. 742; P. i;. Kindra, 102 Mich. 147, 
60 N. W. 458. 

Even if in response to a statement of 
opposing counsel that no case could 
be found convicting a man under such 
a statement of facts, a reference to a 
former conviction is improper. Brewer 
V, C, 11 Ky. L. Bep. 601, 12 S. W. 
672. 

824-17 Stewart v, U. S., 211 Fed. 41, 
127 C. C. A. 477 . (conviction of acces- 
sory); Willyard t?. S., 72 Ark. 138, 78 
S. W. 765; Louisville ft N. B. Co. v. 
Payne, 138 Ky. 274, 127 S. W. 993, 
Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1291; Murphy's Sxr. 
V, Hoagland, 32 Ky. L. B. 839, 107 8. 
W. 303; Magness v. S., 103 Miss. 30, 
60 S. 8. 

In a will conteet, a reference to the 
admission to probate of the will and a 
statement that it would be presump- 
tuous in the jury to decide otherwise, 
constitute reversible error. Wads- 
worth f?. Purdy, 31 O. C. C. 110. 

824-18 Bome 17. Harris, 12 Ga. App. 
756, 78 S. E. 475; Louisville, etc. B. 
Co. V. Brown (Ky.), 113 S. W. 465; 
Fadden v. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316, 89 A. 
351, reference to result of divorce ac- 
tion between parties to action for 
breaking and entering house. 

824-19 Cross v. S., 68 Ala. 476; 
Bhodes v. C, 21 Ky. L. B. 1076, 54 S. 
W. 184; Duncan v. C, 13 Ky. L. R. 
195, 16 S. W. 584; Berry v. S. (Miss.), 
22 S. 826; S. f>. Corpening, 157 N. C. 
621, 73 S. E. 214, 38 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
1130; S. i\ Blodgett, 50 Or. 329, 92 P. 
820; Bodriguez i;. S., 68 Tex. Cr. 275, 
125 S. W. 403. 

824-20 See notes in 9 Am. St. 569, 
and 46 L. B. A. 670. 



154 



ahovments 



Vol 2 



fief erence to power of apptilftto court 

to reverse or reduce the verdict is im- 
proper. Landro v. Great Northern B. 
Co., 117 Minn. 306, 135 N. W. 991, Ann. 
Cas. 1913D, 244. 

824-23 Griffin v. 8., 90 Ala. 596, 8 S. 
670; Barney v, S., 5 Ala. App. 302, 57 
S. 598; Boden v. S., 3 Ala. App. 193, 
58 8. 74; Ferguson & Wheeler, etc. Co. 
f?. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 S. W. 628; 
St. Louifl, etc. B. Co. v. Leflar, 104 Ark. 
528, 149 8. W. 530; Bhea v. 8., 104 Ark. 
162, 147 8. W. 463, 473; 8. V. Cabaudo, 
83 Conn. 160, 76 A. 42; Woodward v. 
U. S., 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 323, 333; 
Price r. 8., 137 Ga. 71, 72 8. E. 908; 
8. r. Haverly, 4 Ida. 484, 42 P. 506; 
Ochs V, P., 124 m. 399, 16 N. E. 662; 
Spenler c. Turley, 158 111. App. 146; 
Weinlander v. Volkman, 153 111. App. 
137; Adams t?. 8., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E. 
483; Cvitanovich v. Bromberg (la.), 151 
N. W. 1073; Maine r. Bittenmeyer 
(la.), 151 N. W. 499; 8. t?. Cleary, 97 
la. 413, 66 N. W. 724; 8. V. Hutchin- 
son, 95 la. 566, 64 N. W. 610; 8. t?. 
Potts, 83 la. 317, 49 N. W. 845; Evans 
C. Wks. r. Ball, 159 Ky. 399, 167 8. W. 
390; May v, C, 153 Ky. 141, 154 S. 
W. 1074; Kalamazoo v, Standard Paper 
Co. (Mich.), 148 N. W. 743; P. t?. 
Singer, 174 Mich. 361, 140 N. W. 522; 
P. r. Smith, 106 Mich. 431, 64 N. W. 
200; Gibson V. Iowa Cent. B. Co., 115 
Minn. 147, 131 N. W. 1057; 8. <?. 
Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, 5 8. W. 257; Con- 
necticut Fire Ins. Co. v, Chester, P. & 
S. G. B. Co., 171 Mo. App. 70, 153 S. 
W. 544; S. t?. Knotts (N. C), 83 8. E. 
972; S r. Hill, 114 N. C. 780, 18 8. E. 
971; S. V. Underwood, 77 N. C. 502; 
Jenkins t. North Carolina O. D. Co., 
65 N. C. 563; Champion l?. 8., 9 O. C. 
C, 627; Star v. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 210, 131 
P. 542; Eakins V, S., 7 Okla. Cr. 351, 
123 P. 1035; 8. v. Hilton, 87 8. C. 434, 
69 S. E. 1077, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1057; 
McHenry r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 173 S. W. 
1020; Gonzales v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 171 S. 
W. 1149; Dickson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 
8. W. 862; Gatlin v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 163, 
8. W. 428: Holmes v. S., 70 Tex. Cr. 
214, 156 8. W. 1172; Maxwell t?. S. 
(Tex. Ct.), 153 8. W. 324; Lubbock r. 
8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 8. W. 258; Campbell 
r 8.. 62 Tex. Cr. 561, 138 S. W. 607; 
Wright r. S., 60 Tex. Cr. 385, 131 8. W. 
1070; Hilcher 17. 8., 60 Tex. Or. 180, 
131 S. W. 592; Brantly t?. 8., 42 Tex. 
Cr. 293, 59 8. W. 892; Barkman v. 8., 
41 Tex. Cr. 105, 52 8. W. 73; Bay v, 
8.| 35 Tex. (?r. 354^ 33 8. W. 869; Chalk 



V, 8., 35 Tex. Cr. 116, 32 8. W. 534;. 
Washington v. 8., 35 Tex. Cr. 154, 32 
S. W. 693; Sinclair r. S., 35 Tex. Cr. 
J 30, 32 S. W. 531; Norrls v. S., 32 Tex. 
Cr. 172, 22 8. W. 592; Heidenheimer v, 
Thomas, 63 Tex. 287; Funk v. House 
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 481; Internation- 
al & G. N. B. Co. V. Davison (Tex. Civ.), 
138 S. W. 1162; Western Union Tel. 
Co. V, Sloss, 45 Tex. Civ. 153, 100 8. 
W. 354; International & G. N. B. Co. 
V. Goswick (Tex. Civ.), 83 8. W. 423; 
Williams v. S., 24 Tex. App. 32, 5 8. W. 
658; Fadden v. McKinney, 87 Vt. 316, 
89 A. 351; Bea t\ Harrington, 58 Vt. 
181, 2 Atl. 475 56 Am. Bep. 561; S. V. 
Conroy (Wash.), 144 P. 538; Cranford 
V. O'Shea, 75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486. 
See 8. V. Wilson, 157 la. 698. 141 N. 
W. 337; P. V. Swift, 172 Mich. 473, 138 
N. W. 662. But see P. v. McCann, 247 
HL 130, 170, 93 N. E. 100; S. t\ Hatcher, 
29 Or. 309, 44 P. 584. 

Argning facts not in evidence is not 
permissible even though in reply. P. 
V. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 411; Campbell v. 
P., 109 HI. 565, 50 Am. Bep. 621; Till- 
ery v, 8., 24 Tex. App. 251, 5 8. W. 
842, 5 Am. St. 882. 

Where the argmnent prOYoking the re- 
ply l8 not set out in the record, it will 
be assumed the reply was appropriate. 
But if set out, the propriety of the re- 
ply will be considered. Evans Chemi- 
cal Wks. V. Ball, 159 Ky. 399, 167 S. 
W. 390. 

827-27 Comp. P. v. Boyd, 174 Mich. 
321, 140 N. W. 475; Calkins v. S., 18 
0. St. 366, 98 Am. Dec. 121. 

828-34 C. tJ. Nye, 240 Pa. 359, 87 
A. 585; Burrell t;. S., 62 Tex. Cr. 635, 
138 8. W. 707; Campbell t?. 8., 62 Tex. 
Cr. 561, .138 8. W. 607. See note in 
Ann. Cas. 1912C, 818. 
828-35 To refuse to Instruct as to 
improper argument is reversible error. 
Dupuy V, Wright, 7 Ala. App. 238, 60 
S: 997. 

Instruction to disregard permissible in- 
ferences, although there is no evidence 
as to the inference itself is error, but 
the court may tell the jury there is no 
evidence on the point. S. v. Lee, 166 
N. C. 250, 80 S. E. 977, 

829-37 Tucker t\ 8., 167 Ala. 1, 52 
8. 464; Garrison v. Wilcoxson, 11 Ga. 
154; Zilke v. Johnson, 22 N. D. 75, 132 
N. W. 640, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1005; S. 
V, Gutterman, 20 N. D. 432, 128 N. W. 
307, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 816; C. v, Poli- 
chinuB, 229 Pa. 311, 78 A. 382; Chap- 



155 



Vol. 2 



AkOVMENTa 



man v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S. W. 580; P. 
V. Hite, 8 Utah 461, 33 P. 254; S. v. 
Ward, 61 Vt. 163, 17 A. 483. See note 
to Ann. Cas. 1912C, 817. 

829-38 EidgeU i?. S., 1 Ala. App. 94, 
65 S. 327. Comp. Illinoia Cent. E. Co. 
r. Weinstein, 99 Miss. 515, 55 S. 48. 
829-39 Carlisle v. U. S., 194 Fed. 827, 
114 C. C" A. 531; Higgina t?. U. S., 185 
Fed. 710, 108 C. C. A. 48; Birmingham 
By., L. & P. Co. V. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 
273, 61 8. 80; Nashville, C. & St. L. 
B. Co. V. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237, 62 8. 889; 
Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v, Benenante, 
11 Ala. App. 644, 66 S. 942; Louisville 
& N. B. Co. V. Mason, 10 Ala. App. 263, 

64 S. 154; P. t?. Fleming, 166 Cal. 357, 
136 P. 291.. Ann. Cas. 1915B, 881; P. 
r. Stein, 23 Cal. App. 108, 137 P. 271 
(citing many local cases); P. v. Kizer, 
22 Cal. 10, 133 P. 516, 521, 134 P. 346; 
P. r. Buef, 14 Cal. App. 576, 114 P. 48; 
P. V, Yee Foo, 4 Cal. App. 730, 89 P. 
450; WiUingham r. 8., 21 Fla. 761; 
Kearney t?. 8., 101 Ga. 803, 29 8. E. 127, 

65 Am. St. 344; Wheeless c. S., 92 Ga. 
19, 18 S. E. 303; Von Pollnitz v. S., 
92 Ga. 16, 18 8. E, 301, 44 Am. St. 
72; Young i\ 8., 65 Ga. 525; Veasey v. 
8., 6 Ga. App. 208, 64 8. E. 709; Kingan 
& Co. t?. King, 179 Ind. 285, 100 N. E. 
1044; Ellis f?. Barkley, 160 la. 658, 142 
N. W. 203; Lawrence t?. Board of Coun- 
cilmen, 162 Ky. 528, 172 8. W. 953; 
Wright I?. C, 155 Ky. 750, 160 8. W. 
476; May t?. C, 153 Ky. 141, 154 8. W. 
1074; Blanton f?. C, 147 Ky. 812, 146 
S. W. 10; 8. tJ. Hall, 44 La. Ann. 976, 
11 8. 574; 8. t?. Watson, 63 Me. 128; 
8. r. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 8. W. 
4; 8. 17. Humfeld, 182 Mo. App. 639, 166 
8. W. 331; Sutorius t?. Stalder, 88 Neb. 
843, 130 N. W. 750; Hanks t?. 8., 88 Neb. 
464, 129 N. W. 1011; 8. <?. Parker, 84 
N. J. L. 417, 86 A. 1103; 8. f?. Parker, 
83 N. J. L. 172, 83 A. 690; 8. v. Lock- 
man, 83 N. J. L. 168, 83 A. 689; 8. v. 
Cameron, 166 N. C. 379, 81 8. E. 748; 
8. r. Moeller, 24 N. D. 165, 138 N. W. 
981; 8. V, Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 132 
N. W. 149; Irvine r. 8., 10 Okla. Cr. 
4, 133 P. 259; Johnson v. 8., 5 Okla. Cr. 
13, 113 P. 552; King v. 8., 91 Tenn. 617, 
20 8. W. 169; Himmelfarb i?. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 174 8. W. 587; Harvey V. 8., 35 
Tex. Or. 545, 562, 34 8. W. 623; Watson 
V. 8., 28 Tex. App. 34, 12 8. W. 404; 
Jackson r. 8., 18 Tex. App. 586; Mason 
f?. 8., 15 Tex. App. 534, 550; Bucker v. 
8., 7 Tex. App. 549; 8. v, Sirmay, 40 
Utah 525, 122 P. 748; S. t?. Cooper (W. 
Ya.), 82 S E. 358. 



Where Intemiptions are fireqtieDt, a 
ruling that counsel shall make all his 
objections at the conclusion of coun- 
sel's argument neither hampers nor 
harms the defendant. P. |7. Ong Git, 
23 Cal. App. 148, 137 P. 283. 

830^0 S. V, Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 
A. 483. 

If remarks are shown to be clearly 
prejudicial, he will not be held to have 
waived the right to object because he 
ffiiled to object at the time. Watson 
V. 8., 28 Tex. App. 34, 12 8. W. 404^ 
Mason f. S., 15 Tex. App. 534. 
830*41 Long tJ. 8., 2 Ala. App. 96, 
57 8. 62 (and jury has retired); 8. r. 
Sinclair, 250 Mo. 278, 157 S. W. 339; 
8. t;. Dgson, 39 Mo. App. 297; Norris 
t\ S., 32 Tex. Cr. 172, 22 8. W. 592. 

830-42 Fuller «. 8., 10 Ga. App. 34, 
72 8. E. 515 (objection during charge 
too late particularly in connection with 
a curative instruction); 8. t?. Glass (N. 
D.), 151 N. W. 229, after submitting 
the case to the jury. 

830-43 Carlisle t?. U. 8., 194 Fed. 
827, 114 C. C. A. 531; S. t?. Latimer, 116 
Mo. 524, 22 8. W. 804; 8. r. Sheets, 
89 N. O. 543; Prey v. Failes, 37 Okla. 
297, 132 P. 342. 

830-44 Young v. S., 65 Ga. 525; 
8. V. Wilson, 157 la. 698, 141 N. W. 
337; Boss v. Kohler, 163 Ky. 583, 174 S. 
W. 36; 8. V. Hobgood, 46 La. Ann. 85fT, 
15 S. 406; 8. r. Hall, 44 La. Ann. 976, 
11 8. 574; Cartwright f. 8., 71 Miss. 88, 
14 8. 526; 8. v. Forsythe, 89 Mo. 667, 

I 8. W. 834; S. t'. Snider, 151 Mo. App. 
699, 132 8. W. 299; S. f?. Suggs, 89 X. 
C. 527; Simmons v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 164 
8. W. 843; Boyce t?. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 374, 
137 8. W. 116; Harvey f?. 8., 35 -Tex, 
Cr. 545, 562, 34 8. W. 623; Watson f?. S., 
28 Tex. App. 34, 12 8. W, 404; Jack- 
son r. 8., 18 Tex. App. 586; Eucker r. 
8., 7 Tex. App. 549. 

830-45 P. r. Eogcrs, 163 Cal. 476, 126 
P. 143; Hardy r. Schirmer, 162 Cal. 272, 
124 P. 993; P. r, Kizer, 22 Cal. App. 
10, 133 P. 516, 521, 134 P. 346; P. r. 
Metzler, 21 Cal. App. 80, 130 P. 1192; 
8. r. Kimes, 152 la. 240, 132 N. W. 180; 
Blanton t?. C, 147 Ky. ^2, 146 8. \V. 
10; 8. f?. Duvall, 135 La. 710, 65 S. 
904; 8. V, Watson, 63 Me. 128; 8. t?. 
Pollard, 14 Mo. App. 583; 8. t?. Abrams, 

II Or. 169, 8 P. 327; Jones t?. S., 33 
Tex. Cr. 7, 23 S. W. 793. 

831-46 Nashville, C." & St. L. R. Co. 
V. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237^ 62 S. 889; Louis- 



166 



AR0UMENT8 



Vol. 2 



Tille r. Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 S. 
W. 672; Edwards v. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 307, 
135 S. W. 540. 

Objection in undertone or in wilting 
commended. See Postal Tel. Cable Co. 
V. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 135 S. W. 1146. 

Immaterial -whether offending comisel 
hears objection. — But see Miracle v. 
C, 148 Kv. 453, 14G S. W. 1136; FarriB 
r. C, 14 Bush (Ky.) 367. 

S32-47 Birmingham Ry., L. ft P. 
Co. V. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 S. 80; 
Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Holland, 173 
Ala. 675, 55 S. 1001; St. Louis, I. M. & 
S. B. Co. V. Brown (Ark.), 169 S. W. 
940; Southern By. Co. t'. Adams, 52 Ind. 
App. 322, 100 N. E. 773; S. v. Cooper 
(la.), 151 N. W. 838 (an objection at 
commencement of argument to each and 
every word of said speech and to the 
vrhole speech, is not sufficient) ; S. v. 
Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 S. W. 4; 
Burns v. United Rys. Co., 176 Mo. App. 
330, 158 S. W. 394; Wack t;. St. Louis, 
I. M. & S. R. Co., 175 Mo. App. Ill, 
157 S. W. 1070; Gentry v. Wabash R. 
Co., 172 Mo. App. 638, 156 S. W. 27; 
Bieflin,'» r. Juede, 165 Mo. App. 216, 147 
fi. W. 168; Torreyson r. Rys. Co., 164 
Mo. App. 366, 145 S. W. 106; Brinkman 
f?. Gottenstroeter, 153 Mo. App. 351, 
134 S. W. 5S4; King v. S., 91 Tenn. 617, 
20 S. W. 169; Crawford r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 
147 S. W. 229; :P^erguson r. Fain (Tex. 
Civ.), 164 S. W. 1040. See note in 7 
Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 231. Comp. 
Hutcherson V, S., 62 Tex. Cr. 1, 136 
S. W. 53. 

832-48 Gentry i?. Wabash R. Co., 
172 Mo. App. 638, 156 S. W. 27; Tor- 
reyson 17. United Rys. Co., 164 Mo. App. 
366, 145 S. W. 106. 

Befosal of court to permit counsel to 
assign reasons is an abuse of discretion. 
Edwards i;. S., 61 Tex. Cr. 307, 135 B. 
W. 540. 

832-49 See Hoskins V. C, 152 Ky. 
805, 154 S. W. 919. 

As to -what relief must be asked for, 
see note in 46 L. R. A. 644. 

832-50 Singh f. S. (Tex. Cr.), 146 
S. W. 891. 

832-51 S. tJ. Harrison (Mo.), 174 S. 
W. 57; S. V. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 
S. W. 622; Schwanenfeldt v. Metropoli- 
tan St. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 174 S. W. 
143. 

832-62 King v. S., 100 Ala. 85, 14 
S. 878; P. V. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 117 
P. 549j P. <?. Shears, 133 Cal. 154, 65 



P. 295; P. 17. Shem Ah Fook, 64 CaL 
380, 1 P 347; P. f?. Warr, 22 Cal. App. 
663, 136 P. 304; P. v. Metzler, 21 Cal. 
App. 80, 130 P. 1192; Wheeless v. S., 92 
Ga. 1§, 18 S. E. 303; Von PoUnitz v. S., 
92 Ga. 16, 44 A. S. R. 72, 18 S. E. 
301; Ozbum V. S., 87 Ga. 173, 13 S. E. 
247; Scarborough v, S., 46 Ga. 26; 
Boone v. P., 148 111. 440, 36 N. E. 99; 
Adams t?. S., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E. 483; 
McPherson v, S., 178 Ind. 583, 99 N. 
B. 984; Robb v. S., 144 Ind. 569, 43 N. 
E. 642; Cromer v. S., 21 Ind. App. 502, 
52 N. E. 239; S. v, Robertson, 133 La. 
806, 63 S. 363; Spencer v. Johnson 
(Mich.), 151 N. W. 684; P. V. McDowell, 
63 Mich. 229, 30 N. W. 68; P. i?. Haley, 
48 Mich. 495, 12 N. W. 671; S. v. Fre- 
Hnghuysen, 43 Minn. 265, 45 N. W. 432; 
S. V. Taylor, 98 Mo. 240, 11 S. W. 570; 
Chestnut v. Sales, 44 Mont. 534, 121 P. 
481 (instruction sufficient to comply 
with request); S. V. Biggerstaff, 17 
Mont. 510, 43 P. 709; Bohanan v. S., 18 
Neb. 57, 24 N. W. 390, 53 Am. R. 791; 
P. V. Seidenshner, 210 N. Y. 341, 104 N. 
E. 420; S. V. Davenport, 156 N. C..596, 
72 8. E. 7; 8. V. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 
132 N. W. 149; Irvine v. S., 10 Okla. 
Cr. 4, 133 1*. 259; St. Louis, I. M. & 
S. R. Co. V, 'Connor, 43 Okla. 268, 142 
P. 1111 (and a request to withdraw tho 
remark should be made also); S. v. 
Hawkins, 18 Or. 476, 23 P. 475'; S. f?. 
Abrams, 11 Or. 169, 8 P. 327; C. f?. 
Sushinskie, 242 Pa. 406, 89 A. 564; 
Ickes V. Ickes, 237 Pa. 582, 85 A. 885; 
Crawford v. Rice & Hutchins B. Co., 98 
8. C. 121, 82 S. E. 273; King v, 8.,. 91 
Tenn. 617, 20 3. W. 169; Himmelfarb 
f?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 174 8. W. 687 (citing 
numerous cases); Bodkins v. S. (Tex.^ 
Cr.), 172 S. W. 216; WhitflU f?. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 169 S. W. 681; Smith v. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 168 S. W. 522; Thompson 
V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 163 S. W. 973; Hooper 
V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 160 S. W. 1188; Stew- 
art t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 996; Good- 
win V. 8., 70 Tex. Cr. 600, 158 8. W. 
274; Bogue t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 155 8. W. 
943; Chafino v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W. 
546; Walls v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 153 S. W. 
130; Crutchfleld t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8. 
W. 1053; Collins V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8. 
W. 1047; Kelly r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 151 S. 
W. 304; Love v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 S. 
W. 920; Wren v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. 
W. 440; Warren v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 8. 
W. 130; Clayton v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 149 
8. W. 119 (citing numerous cases); 
Gaines v, S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 717; 
Welch V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 S, W. 572; 



157 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



Williams v. 8. (Tex. dr.), 147 S. W. 
571; Washington v, 8. (Tex. Or.), 14^7 
8. W. 276; Singh <?. 8. (Tex. Or.), 146 
8. W. 890; January v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146 
8. W. 555; Gamble v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146 
8. W. 551; McWhirter I?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
146 8. W. 189; Wells V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
145 8. W. 950; Wrigg f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
145 8. W. 342; Williams i;. 8. (Tex, 
Ct.), 144 8. W. 622; Jones V. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 141 8. W. 953; Owens v, 8., 63 
Tex. Cr. 633, 141 8. W. 530; Majors v. 
8., 63 Tex. Cr. 488, 140 8. W..1095; 
Millican v. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 440, 140 8. 
W. 1136; Hickey v, 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 
668, 138 8. W. 1051; Campbell v. 8., 62 
Tex. Cr. 561, 138 8. W. 607; Diaz v, 
8., 62 Tex. Cr. 317, 137 8. W. 377; 
Edwards v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 307, 136 8. 
W. 540; Florence t?. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 
238, 134 8. W. 689; Turner v. 8., 61 
Tex. Cr. 97, 133 8. W. 1052; Hatchell 
V, 8., 47 Tex. Cr. 380, 84 8. W. 234; 
Gilmore v. 8., 37 Tex. Cr. 178, 39 8. 
W. 105; Wright V. 8., 37 Tex. Cr. 146, 
38 8. W. 1004; Boscow 1?. 8., 33 Tex. 
Cr. 390, 26 8. W. 625; Missouri, K. & 
T. Ey. i). Long (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 
329; Boss 17. Cleveland & 8ons (Tex. 
Civ.), 133 8. W. 315; Bahm v. 8., 30 
Tex. App. 310, 17 8. W. 416, 28 Am. St. 
911; Kennedy v, 8., 19 Tex. App. 618; 
Young V. 8., 19 Tex. App. 536; 8. v. 
Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 A. 483; 8. v. 
Cooper (W. Va.), 82 8. E. 258. See 
Young V, 8., 65 Ga. 525; 8. v, Robert- 
son, 133 La. 806, 63 8. 363. 
It is counsel' 8 duty to request socli 

instruction. — Williams v. 8., 4 Okla. Cr. 
523, 114 P. 1114. 

If argument is proper for a limited 
purpose only, a general objection is in- 
sufficient, the court should be asked to 
limit it to its proper purpose. Brink- 
man V. Gottenstroter, 153 Mo. App. 361, 
134 8. W. 584. 

Save in capital cases. — Johnson v. 8., 
5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113 P. 552; Johnson v. 
U. 8., 2 Okla. Cr. 16, 99 P. 1022. 
832-53 8. V. Finley, 245 Mo. 465, 
150 8. W. 1051; Norris f?. St. Louis, 
1. M. & 8. B. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 
8. W. 783, 790; Torreyson v. United 
Bys. Co., 164 Mo. App. 366, 145 8. W. 
106; 8. I?. Wong Tung Hee, 41 Wash. 
623, 84 P. 596; 8. V. Bailey, 31 Wash. 
89, 71 P. 715. 

832-54 See v. Public Service B. Co., 
82 N. J. L. 144, 81 A. 745. 
Acquiescence in abandonment of argu- 
ment without invoking a ruling of the 



court or asking specific relief is a 
waiver of the objection. Lavender v, 
8., 9 Ga. App. 856, 72 8. E. 437. 

833-60 Lake Erie & W. B. Co. v. 
Huffman, 177 Ind. 126, 97 N. E. 434, 
Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1272; Blume v, 8., 154 
Ind. 343, 56 N. B. 771; Tucker i;. East- 
ridge, 61 Ind. App. 632, 100 N. E. 113; 
8. V, Butler, 258 Mo. 430, 167 8. W. 
509; 8. V, Baftery, 252 Mo. 72, 158 8. 
W. 585; 8. v. Basco, 239 Mo. 635, 144 
8. W. 449, 463. 

833-63 Wolffe t?. Minnis, 74 Ala. 
386; Jackson v. 8., 2 Ala. App. 226, 57 
8. 110; Kiech Mfg. Co. t?. Hopkins, 108 
Ark. 578, 158 8. W. 981; Levi v. 8. 
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 765; 8. v. WUson, 157 
la. 698, 141 N. W. 337; Clark v. 8., 
102 Miss. 768, 59 8. 887 (court should 
sua sponte rebuke counsel in jury's 
presence); Collins v, 8., 100 Miss. 
435, 56 8. 527; Martin v. 8., 63 Miss. 
505, 56 Am. Bep. 812; Gibson 17. Zeibig, 
24 Mo. App. 65; P. v. Pisano, 142 App. 
Div. 524, 127 N. Y. 8. 204; Zimmerle 
V. Childers, 67 Or. 465, 136 P. 349; 8. 
V. Duncan, 86 8. C. 370, 68 8. E. 684, 
Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1016; Whitfill v. 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 169 8. W. 681; Vick v, a 
(Tex. Cr.), 159 8. W. 50; Brailaford 
V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 641; Western 
Union Tel. Co. t?. Vickery (Tex. Civ.), 
158 8. W. 792; Brown t?. Swineford, 44 
Wis. 282, 28 Am. Bep. 582. See Blyston- 
Spencer v. United Bys. Co^ 151 Mo. 
App. 118, 132 8. W. 1176. 

An exception to the f allnre of the court 
to take action is necessary to preserve 
the error. Eiech Mfg. Co. v. Hopkins, 
108 Ark. 578, 158 8. W. 981. 
Gestures and other conduct of counsel 
improperly indulged in must be ob- 
jected to in the same manner. Sher- 
man e, 8., 125 Tenn. 19, 140 8. W. 209. 

833-64 Donaldson v. U. 8., 208 Fed. 
4, 125 C. C. A. 316; Higgins t?. U. S,, 
185 Fed. 710, 108 C. C. A. 48; Cross 
V. 8., 68 Ala. 476; Bidgell v. 8., 1 Ala. 
App. 94, 55 8. 327; P. t?. Lane, 101 
Cal. 513, 36 P. 16; P. v. Metzler, 21 
Cal. App. 80, 130 P. 1192; Torris v. 
P., 19 Colo. 438, 36 P. 153; mink r. 
P., 16 Colo. 467, 27 P. 1062; Von Poll- 
mitz f?. 8., 92 Ga. 16, 18 8. E. 301, 44 
Am. St. 72; Dale v. 8., 88 Ga. 552, 15 
8. E. 287; Ozbum v, 8., 87 Ga. 173, 13 
8. E. 247; Davis v. 8., 33 Ga. 98; Ap- 
pel V, Chicago City B. Co., 259 HI. 561, 
102 N. E. 1021; Boone v. P., 148 111. 
440, 36 N. E. 99; Campbell v. P., 109 
HI. 565, 50 Am. Bep. 621 j Earll r. P., 



163 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



99 m. 123; WilBon v. P., 9^; Dl. 299; 
Sturonois t?. Morris, 177 111. App. 514; 
P. V. Oldfield, 173 lU. App. 655; Hale 
r. Hale, 169 111. App. 272; Coffin v. Chi- 
cago, 159 111. App. 609; Dangerfield v. 
Hope, 157 111. App. 63; Kunkel V. Chi- 
cago Consol. Traction Co., 156 HI. App. 
393; Adams V. S., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E. 
483; Badley v. S., 174 Ind. 645, 92 N. 
£. 541; Hook v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 
51 Ind. App. 628, 99 N. E. 437; Cromer 
f?. S., 21 Ind. App. 502, 52 N. E. 239; 
S. v. Nnsbaum, 52 Kan. 52, 34 P. 407; 
S. f». McCool, 34 Kan. 613, 9 P. 618; 
Louisville 9. Hehemann, 161 Ky. 523, 
171 S. W. 165; Lawson V. C, 152 Ky. 
113, 153 S. W. 56; Burton v, C, 151 
Ky. 587, 152 8. W. 545; Louisville V. 
Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 S. W. 672; 
Idle V. C, 148 Ky. 618, 147 S. W. 381; 
Miracle €. C, 148 Ky. 453, 146 S. W. 
1136; Montgomery t?. Morton, 143 Ky. 
793, 137 S. W. 540; S. V. Duvall, 135 
La. 710, 65 S. 904; 8. t?. Hobgood, 46 
La. Ann. 855, 15 8. 406; 8. v. Jeffer- 
son, 43 La. Ann. 995, 10 8. 199; Habitz 
r. B. Co., 170 Mich. 71, 135 N. W. 827; 
P. t?. Harrison, 93 Mich. 594,. 53 N. W. 
725; Langdon 1?. Minneapolis St. B. Co., 
120 Minn. 6, 138 N. W. 790; Cart- 
wright c. 8., 71 Miss. 82, 14 8. 526; 
S. r. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 8. W. 
622; S. V. Wana, 245 Mo. 558, 150 8. W. 
1065; Stauffer v. Metropolitan 8t. B. 
Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 8. W. 1032; 8. 
V. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 8. W. 4; 
8. V. Groce, 230 Mo. 702, 132 8. W. 
237; 8. V. Welsor, 117 Mo. 570, 21 
8. W. 443; 8. V. Gay, 18 Mont. 61, 44 
P. 411; McMartin V, 8., 95 Neb. 292, 
145 N. W. 695; McLain <?. 8., 18 Neb. 
154, 24 N. W. 720; Bohanan v. 8., 18 
Neb. 57, 24 N. W. 390, 53 Am. Bep. 
791; Bradshaw v. 8., 17 Neb. 147, 22 
N. W. 361; S. V. McMahon, 17 Nev. 
365, 30 P. 1000; P. V. Greenwall, 115 
N. Y. 520, 22 N. E. 180; 8. tJ. Glass 
(N. D.), 151 N. W. 229; 8. V. Knudson, 
21 N. D. 562, 132 N. W. 149; Johnson 
c. 8., 5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113 P. 552; Frey 
r. Failea, 37 Okla. 297, 132 P. 342; 8. 
f?. Hatcher, 29 Or. 309, 44 P. 584; 8. 
r. Hawkins, 18 Or. 476, 23 P. 475; C. 
r. Polichinus, 229 Pa. 311, 78 A. 382; 
C. V, Weber, 167 Pa. 153, 31 A. 481; 
C. t?. 8mith, 2 Pa. 8uper. 474; 8. t?. 
Davis, 88 8. C. 229, 70 8. E. 811, 34 
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 295; 8herman v, 8., 
125 Tenn. 19, 140 8. W. 209; King fj, 
S., 91 Tenn. 617, 20 8. W. 169; How- 
ard r. S., 37 Tex. Cr. 494, 36 8. W. 
475, 66 Am. St. 812; Boseow v. S., 33 



Tex. Cr. 390, 26 8. W. 625) McKinney 
r. 8., 31 Tex. Cr. 583, 21 8. W. 683; 
Southern Kansas B. Co. v. Shinn (Tex. 
Civ.), 153 8. W. 636; 8. v. Cooper (W. 
Va.), 82 8. E. 358; Williams f?. 8., 61 
Wis. 281, 21 N. W. 56. 8ee Hinsman 
V. 8., 14 Ga. App. 481, 81 8. E. 367, 
and note in 7 Am. & Eng. Cas. 229. 
In flagrant cases of abuse, even with- 
out objection, a new trial will be 
granted. Birmingham By., L. Sb P. Co. 
17. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 8. 80; 
Whaley v. Vanatta, 77 Ark. 238, 91 8. 
W. 191, 7 Ann. Cas. 231; P. v. Kizer, 
22 Cal. App. 10, 133 P. 516, 521, 134 
P. 346; Klink v. People, 16 Colo. 467, 27 
P. 1062; McMartin v, 8., 95 Neb. 292, 
145 N. W. 695; Clark v. 8., 79 Neb. 
482, 113 N. W. 804; Cranford v. O'Shea, 
75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486. See nolo 7 
Am. & Eng. Cas. 231. The final test 
determining whether the argument is 
of such character, is, can the prejudicial 
tendency or effect of the improper state- 
ment be counteracted by appropriate in-^ 
atruction by the trial court, or is it 
probably beyond the reach of such 
remedial action. Birmingham By., L. 
& P. Co. €. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 
8. 80. 

Unless tliere be a motfon to strike the 
argument or an instruction asked charg- 
ing the jury to disregard the remark, 
no error can be founded on such re- 
mark. 8. i;. Smails, 63 Wash. 172, 115 
P. 82; Taylor V. Modern Woodmen, 42 
Wash. 304, 84 P. 867; 8. <?. Wong Tung 
Hee, 41 Wash. 623, 84 P. 596; 8. v. 
Van Waters, 36 Wash. 358, 78 P. 897; 
8. V, Bailey, 31 Wash. 89, 71 P. 715; 
8. V. Began, 8 Wash. 506, 36 P. 472. 
835-65 Higgins v. U. 8., 185 Ped. 
710, 108 C. C. A. 48: Nuckols V. a, 109 
Ala. 2, 19 8. 504; Cross t?. 8., 68 Ala. 
476; Belk v. 8., 10 Ala. App. 70, 64 
8. 515; Bidgell v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 94, 
55 8. 327; St. Louis, 1. M. & S. B^ i\ 
Brown, 100 Ark. 107, 140 8. W. 279; 
P. V, Amer, 151 Cal. 303, 90 P. 698; 
P. V. Shem Ah Fook, 64 Cal. 380, 1 P. 
347; P. V. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143 
P. 803; Appel v. Chicago City B. Co., 
259 111. 561, 102 N. E. 1021; Bulliner 
t?. P., 95 m. 394; Hale v. Hale, 169 111. 
App. 272; Dangcrfleld f?. Hope, 157 111. 
App. 63; Kunkel <?. Chicago Consol. 
Tract. Co., 156 HI. App. 393; Hamilton, 
Harris & Co. v. Larrimer (lAd.), 105 
N. E. 43; Badley v. 8., 174 Ind. 645, 92 
N. E. 541; Gillooley v, 8., 58 Ind. 182; 
Houk r. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 51 Ind. 
App. 628, 99 N. E. 437; Louisville r. 



1(^9 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 8. W. 672; 
Montgomery v, Morton, 143 Ky. 793, 
137 S. W. 540; S. v, Jefferson, 43 La. 
Ann. 995, 10 S. 199; Langdon V. Min- 
neapolis St. B. Co., 120 Minn. 6, 138 
N. W. 790; S. v. Wellman, 253 Mo. 
302, 161 S. W. 795; S. v. Wana, 245 
Mo. 558, 150 S. W. 1065; S. v. Dudley, 
245 Mo. 177, 149 S. W. 449; Stauffer 
f?. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 243 Mo. 
305, 147 S. W. 1032; S. v. Thompson, 
132 Mo. 301, 34 S. W. 31; S. r. Wil- 
liams, 121 Mo. 399, 26 S. W. 339; 
Downs t?. Eacine-Sattley Co., 175 Mo. 
App. 382, 162 S. W. 331; Torreyson v. 
United Bys. Co., 164 Mo. App. 366, 145 
S. W. 106; McMartin V, S., 95 Neb. 
292, 145 N. W. 695; Hill V. S., 42 Neb. 
503, 60 N. W. 916; Lee v. Dow, 78 
N. H. 101, 59 A. 374; P. v, Hartigan, 
210 N. Y. 144, 103 N. E. 1118; P. V. 
Brooks, 131 N. T. 321, 30 N. E. 189; 
S. t?. Knudson, 21 N. D. 562, 132 N. W. 
149; Johnson t?. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 13, 113 
P. 552; Prey t?. Failes, 37 Okla. 297, 
132 P. 342; S. v. Hatcher, 29 Or. 309, 
44 P. 584; C. V, Polichinus, 229 Pa. 311, 
78 A. 382; S. f?. Papa, 32 B. I. 453, 
80 A. 12; Sherman t?. S., 125 Tenn. 19, 
140 S. W. 209;, Clayton v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 149 S. W. 119; Steinhauser i\ S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 48 S. W. 506; Boscow v, S., 
33 Tex. Cr. 390, 26 S. W. 625; 8. v. 
Conroy (Wash.), 144 P. 538; Williams 
17. S., 61 Wis. 281, 21 N. W. 56; Pull- 
man Co. T. Finley, 20 Wyo. 456, 125 
P. 380. See Douglas v, S., 21 Ind. 
App. 302, 52 N. E. 238; S. v. Hatcher, 
29 Or. 309, 44 P. 584; and note in 7 
Am. & Eng. Cas. 229, also 46 L. B. A. 
645, note IV. 

Billing on objection to argument neces- 
sary. — ^Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. v. 
Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 S. 80; Wal- 
drip V. Grisham, 112 Ark. 57, 164 S. W. 
1133; Ter. t?. Collins, 6 Dak. 234, 50 N. 
W.*122; Willingham v. S., 21 Fla. 761; 
Appel V, Chicago City B. Co., 259 111. 
561, 102 N. E. 1021; S. v, Nusbaum, 52 
Kan. 52, 34 P. 407; Wright t?. C, 155 
Ky. 750, 160 S. W. 476; Louisville v. 
Bridwell, 150 Ky. 589, 150 S. W. 672; 
Eberts i?. Mount Clemens Sugar Co. 
(Mich.), 148 N. W. 810; P. v. Singer, 
174 Mich. 361, 140 N. W. 522; Town- 
ship of Deep Biver v. Van Antwerp, 
174 Mich. 19, 140 N. W. 531; Freeman 
V. Shaw, 173 Mich. 262, 139 N. W. 66; 
Close 17. B. Co., 169 Mich. 392, 135 K. 
W. 346; Crane v. Boss, 168 Mich. 623, 
135 N. W. 83; P. v. Sartori, 168 Mich. 
308, 134 N. W. 200; Stauffer V. Metro- 



politan St. B. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 
S. W. 1032; Bohanan I?. S., 18 Neb. 
57, 24 N. W. 390, 53 Am. Bep. 791; 
McLain v. S., 18 Neb. 154, 24 N. W. 
720; Bradshaw v. S., 17 Neb. 147, 22 
N. W. 361; Cincinnati Gas & Electrie 
Co., 31 O. O. C. 26; Kimm V. Wolters, 
28 S. D. 255, 133 N. W. 277; Othold 
1?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W. 1084. 
835-66 Hale t?. Hale, 169 HL App. 
272: Spencer V, Johnson (Mich.), 151 
N. W. 684; S. V. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 
162 S. W. 622; S. V. Pinley, 245 Mo. 
465, 150 S. W. 1051; S. v, Souva, 234 
Mo. 566, 137 S. W. 873; S. v. Phillips, 
233 Mo. 299, 135 S. W. 4; S. v. Whit- 
sett, 232 Mo. 511, 134 S. W. 555; S. 
V, Humfeld, 182 Mo. App. 639, 166 S. 
W. 33L 

Failure of court to stop conns^ on ob- 
jection when exceeding the bounds of 
legitimate argument is equivalent to a 
ruling that the argument is improper or 
a refusal to tule. Fadden v. McKinney, 
87 Vt. 316, 89 A. 351. 
836-67 Johnston Bros. Co. «. Brent- 
ley, 2 Ala. App. 281, 56 S. 742; Man- 
ning V. S., 13 Ga. App. 709, 79 S. E. 
905; Pelham & H. B. Co. v, Elliott, 
11 Ga. App. 621, 75 S. E. 1062; P. v. 
McCann, 247 HI. 130, 172, 93 N. E. 
100; Marriage v. Electric Coal Co., 176 
111. App. 451;.MothersiU v. Voliva, 158 
111. App. 16; Legru V, Penwell Coal 
Min. Co., 149 HI. App. 555; S. 17. WU- 
son, 157 la. 698, 141 N. W. 337; Huckell 
t>. McCoy, 38 Kan. 53, 15 P. 870; 
Knights of Maccabees 17. Shields, 162 
Ky. 392, 172 6. W. 696; Stroud V. C, 
160 Ky. 503, 169 S. W. 1021; Owens- 
boro Shovel & Tool Co. v. Moore, 154 
Ky. 431, 157 S. W. 1121; Cincinnati, N. 
O. & T. P. B. Co. t?. Martin, 154 Ky. 
348, 157 S. W. 710; Houser t?. Carmody, 
173 Mich. 121, 139 N. W. 9 (court will 
not reverse unless it clearly appears 
such argument was unwarranted by the 
evidence and probably contributed to 
the result); Morrison I?. Carpenter, 179 
Mich. 207, 146 N. W. 106; Hlinois C. 
B. Co. t?, Weinstein, 99 Miss. 515, 55 
S. 48; Collins <?. S., 99 Miss. 52, 54 
S. 666; S. V, Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 
S. W. 622; e. I?. Ferrell, 233 Mo- 452, 
136 S. W. 709; Doster v, Chicago, M. 
& St. P. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 158 S. W. 
440; Philpot V. Fifth Ave. Coach Co., 
142 App. Div. 811, 128 N. Y. S. 35; 
Gesualdi u. Personeni, 128 N. T. S. 
683; Williams v. S., 4 Okla. Cr. 523, 
114 P. 1114; Western Union Telegraph 
Co. V. Vickery (Tex. Cr.), 158 S, W. 



160 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



79£; Freeman v. Oriewe (Tex. Civ.)i 
143 S. W. 730. 

The trial court, if in his judgxnent the 
argnment was improper and prejudicial, 
should grant a new trial unhesitatingly. 
8. 17. Hall (la.), 1«0 N. W. 97. 

8S7*68 St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B. Co. 
r Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 S. W. 698; 
P. V, Bowers, 79 Cul. 415, 21 P. 752; 
Frisby t. V. S., 35 App. Cas. (D. 0.) 
513; Cofield V. B., 14 Ga. App. 813, 82 
8. is. 855 (mere instruction to disre- 
gard insufficient to cure error); Borne 
V. Harris, 12 Ga. App. 756, 78 8. E. 
475; Goldstone t^. Bustemeyer, 21 Ida. 
703, 123 P. 635, app. in Powers v. Boise 
Cfity (Ida.), 125 P. 194; Appel v. Chi- 
cago City B. Co., 259 HI. 561, 102 N. E. 
1021; Pate t?. Gus Blair Big Muddy 
Coal Co., 158 HI. App. 578; Cameron 
T, Cameron, 162 Mo. App. 110, 144 8. 
W. 171 (insufficient correction); Inter- 
urban By. & Term. Co. v, Bierman, 81 
O. C. C. 663; Morris v. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 
241, 131 P. 731; Cox V. Ter., 2 Okla. 
Cr. 668, 104 P. 378; Smith v. 8., 44 
Tex. Cr. 137, 100 Am. St. 849, 68 8. 
"W. 995; Andrews V. United States 
Casualty Co., 154 Wis. 82, 142 N. W. 
48T. 

PeKsliitenft arguments— Bale v, Chicago 
Junction B. Co., 259 Dl. 476, 102 N. E. 
808; Moore v, Springfield & N. E. Tract. 
Co., 180 m. App. 623. 

837-^69 Gawn v. 8., 13 0. C. C. 116. 
837-70 Louisville k N. B. Co. v. 
Payne, 138 Ky. 274, 127 8. W. 993, Ann. 
Cas. 1912A, 1291; Cranford v. O'Shea, 
75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486. See S. v. 
Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 8. W. 622. 

S37-71 Higgins v. V. 8., 185 Fed. 
710, 108 C. C. A. 48; Lemuels v. 8. 
(Ark.), 166 8. W. 741; Ferguson, etc. 
Co. 9. Good, 112 Ark. 260, 165 8. W. 
628; Holland v. 8., Ill Ark. 214, 163 
8. W. 781; St. Louis, I. M. & 8. B. 
Co. €. Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. W. 
•98; Clark L. Co. v. Bolin, 97 Ark. 
S44, 133 8. W. 1116; P. v. McMahon, 
124 Cal. 435, 57 P. 224; Wechter v. P., 
53 Colo. 89, 124 P. 183; Eckler r. Wake, 
87 Conn. 708, 88 A. 369; Frank v. 8., 
141 Ga. 243, 80 S. E. 1016; 8. V. 
CNeil, 24 Ida. 582, 135 P. 60; P. v. 
8cott, 261 HI. 165, 103 N. E. 617; P. 
«. McCann, 247 HI. 130, 93 N. E. 100; 
Spahn V, P., 137 111. 538, 547; P. v. 
Oldiield, 173 Til. App. 655; Ledwell v. 
Chicago City B. Co., 160 HI. App. 596; 
Colekin v. Bamborough, 159 HI. App. 
130; Hagniann v, Schoelkopf, 157 HI. 



App. 313; Elain v. Majestic Coal & 
Coke Co., 155 111. App. 875; 8. i?. 
Cooper (la.), 151 N. W. 835; Sullen- 
barger t?. Ahrens (Ta.), 150 N. W. 71; 
Spaulding v. Laybourn, 164 la. 277, 145 
N. W. 521; 8. t?. Perry (la.), 145 N. 
W. 56; Swanson v. Ft. Bodge, D. M. 
ft 8. B. Co., 153 la. 78, 138 N. W. 
351; Boss V. Kohler, 163 Ky. 588, 174 
8. W. 36; Louisville & N. B. Co. v. 
Mitchell, 162 Ky. 253, 172 8. W. 687; 
Bogers v. C, 161 Ky. 754, 171 S. W. 
464; 8acrey v. Louisville B. Co., 152 
Ky. 473, 153 8. W. 760 ("When the 
attorney for plaintiff makes his argu- 
ment, he will say thines I cannot reply 
to, but I will not butt in as P — has,'' 
though improper is not prejudice): Lex- 
ington B. Co. V, Cropper, 142 Ky. 89, 
133 8. W. 968; 8. v. Huvall, 135 La. 
710, 65 8. 904; S; v. Bobertson, 133 
La. 806, 63 8. 363 (to say the state's 
witness is defendant's is not prejudi- 
cial); 8. V. Beeves, 129 La. 714, 66 8. 
648; Druck V. Antrim Lime Co^ 177 
Mich. 364, 143 N. W. 59; 8. v. Brand, 
124 Minn. 408, 145 N. W. 39; Mobile 
ft O. B. Co. I'. Carpenter, 104 Miss. 706, 
61 8. 693; Shows v. 8., 108 Miss. 640, 

60 8. 726 ("If you don't convict this 
defendant on this testimony, yen had 
as well tear the roof off the court house 
and throw the law books away"); 8. 
r. Harrison (Mo.), 174 8. W. 57; 8. 
V. McKinney, 254 Mo. 688, 168 8. W. 
822; 8. V. Fenton, 248 Mo. 4S2, 154 
8. W. 51; 8. 17. Swain, 239 Mo. 728, 144 
8. W. 427; Northcutt 1?. Springfield 
Crushed 8tone Co., 178 Mo. App. 389, 
162 8. W. 747; Gentry v, Wabash B. 
Co., 172 Mo. App. 638, 156 8. W. 27; 
8chlaviek v, Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co., 
157 Mo. App. 83, 137 8. W. 79; Pig- 
ford V. Norfolk Southern B. Co., 160 
N. C. 93, 75 8. E. 860, 44 L. B. A. 
(N. 8.) 865; Bouie v. 8., « Okla. Cr. 
345, 131 P. 953; 8. V. Davis, 88 8. C. 
229, 70 8. E. 811, 84 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 
295; Himmelfarb 1?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 174 
8. W. 586; McGowen v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
164 8. W. 999; Davis f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
154 8. W. 550; Clayton «?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
149 8. W. 119; Collins V, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
148 8. W. 1065; Wright t?. €., 63 Tex. 
Cr. 429, 140 8. W. 1105; Turner t?. 8., 

61 Tex. Cr. 97, 133 8. W. 1052; Mis- 
souri, K. & T. B. Co. V. Dellmon (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 8. W. 799; Missouri, K. & 
T. B. Co. t?. Burk (Tex. Civ.), 162 8. 
W. 457; International k G. N. B. Co. 
t\ Williams (Tex. Civ.), 160 8. W. 639; 
Missouri, K, & T. B. Co. v. Fesmire 



21 



161 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



(Tex. Civ.), 150 S. W. 201: Rahm c. 
8., 80 Tex. App. 810, 17 S. W. 416, 28 
Am. St. 911; Tweedle v. 8., 29 Tex. 
App. 586, ^6 8. W. 544; BasQ v, 8., 16 
Tex. App. 62, 69. 8ee Birmingliam By., 
L. & P. Co. 17. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 
01 8. 80; Devine r. Chicago City B. 
Co., 167 m. App. 361; 8. v. Johnson, 
48 La. Ann. 87, 19 8. 213, and note in 
46 L. B. A. 650. 

837-71 SemarkB held not to waxrant 
zovenaL— 43. v. Weiners, 4 Mo. App. 
492; 8. V. Kring, 1 Mo. App. 438. 
880-72 Goodwin v. U. S., 200 Fed. 
121, 118 C. C: A. 295; Jones f?. Tucker, 
8 Boyce (Bel.) 422, 84 A. 4, 1012; 
8able v. 8., 14 Ga. App. 816, 82 8. E. 
879; Johnson v, Chicago City B. Co., 
174 HI. App. 148; Perkins v. 8anitary 
Dist., 171 111. App. 582; Prout t?. Mar- 
tin, 160 HI. App. 11; Zeigler f^. Chicago 
City B. Co., 152 111. App. 409; 8. V. 
McClnre, 159 la. 351, 140 N. W. 203; 
8. V. Leek, 152 la. 12, 130 N. W. 1062; 
8. V. Briggs, 94 Kan. 92, 145 P. 866; 
6mith V. lola Portland Cement Co., 86 
Kan. 287, 120 P. 349; Wright v. C, 155 
Ky. 750, 160 S. W. 476; Continental 
Coal Corp. v. Cole's Admr., 155 Ky. 
189, 159 8. W. 668; Carson 1?. C, 149 
Ky. 294, 148 8. W. 30; Bell's Admr« 
V. Louisville B. Co., 148 Ky. 189, 146 
8. W. 383; Porter V. C, 145 Ky. 548, 
140 8. W. 643; Hunn v, C, 143 Ky. 
143, 136 8. W. 144; Southern B. Co. 
«. Winchester's Admx., 143 Ky 38, 135 
8. W« 411: 8. V. Bobertson, 133 La. 
806, 63 8. 363; 8. v. Benjamin, 127 La. 
516, 53 8. 847; 8. v. Johnson, 127 La. 
458, 53 8. 702; P. v. Sharp, 163 Mich. 
79, 127 N. W. 758, 17 Det. Leg. N. 
767; 8. V. Donaldson, 243 Mo. 460, 148 
8, W. 79; 6. 17. Basco, 239 Mo. 535, 
144 8. W. 449, 463; Burns v. United 
Bys, Co., 176 Mo. App. 330, 158 8. W, 
394; Henley-Waite Music Co. v. Gran- 
nis, 171 Mo. App. 392, 157 8. W. 817; 
8. V. Murphy, 46 Mont. 591, 129 P. 
1058; 8. V. Boberts, 44 Mont. 243, 119 
P, 566; Ohio ft Western Pennsylvania 
Dock Co. V. Trapnell, 88 O. St. 516, 
103 N. E. 761; £dwards v. S., 9 Okla. 
Cr. 306, 131 P. 956, 44 L. B. A.' (N. S.) 
701 (where there is a conviction of 
manslaughter under evidence of mur- 
der); Manton v. Kittredge (B. I.), 88 
A. 979 (where court directed a verdict, 
* argument is a useless proceeding) ; Bod- 
riguez €. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 537; 
Boberts v, 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 
627 (counsel urged death penalty but 
the jury did not inflict it); Clayton i?. 



S. (Tex. Cr.), 149 8. W. 119; MDUcan 
V. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 440, 140 8. W. 1136; 
Beeson v, 8., 60 Ter. Or. 39, 130 8. W. 
1006; Dixon v. 8.. 50 Tex. Cr. 885, 97 
8. W. 692; Galveston, etc. B. Co. v. 
Duelm (Tex.), 23 8. W. 596; Glover v. 
Pfeuffer (Tex. Civ.), 163 8. W. 984; 
Fain v. Nelms (Tex. Civ.), 156 8. W. 
28l!Vesper v. Lavender (Tex. Civ.), 149 
8. W. 377; Guitar v. Bandel (Tex. 
Civ.), 147 8. W. 642; Freeman v. Griewe 
(Tex. Civ.), 143 8. W. 730 (isolated 
statement, "To hell with the court 
house,'* although highly improper is 
not reversible error) ; Boss v, Cleveland 
& Sons (Tex. Civ.), 133 8. W. 315; 
Texas, etc. B. Co. v, Baney (Tex. Cfiv.), 
23 8. W. 340: 8. t?. Inlow, 44 Utah 485, 
141 P. 530; 8. t?. Boone, 65 Wash. 331, 
118 P. 46; 8. 17. Cooper (W. Va.), 82 
8. E. 358. See Frank v. 8., 141 Ga. 
243, 80 8. E. 1016; Swan v. Boston 
Store, 177 HI. App. 849 (counsel was 
not entitled to the application of the 
rule that substantial justice was done 
where he himself caused substantial 
justice to be clouded) ; S. v. Major, 134 
La. 774, 64 8. 710; City of Kalamazoo 
c. Standard Paper Co. (Mich.), 148 N. 
W. 743; Morgan c. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 22, 
130 P. 522; Thacker v. S., 3 Okla. Cr. 
485, 106 P. 986; Crutchfield f>. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 152 S. W. 1053, and note in 9 
Am. St 569. 

840-73 Wells v. S. (Ark.), 16 8. W. 
577; P. V. Ah Len, 92 Cal. 282, 27 Am. 
St. 103; Goldstone v. Bustemeyer, 21 
Ida. 703, 123 P. 635, app. in Powers 
V, Boise City, 22 Ida. 286, 125 P. 194; 
Appel V. Chicago City B. Co., 259 lU. 561, 
102 N. E. 1021; P. V. Hartford L. Ins. 
Co., 252 m. 398, 96 N. E. 1049, 37 L. 
B. A. (N. S.) 778; Duffin c. P., 107 
ni. 113, 47 Am. Bep. 431; Vandalia C. 
Co. f?. Price, 178 Ind. 546, 97 N. E. 
429; Heyl v. 8., 109 Ind. 589, 10 N. E. 
916; Isgrig V, Franklin Nat. Bank, 53 
Ind. App. 217, 101 N. E. 398; 8. t?. 
Weston, 98 la. 125, 67 N. W. 84; Massie 
V, C, 18 Ky. L. B. 367, 36 S. W. 550; 
Price V, C, 15 Ky. L. B. 43, 22 8. W, 
157; Duncan v. C, 18 Ky. L. B. 195, 
16 8. W. 584; P. r. Bingsted, 90 Mich. 
371, 51 N. W. 619; Berry t?. 8. (Miss.), 
22 8. 826; Lamar f?. 8., 65 Miss. 93, 3 
S. 78; Cavanah v. 8., 56 Miss. 299; 
S. V, Banks, 10 Mo. App. Ill; S. v. 
Zumbunson, 7 Mo. App. 526; 8. v. 
Craine, 120 N. C. 601, 27 8. E. 72; 
International & G. N. B. Co. v. Irvine, 
64 Tex. 529 (if a preponderance of evi- 
dence the verdict, judgment will be 



162 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol. 2 



teversed); Ft. Worth & D. C. E. Co. 
V. Wininger (Tex. Civ.), 151 8. W. 
586, 594; First Nat. Bk. v. Sokolski 
(Tex. Civ.), 150 8. W. 312; Hudson v. 
8., 28 Tex. App. 323, 13 8. W. 388; 
8. r. Moody, 7 Wash. 395, 35 P. 132; 
8. r. Shawn, 40 W. Va. 1, 20 8. E. 
873. See St. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co. 
r. Devaney, 98 Ark. 83, 135 8. W. 802, 
and note in 9 Am. St. 569. 
841-74 Sparks i'. 8., Ill Ga. 830, 35 
8. £. 654; Schlaviek v. Friedman-Shelby 
Shoe Co., 157 Mo. App. 83, 137 S. W. 
79 (permission to comment on evi- 
dence not in the record denied); Craig 
r. Augusta-Aiken B. Co., 89 8. C. 161, 
71 8. £. 983. 

841-75 Wechter v. P., 53 Colo. 89, 
124 P. 183; Ballard <?. 8., 11 Ga. App. 
104, 74 S. E. 846 (statement by the 
court that ''what was said by counsel 
on either side had nothing to do with 
the case,*' is equivocal; he should have 
instructed the jury that they were not 
concerned with the particular matter 
referred to); Knights of Maccabees v. 
Shields, 162 Ky. 392, 172 8. W. 696; 
In re Judicial Ditch v. Bigstone and 
Traverse Counties (Minn.), 142, N. W. 
802 (in which counsel referred to the 
previous trial, an instruction that this 
case was to be determined on its own 
evidence is not adequate. They should 
have been told to disregard such evi- 
dence); Boster v. Chicago, M. ft St. P. 
B. Co. (Mo. App.), 158 8. W. 440 (the 
correction should fit the offense; the 
Antidote kill the poison); Shawnee f?. 
Sparks, 26 Okla. 665, 110 P. 884; C. V. 
Shoemaker, 240 P. 255, 87 A. 684, vague 
instruction does not cure. 
841-76 Graham v. U. 8., 231 U. 8. 
474, 34 Sup. Ct. 148, 58 L. ed. 319; 
Ammennan v. United States, 185 Fed. 
1, 108 C. O. A. 1 (argument promptly 
stopped by court with instruction); 
Jefferson v. 8., 110 Ala. 89, 20 8. 434; 
Lingo's Admr. v. Alaska Treadwell Co., 
3 Alaska 9; Bank of Arizona r. Hav- 
erty Co., 13 Ariz. 418, 115 P. 73; Ft. 
Smith Lnmb. Co. v. Shaekleford (Ark.), 
171 8. W. 99 (in connection with coun- 
sel's remark disclaiming any intention 
of discussing facts not in the record); 
St. Louis, I. M. ft 8. By. Co. v. Drum- 
right, 112 Ark. 452, 166 8. W. 938; 
Ferguson ft W. L. L. H. Co. t?. Good, 
112 Ark. 260, 165 8. W. 628; Tillman 
«. 8., 112 Ark. 236, 166 8. W. 582; 
Waldrip v, Grisham, 112 Ark. 57, 164 
8. W. 1133 (court told jury they must 
remember the evidence in the case); 



McElroy c. 8., 106 Ark. 131, 152 8. W. 
1019; Warren i;. 8., 103 Ark. 165, 146 
8. W. 477, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 698 (and 
counsel made statement similar in ef- 
fect to instruction) ; St. Louis, I. M. ft 
8. B. Co. V, Aiken, 100 Ark. 437, 140 8. 
W. 698; St. Louis, etc. B. Co. v. De- 
vaney, 98 Ark. 83, 135 8. W. 802; Story 
r. Green, 164 Cal. 768, 130 P. 870, Ann. 
Cas. 1914B, 961 (remark of court, "He 
is not on trial for his knowledge of the 
law" was sufficient to cure the error); 
P. 17. Akey, 163 Cal. 54, 124 P. 718; P. 
V. Luis, 158 Cal. 185, 110 P. 580; Hans- 
brough V. Mann (Cal. App.), 146 P. 896; 
P. V. Ong Git, 23 Cal. App. 148, 137 P. 
283; P. V. Mancuso, 23 Cal. App. 146, 
137 P. 278; 8. V. Watson, 21 Cal. App. 
692, 132 P. 836; P. 1?. Lopez, 21 Cal. 
App. 188, 131 P. 104 (instruction that 
the jury should "consider the state- 
ment as argument of counsel and not 
as a statement of fact"); P* ^- Buef, 
14 Cal. App. 576, 618, 114 P. 48; P. v, 
Danford, 14 Cal. App. 442, 112 P. 474; 
Kenwood t?. P., 57 Colo. 544, 143 P. 
373; Koskoff 17. Goldman, 86 Conn. 415, 
85 A. 588; Jones v. Tucker, 3 Boyce 
(Del.) 422, 84 A. 4, 1012; Lee v. United 
States, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 442 (with 
apology of counsel) ; Worley v, S., 136 
Ga. 231, 71 S. E. 153; Powers v. Boise 
City, 22 Ida. 286, 125 P. 194; P. v. Hotz, 
261 m. 239, 103 N. E. 1007; Appel V. 
Chicago City B. Co., 259 111. 561, 102 N. 
E. 1021; P. V. McCann, 274 111. 130, 172, 
93 N. E. 100; Dale v. Chicago Junction 
B. Co., 174 111. App. 495; Fleming t?. 
Chicago City B. Co., 163 111. App. 185; 
Whitehead i;. Springfield L. H. ft P. Co., 
161 lU. App. 564; Welty V. 8., 180 Ind. 
411, 100 N. E. 73; Wilson v. 8., 175 Ind. 
458, 93 N. E. 609; Pigg t?. 8., 145 Ind. 
560, 43 N. E. 309; Grubb V. 8., 117 Ind. 
277, 20 N. E. 257 (court did aU that 
was asked); Burford i*. Dautrich, 55 
Ind. App. 384, 103 N. E. 953; Home Tel. 
Co. V. Weir, 53 Ind. App. 466, 101 N. E. 
1020; Southern By. Co. v, Adams, 63 
Ind. App. 322, 100 N. E. 773; 8. 
t?. Biewen (la.), 151 N. W. 102; 8. 
V. HaU (la.), 150 N. W. 97; 8. i?. Nor- 
man, 160 la. 158, 140 N. W. 815; 
Thompson v. Chicaj^o ft N. W. B. Co., 
158 la. 235, 139 8. W. 557; Sandy Val. 
ft E. B. Co. V. Bentley, 161 Ky. 655, 
171 8. W. 178; Glasgow Elec. Light ft 
I. Co. V. Clark's Admx., 158 Ky. 734, 
166 S. W. 214; Continental Coal Coro* 
V. Cole^s Admr., 155 Ky. 139, 159 8. 
W. 668; Cincinnati, N. O. ft T. P. B. 
Co. r. Spears, 162 Ky. 200, 153 8. W. 



163 



Vol. 2 



ARGUMENTS 



236; Burton t\ C, 151 Ky. 587, 152 S. 
W. 545: Louisville i;. Arrowsmith, 145 
Ky. 498, 140 S. W. 1022; Wilson v. C, 
141 Ky. 341, 132 S. W. 557; Turpin V. 
C, 140 Ky. 294, 130 8. W. 1086, 140 
Am. St. 378, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 795; 
Handly t?. C, 15 Ky. L. R. 736, 24 S. 
W. 609; Cotrell v, C, 13 Ky. L. R. 305, 
17 S. W. 149; S. V. Carroll, 134 La. 965, 
64 S. 868; S. v. Major, 134 La. 774, 64 
S. 710; S. 17. Robertson, 133 La. 806, 63 
S. 863, 372; S. t;. Tord, 42 La. Ann. 255, 
7 8. 696 (course of argument stopped 
by court and the jury instructed); 
C. €. Richmond, 207 Mass. 240, 93 N. E. 
816; C. V. Cunningham, 104 Mass. 545; 
C. V. Bycd, 8 Gray (Mass.), 461 (in- 
struction as to weight of argument); 
Spencer i?. Johnson (Mich.), 151 N. W. 
684; Crawl v. Dancer (Mich.), 147 N. 
W. 495; Millspaugh v. Schultz, 180 
Mich. 310, 146 N. W. 634; P. v. Mac- 
Gregor, 178 Mich. 436, 144 N. W. 869; 
Devich V. Dick, 177 Mich. 173, 143 N. 
W. 56; 8chock v. Cooling, 175 Mich. 
313, 141 N. W. 676 (instruction that 
evidence was introduced for a limited 
purpose only) ; Township of Deep River 
V. Van Antwerp, 174 Mich. 19, 140 N. 
W, 531 (correction of statement by 
court with suggestion it ought not to 
has been made); Bruce v. Michigan 
Cent. R. Co^ 172 Mich. 441, 138 N. 
W. 362; P. t?. Yund, 163 Mich. 
504, 128 N. W. 742, 17 Det. Leg. N. 
968; P. V. Stewart, 163 Mich. 1, 127 
N. W. 816, 17 Det. Leg. N. 775; S. v. 
Virgens (Minn.), 151 N. W. 190; Gra- 
seth V, Northwestern Knitting Co. 
(Minn.), 150 N. W. 804; Landro v. Great 
Northern R. Co., 117 Minn. 306, 135 N. 
W. 991, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 244; Carlton 
County Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. 
Foley Bros., 117 Minn. 59, 134 N. "W. 
809, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 175; S. v. Har- 
rison (Mo.), 174 8. W. 57; 8. t?. Levy 
(Mo.), 170 8. W. 1114; Ostertag t?. Un- 
ion Pac. R. Co., 261 Mo. 457, 169 8. 
W. 1; 8. V, Butler, 258 Mo. 430, 167 
S. W. 509; S. V, Prince, 258 Mo. 315, 
167 8. W. 535; 8. v. Dudley, 245 Mo. 
177, 149 8. W. 449; Stauffer v. Metro- 
politan St. R. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 8. 
W. 1032; Schwanenf eldt 1?. Metropolitan 
St. R. Co., 186 Mo. App. 588, 174 8. W. 
143; Bolles f?. Kansas City S. R. Co., 
163 Mo. App. 697, 147 S. W. 497; Smith 
V. Royal Highlanders, 96 Neb. 790, 148 
N. W. 952; Roach t?. Wolff, 96 Neb. 43, 
146 N. W. 1019; Egner V, Curtis, Towle 
& Paine Co., 96 Neb. 18, 146 N. W. 
1032, L. R. A. 1915 A, 153; Leete v. 



, Southern Pac. Co. (Nev.), 139 P. 29; 
Cavanaugh v, Boston A M. R. R., 76 N. 
H. 68, 79 A. 694; Cooley v. Eastern Wire 
Bound Box Co., 75 U. H. 529, 77 A. 936; 
Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 75 N. H. 
521, 77 A. 999; P. v. Poulin, 207 N. Y. 
73, 100 N. E. 593; P. v. Dwyer, 160 App. 
Div. 542, 145 N. Y. S. 748 (responsive 
argument) ; Kuntz v, Howard, 143 App. 
Div. 830, 128 N. Y. 8. 101; 8. r. Daven- 
port, 166 N. C. 696, 72 S. E. 7; 8. v. 
Wilson, 90 N. C. 736; Gunnells v. S., 7 
Okla. Cr. 98, 122 P. 264; S. 17. Hum- 
phrey, 63 Or, 640, 128 P. 824 (bill of 
exceptions incomplete); 8. v» Moore, 82 
Or. 65, 48 P. 468; Miller <?. Philadel- 
phia Rapid Transit Co., 231 Pa. 627, 80 
A. 1108; C. V. Hickman, 231 Pa. 305, 
SO A. 254; Shoemaker v, Adams Express 
Co., 51 Pa. Super. 284; Keefer v. Mel- 
lott, 44 Pa. Super. 471 (counsel apol- 
ogized and the court cautioned jury to 
disregard the objectionable state- 
ments); Champlin v, Pawcatuek ViJ. 
St. B. Co., 33 R. I. 572, 82 A. 481; 
Brown V. 8.. (Tex. Cr.), 170 8. W. 714; 
Fondren v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 169 8. W. 
411; Johnson v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 167 8. 
W. 733; McElwee t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 165 
S. W. 927; Thompson. V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
163 S. W. 973; McGregor v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 160 8. W. 711; Stanton r. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 158 8. W. 994; Creech r. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 277; Collins v. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 152 8. W. 1047; Kiaffer 
t7. S. CTex. Cr.), 151 S. W. 1061; Col- 
lins f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 1085; 
Lee V. S. (Tex. Cr.), 148 8. W. 706; 
Welch V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 147 8. W. 572; 
O'Neal I?. 8. (Tex. Cr,), 146 8. W. 938; 
Parshall t?. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 138 8. 
W. 759; Jordan v. 8., 62 Tex. Cr. 380, 

137 8. W. 133; Barrage v. 8., 61 Tex. 
Cr. 625, 136 8. W. 41; La G*one t?. 8., 
61 Tex. Cr. 170, 136 8. W. 121; Smith 
t?. S., 44 Tex. Cr. 187, 68 8. W. 995, 100 
Am. St. 849; 8. A. N. & G. R. Co. v. 
Moya (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 608; Yel- 
low Pine P^per Mill Co. v. Lyons (Tex. 
Civ.), 159 8. W. 909; Consumers' Lig- 
nite Co. I?. Hubner (Tex. Civ.), 154 S. 
W. 249; McBlroy v, Sparkman (Tex. 
Civ.), 139 8. W. 629; International ft 
G. N. B. Co. V, Davison (Tex. Civ.), 

138 8. W. 1162: El Paso Electric R. 
Co. V. Shaklee (Te?. Civ.), 138 8. W. 
188 (the court also sustained the objec- 
tion to the argument); Missouri, K. & 
T. R. Co. V. Cherry, 44 Tex. Civ. 232, 97 
8. W. 712; Newton's Admx. t?. Amer- 
ican Car Sprinkler Co., 87 Vt. 546, 90 
A. 583; Fadden v, McKinney, 87 Vt. 



164 



ARGUMENTS 



Vol 2 



316, 8d A. 351; Neitzcl r. R. Co., 80 
Wash. 30, 141 P. 186; S. r. Pacific Amer- 
ican Fisheries, 73 Wash. 37, 131 P. 452; 
Chicago, M. ft P. S. R. Co. v. Tme, 62 
Wash. 646, 114 P. 515; Lasityr u. City, 
61 Wash. 651, 112 P. 752 (holding ac- 
tion of eourt in refusing to correct 
counsel on the ground the jury had 
proper instmetionB is not error); Tay- 
lor f^. Modem Woodmen, 42 Wash. 304, 
84 P. 867; S. V. Ha^rkins, 27 Wash. 375, 
67 P. 814; 8. v. Cooper (W. Va.), 82 8. 
B. 358; Pullman Co. f?. Pinley, 20 Wyo. 
456, 125 P. 380. See Rouse f^. 8., 136 
Ga. 356, 71 8. E. 667; Turpin v. C, 140 
Ky. 294, 130 8. W. 1086, 30 L. B. A. 
(N, 8.) 794; 8. V. Dwyer, 133 La, 731, 
63 S. 305 (a belated instruction after 
havini^ given his charge to the jury is 
insoificient to remove the prejudice); 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Sloss, 45 Tex. 
Civ. 153, 100 8. W. 354; Winston V. Ter- 
race, 78 Wash. 146, 138 P. 673; and note 
in 9 Am. 8t. 569. 

Instmctloii sofflcieiit In connectioii with 
connsei'tf withdrawal of the remarics. 
Motley 9. 8., 105 Ark. 608, 152 8. W. 
140; Sodriquez 9. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 158 8. 
W. 537. 

The coxrectioii diould be as broad as 
the injury^ — Alabama Fuel ft Iron Co. 
17. Benenante, 11 Ala. App. 644, 66 8. 
942. 

843-77 Holder v. 8., 58 Ark. 473, 25 
8. W. 279; Ga^away u. 8. (Ga. AppO, 
83 8. £. 857; Appel i?. Chicago City B. 
Co., 259 pi. 561, 102 N. E. 1021 (dis- 
senting opinion) • Appel r. Chicago City 
B. Co., 172 m. App. 421; Brewer r. C, 
11 Ky. t. Bep. 601, 12 8. W. 672; 8. 
«. McKinney, 254 Mo. 688, 163 8. W. 
822; Sehwanenfeldt v. Metropolitan 8t. 
B. Co., 186 Mo. App. 588, 174 8. W. 
143. 

843-78 (^icago, B. I. ft P« B. Co. 9. 
Gnnn, 112 Ark. 401, 166 8. W. 568; 
Worden v, Gore-Meenan Cq^ 83 Conn. 
642, 78 A. 422; Chicago ft E. B. Co. v. 
Lein, 181 Ind. 386, 103 N. E. 847; 
Smith V. lola Portland Cement Co., 86 
Kan. 287, 120 P. 349; Houser v. Car- 
mody, 173 Mich, 121, 139 N. W. 9; 
Bates V, Kit^hel, 166 Mich. 695, 132 
N. W. 459; Dutcher «. B. Co., 241 Mo. 
137, 145 S. W. 63j Connecticut iHre Ins, 
Co. V. Chester, P. ft 8. G, B. Co., 171 
Mo. App. 70, 153 8. W. 644; St. Louis, 
I. M. ft 8. B. Co. V. O 'Connor, 43 Okla. 
268, 142 P. 1111: Shoemaker v. Adams 
EzpFMs Co., 51 Pa^ Super. 284; Ley v. 
Henry, 50 P». Super. 591; International 



& G. N. B. Co. r. Irvine, 64 Tex. 529; 
Selden-Breck Const. Co. v, Kelley (Tex. 
Civ.), 168 8. W. 985; St. Louis South- 
western By. Co. V. McNatt (Tex. Civ.), 
166 8. W, 89; Missouri, K. ft T. B. Co. 
t?. Burk (Tex. Civ.), 162 8. W. 457; In- 
ternational ft G. N. B. Co. f. Williams 
(Tex. Civ,), 160 8. W. 639; Yellow Pine 
Paper Mill Co. v. Lyons (Tex. Civ.), 
159 8. W. 909; Ft. Worth ft D. C. B. 
Co. 1/. Wininger (Tex. Civ.), 151 8. W. 
586, 594. See Ferguson ft Wheeler L., 
L. ft H. Co. 17. Good, 112 Ark. 260^ 165 
8. W. 628; Appel <?. Chicago City B. 
Co., 259 HI. 561. 102 N. R 1021 (al- 
though the verdict was not excessive, 
the~ improper argument affecting the 
credibility of the witnesses could not 
fail to affect the question of liability) ; 
Walker ft ^ons v. Pisk (Tex. Civ.), 136 
8. W. 101. 

844-79 Wechter v. P., 63 Colo. 89, 
124 P. 183; Cooper v. 8., 12 Ga. App. 
561, 77 8. E. 878; P. V. Duncan, 261 
m. 339, 103 N. E. 1043; 8. v. Cooper 
(la.), 151 N. W. 835; Truax v. C, 149 
Ky. 699, 149 8. W. 1033; 8. v, Harri- 
son (Mo.), 174 8. W. 57: 8. v, Hilton, 
248 Mo. 522, 154 8. W. 729; 8. v. 
Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152 8. W. 46; Con- 
ger t?. 8., 63 Tex. Cr. 312, 140 8. W. 
1112; 8. r. Thorne (Utah), 126 P. 287, 
and counsel withdrew objectionable re- 
mark. See P. V. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 
143 P. 803; Jones v. 8., 14 Ga. App. 568, 
81 8. E. 801. 

844-80 Dunlop r. XT. 8., 165 IT. 8. 
486, 17 Sup. Ct. 375, 41 L. ed. 799; 
St. Louis Southwestern B. Co. v, Lefiar, 
104 Ark. 528, 149 8. W« 530; St Louis, 
I. M. ft 8. B. Co. V. Brown, 100 Ark. 
107, 140 8. W. 279; Western Union Tel. 
Co. f?. Webb, 98 Ark. 87, 135 S. W. 
366; California Wine Assn. v. Commer- 
cial Union F. Ins. Co., 159 Cal. 49, 112 
P. 858; P. V. Davenport, 17 Cal. App. 
557, 120 P. 451 (in connection with in- 
struction) ; Frisby V. U. 8., 35 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 513; Central Georgia P. Co. v. 
Comwell, 141 Ga. 643, 81 8. E. 882; 
Swengel v. La Salle Co. C. C. C, 182 
HI. App. 623; Newell V, C. C. C. ft St. 
L. B. Co., 179 HI. App. 497; Pruner v. 
Detroit United By., 173 Mich. 146, 139 
N. W. 48; Molin V. Wark, 113 Minn. 
190, 129 N. W. 383, 41 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 
346; 8. 17. Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152 S. 
W. 46; Sherman v. Southern Pac. Co., 
33 Nev. 385, 111 P. 416, 115 P. 909; 
Turner v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 75 N. H. 
521, 77 A. 999; P. v, Stilwell, 81 Mlae. 
456, 142 K Y. 8. 628; Smith V. U^ 6 



166 



Vol a 



AmvMmrs 



Okla. Cr. 3S0, 118 P. 1003; S. v. HU- 
ton, 87 S. C. 434, 69 8. E. 1077, Ann. 
Gas. 1912B, 1057; Taylor t?. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 42 S. W. 285; San Antonio, N. k 
G. B. Co. V. Moya (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. 
W. 608; St. Louis Southwestern B. Co. 
t?. McNatt (Tex. Civ.), 166 S: W. 89; 
S. V. Thorne, 41 Utah 414, 126 P. 286 
(in view of conelusive character of evi- 
dence); Citizens' Savings Bk. & T. Co. 
r. Fitchburg Mut. P. I. Co., 87 Vt. 231, 
86 A. 1056. 

Withdrawal by conimel In connectioii 
with court's Instmction 8afflci«iit. — Set- 
zer I?. S., 110 Ark, 226, 161 S. W. 190; 
St. Louis, I. M. k 8. B. Co^ 17. Brogan, 
105 Ark. 533, 151 S. W. 699; Jenkins 
r. Quick, 105 Ark. 467, 151 S. W, 1021; 
Bouse V. S., 136 Ghi. 356, 71- S. £. 667; 
Kulvie V. Coal Co., 253 HI. 386, 97 N. 
E. 688; Simpson v. Peoria B. Co., 179 
HI. App. 307; S. «. Knunm, 148 la. 631, 
127 N. W. 985; Wack v. St- Louis, 1. 
M. k S. B, Co., 175 Mo. App. Ill, 157 
8. W. 1070; BoUes f. B. Co., 163 Mo. 
App. 697, 147 S. W. 497; Burnham t?. 
StiUings, 76 N. H. 122, 79 A. 987; 
Diegel v, 8., 33 O. C. C. 82; Brenisholtz 
V, Pennsylvania B. Co., 229 Pa. 88, 78 
A^ 37; Ft. Worth k D. C. B. Co. v, 
Stalcup (Tex. Civ.), 167 8. W. 279; 
Trinity k B. V. B. Co. v. Dodd (Tex. 
Civ.), 167 8. W- 238; Houston Chron- 
icl«. Pub. Co. 1?. McDavid (Tex. Civ.), 
157 8. W. 224; Galveston, H. k S. A. 
B. Co. r. West (Tex. Civ.), 155 8. W. 
343; Studebaker Bros. Co. v. Kitts (Tex. 
Civ.), 152 8. W. 464. And see note in 
7 Am. k Eng. Ann. Cas. 232. 

845-81 Williams t?. C, 153 Ky. 710, 
156 8. W. 372; 8. v, Harrison (Mo.), 
174 8. W. 57. 

Where the court withdraws the remark 
and afterwards specially charges to the 
same effect, the error is cured. Cincin- 
nati, C. C. k St. L. B. Co. V. Simpson 
(Ind.), 104 N. E. 301; Guilford C. Co. 
t?. Clark (Ind. App.), 99 N. E. 777; 
Puller r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 154 8. W. 1021. 
846-82 P. t7. Buef, 14 Cal. App. 576, 
618, 114 P. 48; 8. V. Perrell, 246 Mo. 
322, 152 8. W. 33; Stauffer f?. B. Co., 24S 
Mo. 305, 147 8. W. 1032; 8. v. Dipley, 
242 Mo. 461, 147 8. W. Ill; Dutcher 
<?. Wabash B. Co., 241 Mo. 137, 145 8. 
W. 63, 74; 8. t?. Deitz, 235 Mo. 332, 138 
8. W. 529; 8. r. Wright, 141 Mo. 333> 42 
8. W, 934; 8. V. PhilUps, 117 Mo. 389, 
22 8. W. 1079; 8. v. Bivers, 90 N. C. 
738; White i?. S. (Tex. Cr.), 29 8. W. 
476; Bicki t?. 8., 19 Tex. App. 308. See 



Douglas V, 8., 21 Ind. App. 302, 52 N*. 
£. 238. 

Bebuke saffldent where no farther rem- 
edy requested. — Mathews v. 8., 32 Tex. 
Cr. 355, 23 8. W. 690. But see 8. v. 
Shores, 31 W. Va. 491, 7 8. E. 413, 13 
Am. St.. 875. 

847-83 P. I?. Buef, 14 Cal. App. 576, 
114 P. 48, 54; P. i?. Botkin, 9 Cal. App. 
244, 98 P. 861; Parkhill V. Bekins Van 
k Storage Co. (la.), 151 N. W. 506; 
Sandy Valley k E. B. Co. t. Bentley, 
161 Ky. 555, 171 8. W. 178; Hoskins r. 
C, 152 Ky. 805, 154 8. W. 919; Brewer 
«. C, 11 Ky. L. B. 601, 12 8. W. 672; 
8. 17. Smith, 250 Mo. 350, 157 8. W. 319 
(in connection with an order striking 
out the argument); 8. V, Braswell, 82 
N. C. 693; Byrd v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 151 
8. W. 1068; Mabry f?. 8., 54 Tex. Cr. 
449, 114 8. W. 378; Carver t?. 8., 36 Tex. 
Cr. 552, 38 8. W. 183; Biggins v, Sass 
(Tex. Civ.), 143 8. W. 689; U. S. «. 
Musser, 4 Utah 153, 7 P. 389; 8. v. 
Van Waters, 36 Wash. 358, 78 P. 897. 

848-84 P. f7. Ernsting, 14 Cal. App. 
708, 112 P. 913, counsel stated that re- 
mark was but an inference and court 
charged jury inferences were to be 
drawn from facts legally proved. 
848-86 Worley «. 8., 136 Ga. 231, 71 
8. E. 153. 

849-88 Glass v. 8., 109 Ark. 32, 153 
8. W. 1071; Skaggs v, S., 88 Ark. 62, 
113 8. W« 346, 16 Am. k Eng. Ann. Cas. 
622; Dunham v. Chicago City B. Co., 
178 m. App. 188; Flynn «. Chicago City 
B. Co., 155 HI. App. 494; Elam t?. Ma- 
jestic Coal k Coke Co., 155 HI. App. 
375; Neice v. Chicago k A. B. Co., 165 
lU. App 627; P. r. Plopper, 158 HL 
App. 250 (and instruction); Ellis t^. 
Barkley, 160 la. 658, 142 N. W. 203 
(and counsel admitted the justice of 
the ruling); P. v, Hoek, 169 Mich. 87, 
134 N. W. 1031; McLain tJ. S., 18 Neb. 
154, 24 N. W. 720; Bradshaw t?. S., 17 
Neb. 147, 2 N. W. 361. But see Birm- 
ingham B. Co. r. Drennen, 175 Ala. 33S, 
57 S. 876, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1037; P. r. 
Becker. 210 N. Y. 274, 104 N. E. 396. 
OessatloB of argument along line ob- 
jected to cures any prejudice connected 
therewith, Crawford v. Bice k Hutch- 
ins Co.. 9ff 8. C. 121, 82 8. E. 273. 
Severe rebnke of eonnsel is necessary 
in addition to the sustaining of an ob- 
jection to improper argument calculated 
to arouse prejudice, upthegrove t?. Chi- 
cago, G. W- B. Co., 154 m. App. 460. 
84^-89 Zumwalt v. 8. (Ariz.), 141 P. 



166 



ASOVMENTS 



Vol. 2 



710; P. f?. Amer, 161 Cal. 303, 90 P. 
698; P. c. Hail, 25 Cal. App. 342, 143 
P. 803; Ellis V. Barkley, 160 la. 658^ 142 
N. W. 203; Lawson v. C, 152 Ky. 118, 
153 S. W. 56; Idle v, C, 148 Kj, 618, 
147 S. W. 381; S. V. Kanupka, 247 Mo. 
706, 153 S. W. 1056; 8. v. Snider, 151 
Mo. App. 699, 132 S. W. 299; C. 9. Su- 
shinakie, 242 Pa. 406, 89 A. 564; Beeves 
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 153 S. W. 127; Moore 
r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W. 598; South- 
ern Kansas B. Co. v. Shinn (Tex. Civ.), 
153 S. W. 636; S. v. Humphrey, 63 Or. 
540, 128 P. 824, where eounsel merely 
set out his version of the prosecutor's 
remarks. 

The practice of sending up rin^ and 
detached statements, etc. Chafino v. 8. 
(Tex. Cr.), 154 S. W. 546; Ward v. S. 
(Tex. Cr.), 151 S. W. 1073; Clayton V. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 149 S. W; 119; O'Neal v. 
S. (Tex, Cr.), 146 S. W* 938; Gamble V. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 146 S. W. 551 (biU show- 
ing an insufficiency of facts to require 
court to consider it); Griffin v, Chad- 
wiek, 44 Tex. 409; Kansas City, etc. B. 
Co: V. West (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 206. 
Where enough of the proceedings Is not 
sent up to enable the appellate court 
to pass on the question it will be pre- 
sumed the rulings of the trial court 
were correct. Star r. 6., 9 Okla. Cr. 
210, 131 P. 542. 

Asking a qiedAl diarge» shown by a 
bill of exceptions, does not show the 
language objected to was used. Moore 
r. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 144 S. W. 698. 

Bin of exceptions held snfllclent. 

American Express Co. v, Parcarello 
(Tex. Civ.), 162 S. W. 926. 

The phonognphle reporter's transcript 
of his notes showing the portion of the 
argument complained of, and the ob- 
jection and action of the trial court 
thereon should be brought into the ap- 
pellate court. P. V. Fleming, 166 Cal. 
357, 136 P. 291, 300, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 
S81. 

A signed statement of connael is not 
the proper way to raise the question 
of improper argument. Irvine v. 8.. 10 
Okla. Cr. 4, 133 P. 259. 
ne conrt shonld direct the stenogra- 
pher to place the remarks on the record 
when an objection is interposed. C. v. 
Shoemaker, 240 Pa. 255, 87 A. 684. 
The dxcmnstances under which the re- 
marks were made must also be shown. 
S. r. Thornton, 108 Mo. 640, 18 S. W. 
841. 
S51-02 Patrick v. 8., 104 Ark. 255, 



149 S. W. 84; Scott r. P., ^^^ ^ ^^» 
30 N. E. 329; Sparks v. Scharlaw, 171 
111. App. 155; Britton v. McClelland, 156 
111. App. 158; S. V. Kilduff, 160 la. 388, 
141 N. W. 962j Boss v. Eohler, 163 Ky. 
683^ 174 S. W. 36; St. Paul, etc. Ins. 
Co. V. Kendle, 163 Ky. 146, 173 8. W. 
373; Chesapeake ft 0. B. Co. v. Staple- 
ton, 154 Ky. 351, 157 S. W. 702; Ban- 
non V. Trust Co., 160 Ky. 401, 150 8. W. 
510; Blanton v. C, 147 Ky. 812, 146 
S. W. 10; Hendrickson V. C, 147 Ky. 
298, 143 S. W. 993; Sparks V. Sip- 
pie, 140 Ky. 642, 131 S. W. 389; 
Keeton i;. S., 102 Miss. 747, 59 8. 884; 
S. V. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 S. 
W. 445; 8. v. Groce, 230 Mo. 702, 132 
8. W. 237; 8. v. Hayes, 81 Mo. 574; 
S. V. Vertrees, 33 Nev. 509, 112 P. 42; 
S. V. Drake, 11 Or. J96, 4 P. 1204; 8. v. 
Bash, 27 8. D. 185, 130 N. W. 91, Ann. 
Cas. 1913D, 656 (absence of judge dur- 
ing argument) ; Sherman v, 8., 125 Tenn. 
19, 140 S. W. 209; Simmons v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 164 8. W. 843; Lee v. 8. (Tez. 
Cr.), 162 8. W. 843; Hooper v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.J, 160 8. W. 1187; Grimes v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 160 8. W. 689; Luttrell v, 8., 70 
Tex. Cr. 183, 157 8. W. 157; Holmes v. 
8., 70 Tex. Cr. 214, 156 S. W. 1172; 
Bogue V. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 155 8. W. 943; 
Kirby v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 150 8. W. 455; 
McWhirter f?. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 146 8. W. 
189; Moore v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 144 8. W. 
698; Holland v. 8., 61 Tex. Cr. 201, 134 
8. W. 693; Epson V. 8. (Tez. Cr.), 36 8. 
W. 584; Spencer v, 8., 84 Tex. Cr. 65, 
29 8. W. 159; Griffin v. Chadwiek. 44 
Tex. 409; Watson v. 8., 28 Tex. App. 
34, 12 S. W. 404; Jackson v. 8., 18 Tex. 
App. 586; Anschicks v, 8., 6 Tex. App. 
524; Baker v. 8., 69 Wis. 32, 33 N. W. 
52. See also vol. 4, p. 319, n. 92, and 
supplement thereto. 

That remarks were not ofldally re- 
ported is immaterial where they are in- 
corporated in the bill of exceptions. 
Louisville ft N. B. Co. v, Payne, 138 Ky. 
274, 127 8. W. 993, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 
1291. 

In Phfllpplnes the argument of counsel 
forms no part of a bill of exceptions 
and should be excluded therefrom. 
Alino V. Yillamor, 2 PhiL Isl. 234, 

Contents of bill of exceptions*— Bills 

of exceptions should show, within them- 
selves, a sufficient statement of the 
evidence and arffument used so that 
the court can tell therefrom whether 
they were of such character as to re- 
quire a reversal. Conger v. 8., 61 Tez* 



16/ 



Vol. 2 



ARUAlGifMtlNT AND PLEA 



Or. 312, 140 S. W. 1112. See also S. v. 
Gruber, 19 Ida. 692, 115 P. 1. 

851-94 Miller t. 8., 9 Okla. Cr. 255, 
131 P. 717; Smith «. S., OkL Cr. 282, 
114 P. 350. 

851-96 Mayes v. P., 106 HL 306, 46 
Am. Bep. 586; Choen v. S., 85 Ind. 
209; Swanflon v. Ft. Bodge D. M. & 
S. E. Co., 163 la. 78, 133 N. W. 351; 
S. V. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 S. W. 
445; Bouie V, &., 9 Okla. Cr. 345, 181 
P. 953; Smith V. S., 5 Okla. Cr. 282, 114 
P. 350; Sherman v, S., 125 Tenn. 19, 
140 S. W. 209; Steinhanser «. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 48 S. W. 506; Jackson v, S., 18 
Tex. App. 586. 

85:^97 St. Louis, I. M. ft S. B. Co. 
V. Earle, 103 Ark. 356, 146 S. W. 520; 
Kinffan ft Co. v. King, 179 Ind. 285, 100 
N. i. 1044; Louisville ft N. B. Co. «. 
Wilkins, 143 Ky. 572, 136 S. W. 1023, 
Ann. Cas. 1912I>, 518; Taylor f?. Met- 
ropolitan St. By. Co., 256 Mo. 191, 165 
S. W. 327; Stauffer v. Metropolitan St. 
B. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 S. W. 1032; 
Pullman Co. v. Finley, 20 Wyo. 456, 125 
P. 380. See Cromer «. S., 21 Ind. App. 
502, 52 K. E. 239. 

852-98 P. 17. McMahon, 124 Cal. 435, 
57 P. 224; Gannon f?. P., 127 111. 607, 21 
N. E. 525, 11 Am. St. 147; Spaulding v. 
Layboum, 164 la. 271, 145 N. W. 521; 
Blanton vl C, 147 Ky. 812, 146 S. W. 
10; Hendriekson V. C, 147 Ky. 298, 143 
S. W. 993; MUler 9. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 255, 
131 P. 717^ C. V. McClellan, 42 Pa. Su- 
per. 504; Sherman v, S., 125 Tenn. 19, 
140 S. W. 209; MeGowen v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 164 S. W. 999; Southern Kansas B. 
Co. V, Shinn (Tex. Civ.), 153 S. W. 
636. 

Incoiporatioii of acguuieiit In sliorfe* 
hand report of trial is sufficient record 
to show ground of objection. Whether 
sufficient certification of judge that 
language was thus used, quaere. Swan- 
son V. Ft. Dodge, D. M. ft S. B. Co., 163 
la. 78, 133 N. W. 361. 

853-3 Bupel v. Oil Co., 176 Ind. 4, 
95 N. E. 225, Ann. Cas. 1912E, 836, 
written application. 

A veQiNBt mad sepante ftam tbB briefto 

of counsel is contemplated by the rule 
of court. McLeod v. Citiaena' Bank, 61 
FUu 350, 56 S. 190. 

863-4^ Tbne for filing briefto Umits 
the time for making request for* oral 
argument. Bupel v. Ohio Oil Co., 176 
Ind. 4, 95 N. E. 225. 
854-X4 Kinnon v. Lonisville, etc. B. 



(Ala.), 65 S. 397; Sovereign Camp W. 
O. W. V. Latham (Ind. App.), 107 N. 
E. 749; Merchants, etc. Co. v, Mui;phy 
(Mass.), 107 N. B. 968; Wellington v. 
City of Cambridge (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
976. 



ABBAXONMEMT AMD PLEA 

861-8 Harmon «. S., 8 Ala. App. 311, 
62 S. 438. 

864^13 Johnson v, U. S., 225 TJ. 8. 

405, 32 Sup. Ct. 748, 56 L. ed. 1142, 
aff. 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 347; Souther- 
land V. 8., 176 Ind. 493, 96 N. S. 583. 

864-16 Johnson v. U. 8., 225 IT. S. 
405, 32 Sup. Ct. 748, 56 L. ed. 1142, 
aff. 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 347. 

864-17 S. V. Witherspoon, 231 Mo. 
706, 133 S. W. 323; 8. v. Moss, 164 Mo. 
App. 379, 144 i W. 1109; S. t?. Ham- 
Bhaw, 61 Wash. 390, 112 P. 379. 

865-20 Whether in oyeci court. — ^A 
person held under indictment must be 
arraigned in open court, and on plea of 
guilty can be sentenced by the court 
only. One held under an information 
may be arraigned, may plead and be 
sentenced in vacation. Jones o. 
M'Glaughry (la.), 151 N. W. 210. 

866-23 Conspiracy is triable in court 
of quarter sessions without arraign- 
ment. C. V, Ferguson, 44 Pa^ Super. 
626. 

866-23 See McKay 9. S., 90 Neb. 

63, 132 N; W. 741, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 
1034, 39 L. B. A. (N. S.) 714. 

After amended indictment is filed a re- 
arraignment is not necessaiy in Louisi- 
ana. 8. V, Evans, 135 La. 891, 66 8. 
259. 

866-24 8. 17. Dargatz, 244 Mo. 218, 
148 8. W. 889; 8. V. Foley, 44 Mont. 
311, 120 P. 225. 

866-29 Andrews v, 8., 33 O. C. C. 

564. 

Filing demurrer after pie* of not gnilty 

does not withdraw plea so as to re- 
quire e new arraignment. 8. v. Can- 
non, 232 Mo. 205, 134 8. W. 513. 

867-81 Anderson v. 8., 33 O. O. OL 

564. 

867-33 U. S. V. Bomas, 1 Phil. Isl. 

81. 

869-48 8outherland v. 8., 176 Ind. 
493, 96 N. E. 583. 

869-49 Mason v. 8. (Tez. Cr.), 168 
8. W. 115. 



US' 



AB&AIGNMENT AND PLEA 



Yol. 2 



^70-52 Jones r. McClaughry (la.)i 
151 N..W. 210. 

871-54 Demmxer waives arUtigmfleitt. 
Kincade 17. S.^ 14 Ga. App. 544, SI 8. S. 
910. 

Heading under protest^ as where be 
calls attention to fact that he does not 
intend to waive arraignment, saves his 
right thereto. Harris r. S., 11 (^a. App. 
137, 74 S. E. 895. 

871-58 S. 1?. Elasner (N. Id*.), 145 P. 
679. See P. f?. Weeks, 165 Mich. 362, 
130 K W. 697, 18 Det. Leg. N. 136. 

872-60 ^Waiver hy attorney is not 

permissible in felony eases. Souther- 
Und t?. S., 176 Ind. 493, 96 N. ^ 583: 
8. V, Meekins^ 41 La. Ann. 543, 60 S. 
822; Younger V. S., 2 W. Va. 579, 98 
Am. Dec. 791. 

872-65 Burroughs v. S., 94 Neb. 519, 

143 N. W. 450. 

necessity of showing formal arraign- 
ment. — ^It is immaterial whether record 
shows a formal arraignment where it 
does fihow defendant was present and 
represented by counsel, aided in selec- 
tion of jury, and cross-examined state 's 
witnesses, introduced evidence in his 
own behalf, and tnat case was proper- 
ly submitted to jurv. Hast v. Ter., 5 
Okla. Cr. 162, 114 P. 261. 

873-72 Davidson tJ. S., 108 Ark. 191, 
158 S. W. 1103, Ann. Gas. 1915B, 436. 

874-73 S. V. Moss, 164 Mo. App. 379, 

144 S. W. 1109; S. v, Brennan, 83 N. 
J. L. 12, 84 A. 1066; S. v. Drown, 85 
Vt. 233, 81 A. 641. 

874-74 P. f?. Tomsky, 20 Cal. App. 
672, 130 P. 184; S. t). Barr, 7 Penne. 
(Del.) 340, 79 A. 730. 

The gmeral issne cannot be eradsd 

because if not tendered the statute 
forces it. Barrett f>. 8., 175 Ind. 112^ 
93 N. K 543. 

"Wliere bat one of two connti ie ideeded 
to, and there is a convietion on the 
nnpleaded count, the conviction is in- 
valid because unsupported by a plea. 
6. V. Brennan, 83 N. J. L. 12, 84 A. 
1066; Gaither v. S., 21 TeX. App. 527, 
1 8. W. 456. 

874-75 P. f>. Weeks, 165 Mich. 362, 
130 N. W. 697, 18 Det. Leg. N. 136; 
a e. Drown, 85 Vt. 233, 81 A. 641. 

Entry of plea alter "veidict withont 
consent of accused does not cure a fail* 
nre to plec^. 8. v. Brennan, 83 N. J. 
L. 12, 84 A. 1066. 



874-76 S. r. Drown, 85 Vt. 233, 81 
A. 641. 

875^8 P. r. Weeks, 165 Mich. 362, 
130 N. W. 697, 18 Det. Leg. N. 136; 
S. V. O'Kelley, 258 Mo. 345, 167 8. W. 
980, 52 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1063; Davis 
tJ. S. (Tex. Cr.), 158 S. W. 283. See 
Toney v. 8., 10 Ala. App. 220, 65 8. 
92. 

876-82 Comp, P. r. Afton, 258 111. 
292, 101 N. E. 557. 

877^5 McKay «. S., 91 Neb. 281, 
136 N. W. 1024, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1034, 
39 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 720, mod, 90 Neb. 
63, 132 N. W. 741; Ann. Cas. 1913B, 
1034, 39 L. B; a. (N. S.) 714. 

879^94 In Oregon also under L. O. 
L., 11500. 

879-95 In Nebraska, Or. Code, $436, 
provides for one day after receiving 
copy of indictment in which to plead. 
McKay v, 8., 90 Neb. 63, 132 N. W. 
741, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1034, 39 L. B. 
A. (N. 8.) 714. 

In OUaboma a defendant arraigned on 
a felony charge is entitled to one day 
in which to plead. Schlumbohm v, 8., 
5 Okla. Cr. 36, 113 P. 235. 
In Texas, etc. Graham t\ 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
160 8. W. 714. 

880-99 8. «. Moss, 164 Mo. App. 379, 
144 8. W. 1109. 

882-13 8. f>. Holloway, 57 Or. 162, 
110 P. 397. 

883-17 Bearden «. 8., 13 Ga. App. 
264, 79 8. E. 79; 8. t?. Holloway, 57 Or. 
162, 110 P. 397. 

88S-30 n. 8. f>. Molo, 5 Phil. Isl. 
412; XT. 8. t?. Paquit, 5 PhU. Isl. 635. 

886-32 S. r. Priedley, 73 W. Va. 684, 
80 8. ;B. 1112. 

886-^42 Where meh demnrrer is over- 
ruled the eourt must submit to the jury 
the issues made by the replication be- 
fore trial on merits. Beynolds t-. 8., 
1 Ala. App. 24, 65 8. 1016. 
DenmifW to replication to plea in abate- 
ntent reaches back to the plea. Young 
V, 3., 68 fla. 55, 58 8. 188. 

M7-46* P. f?. McCarthy, 176 111: App. 

A99. 

888-51 See Pittcock t?. 8. (Tex. Cr.),. 

163 8. W. 971. 

888-52 See Hyde v, TJ. 8., 33 App. 

Cas. (B. C.) 451, certiorari granted, 

218 U. 8. 681, 31 Sup. Ct. 228, 54 L. 

ed. 1207; Krause t?. S., 88 Neb. 473) 129 

N. W. 1020, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 736. 



169 



Vol a 



AUUAWifMENT AND PLEA 



Sudi a plea must be taken before plead- 
ing the general issue. Dowdell v, U. S., 
221 U. S. 325, 81 Sup. Ct. 590, 55 L. 
ed. 753. 

Objection to legality of grand jurors 
may be interposed by plea in abate- 
ment. Green v, 8., 60 Fla. 22, 53 S. 
610. Camp, Obbaniss v, 8., 8 Ga. App. 
129, 68 8. E. 849. See also 1 Stand- 
ABD Pboc. 31. 

Tnfmffldency of eyldence before grand 
Jury not a ground for abatement. 
Lesueur v. S., 176 Ind. 448, 95 N. E. 
239. See also 1 Standard Pboo. 33. 

Time for plea. — ^Plea in abatement must 
be interposed before a plea in bar. 
Green v. S., 60 Fla. 22, 53 8. 610. 
See "also 1 Standard Prog. 57, and sup- 
plement thereto. 

889-53 Epley i?. P., 51 Colo. 596, 119 
P. 1062. 

TTnaathorized discharge of Jnry* — ^Wbere 
the jeopardy relied upon is the un- 
authorized discharge of the jury the 
plea should set up the order of dis- 
charge or aver that no order was entered 
, upon the minutes. Andrews v, S., 174 
Ala. 11, 56 8. 998, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 
760. 

"Wliere a different offense is shown' the 
plea is demurrable. Huckabee <?. 8., 
168 Ala. 27, 53 S. 251. 

A special plea is necessary. Boberson 
V, 8., 183 Ala. 43, 62 8. 837; Graham v. 
8., 11 Ala. App. 113, 65 S. 717. See 
Ter. V. Lobato, 17 N. M. 666, 134 P. 
222. 

A copy of the accusation on which de- 
fendant was previously tried, must be 
set out in the plea. Whitley v» 8., 14 
Ga. App. 577, 81 S. E. 797. 
Proper practice where plea In bar is 
Interposed is for counsel to prepare 
written statement of facts relied upon 
which defendant or his counsel reads, 
whereupon the court inquires if that 
is his plea and directs clerk to enter 
statement on journal. If facts are con- 
troverted by state a jury is empaneled 
to determine the issue, and if the jury 
finds for him he is discharged, but if 
agai^ist him a trial on the merits is 
then had. 8. V, Holloway, 57 Or. 162, 
110 P. 397. 

889-55 Plea mnst set forth the facts 
to show how and in what manner ac- 
cused had been in jeopardy. 8. f . Hol- 
loway, 57 Or. 162, 110 P. 397, 791. 
889-57 Oonylction or acquittal must 
tuiTe been on the merits in order to 



be available. P. v. Warden, 202 N. Y. 
138, 95 N. E. 729, af. 139 App. Di^ 
488, 124 N. Y. 8. 341. 

889-58 P. V. Strickler, 167 Cal. 627, 
140 P. 270. 

889-59 See P. t\ McGrath, 202 N. 
Y. 445, 96 N. E. 92. 

Plea of autrefois attaint is superseded 
by plea of autrefois convict. Jenkins 
V. S., 14 Ga. App. 276, 80 S. E. 688. 

889-60 P. V. McGrath, 202 N. Y. 445, 

96 N. E. 92. 

Iiffanner of pleading prescribed by code 

should be adhered to. Shirley v. C, 
143 Ky. 183, 136 S. W. 227. 
The date, place and offense must be 
set out. P. V. Cuatt, 70 Misc. 453, 126 
N. Y. 8. 1114; Creech v. 8. (Tex, Cr.), 
158 8. W. 277. 

890-68 See Green v, V. 8., 40 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 426, 46 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 

1117. 

893-79 Ex parte Holdaway, 105 ArK. 
1, 150 8. W. 123; Wolfe V, 8., 102 Ark. 
295, 144 S. W. 208. See Griffin v, 
S., 12 Ga. App. 615, 77 S. E. 1080. 

893-82 Griffin v. S., 12 Ga. App. 615, 
77 S. E. 1080. See Patton v. 8., 62 
Tex. Cr. 28, 136 S. W. 42. 

895-86 P. V. Earing, 146 App. Div. 
903, 133 N. Y. 8. 1136, af. 71 Misc. 
615, 130 N. Y. 8. 1099. 

895-86 Indndes every element of 
the crime charged in indictment. P. €. 
Hartsig, 249 111. 348, 94 N. E. 525. 
895-91 Green i?. TJ. S., 40 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 426, 46 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1117; 
P. t?. Pox, 150 App. Div. 114, 134 N. 
Y. S. 642, af. 205 N. Y. 490, 99 N. E. 
147. 

896-93 Erratum. — ^Tbe second line of 
the text should be omitted and re- 
placed by the following, "But to de- 
termine whether to impose life im- 
prisonment or death the court may ex- 
amine witnesses. "^8 

897-96 Ex parte Biclcson, 36 Nev. 
94, 133 P. 393. 

A plea of goilty to an information 
which charged no offense is not a plea 
of guilty to any crime whatever. P. 
17. BeU, 148 N. Y. S. 753. 

Jurisdictional defects are not waived 

by such plea. P. v. Earing, 71 Misc. 
615, 130 N. Y. S. 1099. 

897-97 P. V. Puchs, 71 Misc. 69, 25 
N. Y. Cr. 507, 129 N. Y. S. 1012. 
900-6 Bearden v. S., 13 Ga. App. 



170 



AnttAlGNMMT AND PLUA 



Vol 2 



S64, 79 S, E. 79; Woodward v. S., 13 
Ga. App. 130, 78 S. E. 1009; Jenkins v. 
S^ 6 Okla. Cr. 510, 120 P. 298; McDan- 
iel 1?. S., 6 Okla. Cr. 710, 120 P. 299; 
U. S. V. Grant, 18 Phil. IbI. 122; U. S. 
V. Molo, 5 Phil. IbI. 412; U. S. v, Pa- 
qmt, 5 PhU. IbI. 635. 
In a murder case the court may dlBmlBs 
eharge and allow defendant to plead 
gcil^ to manslaughter. S. v. McDon- 
ald, 10 Okla. Cr. 413, 137 P. 362. 
901-7 TJ. S. V. Grant, 18 Phil. M. 
122. 

901-9 P. V. Bostic, 167 Cal. 754, 141 
P. 380; S. V. George, 134 La. 861, 64 
S. 800. 

902-10 S. V, Maresca, 85 Conn. 509, 
83 A. 635; P. t?. Walker, 250 111. 427, 
95 N. K 475. 

903-14 S. V. Maresca, 85 Conn. 609, 
83 A. 635; Griffin i\ S., 12 Ga. App. 615, 
77 S. E. 1080. 

90S-20 S. V, Hopkins (Del.), 88 A. 

473. 

90ll»-21 C. 17. Ferguson, 44 Pa. Super. 

626. 

90ll»-22 Tucker 17. U. S., 196 Fed. 
260, 116 C. C. A. 62, 41 L. B. A. (N. 
8.) 70; C. V. Ferguson, 44 Pa. Super. 
626. 

905-24 Flea of nolo eontendere is 

limited to misdemeanor cases punish- 
able by fine alone. Tucker v. U. S., 196 
Fed. 260, 116 C. C. A. 62, 41 L. B. A. 
(N. 8.) 70. 

905-26 C. V. Ferguson, 44 Pa. Su- 
per. 626. 

905-27 Allowable in Colorado under 
Bev. St., 1908, §1982. Young t?. P., 53 
Colo. 251, 125 P. 117. 

OOS.28 n. S. V. Lair, 195 Fed. 47, 
115 C. C. A. 49. 

007-36 Hallinger r. Davis, 146 TJ. 8. 
314, 13 Sup. Ot. 105, 36 L. ed. 986; XT. 
S. r. Lair, 195 Fed. 47, 115 C. C. A. 49; 
West r. Gammon, 98 Fed. 426, 39 C. 
0. A. 271. 

IM>T-3T S. r. Alderman, 81 N. J. L. 
549, 79 A. 283. 

908-58 P. i;. McCarthy, 176 111. App. 
499; 8. V. Drown, 85 Yt. 233, 81 A. 641. 

911-60 Boberson v. 8., 183 Ala. 43, 
62 8. 837; Broughton V. 8., 9 Ga. App. 
820, 72 8. £. 276. 

Plea of Immiuiity cannot be preeented 
under plea ot not guilty. Scribner v, 
8., 9 Okla. Cr. 465, 132 P. 933, Ann. 
lAlOP^ 881. 



912-70 Smith v. United States, 208 

Fed. 131, 125 C. C. A. 353; Prettyman 

V. U. S., 180 Fed. 30, 103 C. C. A. 384; 

Kimball v. Ter., 13 Ariz. 310, 115 P. 

70; S. V. Buonomo, 87 Conn. 285, 87 A. 

977; Jones v. S., 12 Ga. App. 133, 76 S. 

E. 1070; International H. Co. v. C, 147 

Ky. 657, 144 8. W. 1070. 

That defendant is a corporation may 

be shown under such plea. Madison- 

viUe, etc' B. Co. v. C, 140 Ky. 255, 130 

S. W. 1084. 

913-74 XT. S. i\ Lewis, 192 Fed. 633; 

S. V. Pace, 159 N. C. 462, 74 S. E. 1018. 

Contra, Morgan t?. S., 8 Ala. App. 172, 

63 8. 21. See also 1 Standard Proc. 

60. 

913-75 P. V. Kaiser, 150 App. Div. 

541, 135 N. Y. 8. 274, af, 206 N. Y. 46, 
99 N. £. 195. 

913-77 Eagland v. S. (Ala.), 65 S. 
776; Goemann v, S., 94 Neb. 682, 143 
N. W. 800. 

913-78 Phillips t\ IT. S., 201 Fed. 
259, 120 C. C. A. 149. 
914-79 Waller v. U. S., 179 Fed. 
810, 103 C. C. A. 302, 31 L. E. A. (N. 
8.) 113; P. t?. Jone8,^263 111. 564, 105 
N. E. 744; P. V, Turner, 260 111. 84, 102 
N. E. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 144; P. 
V. Straueh, 247 111. 220, 93 N. E. 126; 
Weatherholt v. S., 9 Okla. Cr. 161, 131 
P. 185. 

Tho offect of withdrawing a plea of 
not guilty is to put defendant in same 
position as if no plea had been en- 
tered. Gibbons v. Ter., 5 Okla. Cr. 
212, 115 P. 129. 

Where there 1b a reserration of the 
right to withdraw a plea of not guilty 
and file a motion to quash, the subse- 
quent filing of the plea does not ipso 
facto withdraw the plea, especially 
when accused went to trial on merits 
without objections on same day. S. t?. 
Seals, 135 La. 602, 65 S. 756. 
916-87 In misdexneaaor cases the 
record mnst show that issue was made 
by plea of not guilty. P. v. McCarthy, 
176 111. App. 499. 

917-9S TJ, S. V. Molo, 5 Phil. Isl. 
412. 

918-4 Parker f?. S., 2 Ala. App. 127, 
66 S. 872; James v. S., 110 Ark. 170, 
160 8. W. 1090; S. t?. XJnsworth, 85 N. 
J. L. 237, 88 A. 1097, aff. 84 N. J. L. 
22, 86 A. 64. 

918-e Wentxel f. P.» 55 Celo. 88, 188 
P. 415. 



171 



Vol. 2 



ARREST IN CIVIL CASES 



A plea of the statute of limitatioiis will 
not put in issne a charge of a continu- 
ing conspiracy, guch allegations must be 
denied under the general issue. U. S. <?. 
Barber, 219 U. 8. 72, 31 Sup. Ct. 209, 
55 L. ed. 99; U. 8. t\ Kissel, 218 U. S. 
601, 31 Sup. Ct. 124, 54 L. ed. 1168, fev. 
173 Fed. 823. 

919-16 Fritz v. S., 178 Ind. ,463, 99 
N. E. 727. 

919-17 Alford v. S,, 137 Ga. 468, 73 
S. E. 376. 

919-18 Alford v. 8., 137 Ga. 458, 73 
8. E. 375. 

919-19 Alford v. S., 137 Ga. 468, 73 
8. E. 375. 



ABBEST IN OIVH. OASES 

926-6 Soule r. Ottawa Circ. Judge, 
175 Mich. 127, 140 N. W. 990. 

927-10 Ex parte La Due, 161 Oal. 
632, 120 P. 13. 

927-11 8. t?. Keller (W. Va.), 81 S. 
E. 972. 

928-12 Ex parte Boyd, 36 Nev. 162, 
134 P. 455, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1277. 

934-64 Reiss r. Levy, 165 App. Div. 
1, 150 N. Y. 8. 440. 

936-71 Lewis €?. Lewis, 77 Misc. 412, 
136 N. Y. 8. 686, 3 Civ. Proc. (N. 
S.) 1. 

938-76 Ex parte Caples (Cal. App.), 
148 P. 795; Manhattan Com. Co. v. 
Leuchtenberg Co., 77 Misc. 665, 138 N. 
Y. 8. 168. 

939-89 Pratt v. Allegan Circ. Judge, 
177 Mich. 668, 143 N. W. 890. 

939-90 That affiant has personal 
knowledge of the facts stated must be 
shown. Martin r. Circuit Judge, 173 
Mich. 22, 138 N. W. 273. See Soule tJ. 
Ottawa Circ. Judge, 175 Mich. 127, 140 
N. W. 990. 

941-98 Manhattan Com. Oo. r. Leuch- 
tenberg Co., 77 Misc. 665, 138 N. Y. 8. 
168. 

944-20 Juskovitz v, Rafsky, 130 1^. 
Y. 8. 839. 

955-3 Ex parte Caples (Cal. App.), 
148 P. 795. 

956-8 Brown u. Ball (N. D.), 150 N. 
W. 890. . 

964-76 Beinboth v. Ederheimer, 134 

N. Y. 8. 16. ^ ' 

964-79 S. V. Keller (W. Va.), 81 S. 
E. 972. ' 



966-89 Davidson r. Bheim, 184 JfL 
Y. S. 1091. 

966«9d Jnstioe of the peace Aay is- 
sue Writ in the lUanner and under con- 
ditions prescribed in §861-865, Code Civ. 
Proc. Ex parte La Due, 161 Oai. 682. 
120 P. 13. 

968-19 Juskovitz v. Bafsky, 130 N. 
Y. a. 839. 

97l-d6 la an actitm for fllandAr 

where it was alleged that defendant in 
the presence of many said, "You thief, 
what do you want heret ... I can 
prove you are a thief,'' l&ere is a suM- 
cient cause of action, and it is erton- 
eous to set aside an order of arrest. 
Juskovitz V. Bafsky, 180 N. Y. S. dd9. 

972-64 8e6 Harpef v. Jefferff, 139 Ga. 
756, 78 8. E. 172. 

974-65 Ex parte Boyd, 36 Nev. lei, 
134 P. 465, Ann. Cks. 1916A, 1277. 

974-67 Comp. Badtke v. P., 171 HL 
App. 462. 

974-70 Ex parte Boyd, 36 Nev. 182, 
134 P. 455, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1277. 



ABBE8T OF JUDaiOlTr 

982-1 8. V. Heft, 155 la. 21, 184 N. 

W. 950 (quoting statute); S. v. Muir, 
92 Kan. 165, 139 P. 1158 (quoting' stat- 
ute) ; Hamilton v. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 145 8. 
W. 348. 

982-2 S. V, 8tickney, 108 Me. 186, 
79 A. 370. 

988-9 8. V. Mead, 27 8. D. 381, 181 
N. W. 305; 8. v. Mewhinney, 44 Utah 
231, 139 P. 862. 

983-10 P. t>. Tomsky, 20 Cal. App. 
672, 130 P. 184. 

984-13 Jones v. 8., 100 Ark. 195, 189 
8, W. 1126; McManus v. Thing, 208 
Mass. 55, 94 K E. 293. 

984-15 Statutory gtonnda eselnalTe. 

Jones e. 8., 100 Ark. 196, 139 S. W. 
1126. 

In Arkaneas, motion in arrest is Hot 
recognized in civil cases. Collier «• 
Newport, etc. Co., 100 Ark. 47, 139 S. 
W. 635, Ann. Gas. 1913D, 458; Byas «. 
Fielder, 99 Ark. 374, 138 S. W. 973. 

984-16 n. 8. f . Maarey, 200 Fed. 997; 
Parsons v, 8., 179 AIM. 28, 60 8. 864; 
Mangrall v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 189, 66 S. 
446; Collier v. Newporty ete. C0.4 100 
Ark. 47, 139 8. W. 635, AailL. Oaa. lMdl>, 
458; Byatf v. Fieldef, 99 Jk^rk. 9t% 1S8 
8. W. 973; Kendall f. 



172 



ARREST OF JUDGMENT 



Vol 2 



Jamflft Grocer Co., 173 HI. App. 504; 
O Toole 17. Tudor, 175 Ind. 827, 93 N. 
£. 276; B. p. Hart, 133 Jjsl. 5, 62 S. 161; 
S: V. Tufianio, 132 La. 843, 61 8. 844; 
8. 17. McGrocklin, 130 La, 106, 57 8. 645; 
S. «7. Houlehan, 109 Me. 281, 83 A. 1106; 
Wilaon c. Kelso, 115 Md. 162, 80 A. 
895; McManus v. Thing, 208 Mase. 55, 
94 N. E. 293; S. v. Jenkins, 164 N. C. 
527, 80 8. E. 231; Boville v. Paper 
Mlllfl, 86 Vt. 305, 85 A. 623, 629; Demp- 
607 ^' Poore (W. Va.), 83 8. E. 300. 
8ee McFerran v, Swaynie, 60 Ind. App. 
60, 98 N. E. 135. 

Moat be founded on a defect in the In- 
fomiation.— 8. v. Van, 44 Mont. 374, 120 
P. 479; S. r. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 
P. 760. 

986-lT O Toole r. Tudor, 175 Ind. 
227, 93 N. £. 276. 

987-22 8. 17. Young, 153 la. 4, 182 
N. W. 813, Ann. Gas. 1913E, 70. 
988-24 U.S. 17. Mazey, 200Fed.997; 
8. V. Young, 153 la. 4, 132 N. W. 813, 
Ann. Cae. 1913E, 70. 

988-25 Pittsburgh, etc. B. Go. 17. 8., 
178 Ind. 498, 99 N. E. 801 ; 8. «. Young, 
153 la. 4, 132 N. W. 813, Ann. Gas. 
1913E, 70. 

988-28 S. 17. Eamriek (W. Va.)i 81 
8. E. 703. 

989-32 P. 17. Zlotincke; 152 III. App. 
363, quot» Blackstone. 

989-33 P. 17. Zlotincke, 152 111. App. 
363. 

989-35 In Maaeacbnsetts. — C. k). 
I>rohan, 210 Mass. 445, 97 N. E. 89. 
But this statute is not applicable if the 
verdict was defective in substance or 
repugnant to the material issues sub- 
mitted. McManus 17. Thing, 208 Mass. 
55, 94 N. E. 293. 

990-42 Under tlie Haasachusetts 
statute^— G. 17. Cornell, 213 Mass. 135, 
99 N. £. 975. 

991-44 C. r. Drohan, 210 Mass. 448, 
97 N. E. 89; P. v. Graeeflfo, 143 App. 
IMt. 728, 128 N. Y. 8. 646; P. 17. Gard- 
ner, 78 Misc. 514, 139 N. Y. 8. 1013; 
Gibbons r. Ter., 5 Okla. Or. 212, 115 
P. 129. 

992-45 Lay v. S., 180 Ind. 1, 102 
K. £. 274. 



But see Pittsburgh, etc. B. 
po. V. 8., 178 Ind. 498, 99 N. £. 801. 

998-58 P. r. Ezell, 155 HI. App. 298; 
8. 9. MosB, 164 Ho. App. 379, 144 8. 
W. 1109. 



993-69 P. t\ Ezell, 155 111. App. 
298; S. r. Moss, 164 Mo. App. 379, 144 
8. W. 1109. 

994-60 8. v. Heft, 155 la. 21, 134 N. 
W. 950. 

994^1 8. 17. Muir, 92 Ean. 165, 139 
P. 1158. 

Failure to role on demurrer which 
would not have been sustained is a 
technical defect not ground for sustain- 
ing a motion in arrest. 8. 17. Heft, 155 
la. 21, 134 N. W. 950. 

Constitutionality of statute creating 
court cannot be raised for first time on 
motion in arrest. Howell i?. Sherwood, 
242 Mo. 513, 147 S. W. 810. 
Filing away indictment to be brought 
forward on defendant's arrest not a 
matter for arrest. Allen 17. 8. (Tex. Cr.), 
138 8. W. 593. 

996-74 "Woodsman i?. S., 179 Ind. 
697, 102 N. E. 130; Hamilton 17. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 145 8. W. 348. 

997-84 8. 17. Mewhinney, 44 Utah 
231, 139 P. 862. 

Insanity of defendant at trial not a 
ground for arrest, but the motion will 
be treated as a suggestion of the pres- 
ent insanity and a motion to suspend 
sentence during the period of his in- 
sanity. Duncan v. 8., 110 Ark. 523, 
162 8. W. 573. 8ee the title "Insane 
Persons." 

997-85 8. 17. Hogg, 126 La. 1053, 53 
S. 225, 29 L. B. A- (N. 8.) 830. 

996-92 Warren r. Badger, L. & Z. 
Co., 255 Mo. 138. 164 8. W. 206, decis- 
ion on' demurrer. 

999-18 S. 17. Mewhinney, 44 Utah 
231, 139 P. 862. 

1000-19 Bank 17. Smith, 11 Wheat. 
(U. S.) 171, 6 L, ed. 443; Warner 17. 
Baker, 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 493; Wor- 
thy 17. Farmers' L. Confederation, 139 
Ga. 81, 76 8. E. 856; Kelleher ». Chi- 
cago City E. Co., 256 111. 454, 100 N. E. 
145; Czerniak t7. Chicago. 161 111. App. 
360 (declaration sufficient in absence of 
demurrer); Cole t\ East St. Louis, 158 
111 App. 494; Town of Cicero i?. Lake 
Erie & W E. Co., 52 Ind. App. 298, 97 
N. E. 389; Beheret v, Myers, 240 Mo. 
58. 144 8. W, 824; Grover Irr. & L. Co. 
r. Lovella, etc. Co., 21 Wyo. 204, 131 
P. 43. 

Defective anawer cannot be attacked 
by arrest of judgment, if there be one 
good paragraph. McGuffin v. Lenfesty 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 475. 



173 



Vol. 3 



AB80N 



1036-5 Jn BUnoiB, if judgsieiit k 
arrested, it is erroneous to enter a 
judgment for costs. Zander V. M/eiz, 
162 Bl. App. 620. 



ABSON 

8-1 Williams v. S., 177 Ala. 34, 158 
S. 921, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 584. 

Both at common law and by statute 

arson is an offense against possesBion 
rather than the property. Johnson v. 
S., 1 Ala. App. 148, 55 S. 268; Allen v. 
8, (Tex. Cr.), 137 S. W. 1133. 

6-14 S. t2. Donovan (Bel.), 90 A. 220. 

5-16 S. V. Caporale, 85 N. J. L. 495, 
89 A. 1034. 

6-18 Charging burning of ''a ware- 
house and tobacco house'' does not 
charge two separate offenses, Wright 
V, C, 155 Ky. 750, 160 8. W. 476. 

10-42 P. ff. Waldhom, 82 Misc. 238, 
143 N. Y. S. 484. 

10-46 Goff V. S., 60 Fla. 13, 53 S. 
327; P. V. Covltz, 262 111. 514, 104 N. 
E. 887. 

Iiocation of building. — Need not pre- 
cisely state location of house, and the 
allegation that it was in New York 
county Is sufficient. P. v. Freeman, 160 
App. Div. 640, 145 N. Y. S. 1061. 

16-66 See S. f?. Stringer, 105 Miss. 
851, 63 S. 270. 

16-67 P. 17. Freeman, l60 App. Dir. 

640, 145 N. Y. S. 1061. 

16-69 Williams v. S., 177 Ala. 34, 
58 S. 921, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 584, 4 
Ala. App 92, 58 S. 925. 

16-60 S. V. Myer, 259 Mo. 306, 168 8. 
W. 717. 

16-61 The nature of the estate or 
claim of occupant is not the material 
thing, but his possession. Johnson f?. 
S., 1 Ala. App. 148, 55 S. 268. 

17-66 P. V. Spira, 264 Dl. 243, 106 N. 
E. 241; P. V. Covitz, 262 HI. 514, 104 
N. E. 887; Overstreet V. C, 147 Ky. 
471, 144 S. W. 751. 

18-67 Tmstee. — Ownership is prop- 
erly laid in one to whom a deed con- 
veying the property destroyed was exe- 
cuted for the purpose of indemnifying 
him as surety of grantor, the bond be- 
ing in force when building was set on 
fire. Kinsey f. S., 12 Ga. App, 422, 77 
S. E. 369. 

19-72 Goff V. S., 60 Fla. 13, 17, 53 
S. 327. 



19-73 Savage v. 8., 8 Ala. App. 334, 
62 S. 999, certiorari denied. Ex parte 
S., 184 Ala. 1, 63 8. 1006. 

19-76 Separate aUegationa as to 
Vialue of the building and the property 
therein are not Deeessaiy. 8. ^. Huff- 
man, 69 W. Va. 770, 73 8. E. 292. 

20-81 See Parb v. 8., 143 Wis. 561, 
128 N. W. 65. 

Snowledge of Insonncair— Indictment 
need not allege that person who set 
the fire knew it was insured. Arnold 
V, S. (Tex. Cr.), 168 8. W. 122. Nor 
by whonl or by what authority the 
house was insured. Arnold v. 8. (Tex. 
Cr.), 168 8. W. 122. 

21-84 Parb v^ 8., 143 Wia. 561, 128 

N. W. 65. 

24-90 P. f>. Stewart, 163 Mich. 1, 
127 N. W. 816. 

Bnming ^^coeks" or "lihoclDB" of hay 
will not sustain a conviction of the 
charge of burning '^ stacks" of hay. 
P. V, Doyle, 13 Cal. App. 611, HO P. 
458. 

24-91 Savage «. 8., 8 Ala. App. 334, 
62 8. 999, certiorari denied, Ex parte 
S., 184 Ala. 1, 63 8. 1006. 

26^2 Johnson v. 8., 1 Ala. App. 148, 
55 S. 268. 

Proof of occupancy nnder claim of right 
by alletged owner will sustain an al- 
legation of ownership. Harrell «. S., 
121 Ga. 607, 49 8. E. 703; Bice v. 8. 
(Ga. App.), 84 &^ E. 609. 

27-93 WlMre Indietoieat alleged 
ownerdiip in liiul»and and proof showed 
property was purchased with his earn- 
ings it ]0 immaterial* that deed was 
taken in wife's name. Pinckard v, S., 
62 Tex. Cr. 602, 138 8. W. 601. 
Title In wife- — Where there was evi- 
dence showing that the person in whom 
ownership of burned bam was alleged 
in indictment to be had full control, 
possession, and management thereof, it 
was immaterial that the legal title to 
the land was In his wife and the per- 
son who was making a crop on shares 
was using the farm. Johnson i?. 8., 1 
Ala. App. 151, 55 8. 445. 



ASSAULT AND BATTEET 

33-1 Burton r. 8., 8 Ala. App. 295, 
62 8. 894; 8. v. Honey, 2 Boyce (Del.) 
324, 80 A. 240; 8. v. Tturaspe, 22 Ida. 
360, 125 P. 802; Raefeldt t\ Koenig, 
152 Wis. 459, 140 N. W. 56. 



176 



ASSIGNMENT, BENEFIT OF CREDITORS Vol. 3 



33-2 Cox r. S., 99 Ark. 90, 136 S. 
W. 989; McGlone v. Hauger (Ind. App.), 
104 N. E. 116; Hixson t?. Slocum, 156 
Ky, 487, 161 S. W. 522. 

34-T See P. v. Cantwell, 253 111. 57, 
97 N. E. 287, af. 160 111. App. 652; S. 
V, Bray, 1 Mo. 180; S. v. Hays, 41 Tex, 
526. 

3S-10 Name of party injured must 
be proved as laid in indictment. P. 
V. Anderson, 267 111. 75, 107 N. E. 840; 
Davis V. P., 19 HI. 73, 74. 

35-11 See Black v. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 
S. W. 774. 



Miller r. S. (Tex. Cr.), 150 
S. W. 635. See Perkins v. S. (Tex. 
Cr.), 138 8. W. 133. 

Self-defense. — In Minnesota no burden 
rests upon defendant to prove he acted 
in self-defense, but the prosecution 
must satisfy the jury the act was not 
justifiable on that ground. S. v. Mc- 
Grath, 119 Minn. 321, 138 N. W. 310. 
3d-34 See Vansant v, Kowalewski 
(Del.), 90 A. 421. 

41-37 See Sellaod t?. Nelson, 22 N. 
D. 14, 132 N. W. 220; Hunt t-. Di Bacco, 
69 W. Va. 449, 71 S. E. 584. 

42-39 The doctrine of contributory 
negligence as a defense has no applica- 
tion to an action for damages for as- 
sault and battery. Steinmetz r. Kelly, 
72 Ind. 442, 37 Am. Rep. 170; Enter v. 
Foy, 46 la. 132; Eckerd i\ Weve, 85 
Kan. 752, 118 P. 870, 38 L. R. A. (N. 
S.) 516; Bauchpies r. Obert, 51 Pa. 
Super. 441. 

43-40 Wilhite t?. Fricke, 169 Ala. 
76, 53 S. 157; Morris t?. McClellan, 169 
Ala. 90, 53 S. 155, also reported in 154 
Ala. 639, 45 S. 641; De Freitas r. Nunes, 
156 in. App. 17; Southern R. Co. v 
Crone, 51 Ind. App. 300, 99 N. E. 762; 
Brown €. Barr (Mo.), 171 S. W. 4; Rae- 
feldt V. Koenig, 152 Wis. 459, 140 N. 
W. 56. 

Tlie degree of force used need not be 
speeifled in a plea of justification. La 
Fevre r. Oossan, 3 Boyce (Del.) 376, 
84 A. 127. 

43-41 Theory of comparatiTe force 
cannot be pleaded in Justification but 
may be considered by jury in mitiga- 
tion of damages. Morris v, McClellan, 
169 Ala. 90, 53 S. 155. 

44-42 Plea of moUiter manns im- 
po0ait is no defense to a charge of 
beating and wounding. La Fevre v. 
Crossauy 3 Boyce (Bel.), 376, 84 A. 127. 



44-44 See Salisbury v. La Fitte, 50 
Colo. 404, 115 P. 633. 

45-46 Hardy v, Schirmer, 163 Cal 
272, 124 P. 993; Spenler v. Turley, 158 
m. App. 146; Kehl v. Burgener, 157 
HI. App. 468; Downs r. Jackson (Ky.), 
128 S. W. 339; Riddle v. Moffitt, 159 
Mo. App. 470, 141 S. W. 448. 

46-40 Obscene or offensive language 
cannot preclude recovery but may miti- 
gate damages. Jones r. Bynum (Ala.), 
66 S. 639. 



ASSiaNMSNT FOB THE BENEFIT 
OF OBEDITOBS 

40-1 Hammond v. Ridley's Exrs., 116 
Va. 393, 82 S. E. 102. 

60-10 In re Rutaced Co., 137 App. 
Div. 716, 122 N. Y. S. 454. 

62-16 Brooksville Granite Co. v. 

Latty, 83 Misc. 384, 144 N. Y. S. 1042. 
A preylons attachment is good, in the 
absence of statutory inhibition. Smart 
V, Burgess, 35 R. I. 149, 85 A. 742. 

53-17 Nalte v, Winstanley (Ariz.), 
145 P. 246. 

54-20 State Nat. Bank v, Wheeler & 
Hotter Merc. Co., 104 Ark. 222, 148 S. 
W. 1033. 

56-33 Moore r. Bettingen, 116 Minn. 
142, 133 N. W. 561, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 
816; In re Rutaced Co., 137 App. Div. 
716, 122 N. Y. S. 454. 

58-48 In re Standard Cafeteria Co., 
68 Or. 550, 137 P. 774. 

62-70 Bight lost by dela7.r— A cred- 
itor who having due notice of an as- 
signment and of the time limit within 
which it must be accepted, declines to 
become a party thereto until after the 
time limit has expired, cannot then 
compel the assignees to allow him to 
become a party. International Trust 
Co. V. Livermore (Mass.), 107 N. E. 
392. 

64-96 Mayberry v, Sprague, 207 
Mass. 508, 93 N. E. 925. 

66-11 McCord v. Sprinkel (Tex.), 
141 S. W. 945, af, judgment, Sprinkel 
V. McCord (Tex. Civ.), 129 S. W. 379. 
67-17 Coleman v. Hagey, 252 Mo. 
102, 158 S. W. 829. 

73-63 Salyer «. Blessing, 151 Ey. 
459, 152 S. W. 276. 

78-01 In re Ellington P. Co., 131 La. 
653, 60 S. 25; Major v. Lunn, 115 Minn. 
404, 132 N. W. 321, 



1% 



177 



Vol. 3 



ASSIGNMENTS 



81-19 Nealy i>. City Nat. Bank, 150 
Ky. 512, 150 S. W. 679. 

88-84 Paddell v> Jane0> S4 Miie. 212, 
145 W. Y. S. 86«. 

88-88 Paddell v. Janes, 84 Mise. 212, 
145 N. Y. S. 868. 



ABSiamfBNTS 

8T-4 Rogers i;. Harvey, 143 Ky. 88, 
136 8. W. 128. 

88-11 Long V. B. Co., 170 Ala. 635, 
54 S. 62. 

91-19 Harlan Douglas Co. v, Moncur, 
19 Cal. App. 177, 124 P. 1053. 

91-20 Salt Pork Coal Co. v. Eldridge 
Coal Co., 170 HI. App. 268. 

98-27 Michigan Sugar Co. v. Moffett 
(Miclr.), 149 K. W. 1025. 

98-30 PAlmer v. Palmer, 112 Me. 
149, 91 A. 281. 

96^44 MiehigaA Sugar Co. v. Moffett 
(Mich.), 149 N. W. 1025. 

101-64 Leonard v. Springer, 174 HL 
App. 516. 

103-64 American Lithographic Co. 
V. Ziegler, 216 Mass. 287, 103 N. £. 
909. 

103-66 Hall v. Hall, 112 Me. 234, 
91 A. 949. 

108-67 Wilson v. Shrader, 73 W. Va. 
105, 79 S. E. 1083. 

104-68 Beios v, Mardis, 18 Cal. App. 
276, 122 P. 1091; MiUiken-Helm Com. 
Co. V. Albers Com. Co., 244 Mo. 38, 147 
S. W. 1065. 

106-78 Shearer f>. Shearer^ 137 Ga. 
51, 72 S. E. 428; Cross v. Page & Hill 
Co., 116 Minn. 123, 133 N. W. 178. 

106-74 Sternberg & Co. v. Lehigh 
Val. R. Co., 78 N. J. L. 277, 73 A. 39, 
af. 80 N. J. L. 468, 78 A. 1135. 

107-77 Security Bank v. Callahan 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 385; Seiter t;. Mar- 
schall (Tex.), 147 S. W. 226. 

110-83 Wells i>. Crawford, 23 Colo. 
App. 103, 127 P. 914; Ford ft Co. t'. At- 
lantic Compress Co., 138 Ga. 496, 75 
S. is. 609, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 226. 

110-88 Carozza v. Baxley^ 203 Fed. 
673, 122 C. C. A. 69; 8. v, Superior 
Conrt, 67 Wash. 355, 121 P. 847. 

The assignee of a daim under a super- 
sedeas bond is the real party in in- 
terest, and may sue in his own name. 
Love V. Cahn, 93 Ark. 215, 124 S. W. 
259, 



111-86 Pecos & N. T. B. Co. v. Por- 
ter (Tex. Civ.), 156 8. W. 267. 

111-87 The Bupert City, 213 Fed. 
263; Ballinger v, Vates (Colo. App.), 
140 P. 931; Hull v. Massachusetts Bond- 
ing & Ins. Co., 86 Kan. 342, 120 P. 544. 
Contra, Martin v. Mask, 158 N. C. 436, 
74 S. E. 343, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 641. 

111-88 Bullman v, Bullman, 81 Kan. 
521, 106 P. 52. 

112-90 Birdsall r. Coon, 157 Mo. 
App. 439, 139 8. W. 243; Walker v. City 
of New York, 72 Misc. 97, 129 N. Y. 
S. 1059; Vaughan v, Davenport, 159 N. 
C. 369, 74 S. E. 967; Slaughter t\ Bank 
of Texline (Tex. Civ.), 164 8. W. 27; 
National Union F. Ins. Co. r. Denver 
ft B. G. B. Co., 44 Utah 26, 137 P. 
653. 

113-92 Sweeney r. Poster, 112 Va. 
499, 71 S. E. 548. 

114-93 Ooffman r. Saline Val. B. Co., 
183 Mo. App. 622, 167 8. W. 1053. 

114-98 Columbian B. C. Co. v. B6se, 
187 Fed. 803, 109 C. C. A. 563; Thomp- 
son V. Gimbel Bros., 71 Misc. 126, 128 
N. Y. 8. 210; Trinity County Lumb. Co. 
V. Holt (Tex. Civ.), 144 8. W. 1029. 

118-7 Where assignor guarantees 
payment of claim assigned he may join 
assignee in the action. Kennedy Town 
& Imp. Co. V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. 
Civ.), 136 8. W. 558. 

122-23 Krieger v. Feeny, 14 Cal. 
App. 538, 112 P. 901. 

124-35 Lapique 17. Denis, 23 Cal. 
App. 683, 139 P. 237; McKnight r. 
Lowitz, 176 Mich. 452, 142 N. W. 769. 
126-43 Zaney 17. Bawhide Gold Min. 
Co., 15 Cal. App. 373, 114 P. 1026. 

139-61 Complaint on an order to 
pay money should allege that such sum 
is due under the terms of the assign- 
ment. Mayor, Lane ft Co. r. Weinstein 
Bealty Co., 87 Misc. 150, 149 N. Y. S. 
1045. 

130-64 The non-assignabiUty of the 
6Ialm is ground for demurrer. Wilson 
1?. Shrader, 73 W. Va. 105, 79 8. E. 1083. 

132-73 Fav r. Bankers' Surety Co., 
125 Minn. 211, 146 N. W. 359. 

134-79 Ketcham r. Bowland, 71 
Misc. 439, 128 N. Y. 8. 695. 

136-91 Wilcox t\ Downing, 88 Conn. 
368, 91 A. 262. 

136-92 Goldstein r. Schwartz, 148 
N. Y. 8. 256, 



J78 



ASSUMPSIT 



Vol 3 



AMI8TAK0B, WBTTS OF 

140-6 Long c. Morris, 176 Ala. 371, 
58 8. 274. 

140-7 Long V. Morris, 176 Ala. 371, 
58 8. 274. 

Eaal^alfiOt to the writ of habere facias 
possessionem at law. Gardner €. Dun- 
can, 104 Miss. 477, 61 S. 545. 

141-9 Lnndstrum r. Branson, 92 Kan. 
78, 139 P. 1172, 52 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 
697; Clarke r. Aldridee, 162 N. C. 326, 
78 S. £. 216; State r. Superior Court, 
63 Wash. 312, 115 P. 307, Ann. Cas. 
1913D, 1119. 

142-16 Cigler r. Keinllth, 167 HI. 
App. 65. 

144-19 S. V. Superior Court, 63 
Wash. 312, 115 P. 307, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
1119. 

146-23 aarke v. Aldridge, 162 N. C. 
326, 78 8. £. 216. 

146-26 Combs r. Miller, 149 Ky. 546, 
149 8. W. 906. 

149-38 Gardner v. Duncan, 104 Miss. 
477, 61 8. 545. 

161-41 Cigler v. Keinath, 167 HI. 
App. 65. 



ASSOOIATIOKS 

Hanley v. Elm Grove Mut. Tel. 
Co., 150 la. 198, 129 N. W. 807; 
O'BoDrke t?. Kelly The Printer Corp., 
156 Mo. App. 91, 135 8. W. 1011. See 
Lafond r. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507, 514; 
Waller r. Thomas, 42 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 
337, 344; Park v. Spaulding, 10 Hun 
(N. Y.) 128, 131; Caldicott v. Griffiths, 
22 Eng. L. & Eq. 527; Fleming v. Hec- 
tor, 2 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 172. 

169-3 Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. 
(Pa.) 571. See Edwards v. Old Set- 
tlers' Assn. (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 423. 
169-4 Francis v. Perry, 82 Misc. 271, 
144 N. Y. S. 167. 

As miliicoiporatad voliintary charitable 
aMJOciatlan can neither sue nor be sued 
in its capacity as an association. Home 
Benefit Assn. v. Wester (Tex. Civ.), 
146 S. W. 1022. 

160-6 Bolt in eqiiiitsr.— "The proper 
method of suing such an association is 
to institute a suit in equity against 
some of the members as representing 
themselves and all others having the 
same interest, and after judgment, to 
compel the defendants to see that the 
treasury of the association pays the 

179 



claim." Wolfe «. Limestone CouneiL 
233 Pa. 357, 82 A. 499. 

161-9 Bossert v. Dhuy, 165 App. Div. 
931, 151 N. y. 8. 877. 

162-11 Kimball v. Lower Columbia 
Fire Assn., 67 Or. 249, 135 P. 877; 
Crawley t?. American Soc, 153 Wis. 13, 
139 N. W. 734. 

Deecrlbing defendant in lodge name. 

Where the party is sued as "Armenia 
Lodge No. 1930, of the Grand United 
Order of Odd Fellows in America" al- 
leged to be ''an unincorporated organ- 
ization in the nature of an insurance 
company, and is a local lodge," it is 
not erroneous in absence of amendment, 
to dismiss the petition on the ground 
that no party defendant is described 
therein. Cain v. Armenia Lodge, 12 
Ga. App. 251, 77 S. E. 184. 

Members dionld be made defendants. 

' ' If the plaintiff had made the members 
of the association, or possibly a major- 
ity of them, including the officers, par- 
ties defendant, we would not question 
the propriety of his including the en- 
tire association under its adopted name 
also," but the association cannot be 
sued in its name without joinder of any 
officer or member. Hanley v. Elm Grove 
Mut. Tel. Co., 150 la. 198, 129 N. W. 
807; Conway v. Zender, 154 Wis. 479, 
143 N. W. 162. 

162-14 N. £. States Sangerbund v. 
Fidelia M. & £. Soc. (Mass.), 105 N. 
E. 629; OTtourke v. Kelly The Printer 
Corp., 156 Mo. App. 91, 135 S. W. 1011, 
where it was held that every member is 
a necessary party plaintiff where they 
sue as joint contractors. 

163-16 Service of process on agent. 

Statute providing that service on an 
agent of an unincorporated association 
shall be binding on the organization 
and authorize judgment against indi- 
vidual members is constitutional. Ap- 
peal of Baylor, 93 8. C. 414, 77 8. E. 
59. 



ASSUMPSIT 

170-1 Jones v. Moore, 198 Fed. 301; 
Braham r. Honolulu Amusement Co., 21 
Haw. 583. 

lTl-4 Miller v, Ambrose, 35 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 75. 

lTT-23 Porter r. Androscoggin & 
Kennebec B. B. Co., 37 Mo. 349. 

180-41 Worley f. Johnson, 60 Fla, 



Vol. 3 



ASSUMPSIT 



294, 53 8. 543; Board of Highway 
Comrs. V. Bloomington, 253 111. 164, 97 
K. £. 280, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 471; Lea- 
Big V. American Pneumatic Carpet 
Cleaning Co., 158 111. App. 420. 

181-46 Bashar r. Pittsburg, etc. B. 
Co., 73 W. Va. 39, 79 8. E. 1009. 

185-68 Hall v. Philadelphia Co. (W. 
Va.), 81 8. E. 727. 

185-62 Hall r. Philadelphia Co. (W. 
Va.), 81 S. E. 727. 

187-76 Hall v. Philadelphia Co. (W. 
Va.), 81 8. E. 727. 

187-77 McCray r. Craig & Sons, 70 
W. Va. 735, 75 8. E. 79. 

191-15 Outcault Advertising Co. r. 
Hooten & Co., 11 Ala. App. 454, 66 8. 
901. 

193-29 HoUister t?. Lyon, 177 111. 
App. 652; American Surety Co. v. Fruin- 
Bambrick Const. Co., 182 Mo. App. 667, 
166 8. W. 333; Mankin v, Jones, 68 W. 
Va. 422, 69 8. E. 981. 
Not for breach of ezeoutory contract. 
Common counts are not sustained by a 
showing of a right to damages for 
breach of an executory contract. El- 
rod Lumb. Co. i;. Moore, 186 Ala. 430, 
65 S. 175. 

194-32 If there is no stipulation for 
payment or performance of the cove- 
nant, a promise to pay will be implied, 
and assumpsit will lie on this promise. 
Harvey t*. Maine Condensed Milk Co., 
92 Me. 115, 42 A. 342; Baldwin u. Em- 
ery, 89 Me. 496, 36 A. 994; Varney v, 
Bradford, 86 Me. 510, 30 A. 115. 

195-39 Callan v. Peck (B. I.), 91 A. 

34. 

Mere tort. — ^Assumpsit does not lie for 

damages for a mere wrong. Wilson i\ 

8hrader, 73 W. Va. 105, 79 8. E. 1083. 

195-40 McElwee v. McCreight, 236 
Pa. 545, 84 A. 1105. 
196-43 Harty Bros. & Harty Co. r. 
Polakow, 151 111. App. 199. 

196-44 Wiliams v. Shows (Ala.), 65 
S. 839; Batson v. Alexander City Bank, 
179 Ala. 490, 60 8. 313; Joseph & Bros. 
Co. t?. Hoffman, 173 Ala. 568, 56 3. 216, 
Ann. Cas.'l914A, 718, 38 L. R. A. (N. 
8.) 92; Marsh t?. Pricke, 1 Ala. App. 
649, 56 8. 110; Elliott t?. Wilson, 2 
Boyce (Del.) 445, 80 A. 35; Worley v. 
Johnson, 60 Fla. 294, 53 8. 543; Lamb <?. 
Tomlinson, 261 HI. 388, 103 N. E. 1058, 
af, 177 111, App. 290; Wolf Co. v. Mon- 
arch Refrig. Co., 161 Til. App. 21, af. 
252 111. 491, 96 N. E. 1063, 50 L. R. A. 



(N. 8.) 808; New Amsterdam Casualty 
Co. t*. Saloman, 165 111. App. 264; Lau- 
ser V. Fidler, 158 111. App. 94;' Leslie v. 
Joliet Bridge & Iron Co., 149 111. App. 
210; Edward Thompson Co. v, KoU- 
myer, 46 Ind. App. 400, 92 N. E. 660; 
Meyer v. Frenkil, 113 Md. 36, 77 A. 
369; Newman t?. Levi (W. Va.), 81 8. 
E. 1036; Curtis t?. B. Co., 08 W. Va. 762, 
70 8. E. 776. 

198-47 Ruse v. WilUams, 14 Ariz. 
445, 130 P. 887, 45 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 
923; Board of Highway Comn. V* 
Bloomington, 253 111. 164, 97 N. E. 280, 
Ann. Cas. 1913A, 471 ; Anderson r. Cald- 
well, 242 Mo. 201, 146 8. W. 444. 

199-54 Brueker €. Manistee & G. B. 
R. Co., 166 Mich. 330, 130 N. W. 822. 

209-57 Overcharges paid carrier 

may be thus recovered. Priebe ۥ 
8outhern Ry. Co. (Ala.), 66 8. 573. 

202-71 Mercier v. James Murchie's 
Sons Co. (Me.), 90 A. 722. 

203-72 8tan8field v. Dunne (Ariz.), 
141 P. 736. 

205-77 8nelling v. Brown, 167 Mich. 
202, 132 N. W. 549. 

205-79 8t. Louis & 8. F. R. Co. tr. 
Hall (Ala.), 65 8. 33; Minton v. F. G. 
Smith Piano Co., 36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
137, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 305; Meyer v. 
Frenkil, 113 Md. 36, 77 A. 369; Owen 
t\ Hadley (Mo.), 171 8. W. 973. 
206-80 Owen t\ Hadley (Mo.), 171 
8. W. 973; Shoemaker v. Buffalo Steam 
Roller Co., 83 Misc. 162, 144 N. Y. 8. 
721. 

206-82 Dillon v. Craig, 168 Mich. 
216, 132 N. W. 1041. 

208-93 Douglas v. Morrisville, 84 Yt. 
302, 79 A. 391. 

208-94 Ludwig v. Pusey & Janes 
Co., 143 App. Div. 290, 128 N. Y. 8. 
72. 

208-96 Brueker v. Manistee & G. R. 
R. Co., 166 Mich. 330, 130 N. W. 822. 

210-8 Shannon & Co. r. McElroy, 3 

Ala. App. 519, 57 8. 118. 

212-15 Shannon & Co. v. McElroy, 

3 Ala. App. 519, 57 S. 118. 

212-16 Koltonski v. Electric Goods 

Mfg. Co., 182 Fed. 208, 105 C. C. A. 

48; Myrick <?. Wallace, 5 Ala. App. 398, 

59 8. 704; Huff v. Simmers, 114 Md. 548, 

79 A. 1003. 

212-17 Huff V. Simmers, 114 Md. 

548, 79 A. 1003. 

213«29 Conditions precedents— In ae- 



180 



ATTACHMENT 



VoVZ 



■umpsit for work and labor on build- 
ing, a defense that architect's eertifi* 
eate was a necessary condition preced- 
ent and the defense that the architect 
was arbiter with respect to differences 
mnst be specially pleaded. Qeorge r. 
Boberts, 186 Ala 521, 65 S. 345. 

215-40 Parwell v Mnrrav, 104 Cal. 
464, 38 P. 199; Abadie r. Cabrillo, 32 
Cal. 172; Wilkins f?. Stidger, 22 Cal. 
231, 235, 83 Am. Dec. 64; Freeborn v, 
6la[zer, 10 Cal. 337; Board of Comrs. r. 
Gibson, 158 Ind. 471, 63 N. E. 982; 
Brown c. Perry, 14 Ind. 32; Kersetter 
r. Baymond, 10 Ind. 199; Peden r. 
Scott, 35 Ind. App. 370, 73 N. E. 1099; 
Jenson «. Lee, 67 Kan. 539, 73 P. 72; 
Clark «. Fensky, 3 Kan. 385; Meagher 
r. Morgan, 3 Kan. 366, 87 Am. Dec. 476; 
Sehwartzel v. Karnes, 2 Kan. App. 782, 
44 P. 41; Larson v, Schmaus, 31 Minn. 
410, 18 N. W. 273; Hosley v. Black, 28 
N. Y. 438; Allen v. Patterson, 7 N. Y. 
476, 57 Am. Def . 542; Caldwell t?. My- 
ers, 2 a D. 506, 61 N. W. 210. 



ATTACHMENT 

23^-3 Bncyms Co. v, M'Arthnr, 219 
Fed. 266; Earp t?. Stephens, 1 Ala. App. 
447, 55 8. 266; Fowler v. Dickson, 1 
Boyce (Del.) 113, 74 A. 601; De Carle 
r. Marks, 171 Mich. 167, 137 N. W. 94; 
Dnlnth Brew. & Malt. Co. r. Allen 
(Mont.), 149 P. 494; Hisor v. Vandiver, 
82 X. J. L. 303, 82 A. 526; Garrison i;. 
Seckendorff, 79 N. J. L. 203, 74 A. 311; 
Leavitt & Milroy Co. r. Rosenberg 
Bros, ft Co., 83 0. St. 230, 93 N. E. 
904; Buckeye Pipe Line Co. t?. Fee, 62 
O. St. 543, 564, 57 N. E. 446, 78 Am. 
St. 743; Gilbert r. Burke, 11 Ohio C. C. 
(N. S.) 282, 20 Ohio C. D. 586; Cook v. 
Olds Gasoline E. Wks., 10 O. C. D. 236, 
19 O. C. C. 732; Harlan v. Capital In v. 
Co., 11 Ohio K P. (N. S.) 492; Van 
Voorhies r. Taylor 24 Or. 247, 33 P. 
380; Home Distilling Co. tt Himmel (W. 
Va,), 82 S. E. 1094. 

239-4 Green r. Coit, 81 0. St. 280, 
90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. St. 784. 

240-5 Oliver «. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 

56 S. 203; Griffin Co. «. Howell^ 38 Utah 

357, 113 P. 326. 

2^40-6 Barber 9. Morgan, 84 Conn. 

eiS, 80 A. 791. 

241-7 Oliver t?. Kinney, 173 Ala. 

593, 56 S. 203; Hood v. Commercial 6. 

T. A S. Bank (Ala App.), 67 S. 721; 

Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 618, 80 

A 791; Tonn v. ColUns, 116 Md. 52, 



81 A. 219; Logan v. Greenwich Trust 
Co., 144 App. Div. 372, 129 N. Y. S. 
577; Buckeye Pipe Line Co. v. Pee, 62 
0. St. 543, 564, 57 N. E. 446, 78 A. S. B. 
743; Griffin Co. V. Howell, 38 Utah 357, 
113 P. 326. 

241-8 Pyatt f?. Biley, 252 HI. 36, 96 

N. E. 570; Griffin Co. r. Howell, 38 Utah 
357, 113 P. 326. 

242-10 Baymond r. Leishman, 243 
Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 780, 
L. B. A. 1915A, 400. 
Federal courta are not authorized to is- 
sue foreign attachments as the original 
process commencing actions against de- 
fendants not amenable to personal 
service. Bucyrus Co. r. M 'Arthur, 219 
Fed. 266. 

243-11 Bucyrus Co. <?. M 'Arthur, 219 
Fed. 266; Anderson V, Dover (Miss.), 
68 S. 166; Johnson r. Whilden, 166 N. 
C. 104, 81 S. E. 1057; Harlan v. Capital 
Inv. Co., 11 O. N. P. (N. S.) 492; Cart- 
mell r. Eudolph Wurtlitzer, 5 O. N. P. 
(N. S.) 604; John Fowler & Co. i\ Fin- 
ley Bros., 6 P. E. Fed. 174. See Her- 
nandez f)» Hutchison, 21 P. B. 175; 
Griffin Co. <?. Howell, 38 Utah 357, 113 
P. 326. 

244-12 Earp t?. Stephens, 1 Ala. 
App. 447, 55 S. 266 (summary and ex- 
traordinary remedy); Green r. Coit, 81 
0. St. 280, 90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. St. 
784; Cook v. Olds Gasoline E. Wks., 10 
O. C. D. 236, 19 O. C. C. 732. 

244-13 S. r. Justice of Peace (Mont.) , 
149 P. 709; Duluth Brew, ft Malt. Co. 
t:. Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Brandly 
V, American Butter Co., 130 App. Div. 
410, 114 N. Y. S. 896; Miller v. Veld- 
huyzen, 13 O. N. P. (N. S.) 546; Nichols 
t;. Ingram (Or.), 146 P. 988. 

244-14 Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 
618, 80 A. 791. 

244-15 Blair v, Winston, 84 Md. 356, 
35 A. 1101; City Bank v. Merrit, 13 
N. J. L. 131; Baymond v. Leishman, 
243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 
780, L. B. A. 1915A, 400. 
245-16 B. F. Bivenae Const. Co. 
V. Kinney, 173 Ala. 721, 56 S. 206; 
Oliver t?. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 56 S. 
203; McCormack & Co. i?. Kinney (Ala.), 
56 S. 203; Exchange Nat. Bank v. Clem- 
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814; Dowdy v, 
Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873; Keller 
V, Carr, 40 Minn. 428, 42 N. W. 292; 
Maurer v, Phillips, 182 Mo. App. 440, 
168 S. W. 669; Nichols v, Ingram (Or.), 
1 146 P. 988; Lopez v. Alvarez, 9 PhiL 



181 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



Isl. 28; Griffin Co. r. Howell, 38 Utah 
357, lis P. 326. See Sims, Harrison 
& Co. V, Jacobson lb Co., 51 Ala. 186; 
Johnson v. Stockham, 89 Md. 368, 376, 
43 A. »43. 

245-18 The statute of Ohio allowing 
an attaehment of ten per cent of the 
debtor's earnings in "an action for 
necessaries is constitutional. Wicoz v. 
K. B. Co., 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 452. 

246-19 Sturdee v. Cuba Eastern H. 
Co./ 196 Fed. 211, 116 C. C. A. 43; 
Dixon V, Corinne Bunkel Stock Co., 214 
Fed. 418; Herrick v. Herrick, 186 Ala. 
439, 65 S. 146; Earp v. Stephens, 1 Ala. 
App. 447, 55 S. 266; De Garie v. Marks, 
171 Mich. 167, 137 N. W. 94; Kelder- 
house V. McGarrj, 82 Misc. 365, 143 
N. Y. S. 741; Edwards Mfg. Co. v. 
Ashland Sheet MiU Co., 11 0. C. C. 
(K. S.) 479; Cook v. Olds Gasoline £. 
Wks., 10 O. C. D. 236, 19 0. C. C. 732; 
Miller «. Veldhuyzen, 13 O. N. P. (N. 
8.) 546; Home Distilling Co. v. Him- 
mel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094. 

24T-21 Earp r. Stephens, 1 Ala. App. 
447, 55 8. 266; Kohler f7. Agassis, 99 
Cal. 9, 33 P. 741; Merchants' Nat. 
Union t?. Buisseret, 15 Cal. App. 444, 
115 P. 58; Carson f?. Woodrow, 160 N. C. 
143, 75 S. J^. 996; Leavitt & Milroy 
Co. f. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 
230, 93 N. E. 904; Gilbert v. Burke, 11 
O. C. C. (N. S.) 282, 20 O. C. D. 
586; Miller v. Veldhuyzen, 13 O. N. P. 
(N. S.) 546; John. Fowler & Co. v. Fin- 
ley Bros., 6 P. E. Fed. 174; Home Dis- 
tilling Co. V. Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 
1094. 

248-22 De Carie v. Marks, 171 Mich. 
167, 137 N. W. 94; Page v. McDonald, 
159 N. C. 38, 74 S. E. 642; Leavitt, 
etc. Co. V. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 
O. St 230, 93 N. E. 904; Green f?. Coit, 
81 0. St. 280, 90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. 
St. 784; Simon €. Temple Lumb. Co. 
(Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 592; Damron 
& Kelly V Citizens' Nat. Bank, 112 Va. 
544, 72 S. E. 153. 

248-23 Butterfleld v. Miller, 195 Fed. 
200, 115 C. C. A. 152 (announcing rule 
in Tenneesee); Shillaher v. Waldo, 1 
Haw. 81, 41; American Steel & W. 
Co. V. Meyers, 11 O. N. P. (N. S.) 652; 
Harlan v. Capital Inv. Co., 11 O. N. P. 
(N. 8.) 492. 

248-26 Sims, Harrison & Co. v. 
Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala. 186; Boznik 
t?. Becker, 68 Wash. 63, 122 P. 593. 
264'^U» 8ee Johnson v. Larson, 96 
Neb. 193, 147 N. W. 476. 



256-59 Woodward i?. Lishman, 80 
N. J. L. 586, 78 A. 701. 

266-62 Comp. S. K. Johnson & Son 
V. Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co. (Ga. 
App.), 83 S. E. 969. 

260-78 Johnstone r. Kelly, 7 Penne. 
(Del.) 119, 74 A. 1099. 

260-81 See 5 Standabo Pboc. 633, 
741. 

263-92Hawk v, Harris, 112 la. 543, 84 
N. W. 664, 84 A. S. B. 352. See Merri- 
man fJ. Sarlo, 63 Ark. 151, 37 8. W. 
879. 

264-95 Greacen v. Buckley & Doug- 
las Lumb. Co., 167 Mich. 569, 133 N. 
W. 538. See 5 Standard Prog. 634. 

266-99 Contra, Jordan v. Moore, 82 
N. J. L. 552, 82 A. 850. 

265^1 Kon-xesideiit deviseea. — At- 
tachment may issue against the devisees 
of a deceased debtor when the devisees 
are non-residents of the state, and prop- 
erty within the state devised by the 
original debtor may be attached. Jor- 
dan 17. Moore, 82 N. J. L. 552, 82 A. 
850. 

265-2 Jordan v, Moore, 81 N. J. L. 
118, 78 A. 1048. 

268-11 See Schlater 17. Broaddas, 3 
Mart. N. 8. (La.) 321. 
268-12 Fowler i?. Dickson, 1 Boyce 
(Del.) 113, 74 A. 601; Leavitt & Milroy 
Co. 17. Bosenberg & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 
93 N. £. 904 (except those excepted 
by Bev. St., §5521); Northern Pacific 

B. Co. 17. Baum, 12 0. C. C. (N. S.) 
271; Northern Pac. B. Co. i?. Baum, 32 
0. C. C. 505. See 5 Standard Pkog. 
740. 

269-15 Jennings 17. Idaho By., L. & 
P. Co., 26 Ida. 703, 146 P. 101, L. B. 
A. 1915D, 115; Gurmarin r. Southern 
Life & Tnist Co. (S. C), 84 S. E. 298. 

269-16 Comp, Burr 17. Cooperative 
Constr. Co., 162 111. App. 512. 

269-17 See 5 Standard Prog. 636. 
270-18 American Steel & W. Co. r. 
Meyers, 11 0. N. P. (N. 8.) 652. 
270-20 In aa action for neceeaaries, 
nnder §10,253, 5 Page & Adams Ohio 
Ann. Code, property other than per- 
sonal earnings of the debtor may be 
attached. Corbett 17. Goldwender, 20 O. 

C. C. (N. S.) 451. 

271-21 Johnson 17. Whilden, 166 N. C. 
104, 81 8, E. 1057; Needham 17. Cooney 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 979. 
271-23 Wages.— Schaap v. Flick, 14 



182 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol 3 



0. K P. (N. S.) 260; Parkinson t?. 
Crawford, 13 O. N. P. (N. S.) 73; King 
r. Laws, 5 O. N. P. (N. 8.) 414, 17 
O. D. N. P. 349. See Corbett t;. Gold- 
wender, 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 451; Barrow 
r. WiUiama, 12 Ohio N. P. (N. B.) 518, 
construing f 10,253, Page & Adams Ann. 
Gen. Code. Ten per cent of the debtor's 
personal earnings may be attached when 
the action is for necessaries. 5 Page 
& Adams Ann. Code (Ohio), §10,253; 
Deacon r. Powers, 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 
559. "Necessaries" within the mean- 
ing of this statute "means such things 
as are necessary for the debtor and his 
family." It does not include gro- 
ceries furnished the mother of an un- 
married man, for there is no legal ob- 
ligation of support. Deacon v. Pow- 
ers, 20 O. C. C. (N. S.) 659; Pittsburgh 
W. H. Co. V. Meckel, 9 O. N. P. (N. 
S.) 5S1. See Zepp & Co. r. Dye, 16 
O. N. P. (N. S.) 443. The word is 
not used in the narrow sense as mean- 
ing indispensable. Pittsburgh W. H. 
Co. I?. Meckel, 9 O. N. P. (N. S.) 581. 
Property of a married woman living 
with her husband, neither of whom has 
a homestead, is exempt. The fact that 
^e is a prostitute, plying her vocation, 
does not render it attachable. Barnes 
t?. Elickman, 18 O. C. C. (N. S.) 182. 
273-34 Corporate bonds may- be at- 
tached. Tweedy r. Bogart, 56 Conn. 
419, 15 A. 374; Bowker r. HUl, 60 Me. 
172; De Beam r. De Beam, 115 Md. 
668, 81 A. 223, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
421; Bates r. New Orleans, J. & G. 
N. B. Co., 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 72, 13 
How. Pr. 516; Yon Hesse r. Mackaye, 
65 Hon 365, 8 N. Y. S. 894; King, 
Brown ft Co. r. Hyatt, 41 Pa. 229. 
278-35 Grier 17. Campbell, 21 Ala. 
827 (levy may be made upon a candle- 
stick worth but ten cents); U. S. v. 
Graff, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 304; Hartcog- 
Hagood, etc. Co. v. Wilson, 97 8. C. 
475, 81 S. E. 180. 

Bonds registered in the names of 
otiiers than the debtor cannot be at- 
tached. De Beam v, De Galard de 
Brassac de Beam, 115 Md. 685, 81 A. 
222. 

Sealed package in a locked safety de- 
posit box may be attached. TUlinff- 
kast r. Johnson, 34 B. I. 136, 82 A. 
78S, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 960, 41 L. B. 
A. (N. 8.) 764. 

878-36 Conde v. Sweeney, 16 Cal. 
App. 157, 116 P. 319. 
274^38 Fowler v. Dickson, 1 Boyee 
(Del.) 113, 74 A. 601. 



274-39 Barber t, Morgan, 84 Conn. 
618, 80 A. 791; Fowler v. Dickaon, 1 
Boyce (Del.) 113, 74 A. 601; Nat Bank 
V. Lake Shore ft M. S. B. Co., 21 0. 
St. 221; Young v. South T. I. Co., 85 
Tenn. 189, 2 8. W. 202, 4 Am. 8t. 752. 
Tkoogh oevtlfloato not within tbe eute. 
Bowman v, Breyfogle, 145 Ky. 443, 140 
S. W. 694; Young t?. South T. T. Co., 85 
Tenn, 189, 2 8. W. 202, 4 Am. St. 752. 

278-40 Comp. National Bank e. I^e 
Shore B. Co., 21 0. St. 221. 

275-43 United States Exp. Co. v. 
Hurlock, 120 Md. 107, 87 A. 834, Ann. 
Cas. 1915A, 566. 

276-45 Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 
618, 80 A. 791; Bowman v, Breyfogle, 
145 Ky. 443, 140 8. W. 694. 

When wltbia tka state.— United States 
Exp. Co. f?. Hurlock, 120 Md. 107, «7 
A. 834, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 566. 

277-46 Oadiier's check. — Where a 
trust company holds the amount of a 
cashier 's. check to the depositor 's order, 
and the depositor has not only drawn 
a check upon it in favor of a railroad 
company but has also assigned such 
fund to the company, without notice, 
however, to the trust company, an at- 
tachment of the property of the rail- 
road does not touch the fund. Sturdee 
r. Cuba Eastern B. Co., 196 Fed. 211, 
116 C. C. A. 43. 

279-60 Eoonts r. Baltimore B. Co. 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 973. 

280-65 Dawson r. Holcomb, 1 Ohio 
275j Amadeo t*. Bosiy, 21 P. B. 833. 

260-66 Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 
How. (U. S.) 20, 11 L. ed. 857; Still- 
man V. Isham, 11 Conn. 124; Spalding 
V. Imlay, 1 Boot (Conn.) 651; Farmers' 
Bank r. Ball, 2 Penne. (Did.) 374, 46 
A. 751; Tracy t. Hombuckle, 8 Bush 
(Ky.) 336; Chealy «. Brewer, 7 Mass. 
259; Lodor V, Baker, 89 N. J. L. 49; 
Bundle r. Scheetz, 2 Miles (Pa.) 330; 
Bank of Tennessee r. Dibrell, 8 Sneed 
(Tenn.) 379; Buck v. Guarantors' L. 
I. Co., 97 Va. 719, 84 8. £. 950; BoUo 
t7. Andes Ins. Co., 23 Gratt. (Va.) 
509. See note in 44 L. B. A. N. 8. 
218. 

282-73 Beaolien r. Clark, 210 Main. 
90, 96 N. E. 319. 

Cknumit of tbe conxt in whose posaea- 

sion the property is by virtjie of a 
prior attachment, is necessary. Bern- 
ington Typewriter Co. v. Hall, 183 Ala. 
519. 63 S. 74. 



183 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



SSS-rS Beaulieu r. Clark, 210 Mass. 
90, 96 N. E. 319. 

286-8S Bothweiler t\ Mason, 92 
Kan. 612, 141 P. 245. 

286-88 Wliare tha claimaiitB of the 
proparty in xaplavln are in court, the 
rule of the text does not apply. Both- 
weiler 17. Mason, 92 Kan. 612, 141 P. 
245. 

286-92 Spokane M. Assn. v. Coffey, 
123 Minn. 364, 143 N. W. 915. 

288-97 Manila v. Gambe, 13 Phil. 
Isl. 109. 

288-98 Johnson r. Whilden, 166 K. 
0. 104, 81 S. E. 1057. 

290-2 McDermott v, Hayes, 197 Fed. 
129, 116 C. C. A. 563. 

iB94-20 Manila v. Gambe, 13 Phil. 
Isl. 109. 

A "debt" within the meaning of the 
statute ''means some definite amount 
of money, ascertained or capable of be- 
ing ascertained, which may be paid over 
to the sheriff or the court under an order, 
while 'credits* and 'personal property' 
are something belonging to the defend- 
ant, but in possession and under the 
control of the person attached." Manila 
17. Gambe, 13 Phil. Isl. 109. 

295-27 A Judgment is not attach- 
able. Needham v. Cooney (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 979. 

296-31 Armstrong v. Kinsell, 164 N. 
C. 125, 80 S. E. 235. 

296-34 Interlocking Stone Co. v. 
Scribner, 19 Cal. App. 344, 126 P. 178. 
297-44 Ptoperty wliich has ceased 
to belong to tha undivided estate and 
which has passed under the contr-ol of 
a third person, whose credit has been 
duly recognized cannot be attached. 
Ortiga Bros. & Co. v. Enage, 18 Phil. 
Isl. 345. 

298-49 Taylor v. Bacon, 102 Ark. 
97, 142 S. W. 1128. 
299-SO Wlien a fee simple er "any 
less legal estate*' of defendant is at- 
tachable, the interest of a son under 
the will of his father may be attached, 
where the will devises to the children 
all his real estate subject to a life 
estate in their mother and subject to 
a trust condition that the property be 
kept together and the rents and profits 
divided until the younge&t child reach 
thirty, at which time it should be sold 
and the proceeds divided. Tatum v. 
Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 185 Ala. 
249, 64 S. 561. 



299-S2 Ward r. Benncr, 89 Kan. 369, 
131 P. 609. 

299-53 Griggs v. Nadeau (C. C. A.), 
221 Fed. 381; Jordan v. Landram, 35 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 89; McCoy t\ Flynn 
(la.), 151 N. W. 465 (property in the 
hands of the personal representative 
cannot be attached); In re Heller, 14 
O. N. P. (N. S.) 604. 
For debts of a deceased debtor ''at- 
tachments may issue . . . against hi( 
executor, administrator, trustee, heir O! 
devisee in all cases in which the writ 
might have issued againet such debtor 
immediately prior to his decease, and 
all real estate descended from or de- 
vised by him to the heir or devisee may 
be attached." Jordan v. Moore, 82 N. 
J. L. 552, 82 A. 850. 

300-61 Simmonds r. Fenton, 95 Keb. 
771, 146 N. W. 944; Alvaran v. Marques, 
11 Phil. Isl. 263; Lopez r. Alvarez, 9 
Phil. Isl. 28; Guillermo «. Matienzo, 8 
Phil. Isl. 368. See Merchants' Nat. 
Bank r. Parker, 142 Ga. 265, 82 S. £. 
658. 

Proof waived by replevying the prop- 
erty attached. Haag r. Rogers, 9 Ga. 
App. 650, 72 S. E. 46. 

301-63 Grier v. Campbell, 21 Ala. 
327; Lyman v. James, 85 Vt. 355, 82 
A. 177. See Rhine v. Logwood, 10 La. 
Ann. 585. 

Wlien the sale is void for failure to 
record the certificate it may be at- 
tached as the property of the vendor. 
Ramos f. De la Rama, 15 Phil. Isl. 
554 

Property over whldi the defendant has 
lost control cannot be attached. Oliver 
V. Lake, 3 La. Ann. 78. 

302-64 Kelly v. Baker, 26 App. Div. 

217, 49 N. Y. S. 973. 

Property in possession of a building 

contractor is presumed to have been 

furnished on the credit of the building 

and is not subject to an attachment 

against him. Pratt v. Nakdimen, 99 

Ark. 293, 138 S. W. 974, Ann. Gas. 

1913A, 872. 

303-72 See L. R. A. 1915B, 351 n. 

304-75 Wilson v, Clark, 11 Ga. App. 

348, 75 S. E. 334; Macke v. Rubert, II 

Phil. Isl. 480; Pena v. Mitchell, 9 PbU. 

Isl. 587. 

307-80 McCullough & Co. r. Taylor, 

25 Phil. Isl. 110. 

307-84 Carroll r. Sanford, 34 B. I. 

337, 83 A. 855, 40 L. B. A. j^N. S.) 

1204. 



18i 



ATTACHMEXT 



Vol 3 



308-86 See Heinszen & Co. i7. Peter- 
son, 10 Phil. Isl. 330. 
P oOTomrt on of pledgee'! agent who re- 
ceives the proceeds of pledged goods 
when sold is the possession of the 
pledgee so far as an attaching creditor 
of the pledgor is concerned. Inder- 
rieden Co. r. Bank of Newberg, 176 
HL App. 301. 

311-86 Buckeye Nat. Bank v. Huff, 
114 Va. 1, 75 S. E. 769. 

312-0T Comp, Cutters v. Baker, 2 
La. Ann. 572, diat. in First Nat. Bank 
V, Martin, 127 La. 733, 53 S. 973. 

312-99 Pratt r. Nakdimen, 99 Ark. 
293, 138 S. W. 974. 

313-3 Carroll v. Haskins, 212 Mass. 
593, 99 N. E. 477; Peterson V. Swen- 
ningston, 178 Mich. 294, 144 N. W. 
550. 

315-9 Batrett f. Sargeant, 18 Yt. 
365. 

316-13 Erdman v. Erdman, 109 Ark. 
151, 159 8. W. 201. 

318-22 Crutts v. Daly, 84 Misc. 192, 
145 N. Y. S. 850. 

321-38 Entirety estate.— In an ac- 
tion against husband and wife on their 
joint notes, an estate held by them 
by entireties may be attached. Union 
Nat. Bank v, Pinley, 180 Ind. 470, 103 
N. E. 110. 

322-40 Johnston v. Shaw, 190 Fed. 
466, 111 C. C. A. 298. 

323-46 Coleman v. Zapp (Tex. Civ.), 
135 S. W. 730. 

Where a Judgment la doxmant because 
of failure to issue an execution within 
the year, an attachment may issue in 
a scire facias proceeding to revive the 
judgment. Coleman v. Zapp (Tex.), 151 
8. W. 1040. 

"When a Judgment has not been entered 
80 that an execution can issue, an at- 
tachment may be sued out. Coleman 
r. Zapp (Tex. Civ.), 136 S. W. 730. 

323-48 Bixon v, Corinne Bunkel 
Stock Co., 214 Fed. 418. 

323-49 Duluth Brew. & Malt. Co. v. 
Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494. 
In an action in interpleader, a defend- 
ant who by cross-complaint against the 
plaintiff states a cause of action on 
contract for the direct payment of 
money may make an affidavit for an 
attachment. Interlocking Stone Co. v. 
Scribner, 19 Cal. App. 344, 126 P. 178. 
824-64 Edwards v. Dealers' Ice & 
Cold Storage Co. (Ariz.), 148 P. 908 



(if tne contract is not fully secured); 
Lowenberg v. L. Jacobson's Sons, 25 
Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734; S. ex rel. v. 
Justice of Peace (Mont.), 149 P. 709; 
First Nat. Bank r. Murphy, 34 Nev. 
461, 125 P. 365, if originally secured 
an attachment will lie "when such 
security has been rendered nugatory by 
the act of the defendants." 
It mnst be a lien of a fixed, determinate 
character, capable of being enforced 
with certainty and depending on no 
conditions. Edwards v. Dealers' Ice & 
Cold Storage Co. (Ariz,), 148 P. 908, 
citing cases. 

327-62 Lowenberg v, L. Jacobson's 
Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734. 

328-64 Patterson r. McMinn (Tex. 
Civ.), 152 S. W. 223. 

329-6S Lowenberg r. L. Jacobson's 
Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 734; 
Steele-Wedeles Co. v, Shoodoc Pond 
Pack. Co., 153 111. App. 676; Christie & 
Lowe V. Pennsylvania Iron Wks. Co., 
128 La. 208, 54 8. 742; Sondheimer Co. 
V. Richland L. Co., 121 La. 786, 46 S. 
806; Bestrepo v. Jaramillo, 149 App. 
Div. 941, 134 N. Y. S. 352. See Elwell 
& Co. V, Acme Portland Cement Co., 
154 App. Div. 122, 138 N. Y. S. 1004. 
Original attachments will not lie to re- 
cover unliquidated damages. Steele- 
Wedeles Co. r. Shoodoc Pond Pack. Co., 
153 111. App. 576. 

Itlargin between market price and con- 
tract price is a sufficiently certain 
basis for fixing the amount of the . 
debt. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & 
Son, 134 La. 590, 64 S. 479. 

380-70 Landis v. Case, 5 O. N. P. 
366, 7 O. D. 454; Patterson v. McMinn 
(Tex. -Civ.), 152 S. W. 223. 

331-72 Guarantee T. & B. Co. v. 
Flannery (Md.), 93 A. 152. 
332-73 Green v. Hoppe (Tex. Civ.), 
175 S. W. 1117. 

Where some act on the part of the 
debtor, except the mere allowance of 
time to lapse, is necessary to render 
the debt due, it cannot be attached. 
Bergin & Brady Co. v, Fraas, 3 O. N. 
P. (N. S.) 206, 15 0. D. N. P. 369. 

336-84 In an action for rescission 
of a contract, an attachment does not 
lie. Pineyro v. Utor, 1 Phil. Isl. 79. 
338-97 Dowdy t?. Calvi, 14 Ariz. 148, 
125 P. 873; Lowenberg v, L. Jacob- 
son's Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 P. 
734. 
339-1 Beyer r. Blaisdell (Colo. App.), 



185 



Vol 3 



ATTACHMENT 



143 P. 385; Duluth Brew. & Malt. Co. 
V. Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Harlan 
V, Capital Inv. Co., 11 0. N. P. (N. S.) 
492. 

In actton for sezricM rendered. — Cit- 
izens S. ft T. Co. 17. Grossner, 17 0. C. 
C. (N. 8.) 87. 

S4a-8 ImpUed oontract.— Attachment 
will issue in a suit on implied con- 
tract to recover money fraudulently ob- 
tained as necessary to purchase mining 
claims. Beyer v, Blaisdell (Colo. App.), 
143 P. 385. 

341-4 Gillett t?, Pullman Co., 10 O. 
N. P. (N. S.) 692. 

342-6 Conran v. Fenn, 159 Mo. App. 
664, 140 S. W. 82; Hisor <?. Vandiver, 
83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181. 

342-7 Libel.— Cain v. Perfect, 89 
Kan. 361, 131 P. 573. 

343-9 Conran t?. Fenn,'l59 Mo. App. 
664, 140 8. W. 82. 

343-10 In Bdre facias.— An attach- 
ment will issue in a scire facias pro- 
ceeding to have a judgment entry cor- 
rected and to revive the judgment. 
Coleman v, Zapp (Tex.), 151 S. W. 
1040. 

344-12 In federal courts^ an attach- 
ment cannot issue in a statutory pro- 
ceeding. Dixon 17. Corinne Bunkel 
Stock Co., 214 Fed. 418. 

346-16 An obligation to pay a sum 
of money includes the principal sum, 
interest and perhaps attorney's fees. 
Hermida v. Gestera, 20 P. B. 423. 

346-19 Contra, S. v. Ehle, 112 Ark. 
385, 166 8. W. 535. 

347-26 Eckhardt v. Taylor, 90 Kan. 
698, 136 P. 218; Crump <?. Sadler, 41 
Okla. 26, 136 P. 1102; Callier v. Chun- 
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179. 

347-30 BucyruB Co. v. M'Arthur) 219 
Fed. 266. 

In federal conrta, the remedy by at- 
tachment is specifically limited to 
''common-law causes.'^ .Bucyrug . I?. 
M 'Arthur, 219 Fed. 266. " 

848-34 Interpleader. — A ~ defendant 
in an action in interpleader may in 
a proper case attach the fund held 
by plaintiff before it is paid into court. 
Interlocking Stone Co. v. Scribner, 19 
Cal. App. 344, 126 P. 178. 

351-44 In re Bule Ten, 1 P.B. Fed. 
450. : 

351-45 /Baldwin v. Flagg, '43 N. J. 
L. 495j- BoBtwick /r)! Ctor,il65 App. 



Div. ^5, 151 N. Y. 8. 74; Citizen's S. 
& T. Co. V. Grossner, 17 0. C. C. (N. 
S.) 87; Daniels V. Taylor, 13 0. C. C. 
(N. 8.) 116; Landis v. Case, 5 0. N. P. 
366, 7 O. D. 454; Raymond v, Leish- 
man, 243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 
1915C, 780, L. R. A. 1915A, 400. 

361-48 Stafford r. Mills, 57 N. J. 
L. 570, 31 A. 1023. 

361-48 A reaidenoe within tho state 
long enoagh to give a person the rights 
of cltizenalilp, to-wit, twelve months, 
would be as a general rule sufficient to 
make him a resident. Taylor c, Knox, 
1 Ball. (U. S.) 158, 1 L. ed. 80. 
362-49 Krone v. Cooper, 43 Ark. 
547; Egener v, Juch, 101 Cal. 105, 35 
P. 432, 873; Hanson v, Graham, 82 
Cal. 631, 23 P. 56, 7 L. R. A. 127; 
Howard t?. Citizens' Bank ft T. Co., 
12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 222; Robinson 
V, Morrison, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 105; 
Barron v, Burke, 82 III. App. 116; 
Union Nat. Bank v. Finley, 180 Ind. 
470, 103 N. E. 110; Gates V. Otis, 129 
La. 1063, 57 S. 371; Dorsey v. Kyle, 30 
Md. 512, 96 Am. Dec. 617; Field u. 
Adreon, 7 Md. 209; Lawson v. Adlard, 
46 Minn. 243, 48 N. W. 1019; Coles 
& Sons' Co. V, Blythe, 69 N. J. L. 
203, 54 A. 240; Stout v. Leonard, 37 
N. J. L. 492; Garden t?. Ckrden, 107 N. 
C. 214, 12 S. E. 197, 22 Am. St. 876; 
Wheeler v, Cobb, 75 N. C. 21; Raymond 
V. Leishman, 243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, 
Ann. Cas. 1915C, 780, L. R, A. 1915A, 
400; Eberly v, Rowland, 1 Pearson. 
(Pa.) 312; Munroe v. Williams, 37 S. 
C. 81, 16 S. E. 533, 19 L. R. A. 665; 
Culhane Adj. Co. v. Farrand, 34 S. D. 
87, 147 N. W. 271; Andrews r. Mundy, 
36 W. Va. 22, 14 S. E. 414. See note 
in L. R. A. 1915A, 406. Comp, Malone 
f?. Lindley, 1 Phila. 192. 
352-60 Hisor v. Vandiver, 83 N. J. 
L. 433, 85 A. 181, one who has his 
residence in another state but who 
comes daily into the state of the foruniy 
is a non-resident within the statute) ; 
Raymond 17. Leishman, 243 Pa. 64, 89 
A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 780, L. K. 
A. 1915A, 400; Culhane Adj. Co. v. 
Farrand, 34 S. D.-87, 147 N. W. 271; 
Keelin v. Graves, 129 Tenn. 103, 165 
S. W. 232, L. R. A. 1915A, 421. 
353-51 Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal. 
631, 23 P. 56. 7 L. R. A. 127; Im- 
perial Cotton Oil Co. T. Allen, 83 Miaa. 
27, 35 S. 216; Culhane Adj. Co. t?. 
Farrand, 34 S. D. 87, 147 N. W. 271. 
An ambassador xesldliig at a f^nifga 



hS6 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol 3 



court ifl a &on-re«idcDt within tha mean- 
iDg of the statate. Baymond v. Leish- 
man, 243 Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 
1915C, 780, L. B. A. 1915A, 400. 

864-54 A midnit houaehoULar with- 
in the meaning of the exemption law 
may at the same time be a non-resi- 
dent within the meaning of the attain- 
ment law. Union Nat. Bank v. Finley, 
180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110. 

S66-IMI Hisor V. Yandiver, 83 N. J. 
L. 433, 85 A. 181; Baldwin v. Flagg, 
43 K. J. L. 495; Bnindred v. Del Hoyo, 
20 N. J. L. 328; Weber v. Weitling, 18 
K. J. Eq. 441, 448; Cnlhane Adj. Co. 
«. Farrand, 34 S. D. 87, 147 N. W. 
271. 

359-60 Hisor v. Yandiver, 83 K. J. 
L. 433, 85 A. 181. See Brundred v. Del 
Hoyo, 20 N. J. L. 328. 

356-64 Plemlster Groc. Co. v. Wright 
M. & Lu Co., 10 Ga. App. 702, 73 S. E. 
1077; Gates v. Otis, 129 La. 1068, 57 
S. 371. 

356-65 Flemister Groc. Co. v. Wright 
M. jb L. Co., 10 Ga. App. 702, 73 B. E. 
1077; Gates V. Otis, 129 La. 1063, 57 
S. 371; Tyler v. Mahoney, 166 N. C. 
509, 82 S. E. 870. 

367-67 See note in L. B. A. 1915A, 
400. 

358-6S Bigrmond v. Leishman, 243 
Pa. 64, 89 A. 791, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 
780, L. B. A. 1915 A, 400; Keelin i?. 
Graves, 129 Tena. 103, 165 8. W. 232, 
L. B. A. 1915A, 421. 

362-60 FalM itvtmmaUtkm as to 
iMMMgr III liarti — ^Where a person, in 
buying property says, ''I hayen't got 
my cheek book here . . . but I will 
send yoa a eheck when I get home," 
an affirmance that he has money in the 
bank may be implied and the debt is 
one fraudulently contracted. Matthews 
r. Eby, 168 Mo. App. 134, 151 S. W. 
470. 



Tootle, Hosea & Co. v, Ly- 
saght & Co., 65 Mo. App. 139. 

364-97 Tootle, Hosea & Co. v. Ly- 
■aght k Co., 65 Mo. App. 139. 
36S-80 Designftting a p&mtm on 
whom to file nonmoiiSd — To authorize 
an attachment on the ground that de- 
defendant is absent from the state six 
months without having filed with the 
county clerk the name of a person on 
whom to serve summons, it is neces- 
sary that a search be made of the 
clerk's records since the date of 



amendment of the act requiring sucli 
filing: September 1, 1399. Lichenstein 
V, Lorge, 137 N. Y. S. 1. 

360-31 Hisor r. Vandiver, 83 N. J. 
L. 433, 85 A. 181. 

870-34 Pmcess actually senred.— At- 
tachment on this ground cannot be 
sustained where process was actually 
served several days before the last day 
of service. Obert Brew. Co. v. Keller, 
173 Mo. App. 410, 158 8. W. 1057. 

376-64 Wishny v. Gottfried, 131 N. 
Y. fi. 693; Piper v. Wade, 28 S. D. 196, 
132 N. W. 786. See George v. Miles, 
138 N. Y. 8. 1089. 

376-66 See Tombafck t?. Berkowitz, 
132 N. Y. S. 772. 

377-70 Shillaber v, Waldo, 1 Haw. 
31; Holt Mfg. Co. u. Thomas, 69 Wash. 
488, 125 P. 772. 

378-71 Hill V. Atanasio, 127 N. Y. 
8. 344. 

Beslstaace of yayment of claim by de- 
fendant is not sufficient ground to 
grant an attachment. Technical Press 
V. Silverman, 142 App. Div. 423, 126 
N. Y. S. 833. 

378-72 Holt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 69 
Wash. 488, 125 P. 772. 

379-77 €onran v. Penn, 159 Mo. App. 
664, 140 S. W. 82. 

381-86 Piper v. Wade, 28 S. D. 196, 
132 N. W. 786. 

381-88 Charleston Co-op. v, Allen & 
Bros., 40 Utah 575, 123 P. 578, Ann. 
Cas. 1914D, 1092. 

382-82 Charleston Co-op. v, A. W. 
AUen ft Bros., 40 Utah 575, 123 P. 578, 
Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1092, under statute 
declaring sale of personalty without 
delivery to be fraudulent. 

382-93 Moeller v. Van Loo Cigar 
Co., 180 HI. App. 435; Conran V, Fenn, 
159 Mo. App. 664, 140 S. W. 82; Hill 
V. Atanasio, 127 N. Y. 8. 344; Amer- 
ican Eng., etc. Co. r. O'Brien, 7 O. C. 
C. (N. S.) 103, 18-28 O. C. D. 64; Peck 
V. Toland, 2T S. D. 406, 131 N. W. 
402. 

383-95 Hill r. Atanasio, 127 N. Y. 
8. 344. 

384-S Selling personalty without de- 
livery is declared fraudulent by stat- 
ute and is sufficient to authorize an at- 
tachment without a showing of a spe- 
cific fraudulent intent. Charleston Co- 
op. V, A. W. Allen & Bros., 40 Utah 
575. 123 P. 578, Ann. Cas. 19141), 1092. 



187 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



388-23 Holt Mfg. Co. t\ Thomas, 69 
Wash. 488, 125 P. 772. 

389-25 Moeller & Kolb v. Van Loo 
Cigar Co., 180 111. App. 435; Crookston 
State Bank v. Lee, 124 Minn. 112, 144 
N. W. 433; First State Bank v. Smith, 
43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 150. 

390-28 First State Bank v. Smith, 
43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 150. 

300-29 First State Bank v. Smith, 
43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 150. 

391-35 Fatting in escrow pledged 
Btock does not impair the security, and 
such action will not entitle plaintiff 
to an attachment. First Nat. Bank v. 
Murphy, 34 Nev. 461, 125 P. 365. 

391-36 See Conran v, Fenn, 159 Mo. 
App. 664, 140 S. W. 82, on the author- 
ity of BuUene v. Smith, 73 Mo. 151. 
394-47 Holt Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 69 
Wash. 488, 125 P. 772. 

394-51 Lutman v. Fields, 175 Mo. 
App. 323, 162 S. W. 291. 

The afftdavlt of attachment is not com- 
petent. Bale V. Christian, 140 Ga. 790, 
79 S. E. 1127. 

394-52 Pate v. Yardeman (Tex. 
Civ.), 158 S. W. 1183. 
395-55 Kelderhouse v. MeOarry, 82 
Misc. 365, 143 N. Y. S. 741;' First State 
Bank 17. Smith, 43 Okla. 320, 140 P. 
150. 

395-56 Union Nat. Bank v. Finley, 
180 Ind. 470, 103 N. E. 110. 

396-60 Leavitt & Milroy Co. v, 
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 
93 N. E. 904. 

897-01 Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala. 
593, 56 S. 203; Flezner V. Bickerson, 
65 Ala. 129; Griffin Co. v. Howell, 38 
Utah 357, 113 P. 326. 
897-03 Additional affidavits are some- 
times required by statute to enable the 
court to determine the amount for 
which a levy must be made. Failure 
to file such additional affidavit affects 
the levy only and may be ground for 
reduction or discharge of the levy. 
Corona Coal & Iron Co. v. Lucas E. 
Moore Stave Co., 186 Ala. 593, 65 S. 
51. 

898-04 Plea need not be baaed on 
the record, for it may be shown that 
the affidavit or bond filed are on the 
record by fraud and are not the ones 
required by law. Oliver i?. !Eanney, 173 
Ala. 593, 56 S. 203. 

398-00 Objection on appeal comes 



too late. Foley v. Boyer, 153 HI. App. 
613. 

Execution of a forthcoming bond doet 
not waive the right to object to the 
attachment on the ground there is no 
affidavit. Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala. 
593, 56 S. 203. 

399-79 Damron v. Citizens* NaC 
Bank, 112 Ya. 544, 72 S. E. 153. 

400-84 Vioe-preaidents and directors 

are not agents within the statute re- 
quiring the affidavit to be made by 
''the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney.'' 
Damron v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 112 
Va. 544, 72 S. E. 153. 

401-85 Nichols v. Davis, 168 Cal. 
570, 143 P. 758; Nichols v. Davis, 23 
Cal. App. 67, 137 P. 41. 
Affldavits s^ed by indi^ldnals aa 
vico-preaident and as director of bank 
without further explanation are not 
sufficient. Damron v. Citizens' Nat. 
Bank, 112 Ya. 544, 72 S. E. 153. 

403-92 Leavitt & Milroy Co. r. 
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 
93 N. E. 904, notary public who H at- 
torney for one of the parties cannot 
take an affidavit. 

If the notary is attorney in the case, 

the affidavit is irregular. Leavitt & 
Milroy Co. v. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 
83 O. St. 230, 93 N. E. 904; Bhinelander 
Paper Co. v. Pittsburgh Min. Co., 15 
O. C. C. (N. S.) 286. 
!the Interest, which diaanalllles a notary 
public, is some legal, certain and im- 
mediate interest such as formerly dis- 
qualified a witness from testifying. 
Bhinelander Paper Co. t;. Pittsburgh 
Min. Co., 15 O. C. C. (N. S.) 286. 
A clerk of an attorney in the case is 
not an interested person. Bhinelander 
Paper Co. t^. Pittsburgh Min. Co., Id 
0. C. C. (N. S.) 286. 

Oafihier in plabitlff bank who is a 
notary public may take an affidavit. 
First Nat. Bank v. Cootes (W. Va.), 
81 S. £. 844. 

A deputy district derk may take the 
attachment eVen though he is acting 
as attorney in fact for the attaching 
party. Lester v. Bicks (Tex. Civ.), 140 
S. W. 395. 

405-0 Page v, McDonald, 159 N. C. 
38, 74 S. £. 642. 

A verified petition is a sufficient affi- 
davit when the petition contains, in 
substance and effect, all the requisite 
averments to authorize the writ. Bat- 



188 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol. 3 



terfield v. Miller, 195 Ped. 200, 115 C. 
C. A. 152. 

406-7 Bdvedsen v. First State Bank, 
24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105. 

406-8 See Tonn v. Collins, 116 Md. 
52, 81 A. 219. 

407-9 Tonn v. Collins, 116 Md. 52, 
81 A. 219. 

407-13 Tonn u. Collins, 116 Md. 52, 
81 A. 219. See Hadden v, Linville, 86 
Md. 210, 234, 38 A. 37, 900. 
407-14 Coleman v. Zapp (Tex. Civ.), 
135 S. W. 730, three days. 
407-17 EntitUng in wrong court. 
An attachment written on a form con- 
taining the wrong court at the top is 
not invalidated where the error appears 
nowhere else in the body of the affi- 
davit and the clerk certified that the 
affidavit was filed in the proper court. 
Bernard «. McClanahan, 115 Va. 453, 
79 S. £. 1059. 

408-23 Neff v. Alvin, 182 111. App. 
41. 

410-S6 Page v, McDonald, 159 N. C. 
38, 74 8. £. 642. 

411-39 McMahon v, BoseviUe Trust 
Co., 159 App. Div. 640, 144 N. Y. S. 
841. See 3 Standard Flu)c. 433. 

411-40 Having the means of knowl- 
edge, and deposing positively to the 
facts, the inference is that affiant had 
knowledge of the fact. Geduld i?. Bal- 
timore & O. B. Co., 70 Misc. 495, 127 
N. Y. S. 317. 



Hanford v, Duchastel (N. J. 
L.), ^3 A. 586; Gilbert t?. Burke, 11 O. 
C. C. (N. S.) 282. 

413-44 Comp. Fayette Liquor Co. v, 
Jones (W. Va.), 83 S. £. 726. See the 
title "iDfoniiatlon and Belief." 

Wbere tbe affiant la blind, the amount 
of the claim may be stated on infor- 
mation and belief, as the affiant must 
rely upon the statements of others as 
to the amount due. Peck v, Toland, 27 
8. D. 406, 131 N. W. 402. 

413-4T Slater v. American Palace 
Car Co., 146 App. Div. 859, 954, 131 
N. Y. S. 17; Kelderhouse v. McGarry, 
82 Misc. 365, 143 N. Y. S. 741; Pettit 
t7. U. fi. Motor Co., 77 Misc. 277, 136 
N. T. S. 260; Kaplan r. Schannon, 150 
N. T. S. 444; Lichenstein v. Large, 137 
N. Y. S. 1. 



Taylor Packing Co. v. Bo- 
litho, 162 App. Div. 655, 147 N. Y. S. 
561; Kaplan v. Schannon, 150 N. Y. S. 



444; Houck Mfg. Co. v. Standard Screw 
Products Co., 149 N. Y. S. 975. 

414-Sl Test of sufficiency of aver- 
ments. — The information furnished by 
the moving papers must be such that 
a person of reasonable prudence would 
be willing to accept and act upon it. 
Kelderhouse v, McGarry, 82 Misc. 365, 
143 N. Y, S. 741. 

41S-SS Thornley v. Lawbaugh (X. 
D.), 143 N. W. 348, 47 L. B. A. (N. 
S.) 1127. 

416-S8 Nichols t?. Davis, 168 Cal. 
570, 143 P. 758. 

Negative pregnant. — An averment in 
an attachment affidavit that payment 
of the notes and that each of the 
notes and each part of them had not 
been secured is not objectionable as a 
negative pregnant. Nichols v, Davis, 
23 Cal. App. 67, 137 P. 41. 

416-60 Merchants' Nat. Union f?. 
Buisseret, 15 Cal. App. 444, 115 P. 58, 
a recital that ''judgment" was not 
sought to hinder, delay, etc., is insuffi- 
cient. 

416-61 Where either plaintiff or de- 
fendant is a partnership, the individual 
names of the partners should be stated. 
Sims, Harrison ft Co. T. Jacobson & Co., 
51 Ala. 186. 

417-65 Butterfield r. Miller, 195 Ped. 
200, 115 C. C. A. 152. 

418-70 Peterson v. Beggs (Cal. App.), 
148 P. 541. 

418-71 Lambert v. Property Ins. 
Co., 145 App. Div. 913, 130 N. Y. S. 
34, allegation held sufficient. 
Negativing exceptions. — That the for- 
eign corporation is not within the ex- 
ceptions enumerated in Ohio Bev. St., 
15521, must be stated. Leavitt & Mil- 
roy Co. V. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 
O. St. 230, 93 N. E. 904. 

418-7S Barkley f?. Muller (App. 
Div.), 153 N. Y. S. 923; Hilborn t?. 
Pennsylvania Cement Co., 145 App. 
Div. 442, 129 N. Y. S. 957. 

419-76 Allied Mfrs. Co. v, Zurn, 165 
App. Div. 975, 150 N. Y. S. 243. See 
Bedhouse r. Graham, 20 Haw. 717, the 
affidavit in a suit on an open account 
must show that ''all the goods have 
been delivered." 

Failure of a foreign corporation to 
comply with the statute must be al- 
leged, under a statute providing no 
process of attachment shall issue 
against a foreign corporation who com- 



189 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



plies with |148c of Bev. St., on the 
ground it is a foreign corporation or 
a non-resident. Leavitt & Milroy Co. 
V. Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 0. St. 230, 
93 N. E. 904; Bigalow Fruit Co. v. Ar- 
mour Car Line, 74 0. St. 168, 78 N. E. 
267; Geogbic Boiler Wks. v. Interna- 
tional G. ft M. Co., 17 O, C. C. (N. 8.) 
605. See also Taylor v: Crow Motor 
Car Co., 16 0. N. P. (N. S.) 557; Bosen- 
bam Co. v. Cohen & Mack, 13 O. C. C. 
(N. S.) 102. 

419-78 Conran v. Fenn, 159 Mo. 

App. 664, 140 S. W. 82. 

420-79 Person for whom labor is per- 
formed and what labor was performed 
must be stated. Eplin v. Blessing, 73 
W. Va. 283, 80 S. E. 458. 

421-83 See DuPont Co. i;. Pennsylvania 
& I. Coal Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96 
N. E. 204; Murphy v. Lindstedt, 142 
App. Div. 777, 127 N. Y. S. 609. Comp. 
Anderson v. Dover (Miss.), 68 S. 166, 
by statute. 

421-86 Parkinson V. Crawford, 13 
O. N. P. (N. S.) 73 (allegation held 
sufficient) ; Home Distilling Co. v. Him- 
mell (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094, nature 
of claim insufficiently stated. See 
AlUed Mfrs. v. Zurn (App. Div.), 150 
N. Y. S. 243. 

422-88 Leavitt & Milroy Co. v. 
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 
93 N. E. 904. 

422^9 The nature of the indebted- 
ness, whether on a judgment or a con- 
tract, must be stated. Griffin Co. v, 
Howell, 38 Utah 357, 113 P. 326. 

423-92 Cain v. Perfect, 89 Kan. 361, 
131 P. 573; Simon v. Temple I»umb. 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 146 S. W. 592. 

423-93 Statement that defendant is 
Indebted is equivalent to the word 
**due." Avery & Co. v. Pope, 13 Ga. 
App. 743, 79 S. E. 946. 

424-95 Proof of non-payment need 
not be tendered by plaintiflP. Bremer 
V, Bing, 146 App. Div. 724, 131 N. Y. 
S. 487. 

424-96 Title by assignment must be 
set *out. — Since an assignee of a claim 
for brokerage commissions could not 
sue thereon prior to the act of 1907, 
an affidavit for an 'attachment in an 
action thereon must state when the 
plaintiff acquired title. Steele-Wedeles 
Co. V. Shoodoc Pond Pack. Co., 153 111. 
App. 576. 

424-97 Bestrepo f?. Jaramillo, 149 



App. Div. 941, 134 N. Y. S. 352; Grif- 
fin Co. V. Howell, 38 Utah 357, 113 P. 
326. See Anderson v, Dover (Miss.), 
68 S. 166. 

42S-98 Eckhardt v, Taylor, 90 Kan. 
698, 136 P. 218. 

425-2 Nichols v. t)avis, 168 Cal. 570, 
143 P. 758, affidavit held sufficiently 
certain. 

426-6 Prusher f>. Vacuum Dye Mach. 
Co., 148 App. Div. 68, 131 N. Y. S. 
994. 

The Idnd of machines sold must be 
stated, where the action is for commis- 
sions, the amount of which depends on 
the kind of machines sold. Frusher v. 
Vacuum Dye. Mach. Co., 148 App. Div. 
68, 131 N. Y. S. 994. 

426-7 Davis r. Mills, 21 Haw. 167; 
Bremer v. Bing, 146 App. Div. 724, 
131 N. Y. S. 487; MiUer v. Jones, 152 
N. Y. S. 739. 

Oonnterdaims known to plalntlif's as- 
signor.— Plaintiff in his affidavit for at- 
tachment need not state that he is en- 
titled to recover the sum specified over 
and above all counterclaims known to 
his assignor. McMahon v. Boseville 
Trust Co., 159 App. Div. 640, 144 N. Y. 
S. 841; Bremer r. Bing, 146 App. Div. 
724, 131 N. Y. 8. 487. 
An affidavit negativing oonntexcbdmB 
"known to defendant" is fatally de- 
fective notwithstanding the court may 
think the affiant meant to say "plain- 
tiff" instead of ''defendant." Bey- 
nolds V. Bean, 138 N. Y. S. 1104. 

427-8 Davis v. Mills, 21 Haw. 167. 

427-11 Words of statute need not be 
used. Cutietta v. Cilluffo, 127 N. Y. 
S. 297. 

428-12 Beynolds v. Bean, 138 N. T. 

S. 1104. 

428-13 First Nat. Bank v. Murphy, 
34 Nev. 461, 125 P. 365; Hisor v. Van- 
diver, 83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181; John 
Fowler Sb Co. v. Pinlay Bros., 6 P. B, 
Fed. 174. 

Whexe defendants are partners the aver- 
ments are insufficient if they relate 
solely to one of the partners. Wishny 
V. Gottfried, 131 N. Y. S. 593. 

428-16 See Conran v. Fenn, 159 Bf o. 
App. 664, 140 S, W. 82; Miller v. Veld- 
huyzen, 13 0. N. P. (N. S.) 546. 

428-17 Fayette Liquor Co. v. Jonea 
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 726. 

420-18 "If the attaehment of per- 
sonal eamix^ be sought under §10,253, 



19Q 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol. 3 



P. k A. Am. Gen. Code of Ohio, either 
one of the three additional allegations 
pointed out by the statute must be 
stated in the affidavit. Barrow v. Wil- 
liams, 12 O. N. P. (N. 8.) 518. That 
liabilitj was incurred in the county 
where suit is brought must be stated. 
Parkinson t?. Crawford, 13 0. N. P. 
(N. S.) 73. 

429-19 Page f). McDonald, 159 K C. 
38, 74 S. E. 642, affidavit held suffi- 
cient. 
That SDimiunui cannot be served on the 

non-resident defendant must be stated. 
Hisor t?. Vandiver, 83 N. J. L. 433, 85 
A- 181. See in fray vol. 3, x>. 355, n. 59, 
and supplement thereto. 

430-22 Ildvedsen t;. First State 
Bank, 24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105 
(affidavit sufficient); Wichman v. Fox 
(S. C), 82 S. E. 1014, affidavit held 
sufficient. 

430-27 Sufficient allegatioiL— Allega- 
tions that defendant is not an inhab- 
itant of the state (Klepper v, Powell, 
6 Heisk. [Tenn.] 503), that he is a 
resident of a sister state (Grubbs t?. 
Colter, 7 Baxt. [Tenn.] 432), and an 
allegation of foreign citizenship (But- 
terfield v. Miner, 195 Fed. 200, 115 C. 
C A. 152), are sufficient averments of 
the fact of non-residence of the defend- 
ant. 

431-32 See Bucyrus Co. v. M 'Arthur, 
219 Fed. 266. 

George v. Miles, 138 N. Y. S. 



1089. 



Hisor «. Vandiver, 83 N. J. 
L. 433, 85 A. 181 (the rule requiring 
an affirmation of facts that summons 
cannot be served does not apply in 
cases of outrageous assault and battery, 
mayhem, or seduction) ; Millang v. Lam- 
bros, 153 N. Y. 8. 944. 

423-41 Fafinre of defendant to make 
designation. — ^An affidavit which does 
not sufficiently aver defendant's failure 
to file with county clerk a designa- 
tion of a person on whom process may 
be served, is fatally defective. Lichen: 
stein r. Large, 137 N. Y. 8. 1. 

433-43 Bockfall Apartments v, Pos- 

ner, 153 N. Y. 8. 979. 

433-44 Taylor Packing Co. v. Bo- 

litho, 162 App. Div. 555, 147 N. Y. S. 

561. 

484-47 Eahmke v. Weber, 187 Mo. 

App. 698, 173 S. W. 78. 

48449 Eplin r. Blessing, 73 W. Va. 

283, 80 S. £, 498. 



435-Sl Pepperell f?. Taylor, 5 PhiL 
Isl. 536. 

436-S7 Leavitt k Milroy Co. f?. 
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 
93 N. E. 904. 

437-S8 Dowdy v. Calvi, 14 Ariz. 
148, 126 P. 873; Nichols v. Davis, 168 
Cal. 570, 143 P. 758; Greenwood Groc. 
Co. V, Bennett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 S. 482, 
598; Baker v. Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 161 
8. W. 443. 

Failure to describe plural defendants 
in the plural may be corrected by 
amendment. Peterson t;. Beggs (Cal. 
App.), 148 P. 541. 

Changing "defendant" to "defend- 
ants."— An affidavit in an action 
against two defendants may be amend- 
ed by changing the word * * defendant * ' 
to " defendants'' and adding "or either 
of them." Nichols v. Davis, 23 Cal. 
App. 67, 137 P. 41. 

Attorney for i^laintlff may make the 
amendment. Nichols v. Davis, 23 
Cal. App. 67, 137 P. 41. 

438-59 Penn f?. McGhee, 6 Ga. App. 
631, 65 8. E. 686. See Dowdy v. Calvi, 
14 Ariz. 148, 125 P. 873. 

438-60 After Judgment, an amend- 
ment substituting one Christian name 
for another was denied in Garrison r. 
Seckendorff, 79 N. J. L. 203, 74 A. 
311. 

438-64 Sims, Harrison k Co. v, Jacob- 
son k Co., 51 Ala. 186; Silverman k 
Son V, Sloat k Bro., 11 Ga. App. 193, 
74 S. E. 938; Rothweiler V, Mason, 92 
Kan. 612, 141 P. 245; Anderson v. 
Dover (Miss.), 08 S. 166. 
439-66 Luisi t. Jacobellis, 163 Dl. 
App. 103; DuPont Co. v, Pennsylvania 
k I. Coal Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96 
N. E. 204. 

439-66 Nichols t?. Davis, 23 Cal. App. 
67, 137 P. 41; Silverman k Son r. 
Sloat k Bro., 11 Ga. App. 193, 74 
S, E. 938. 

439-68 Greenwood Groc. Co. «?. Ben- 
nett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 S. 482, 598; 
Cutler r. Allavena, 165 App. Div. 422, 
150 N. Y. S. 790. 

439-69 Peterson v, Beggs (Cal. App.), 
148 P. 541. 

489-TO Bothweiler v. Mason, 92 Kan. 
612, 141 P. 245. 

439-71 A levy under an Insofllclent 
affidavit cannot be upheld by an amend- 
ment of the affidavit. Leavitt k Mil- 
roy Co. i;. Bosenberg Bros, k Co.*, 83 , 



Wl 



Vol 3 



ATTACHMENT 



O. St. 230, 93 N. E. 904; Pope t?. 
Hibernia Ina. Co., 24 0. St. 481. 
440*72 Payette Liquor Co. v, Joxxes 
(W. Va.), 83 S. E. 726. 
440-74 Cutler v. Alia vena (App. Div.), 
150 N. Y. S. 790. 

440-75 Oannot be correctlva. — Fay- 
ette Liquor Co. v, Jones (W. Va.), 83 
S. E. 726. 

440-78 Ralphs t?. Bruns, 22 Cal. App. 
153, 133 P. 997; Luisi v, Jacobellis, 163 
111. A*pp. 103. 

441-80 Balphs v. Bruns, 22 Cal. App. 
153, 133 - P. 997, variance in amount 
held fatal. 

441-82 Brown v. Williams-Brooke 
Co. (Miss.), 63 S. 351. 

441-84 Bedundant averments do not 
vitiate the aHdavit. Lowenberg i;. L. 
Jacobson's Sons, 25 Cal. App. 790, 145 
P. 734. 

442-88 Northern Shoe Co. v. Cecka, 
22 N. B. 631, 135 N. W. 177. 

442-89 Exchange Nat. Bank v, Clem- 
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814; Gruber 
Co. <?. Davis (Mich.), 149 N. W. 990. 
Defects apparent on the face of the 

affidavit may be reached by motion to 
quash. Gruber Co. v. Davis (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 990. 

Striking out portion of afUdavit. — It is 

not proper to strike from a party 's affi- 
davit any statements contained there- 
in on the ground that they are im- 
material or disclose no cause for at- 
tachment; the affidavit must be con- 
sidered as a whole. Crable & Son 17. 
O'Connor, 21 Wyo. 460, 133 P. 376. 

442-90 Exchange Nat. Bank v. Clem- 
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814. 

442-92 See Hayes v. Conger, 36 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 202. 

443-94 Allied Mfrs. r. Zurn, 165 
App. Div. 975, 150 N. Y. S. 243. 
Or where abandoned. — Maurer v, Phil- 
lips, 182 Mo. App. 440, 168 S. W. 669. 

443-95 Gruber Co. v, Davis (Mich.), 

149 N. W. 990. 

(Hvlng forthcoming bond la not a 
waiver of irregularities and defects in 
the proceedings. Home Distilling Co. 
V. Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094. 

444-1 A receiver, suing out an at- 
tachment, was required to give a bond 
in McDermott 17. Hayes, 194 Fed. 902. 
444-2 Earp v. Stephens, 1 Ala. App. 
447, 55 S. 266; Wentworth i;. J£oore, 
64 Wash, 451, 117 P. 251. 



When defendant is foreign oozporatlon, 

no bond is required. Baker v. More- 
head & Co., 7 O. N. P. (N. S.) 384, 
19 0. D. N. P. 230. 

44S-1S Where the fnlfllmont of the 
obligation may be legally enforced and 
this fact is clearly shown by an authen- 
tic document, no bond is required. Avalo 
V, Porrata, 19 P. R. 19. 

449-55 Beal name is to be preferred 
to the trade name of the plaintiff. Wich- 
man v. Poz (S. C), 82 S. E. 1014. 

449-61 See Sims, Harrison & Co. ^. 
Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala. 186. 

450-64 Wentworth v. Moore, 64 
Wash. 45, 117 P. 251. 

462-79 In New Jersey, the bond is 
required to be in double tho amount 
of plaintiff's claim or double the value 
of the property attached, if the action 
be founded on contract; but if founded 
on tort, the court or judge fixes the 
amount of the bond, as shall, under 
all the circumstances of the case, be 
deemed reasonably conditioned for the 
payment of any judgment recovered in 
the action. Hisor v. Vandiver, 83 N. J. 
L. 433, 85 A. 181. 

453-83 Comp. Shillaber «. Waldo, 1 
Haw. 31, 42. 

455-6 Signing the jnstlflcatlon is a 
sufficient signature of the surety under 
a statute which does not provide that 
the bond be ** subscribed " or prescribe 
any rule as to its execution. Boger v. 
Cedar Cove Lumb. Co., 165 N. C. 557, 
81 S. E. 784. 

457-22 Deputy clerk who la attorney 

for the plaintiff may approve the bond. 
Lester «, Ricks (Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 
395. 

458-29 Comp. Marquis v. Ireland, 86 
Kan. 416, 121 P. 486, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 
144, where tho signature of the bank, 
who signed cz surety, is void for lack 
of authority. 

460-55 Hoznik v. Becker, 68 Wash. 
63, 122 P. 593. 

460-56 Greenwood Groc. Co. v, Ben- 
nett, 101 Hiss. 573, 58 S. 482. 

461-68 Boznik v, Becker, 68 Wasli. 

63, 122 P. 593. 

462-77 Boger v. Cedar Cove Lumb. 

Co., 165 N. C. 557, 81 S. E. 784. 

462-82 The absence of a Jostlflca- 

tlon may be supplied by amendment. 

John Fowler & Co. v. Finlay Bros., 6 

P. B. Fed. 174. 

462-85 The oml88lo]i of the cUub^ 



192 



ATTACHMENT 



Yol. 3 



witli xtfexeaca to costs and the pay- 
ment of damages may be supplied by 
amendment for it is not a jurisdictional 
defect. Boznik v. Becker, 68 Wash. 63, 
122 P. 593. 

403-88 Marquis v, Ireland, 86 Kan. 
416, 121 P. 486, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 144. 

466-2 Oommissionor. — The jurisdic- 
tion of the commissioner upon the 
proofs presented to him to order an 
attachment must be as formal and pre- 
cise and appear in the order, as is re- 
quired in actions upon contract whero 
a defendant is held to bail. Hisor t\ 
Vandiver, 83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181. 
466-11 Oartmell v. Rudolph Wurt- 
Htzer Co., 5 O. N. P. (N. S.) 604 (jus- 
tice of the peace has jurisdiction of 
proceedings by attachment against for- 
eign corporations). See Shillaber v, 
Waldo, 1 Haw. 31. 

Tlie municipal court in tho District of 
Columbia has jurisdiction to issue writs 
of attachment. Moses £: Sons v, Hayes, 
36 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194. 
A Justice of tho supreme court may 
issue a writ of attachment in causes 
pending in the supreme court as well 
as causes pending in the court of first 
instance. Cia. General Do Tabacos v, 
Trinchera, 7 Phil. Isl. 708. 

467-16 Attachment issued in blank. 
Since the duty of the officer issuing 
the writ of attachment cannot be 
delegated, the attachment cannot be 
issued in blank. Carson V. Woodrow, 
160 N. C. 143, 75 S. E. 996. 

468-26 An order granting an attach- 
ment after Judgment rendered is a 
nullity. Hernandez v. Hutchison, 21 
P. B. 175. 

469-31 Duluth Brew. & Malt. Co. t;. 
Allen (Mont.), 149 P. 494; Johnson v. 
Larson, 96 Neb. 193, 147 N. W. 476; 
Closson v. Chase, 158 Wis. 346, 149 
N. W. 26, holding the writ was not 
issued before summons, as the so-called 
second issuance of summons was only a 
second placing in the hands of the offi- 
cer for service. 



Carson r. Woodrow, 160 N. 
C. 143, 75 S, E. 996. 
Court of general Jurisdiction cannot 
iSBue to constable^ — Carson v, Woodrow, 
160 N. C. 143, 75 S. E. 996. 

4T6-69 Lyman r. James, 85 Vt. 355, 
82 A. 177. 

4T6-70 Writs against partnerships. 
Sims, Harrison & Co. v, Jacobson & 
€0., 51 Ala. 186. 



4T9-8T Balphs v, Bruns, 22 Cal. App. 
153, 133 P. 997. 

The amount of each item claimed should 
be stated. Hermida f. Gestera, 20 P. 
R. 423. 

Variance between aifidavlt and writ. 
That an affidavit of attachment in a 
justice's court is for a larger amount 
than that specified in the writ of at- 
tachment will not prevent a verdict 
for the larger sum, where the de- 
fendant made no objection. Myers t?. 
Adams, 14 Ga. App. 520, 81 S. E. 595. 

480-88 Balphs f). Bruns, 22 Cal. App. 
153, 133 P. 997; Elwell & Co. r. Cement 
Co., 154 App. Div. 122, 138 N. T. 8. 
1004. 

483-11 After consolidation of bills 
in attachment brought by A. and B. 
on property of a non-resident, B. may 
move to quash A.'s attachment for 
failure to join necessary parties de- 
fendant, for until such consolidation B. 
is not a party to the separate attach- 
ment bills and so has not waived the 
objection. King €. Patterson (Tenn.), 
164 S. W. 1191. 

An agreement that sheriff shall sell the 
goods attached and place proceeds in 
a designated depository t3 wait the 
judgment constitutes a waiver of ob- 
jections to the writ. Collier v, Gan- 
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179. 

483-16 Page v. McDonald, 159 N. 
C. 38, 74 S. E. 642. 

484-26 Greenwood Groc. Co. v, Ben- 
nett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 S. 482, 598. 

485-31 Tyson «. Beinecke, 25 Cal. 
App. 696, 145 P. 153. 

488-S3 Johnson v. Whilden, 166 N. 
C. 104, 81 S. E. 1057. See Oliver v. 
Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 56 S. 203; Thorn- 
ley i\ Lawbaugh (N. D.), 143 N. W. 
348, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1127. 

491-69 To sheriff and not constable* 

Writs of attachment issued by superior 
courts must be addressed to sheriil and 
not to constable. Carson v, Woodrow, 
160 N. C. 143, 75 S. E. 996. 

493-86 The creditor has a right to 
designate what property shall be levied 
on, notwithstanding the writ directs 
the officer to take into his possession 
all the property of the defendant. Curry 
V. Equitable Surety Co. (Colo. App.), 
148 P. 914. 

494-91 Mandamus will not lie to 
compel a levy on a specific piece of 
property under a writ directing a levy 
in general terms, even though the de- 



ls 



193 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



fendant possesses no other property. 
Manotoc V. M'Micking, 10 Phil. Isl. 
119. 

494-94 Beaulieu v, Clark, 210 Mass. 
90, 96 N. E. 319. 

496-98 Remington Typewriter Co. v. 
Hall, 183 Ala. 519, 63 S. 74; Beaulieu 
i>. Clark, 210 Mass. 90, 96 N, E, 319. 

601-25 Johnson v. Larson, 96 Neb 
193, 147 N. W. 476. 

501-30 Place of levy. — Statute 
authorizes the official to pursue and at- 
tach the property in an adjoining coun- 
ty within twenty-four hours after its 
removal. Pleak v. Marks & Shields 
(la.), 152 N. W. 63. 

502-84 Sells v. Price, 3 Ala. App. 
634, 57 S. 265. 

506-60 Weiss v. Ahrens, 24 Colo. 
App. 531, 135 P. 987. 

506-52 Mertens v. Northern State 
Bank, 68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885. 

509-54 Weiss t?. Ahrens, 24 Colo. 
App. 531, 135 P. 987; Green v. Coit, 
81 O. St. 280, 286, 90 N. E. 794, 135 
Am. St. 784. 

511-57 Weiss v. Ahrens, 24 Colo. 
App, 531, 135 P. 987. 

511-68 Brown v. Brown (Mich.), 134 
N. W. 1121, construing C. L., §10,761. 

512-59 See Bogers «?. Maine Cent. B. 
Co. (Me.), 94 A. 758, holding the acts 
of the officer in looking into a freight 
car containing potatoes, saying ''I at- 
tach these potatoes," and appointing a 
keeper to look out for the cars con- 
stituted a sufficient levy. 
513-62 Parish r. Van Orsdale-©8- 
borne B. Co., 92 Kan. 286, 140 P. 835. 

514-64 Freiberg v. Johnson, 71 Tex. 
558, 9 S. W. 455; Jones v. First State 
Bank (Tex. Civ.). 140 S. W. 116; 
Kessler v. Halff, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 
51 S. W. 48. 

514-66 Parish v. Van Arsdale-Os- 
borne B. Co., 91 Kan. 286, 140 P. 835. 

519-82 Subject to Ilen8.~-The officer 
cannot take the property out of the 
hands of lienor when it is subject to 
liens. Lindsey r. Mexican Crude Rub- 
ber Co., 197 Fed. 775. 

519-85 Bank deposit. — See Sturdee 
V, Cuba Eastern R. Co., 196 Fed. 211, 
116 C. C. A. 43. 

621-88 Jolley r. Dunlop, 34 S. B. 
213, 147 N. W. 980. 

623-92 In re Clough, 197 Fed. 185; 



Tolman r. Carleton, 110 Me. 571, 85 
A. 390. 

527-16 Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 
618, 80 A. 791. 

Notice to the non-resident defendant 
is not required. Barber v. Morgan, 84 
Conn. 618, 80 A. 791. 

529-19 Tolman v. Carleton, 110 Me. 
57, 85 A. 390. 

Brick in Idlns may be attached in a 
similar manner. Such attachment oper- 
ates to divest the owner of posses- 
sion. Cary Brick Co. v. Tilton, 208 
Fed. 497, 125 C. C. A. 499. 

529-21 Arranging with the plaintiff 
to gather the crop is not such an as- 
sumption of dominion over the crop as 
to constitute a levy. Sells t?. Price, 3 
Ala. App. 534, 57 S. 265. 
529-22 Growing com cannot be at- 
tached by the sheriff's merely having 
it pointed out to him and arranging 
with the owner of the land to gather 
it. Sells V, Price, 3 Ala. App. 534, 57 
S. 265. 

529-24 Jolley i>. Bunlop, 34 S. D. 
213, 147 N. W. 980, a list of the prop- 
erty levied on which does not state 
its value, contained in the return is an 
inventory. 

630-25 Property released on se- 
curity need not be appraised. United 
States Surety Co. v. American Fruit 
Product Co., 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 239. 

631-34 Be Carle v, Marks, 171 Mich. 
167, 137 N. W. 94, disinterested free- 
holders. 

A county clerk is not, by virtue of 
his office, an interested person. De 
Carie t?. Marks, 171 Mich. 167, 137 N. 
W. 94. 

631-39 The county and state in 
which the property is situated suffi- 
ciently appears when stated in the offi- 
cer 's certificate accompanying the in- 
ventory. Gruber Co. t?. Davis (Mich.), 
149 N. W. 990. 

632-43 Failure to state the values 
of the property levied on is immate- 
rial on collateral attack. Jolley r. Dan- 
lop, 34 S. D. 213, 147 N. W. 980. 
632-48 Officer may open a sealed 
package or locked safety deposit box 
which he has in his possession under 
attachment. Tillinghast v. Johnson, 34 
R. I. 136, 82 A. 788, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 
960, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.') 764. 
632-49 Sanders r. D. Landreth Seed 
Co., 91 S. C. 26, 74 S. E. 120. 



194 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol. 3 



533-50 Levy on interest of a part- 
ner in a partnership shall be made by 
leaving a notice with one or more of 
the partners or with the clerk of the 
partnership. First Nat. Bank v. Jones 
(Tex. Civ.), 139 fi. W. 671. 

538-74 Service on bookkeeper of 

owner is not sufficient where service 
could have been had upon the owner 
before return day. Brown u. Brown 
(Mich.), 134 N. W. 1121. 

540-87 In re (Hough, 197 Fed. 185. 

544-7 Mott 1?. Holbrook, 28 N. D. 
251, 148 N. W. 1061. 

545-12 Klein V, Turner, 66 Or. 369, 
133 P. 625. 

545-14 Balphs v. Bruns, 22 Cal. App. 
153, 133 P. 997. 

549-41 Long t?. Tighe, 36 Nev. 129, 
133 P. 60. 

552-54 The demanding and receiv- 
ing of a certificate of the secretary 
of the corporation, showing the number 
of shares of stock held by the defend- 
ant, need not be shown in the re- 
turn. This provision of the statute is 
merelj for the purpose of aiding the 
attaching officer. Barber V. Morgan, 
84 Conn. 618, 80 A. 791. 

553-57 Daniels v. Taylor, 13 0. C. C. 
(N. 8.) 116. 

555-66 Wren v, Cooksey, 147 Ky. 
825, 145 S. W. 1116, return held suffi- 
cient. 

555-67 Ressmeyer v. Norwood, 117 
Md. 320, 83 A. 347. 

Boffldent description. — ^Describing the 
property levied on as '*two town lots'* 
in a certain city is sufficient when the 
evidence showed that defendant owned 
only that property. Wren v, Cooksey, 
147 Ky. 825, 145 S. W. 1116. 

556-68 Bessmeyer r. Norwood, 117 
Md. 320, 83 A. 347; Blchardson i\ Hos- 
kins L. Co., Ill Va. 755, 69 S. 935, re- 
turn held sufficient. 

557-69 Green" v, Coit, 81 O. St. 280, 
90 N. E. 794, 135 Am. St. 784, full com- 
pliance. 

557-70 Parkinson v, Crawford, 13 
O. N. P. (N. S.) 73. 

561-00 Schwartzberg v. Central Ave. 
8. Bank, 84 Kan. 581, 115 P. 110; San- 
ders r. Landreth Seed Co., 91 S. C. 26, 
74 8. E. 120. 

561-81 See Gardner v. James, 5 B. I. 
235. 
As against tbe oflleer the return is 



conclusive and it will be presumed that 
he has taken such possession or con* 
trol of the property as to render the 
attachment valid. Cary Brick Co. t?. 
Tilton, 208 Fed. 497, 125 C. C. A. 499. 

564-12 Where a third person claims 
the property and serves his affidavit to 
that effect upon the officer, the officer 
is not bound to keep the property 
under attachment unless the plaintiff on 
demand indemnify him against such 
claim by a sufficient obligation. A per- 
sistent seizure notwithstanding such 
claim renders the levy illegal. Quesada 
V, Artacho, 9 Phil. Isl. 104. 

664-13 Eanaman v. Hubbard (Tex. 
Civ.), 160 S. W. 304. 

571-47 Conditions In excess of the 

statutory requirements are regarded as 
surplusage and do not affect the valid- 
ity of the bond. Herrera v. Neis, 18 
Phil. Isl. 366. 

672-52 Thompson v. Wright, 22 Ga. 
607. 

572-63 Woodbridge r. Drought, 118 
Ga. 671, 45 S. B. 266; Walter t\ Kier- 
stead, 74 Ga. 18; Camp u. Cahn, 53 
Ga. 558; Leusch v. Nickel, 16 N. M. 
28, 113 P. 595. 

Failare of officer to surrender the prop- 
erty after bond is given does not in- 
validate further proceedings under the 
writ. Jennings t?. Wall, 217 Mass. 278, 
104 N. E. 738. 

Effect of replevin. — Where property 
which has been attached has been re- 
plevied the attachment is dissolved, the 
bond is substituted for the property and 
the case stands as if it had been 
founded on ordinary principles. Wat- 
ters r. Southern F. & C. Co., 13 Ga. App. 
468, 79 S. E. 360. 

577-77 Henry Cowell L. ft C. Co. v. 

Pigel (Cal. App.), 148 P. 796. 

687-40 Phillips t?. Eggert, 145 Wis. 
43, 129 N. W. 654. 

588-62 Busso-Chiuese Bank v. Nat. 
Bank, 187 Fed. 80, 109 C. C. A. 398; 
Matsumura v. Higgins, 187. Fed. 601, 
109 C. C. A. 431 ; Stewart v. Murray, 14 
Ga. App. 438, 81 g. E. 382; S. v. Burgy, 
22 Ida. 586, 126 P. 779; In re Moyni- 
han's Est. (la.), 151 N. W. 504; Grip- 
pen r. S., 20 Wyo. 486, 124 P. 764,- 128 
P. 622. 

688-54 Williams v. Haycraft, 33 
Okla. 697, 127 P. 494. 

689-60 Strictly speaking, an attach- 
ment on a mesne process does not con- 



195 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



stitute a lien. In re Hansford, 194 Fed. 
658, 115 C. C. A. 560. 

589-62 In re Hansford, 194 Fed. 658, 
115 C. C. A. 560. See Nichols t?. In- 
gram (Or.), 146 P. 988, ''strictly speak- 
ing, an attachment does not create a 
lien, although the statute usee that 
term; but at most is a contingent se- 
curity, to satisfy the judgment of the 
creditor, if he obtains one," 

591-63 Tetzloff i\ May, 151 la. 441, 
131 N. W. 647. 

592-70 Dalivery of writ to officer. 
A writ of attachment on personal prop- 
erty becomes a lien on the property 
from the time the writ is delivered 
to the oflScer. McClendon v. First Nat. 
Bank, 112 Ark. 187, 165 S. W. 952. 

692-71 Heyer v. Teare (Colo. App.), 
143 P. 394. 

593-75 Daniels v. Kunyons, 164 Ky. 
309, 175 S. W. 338. 

593-76 First Nat. Bank v. Powell, 
130 La. 856, 58 S. 687; Neville v. Mil- 
ler (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1109; John- 
son i;. Larson, 96 Neb. 193, 147 N. W. 
476. 

594-77 Heyer v, Teare (Colo. App.), 
143 P. 394; Mott tJ. Holbrook, 28 N. D. 
251, 148 N. W. 1061; Nichols v. In- 
gram (Or.), 146 P. 988; U. S. t?. Rega- 
lado, 1 Phil. Isl. 125. 

595-78 Ooit t?. Sistare, 85 Conn. 573, 
84 A. 119; Woodward v. Lishman, 80 
N. J. L. 586, 78 A. 701. 

598-87 Merger of Uen In the Judg- 
ment.— See Mott V. Holbrook, 28 N. D. 
251, 148 N. W. 1061. 

600-1 J. B. Inderrieden Co. v. Al- 
len, 176 111. App. 301; Frantz v. Vin- 
cent, 152 la. 680, 133 N. W. 121. 

603-8 First Nat. Bank t?. Powell, 130 
La. 856, 58 S. 687. 

604-15 Ladd & Tilton Bank v. Com- 
mercial State Bank, 64 Or. 486, 130 P. 
975, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657. 

604-16 Curry v. Equitable Surety Co. 
(Colo. App.), 148 P. 914; Coit v. Sis- 
tare, 85 Conn. 573, 84 A. 119; Johnson 
f?. Larson, 96 Neb. 193, 147 N. W. 
476; Woodward t\ Lishman, 80 N. J. 
L, 586, 78 A. 701. 

The lien of an attadunent Issued out 
of the small cause court is prior to an 
attachment issued subsequently out of 
the circuit court. Woodward v. Lish- 
man, 80 N. J. L. 586, 78 A. 701. 

610-36 In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514. 



610-39 See vol. 3, p. 639, n. 38, and 
supplement thereto. 

617-63 Jensen v. Dorr, 23 Cal. App. 
701, 139 P. 659. 

Priority of dower interest. — The widow 's 
distributive share in her deceased hus- 
band's real estate is not subject to an 
attachment levied thereon in his life- 
time not confirmed by judgment or sale 
prior to his death. Tetzloff v. May, 151 
la. 441, 131 N. W. 647. 

618-64 Coit V. Sistare, 85 Conn. 573, 
84 A. 119; Klein v. Turner, 66 Or. 369, 
133 P. 625. 

618-66 Mott V. Holbrook, 28 N. D. 
251, 148 N. W. 1061. 

619-68 McDermott v. Hayes, 194 
Fed. 902; First Nat. Bank f. Acme 
Co-op. B. & T. Co. (la.), 149 N. W. 
607. 

620-71 See Pares v. J. Reynes & Co., 
2 P. R. Fed. 402. 

Plaintiff a purchaser in good faith. 
From the date of an attachment until 
it is discharged or the writ executed, 
the plaintiff as against third persons, is 
deemed a purchaser in good faith and 
for a valuable consideration of the real 
property attached if the certificate of 
attachment is made and filed as re- 
quired by law. Consequently, such at- 
tachment will prevail over a deed which 
has not been recorded as required by 
law, if the attaching creditor or the 
purchaser had no notice of the un- 
recorded deed. Mertens P. Northern 
State Bank, 68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885. 
620-72 Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. r. 
Saunders, 128 La. 82, 54 S. 479; Aris- 
ton V. Cea, 13 Phil. Isl. 109; Fabian 
V. Smith, Bell & Co., 8 Phil. Isl. 496 
(although unrecorded); La Sociedad E. 
De A. M. Y. B. v. Rossy, 17 P. R. 77; 
Sola V. Morera, 7 P. R. 7, a recorded 
cautionary notice of attachment does 
not prejudice a property right acquired 
prior to the recordation although it is 
not recorded prior to the entry of such 
notice. 

Becording in the probate court is not 
sufficient; the conveyance must be of 
record in the office of the registry of 
deeds, otherwise it has no priority over 
a subsequent attachment lien. Kelly 
V. Byers, 115 Minn. 489, 132 N. W. 
919. 

621-78 Chetham-Strode r. Blake (N. 
M.), 142 P. 1130. 

622-80 Ildvedsen r. First State Bank, 
24 N. D. 227, 139 N. W. 105. 



196 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol. 3 



The words "In good faith'* in a stat- 
ute, providing an unrecorded deed is 
void as against subsequent purchasers 
for a valuable consideration in good 
faith whose conveyance is first recorded, 
and against any attachment against the 
person in whose name the property 
appears of record, has reference to at- 
tachment creditors as well as to sub- 
sequent purchasers. Ildvedsen r. First 
State Bank, 24 N. D. 227, 139 N, W. 
105. 

e25-90 Bell-Wayland Co. r. Miller- 
Mitcher Co. (Okla.), 130 P. 593. 

€26-92 National bank stock transfer. 

Under the federal statutes, the rights 
of a transferee of national bank stock 
under an unrecorded transfer, good at 
common law, are superior to the rights 
of a subsequent attaching creditor of 
the transferor without notice. Hazard 
r. Nat. Exchange Bank, 26 Fed. 94; 
Continental Nat. Bank t?. Eliot Nat. 
Bank, 7 Fed. 369; Mapleton Bank t?. 
fitandrod, 8 Ida. 740, 71 P. 119, 67 L. 

B. A. 656; Bateman v. Gits, 16 N. M. 
441, 120 P. 307; Doty v. First Nat. 
Bank, 3 N. D. 9, 53 N. W. 77, 17 L. R, 
A. 259. 

Tbe tme owner of stock standing in 
the name of another has priority over 
an attaching creditor who did not ex- 
tend credit on the faith of the debtor's 
ownership of such stock. Hitchcock r. 
Galveston Wharf Co., 50 Fed. 263; Gray 
r. Graham, 87 Conn. 601, 89 A. 262, 49 
L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1159; Sibley v, Quin- 
aigamond Nat. Bank, 133 Mass. 515. 
See also New York Com. Co. t?. Fran- 
cis, 96 Fed. 266, mod. 101 Fed. 16, 41 

C. C. A. 167; White V. Rankin, 90 Ala. 
541, 8 8. 118. 

026-94 'Where tbe recordation is Il- 
legal, the conditional -sale does not rank 
a junior attachment. Southern Iron & 
E. Co. r. Voyles, 138 Ga. 258, 75 8. E. 
248, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 369. 

627-95 Snyder v. Carson, 155 la. 552, 
136 N. W. 653; Holt Mfg. Co. t?. Cobs, 
78 Wash. 39, 138 P. 322. 

627-96 Bell-Wayland Co. v. Miller- 
Miteher Co. (Ala.), 130 P. 593. 

627-97 'Where answer of defendant 
is improperly stricken from the files 
and default taken, a subsequent mort- 
gagee of the attachment property takes 
subject to the lien of attachment for 
tbe action stands as though nothing 
had been done therein but file the com- 
plaint, attach the property and issue 



siimmons. Klein r. Turner, 66 Or. 369, 
133 P. 625. 

If the mortgagee of a chattel mort- 
gage falls to reduce the property to 
possession, or record the mortgage his 
mortgage is void as to an attaching 
creditor, notwithstanding actual notice 
of the mortgage. Geiser Mfg. Co. t;. 
Murray, 84 Kan. 450, 114 P.* 1046; Im- 
plement Co. r. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 
51 Kan. 566, 33 P. 363; Bamsey v. Glenn, 
33 Kan. 271, 6 P. 265. 

629-4 As against an assignment for 
benefit of creditors in a foreign state 
the lien of a subsequent attachment 
does not take priority. WulflP i\ Bose- 
ville Trust Co., 164 App. Div. 399, 149 
N. y. S. 683. 

633-15 One who commences and 
prosecutes to final judgment, within 
sixty days after the first posting of 
the notice of attachment, his claim 
against the defendant shall share pro 
rata with the attaching creditor in the 
proceeds of the defendant's property. 
Ida. Bev. Code, §4304; Howard v. 
Grimes Pass Placer Min. Co., 21 Ida. 
12, 120 P. 170, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 284. 

637-27 Holmes v. Soper, 6 Haw. 564. 

639-88 See Mott v. Holbrook, 28 N. 
D. 251, 148 N. W. 1061. 

642-67 Bogers v. Maine Cent. B. 
Co. (Me.), 94 A. 758; Beaulieu v. Clark, 
210 Mass. 90, 96 N. E. 319; JoUey v. 
Dunlop, 34 S. D. 213, 147 N. W. 980. 
643-73 Woodward r. Lishman, 80 N. 
J. L. 586, 78 A. 701. 
643-76 In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514. 
643-76 Gary v. Graham, 108 Me. 
452, 81 A. 666; Waterhouse v. Bird, 37 
Me. 326; Gower t\ Stevens, 19 Me. 92, 
36 Am. Dec. 737. 

644-83 Failure to levy on the prop- 
erty for thirty days does not affect the 
lien which took effect on placing the* 
order of attachment in the sheriff's 
hand, Daniels v. Runyons, 164 Ky. 309, 
175 S. W. 338. 

648-1 Order of referee. — An attach- 
ment dissolved by the officer taking 
an alternative receipt from debtor is 
not restored by the referee in sub- 
sequent bankruptcy proceedings against 
the debtor making an order that the 
attachment be preserved. Gary v. Gra- 
ham, 108 Me. 452, 81 A. 666. 
648-3 Meegan r. Pettibone-Gentry; 
Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 64. 
Writ of prohibition will not lie to ob- 



197 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



tain the discharge of an attachment of 
the property of petitioner. Felizardo 
V. Justice of the Peace, 3 Phil. Isl. 635. 

648-4 Meegan v, Pettibone-Gentry 
Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 64; Cartmell 
V. Budolph Wurtlitzer Co., 5 O. N. P. 
(N. S.) 604. 

640-9 Howard t;. Grimes Pass Placer 
Min. Go., 21 Ida. 12, 120 P. 170; Du- 
Pont Co. r. Pennsylvania & I. Coal 
Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96 N. £. 204. 

The original attaching creditor, who 
has a claim against the defendant not 
included in his original complaint, may 
file under the attachment proceedings. 
DuPont Co. V, Pennsylvania & I. Coal 
Co., 48 Ind. App. 538, 96 N. E, 204. 

650-11 Kecessity ef precuxlng Judg- 
ment in timOd — No creditor will be en- 
titled to prorate unless he has pro- 
cured his judgment within the 60 days 
period; both the commencement and the 
prosecution to final judgment within 
that period are necessary. Howard t'. 
Grimes Pass Placer Min. Co., 21 Ida. 
12, 320 P. 170. 

651-18 In Maine, the officer may 
give the claimant written notice of the 
attachment. Within ten days there- 
after the claimant must deliver to the 
officer a true account of the amount 
due on his claim or he waives his 
right to liold the property thereon. 
Bev. St., ch. 83, §46. The claimant 
must deliver the notice to the officer; 
a delivery to the attorney of the cred- 
itors is not a compliance with the stat- 
ute. Hill V. Wiles (Me.), 92 A. 996. 

667-46 Nature of proceeding. — An 
interplea filed by a claimant of the 
property attached is a separate suit in 
which the interpleader is plaintiff and 
plaintiff in the main action defendant. 
Keet-Boundtree D. G. Co. t;. Hodges, 
175 Mo. App. 484, 161 8. W. 862. 
Bzcesslve levy. — The right to inter- 
vene cannot be based on an abuse of 
Srocess such as an excessive levy, 
irook V, Young, 7 Ala, App. 631, 62 
S. 326. 

657-47 Union <To. Tnv. Co. v, Messix, 
152 la. 412, 132 N. W. 823; Meegan v. 
Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 
P. 64; Felizardo v. Justice of the 
Peace, 3 Phil. Isl. 635; Bias r. Colon, 
8 P. E. 76. See O 'Mallcv v. Townsley, 
85 Kan. 489, 117 P. 1022; Schroder v. 
Municipal Council, 7 P. B. 1. 
Claimant cannot be compelled to Inter- 
vene. — ^Dimsdale v, Tolerton-Warfield 



Co., 151 la. 425, 131 N. W. 689; S- 
i\ Blair, 238 Mo. 132, 142 S. W. 326. 

657-48 Where goods liave been at- 
tached, the claimant cannot intervene. 
H. P. Cornell Co. v. Boyer (B. I.), 82 

A. 385. 

667-49 Dimsdale t. Tolerton-War- 
field Co., 151 la. 425, 131 N. W. 689; 
Felizardo v. Justice of the Peace, 3 
Phil. Isl. 635; Houston B. E. Inv. Co. 
V. Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 138 P. 1159. 
See O'Malley a. Townsley, 85 Kan. 
489, 117 P. 1022. Contra, H. P. Cornell 
Co. u. Boyer (B. I.), 82 A. 385. 

658-50 Alvarez r. Montinola, 1 Phil. 
Isl. 624. 

658-52 Meegan t?. Pettibone-Gentry 
Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 64. 

The fact that a forthcoming bond was 

given by the defendant in the attach- 
ment action, to whom the property was 
delivered, which bond was not signed 
nor procured to be given by the mort- 
gagee, will not defeat the right of the 
mortgagee to intervene in the attach- 
ment proceeding, in order to have his 
interest in the property determined. 
Meegan v, Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85 
Kan. 536, 118 P. 64. 

660-70 An Intervening claimant to 
the property attached cannot assail the 
regularity or validity of the attach- 
ment, for since his title to the property 
does not depend upon the attachment 
he is in no way concerned whether the 
attachment is good or bad. Houston 

B. E. Inv. Co. V. Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 
138 P. 1159. 

661-74 Houston B. E. Inv. Co. v. 
Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 138 P. 1159. 

662-76 Forbis i?. Piedmont Lumb. 
Co., 165 N, C. 403, 81 S. E. 599. 

662-77 The claimant Is not required 
te join issue until final judgment in the 
main case. Mahaffey Co. v. Busael & 
Butler, 100 Miss. 122, 54 S. 807, 945. 
Possession of the property obtained 
peaceably by the mortgagee from one 
of the defendants, after a forthcoming 
bond was given, vrill not prevent a 
hearing upon the interplea of such mort- 
gagee, which was filed about the time 
possession was obtained. Meegan. r. 
Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85 Kan. 636, 118 
P. 64. 

662-79 Kahmke r. Weber, 187 Ho. 
App. 698, 173 S. W. 76. 

662-82 Cohen v, Harris, 61 Fla. 137, 
54 S. 905. 



198 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol 3 



The right of ' property ' which the 
Jozy i3 to try is an issue of superi- 
ority as between the right of the plain- 
tiff in attachment to subject the chattel 
or property involved to the satisfac- 
tion of his writ, and the claimant's 
title, on the other hand, as against 
such right; an issue of the liability 
of the property to the plaintiff's writ 
of attachment as against the claimant's 
title. Cohen v. Harris, 61 Fla. 137, 54 
S. 905; Volusia Co. Bank t?. Bigelow, 45 
Fla. 638, 33 S. 704. 

€62-83 Houston R. E. Inv. Co. v, 
Hechler, 44 Utah 64, 138 P. 1159. 
Oozporate character of original defend- 
ant. — ^An intervener in an action against 
a lumber company for damages, aided 
by attachment, cannot raise the issue 
as to whether the company is a cor- 
poration or a partnership. Forbis t\ 
Piedmont Lumb. Co., 165 N. C. 403, 81 
S. E. 599. 

Keceeslty of proving claim against de- 
fendant. — The plaintiff is not required 
as against an interpleader to prove his 
claim against defendant. Johnson v. 
Mason, 177 Mo. App. 109, 163 S. W. 
260. 

664-90 Lee v. Lowery, 42 Okla. 148, 
140 P. 1175. 

664-93 Attorneys for attaching cred- 
itors need not be made parties defend- 
ant. Lyon t\ Bussell, 41 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 554. 

665-98 Poor Grain Co. «. Franke 
Grain Co., 171 Mo. App. 354, 157 S. W. 
840. 

665-2 Amonnt of damages. — The in- 
terveners in a damage suit in which 
attachment issued, cannot introduce 
evidence as to the amount of damages. 
Forbis V, Piedmont Lumb. Co., 165 N. 
C. 403, 81 S. E. 599. 

665-3 Under general denial, plaintiff 
may show the interpleader's claim of 
ownership is fraudulent. Gate City 
Kat. Bank v. Boyer, 161 Mo. App. 143, 
142 S. W. 487. 



Buggies V, Helfrieh, 162 Cal. 
553, 123 P. 369; Mesa County Nat. 
Bank r. Berry, 24 Colo. App. 487, 135 
P. 129; Qark v. Pond Creek Mill & 
Elev. Co., 175 HI. App. 374; Lemp Brew. 
Co. V. Mantz, 120 Md. 176, 87 A. 814. 
Yariaaoed — ^A compromise between the 
defendant and the interpleader is in- 
admissible unless pleaded. Poor Grain 
Co. r. Franke Grain Co.. 171 Mo. App. 
354, 157 8. W. 840. 



The original defendant who is in pos- 
session may not introduce evidence to 
support the claim of the interpleader. 
Keet-Boundtree B. G. Co. t?. Hodges, 

175 Mo. App. 484, 161 S. W. 862. 

667-5 Cohen t?. Harris, 61 Fla. 137, 
54 S. 905; Miles v. Honey (Mo. App.), 

176 S. W. 429; Johnson v. Mason, 178 
Mo. App. 109, 163 S. W. 260; Keet- 
Boundtree D. G. Co. V. Hodges, 175 Mo. 
App. 484, 161 S. W. 862. 

668-8 Mesa County Nat. Bank v. 
Berry, 24 Colo. App. 487, 135 P. 129, 
See Gate City Nat. Bank v. Boyer, 161 
Mo. App. 143, 142 S. W. 487. 

668-10 Brock v, Toung, 7 Ala. App. 
631, 62 S. 326; Keet-Boundtree D. G. 
Co. 17. Hodges, 175 Mo. App. 484, 161 
S. W. 862, instruction held mislead- 
ing. See Gate City Nat. Bank v. 
Boyer, 161 Mo. App. 143, 142 S. W. 
487. 

670-19 Dodder v. Moberly, 28 Okla. 
334, 114 P. 714. 

670-25 Dodder v, Moberly, 28 Okla. 
334, 114 P. 714. Cimira, Nichols Bros. 
V. Koshinick, 19 0. C. C. (N. S.) 148. 

671-80 HoUoway v. Burroughs & 
Taylor Co., 4 Ala. App. 630, 58 S. 953; 
Biera v. Wolff's Auto Garage, 20 P. B. 
172. 

A deposit of money in court cannot be 
made in lieu of such bond. Otis v. Nel- 
son, 15 Ariz. 486, 140 P. 211. 

671-81 Biera v. Wolff's Auto Gar- 
age, 20 P. B. 172. 

'671-82 The sacceBSfol party to the 
suit should be the obligee of the bond. 
Riera v. Wolff's Auto Garage, 20 P. B. 
172. 

671-33 Biera v. Wolff's Auto Garage, 
20 P. R. 172. 

671-34 Keleasing secnxlty on affl- 
daylt of claimants. — After property 
has been released to claimant on his 
giving security, the court has no juris- 
diction to order the security returned 
pursuant to an affidavit by the claim- . 
ant that he is the owner. Larsen v. 
Richards, 43 Utah 196, 134 P. 583. 
672-39 Where there la no actual aelz- 
nre of the property as in the case of 
an attachment of stock, the leaving of 
a copy of the process and complaint 
with the agent or attorney of the de- 
fendant within the state, or if none, 
with the person whe has possession, as 
provided in |828, Gen. St., is not neces- 
sary. Barber v. Morgan, 84 Conn. 618, 
80 A. 791. 



199 



Vol. 3 



ATTACHMENT 



675-43 Tonn v. Collins, 116 Md. 52, 
81 A. 219. 

A general appeAiance does not militate 
against defendant's right to have the 
attachment discharged on the ground 
the summons was invalid. Buluth Brew. 
& Malt. Co. 17. Allen (Mont.). 149 P. 
494. 

677-44 Deal v. Powell (Vt), 92 A. 
648. 

Service of sanmioiiB In the county 
where the salt is hronght, contrary to 
the statute requiring the summons be 
directed to the sheriff of the county 
of defendant's residence, is no less ef- 
fective than a futile summons directed 
to defendant's residence. Tonn v, Col- 
lins, 116 Md. 52, 81 A. 219. See supra, 
n. 43. 

680-54 Martin v. Bryant, 108 Me. 
253, 80 A. 702: Baker v. Hahn (Tex. 
Civ.), 161 S. W. 443. 
Service of snmmonB may he made upon 
the tenant, agent or attorney of the 
non-resident "where goods and estate 
are attached." Although the quoted 
words were omitted from the revision 
of 1871, they are to be read into the 
statute for the reason that it was not 
the evident intent of the legislature to 
change the original statute providing 
for service upon non-resident defendant. 
Martin v. Bryant, 108 Me. 253, 80 A. 
702. 

681-55 Martin V. Bryant, 108 Me. 
253, 80 A. 702. 

682-57 A deaignAtion of a defend- 
ant in an order of publication by the 
initials only of his Christian name is 
insufficient. White v, Gramley, 236 Mo. 
647, 139 S. W. 127; .Missouri, K. & 
T. E. Co. V. Morris, 153 Mo. App. 667, 
134 8. W. 1027. 

682-58 Bank of Venice v. Hutchin- 
son, 19 Cal. App. 219, 125 P. 252. 

683-60 Conclusive as to property 
within jurisdiction of court. Conse- 
quently the substituted service will not 
bo quashed because the attached prop- 
erty belonged to a third person. South 
Bf&ota Com. Assn. v, Bamsey (S. B.), 
147 N. W. 75. 

684-62 Big Vein Coal Co. v. Bead, 
229 V. S. 31, 33 Sup. Ct. 694, 57 L. 
ed. 1053. 

687-70 Xfpon the expiration of thirty 
days after the granting of the attach- 
ment, service by publication must be 
commenced. MiIIb v. Housel (N. C), 
85 B. E. 17. 



687-71 Wright t\ Ankeny, 217 Fed. 
988; Cosh-Murray Co. t?. Tuttich, 10 
Wash. 449, 38 P. 1134. 

687-72 CitiEens ' Nat. Bank v. Union 
Central L. I. Co., 12 O. C. C. (N. S.) 
401. 

687-74 MUls r. Housel (N. C), 85 
S. E. 17. 

688-75 See Miller 17. Veldhuyzen, 13 
O. N. P. (N. 8.) 646. 

688-76 But see Miller v. Veldhuy- 
zen, 13 O. N. P. (N. S.) 646. 

690-81 The statate provision for 
posting at three public places contem- 
plates posting of notice at three sep- 
arate places. Beid-Mnrdock & Co. v. 
McGregor, 183 111. App. 300. 

690-82 That attachment has been 
levied need not be stated. iPindlay v, 
Lumsden (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 818. 

691-87 Daniels t?. Taylor, 13 0. C. C. 
(N. S.) 116. 

694-99 Johnson v, Larson, 96 Neb. 
193, 147 N. W. 476. 

695-1 Koontz v. Baltimore B. Co. 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 973. 

696-6 Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 
56 S. 203. See Lindsey v, Mexican 
Crude Bubber Co., 197 Fed. 775; Home 
Distilling Co. V, Himmel (W. Va.), 82 
S. E. 1094. Contra, Hisor €. Vandiver, 
83 N. J. L. 433, 85 A. 181. 

698-17 Johnson v. Larson, 96 Neb. 
193, 147 N. W. 476, filing answer and 
motion to dissolve the attachment con- 
stitute a general appearance. But see 
Blinn v. Bickett, 3 O. N. P. (N. S.) 
345, and 2 Stanbasd Pboc. 499. 
698-18 Koontz v, Baltimore B. Co. 
(Mass.), 107 N. E. 973; Beich V. Pike 
Building Co., 11 O. D. 418; Mawiecke 
V. Wolf, 7 O. D. 476. 
701-28 Making mortgagee a partj. 
Where the legal title is in the mort- 
gagee, the creditor must make him a 
party defendant. King v, Patterson 
(Tenn.), 164 S. W. 1191. 
702-84 Ownership. — There must be 
an allegation and proof that defendant 
is the owner of the property attached. 
North Star Lumb. Co. v. Johnson, 196 
Fed. 56. 

703-86 A prayer for personal Judg- 
ment is not necessary where the bill 
contains a prayer for general relief. 
Butterfield v. Miller, 195 Fed. 200, 115 
C. C. A. 152. 

705-49 See Conran v, Fenn, 159 Mo. 
App. 664, 140 S. W. 82. 



200 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol 3 



TtgJAAirtQ complaint and affidayit to- 
gether. — An insufficient complaint will 
not be dismissed if the omitted facts 
are stated in the affidavit. Western 
Warehouse Co. 17. Flynt (Tex. Civ.), 149 
S. W. 789. 

T06-52 Demurrer to causes of at- 
tacbmentu — ^''An attachment is not 
subject to general demurrer if it con- 
tains one valid ground of attachment, 
although it contains another ground 
tThich affords no basis for attach- 
ment." Cleveland-Manning Co. v, 
Stewart (Ga. App.), 84 S. E. 174. 

T06-53 Johnson v, Muenz, 76 Wash* 
526, 137 P. 126. 

708-57 If the debt be due, the com- 
plaint must be filed within the first 
three davs of the return term; if the 
debt be payable in the future, the com- 
plaint must be filed when it becomes 
due and payable. Exchange Nat. Bank 
V. Clement, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814. 

710-05 Baker v. Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 
161 S. W. 443. 

711-67 Baker v. Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 
161 S. W. 443. 

Season for premature flUng must ap- 
pear in the complaint or else it is de- 
mnrrable. Johnson v, Muenz, 76 Wash. 
526, 137 P. 126. 

713-70 Balphs v. Bruns, 22 Cal. App. 
153, 133 P. 997; Marston i*. F. C. Tib- 
betts Merc. Co., 110 Me. 533, 87 A. 
220; Johnson V. Muenz, 76 Wash. 526, 
137 P. 126. ' 

715-73 Green 17. Hoppe (Tex. Civ.), 
175 S. W. 1117. 



Boznik v. Becker, 68 Wash. 
es, 122 P. 593. 

718-87 Exchange Nat. Bank v, Clem- 
ent, 109 Ala. 270, 19 S. 814. 

710-00 Kon-ownerdilp of property 
not pleadable in abatement. Sims, Har- 
rison & Co. V. Jacobson, 51 Ala. 186. 

724-11 Time of rendition of Judg- 
ment on attachment in foreclosure suit. 
Bryant v, Shute's Ex., 147 Ky. 268, 144 

The deflcleney in a mortgage fore- 
dorare must first be determined before 
judgment can be rendered in an at- 
tachment in aid of such foreclosure. 
Bryant v. Shute's Exr., 147 Ky. 268, 
344 8 W 28 

726-14 In re Forbes, 186 Fed. 79, 
108 C. C. A. 191. 

726-17 Hauser v, Murray, 256 Mo. 
58, 165 S. W. 376. 



726-18 Pyatt i\ Eiley, 252 111. 36, 
96 N. E. 570, quot. Young v. Campbell, 
10 111. 80. 

728-20 Maurer v, Phillips, 182 Mo. 
App. 440, 168 S. W. 669, general judg- 
ment. See Oliver v, Kinney, 173 Ala. 
593, 56 S. 203. 

728-23 Cooper t?. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 
(U. S.) 318, 19 L. ed. 931; Hood t\ 
Commercial G. T. & S. Bank (Ala. 
App.), 67 S. 721; Peterson t?. Swen- 
ningston, 178 Mich. 294, 144 N. W. 550; 
South Dakota Comm. Assn. v, Bamsey, 
34 8. D. 48, 147 N. W. 75; Baker v. 
Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 161 S. W. 443. See 
Martin v. Bryant, 108 Me. 253, 80 A. 
702. 

729-24 Oliver t?. Kinney, 173 Ala. 
593, 56 8. 203; First Nat. Bank v. 
Sanders Bros., 162 Ky. 374, 172 S. W. 
689. 

730-25 Pyatt v. Riley, 252 111. 36, 
96 N. E. 570. 

781-80 Mott V. Holbrook, 28 N. D. 
251, 148 N. W. 1061; Iowa State Sav. 
Bank v. Jacobson, 8 S. D. 292, 66 N. 
W. 453. 

732-31 In Texas.— Patterson v. Mc- 
Minn (Tex. Civ.), 152 8. W. 223. 

783-32 Johnston v, Shaw, 190 Fed. 
466, 111 C. C. A. 298. 

A Justice court has jurisdiction to fore- 
close an attachment lien on land, and 
to order the property sold. Bule v, 
Richards (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 1073. 

734-33 Love t?. Pavlovich (C. C. A.), 
222 Fed. 842; Wright t?. Manns, 111 
Ind. 422, 12 N. E. 160; United States 
Mtg. Co. V. Henderson, 111 Ind. 24, 12 
N. E. 88; Sannes v. Boss, 105 Ind. 558, 

5 N. E. 699; Smith v. Scott, 86 Ind. 
346; Mertens v. Northern State Bank, 
68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885; Moore-Shafter 
Shoe Mfg. Co. V. Billings, 46 Or. 401, 
80 P. 422; Bremer & Co. v. Fleck enstein 

6 Mayer, 9 Or. 266; Hillman t?. Werner, 
9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 586; Staunton v, Har- 
ris, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 579. 

737-44 A Judgment entered before 
the expiration of three days of the re- 
turn term is premature, by virtue of 
a statute allowing a defendant to raise 
the objection that the attachment is- 
sued without bond or affidavit by plea 
filed within the first three days of the 
return term. Oliver v, Kinney, 173 Ala. 
593, 56 S. 203. 

737-45 A Judgment is not InTalid 
became of a variance between the re- 



201 



Vol 3 



ATTACBMENT 



citals as to grounds of attachment in 
the writ and in the affidavit, where such 
variance is immaterial. Brown t?. Wil- 
liams-Brooke Co. (Miss.), 63 S. 351. 
Setting aside sale. — The circuit court, 
issuing the attachment, has the same 
power to set aside a sale made after 
final judgment as it has to set aside 
a sale made by virtue of an execution 
upon final judgment. Jackson v. Hal- 
sted, 82 N. J. L. 306, 82 A. 312. 

T3T-4T Page v. McDonald, 159 N. C. 
38, 74 S. E. 642. 

788-50 Pyatt t?. Riley, 252 111. 36, 
96 N. E. 570, quot. Miere v. Brush, 4 
111. 21. 

746-84 Equitable reUef.— A plaintiff 
who has acquired no lien against the 
property of a non-resident by any at- 
tachment, and who cannot show fraud, 
is not entitled to maintain a bill in 
equity against one who has attached 
the property as belonging to one not 
the owner. Bemington Typewriter Co. 
V. Hall, 183 Ala. 519, 63 S. 74. 

748-95 King v. Patterson (Tenn.), 
164 S. W. 1191. 

749-2 Page v. McDonald, 159 N. C. 
38, 74 S. E. 642. 

749-3 Allied Mfrs. v. Zurn, 165 App. 
Div. 975, 150 N. Y. S. 243. See S. v. 
Parks, 34 Okla. 335, 126 P. 242. 

750-9 Drake v, Lewis, 13 Ga. App. 
276, 79 S. E. 167; Roznik t?. Becker, 68 
Wash. 63, 122 P. 593. See Lamas v. 
Roig, 15 P. B. 481, where no fraud ex- 
ists, the attachment will be dissolved. 
The failure of the complaint to state 
a cause of action is sufficient to war- 
rant the discharge of the affidavit. Kyle 
V, Chester, 42 Mont. 522, 113 P. 749, 
37 L. B. A. (N. S.) 230. 

750-10 Greenwood Grocery Co. V. 
Canadian Co. M. & E. Co., 72 S. C. 
450, 52 S. E. 191, 110 Am. St. 627, 5 
Ann. Cas. 261, 2 L. B. A. (N. S.) 79. 

751-13 Johnstone v, Kelly, 7 Penne. 
(Del.) 119, 74 A. 1099; Kountze v, 
Scott, 49 Neb. 258, 68 N. W. 479; 
"Woods V. Southern L. ft T. Co. (N. J. 
L.), 93 A. 579; McKinlay t?. Fowler, 67 
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 388; Kelly t?. Baker, 
26 App. Div. 217, 49 N. Y. S. 973; 
Thomley v, Lawbaugh (N. D.), 143 N. 
W. 348, 47 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 1127; 
Cartmell t?. Budolph Wurtlitzer Co., 5 
O. N. P. (N. S.) 604; Greenwood Gro- 
cery Co. V. Canadian Co. M. ft E. Co., 
72 S. C. 450, 52 8. E. 191. 110 Am. 



St. 627, 5 Ann. Cas. 261, 2 L. B. A. 
(N. S.) 79; Metts v. P. ft A. L. Ins. 
Co., 17 S. O. 120; South Dakota Com. 
Assn. f?. Bamsey, 34 S. D. 48, 147 N. W. 
75. Comp, O'Malley v. Townsley, 85 
Kan. 489, 117 P. 1022. 
"Where Jurisdiction oyer a zum-xesldent 
defendant is obtained by attachment 
of his property, the rule does not ob- 
tain. Greenwood Grocery Co. v, Cana- 
dian County M. ft E. Co., 72 S. C. 450, 
52 S. E. 191, 110 Am. St. 627, 5 Ann. 
Cas. 261, 2 L. B. B. (N. S.) 79. 

A denial of the material matters al- 
leged in the complaint will not justify 
an order vacating the attachment. Al- 
lied Mfrs. V. Zurn (App. Div.), 150 N. 
Y. S. 243. 

751-15 Kelderhouse v, McGarry, 82 
Misc. 365, 143 N. Y. S. 741. 

752-16 Eplin v. Blessing, 73 W. Va. 
283, 80 S. E. 458. 

754-22 Miller, Sloss ft Scott v. 
Jones, 9 Phil. Isl. 648. 

756-28 By counterclaim for dam- 
ages. — ^Dimsdale v, Tolerton-Warfield 
Co., 151 la. 425, 131 N. W. 689. 

756-29 Green v. Hoppe (Tex. Civ.), 
175 S. W. 1117; Hart v. Jopling (Tex. 
Civ.), 146 S. W. 1075. 

756-80 Hart v, Jopling (Tex. Civ.), 
146 S. W. 1075. See Fisher r. Taylor, 
2 Mart. 0. S. (La.) 78. 

758-42 Disqualification of the officer 

serving the process is ground for dis- 
charging the attachment. Parkinson t?. 
Crawford, 13 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 73. 

758-43 A republication and not a 
dismissal of the attachment, is the 
remedy to cure a defective service by 
publication, where the court has ac- 
quired jurisdiction by attachment upon 
the property of the non-resident de- 
fendant. Mills V, Housel (N. C), 85 
S. B. 17; Branch ©. Frank, 81 N. C. 
180. 

Failure to serve garnishee is not 
ground for discharging attachment. 
Benoski v. C. F. Adams Co., 18 O. C. C. 
(N. S.) 478. See vol. 10, p. 493, n. 
72, and supplement thereto. 

759-49 Tyson v. Beinecke, 25 Oal. 
App. 696, 145 P. 153. 

761-53 Union Co. Inv. Co. v. Measix, 
152 la. 412, 132 N. W. 823. 

762-59 Moses & Sons v, Hayes, 36 
App, Cas. (D. C.) 194. 

763-67 McOomb p. Watt, 39 Okla. 



20a 



ATTACHMENT 



Vol 3 



412, 135 P. 361; S. v. Parks, 34 Okla. 
335, 126 P. 242. 

Kot necoasaxy to give bonil. — Coharie 
Lumb. Co. 17. Buhmann, 160 N. C. 385, 
75 S. £. 1008; Bear v. Cohen, 65 N. C. 
511, 

WalT«r of obJoctioiL — ^An agreement, 
after seizure of chattels attached, tiiat 
sheriif shall sell summarily and retain 
the proceeds or place them in a desig- 
nated depository, to abide the final 
judgment in the proceeding, precludes 
the defendant from insisting on a dis- 
solution of the writ. Collier v, Gan- 
non, 40 Okla. 275, 137 P. 1179. 

764-69 Boznik v. Becker, 68 Wash. 
63, 122 P. 593. 

T64-72 Thornley t?. Lawbaugh (N. 
D.), 143 N. W. 348, 47 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
1127n. 

765-80 A bond for the discharge of 
tlie attadiment does not prevent de- 
fendant from moving to dissolve the 
attachment. Leavitt & Milroy Co. v. 
Bosenberg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 
93 N. E. 904; Edwards Co. v, Gold- 
stein, 80 0. St. 303, 88 N. E. 877. 

765-84 Sims, Harrison & Co. v, 
Jacobson k Co., 51 Ala. 186. 

769-94 O'Malley t?. Townsley, 85 
Kan. 489, 117 P. 1022, where owner of 
property moved to vacate. 

The sureties on the bond for replevin 
of attached property cannot move to 
quash the attachment. Hart v. Jop- 
ling (Tex. av.), 146 S. W. 1075. 

771-1 But see Steinman v, Kreider, 
48 Pa. Super. 412, where made four 
months after defense on the merits. 

772-7 Leavitt & Milroy Co. r. Bosen- 
berg Bros. & Co., 83 O. St. 230, 93 N. 
£. 904; McComb f?. Watt, 39 Okla. 412, 
135 P. 361. 

776-21 McComb v. Watt, 39 Okla. 
412, 135 P. 361. 

781-44 See First Nat. Bank v, Ter- 
rell (Okla.), 145 P. 1140. 

783-52 Woods r. Southern L. & T. 
Co. (N. J. L.), 93 A. 579; Anspach v. 
Spring Lake, 58 N. J. L. 136, 32 A. 
77; Lndwig v, Pusey & Jones Co., 143 
App. Div. 290, 128 N. Y. S. 72; Mc- 
Comb V. Watt, 39 Okla. 412, 135 P. 
361. 



Forbes v, Arizona-Parral Min. 
Co. (Ariz.), 146 P. 509; Woods f. South- 
em Life ft T. Co. (N. J. L.), 93 A. 
679. 



785-54 Elwell ft Co. v. Acme Port- 
land Cement Co., 154 App. Div. 122, 
938, 138 N. Y. S. 1004. 

786-58 Culhane Adj. Co. «. Farrand, 
34 S. D. 87, 147 N. W. 271. 

787-66 Bendure v, Bidwell, 82 Miss. 
33, 143 N. Y. S. 97. 
Defendant has a right to Introduce evi- 
dence to disprove the affidavit where 
he seeks to dissolve the attachment on 
the ground of the falsity of the affi- 
davit. Miller, Sloss ft Scott t?. Jones, 
9 PhU. Isl. 648. 

787-67 Young v. Oark, 13 0. C. C. 
(N. S.) 284; Cartmell t?. Budolph Wurt- 
litzer Co., 5 0. N. P. (N. S.) 604; First 
Nat. Bank v. Terrell (Okla.), 145 P. 
1140. 

790-83 Cartmell v. Budolph Wurt- 
Htzer Co., 5 O. N. P. (N. S.) 604. 
A motion in Tacatlon under Civ. Code, 
§268, is made on the face of the papers 
in the action. No evidence may be 
received or considered in passing upon 
such a motion. Standard Hay & G. 
Co. t\ Batliff Bros., 144 Ky. 161, 137 
8. W. 1035. 

792-90 Hilborn v, Pennsylvania Ce- 
ment Co., 145 App. Div. 442, 129 N. Y. 
S. 957; Cartmell v. Budolph Wurtlitzer 
Co., 5 0. N. P. (N. S.) 604. 
793-93 Hilborn v, Pennsylvania Ce- 
ment Co., 145 App. Div. 442, 129 N. Y. 
S. 957; Nettleton v, Howe, 81 Wash. 
32, 142 P. 450. 

794-99 Statement of the court 'e 
findings of fact need not be stated in 
the order or otherwise, unless requested 
by the plaintiff. Coharie Lumb. Co. v. 
Buhmann, 160 N. C. 385, 75 S. E. 1008; 
Millhiser v. Balsley, 106 N. C. 433, 11 
S. E. 314. 

794-1 Hilborn v. Pennsylvania Ce- 
ment Co., 145 App. Div. 442, 129 N. Y. 
S. 957. 

794-4 C<mp, Jones v. First Nat. Bank 
(Tex. Civ.), 140 S. W. 116. 

796-20 Wilson t?. Callan, 9 Ala. App. 
265, 63 S. 27. 

798-29 Lapse of a year after defend- 
ant had replevied the property will 
defeat right to file a plea in abatement 
attacking the grounds of attachment. 
Wilson V, Callan, 9 Ala. App. 265, 68 
S. 27. 

805-56 Kon-ownershlp of property 
attached by defendant may be pleaded 
in abatement. Gardner v, James, 5 B. I, 
235. 



203 



Vol 3 



ATTACHMENT 



806-70 Board of Comrs, r. Wilson, 
88 Kan. 309, 128 P. 179. 
Burden on plaintiff to prove that he 
had no knowledge of an outstanding 
equity. First Nat. Bank v. Gage, 71 
Or. 373, 142 P. 539. 

808-79 Rodgers v. Cades, 103 Ark. 
187, 146 S. W. 507. 

Attorney's foes are not allowable for 
procuring the dissolution of an attach- 
ment if it has not been shown that any 
property was attached. Peters v. Snave- 
ly-Ashton, 157 la. 270, 134 N. W. 592. 

809-85 Tootle & Co. v. Lysaght & 
Co., 65 ^0. App. 139. 

809-86 First Nat. Bank v. Staake, 
202 U. S. 141, 146, 26 Sup. Ct. 580, 
50 L. ed. 967; In re Federal Biscuit 
Co., 214 Fed. 221, 129 C. C. A. 635; 
In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209 Fed. 784, 
126 C. C. A. 508; Cook f. Robinson, 
194 Fed. 785, 114 C. C. A. 505; In re 
Forbes, 186 Fed. 79, 108 C. C. A. 191; 
In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514; In re Ala- 
bama Coal & Coke Co., 210 Fed. 940; 
In re Craft-Riordon Shoe Co., 185 Fed. 
931; Hobson Coal Co. t\ Alabama Coal 
Co. (Ala.), 66 S. 622; Schunack v. Art 
Metal Novelty Co., 84 Conn. 331, 80 
A. 290; Corey v. Lumb. Co., 24 Ida. 
642, 135 P. 742; Lehman Stern & Co. 
f?. Martin & Co., 132 La. 231, 61 S. 212; 
Allen V. Ingalls, 33 Nev. 281, 111 P. 
34, 114 P. 758, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 755; 
Northern Shoe Co. r. Ceeka, 22 N. D. 
631, 135 N. W. 177; In re Pardo, 5 
P. R. Fed. 202 (the filing of voluntary 
petition in bankruptcy releases an at- 
tachment levied within four months 
previous to the date of filing); Bank 
of Garrison V. Malley, 103 Tex. 562, 
131 S. W. 1064. 

InsolTency of the defendant at the time 
the attachment lien is acquired is 
necessary to bring the attachment with- 
in the statute. D. C. Wise Coal Co. v. 
Columbia Z. & L. Co., 157 Mo. App. 315, 
138 S. W. 67. 

Attachments issuing from both state 
and national courts are embraced with- 
in the text. In re Federal Biscuit Co., 
214 Fed. 221, 129 C. C. A. 635. 
"The assignment cannot, ipso facto, 
operate the dissolution of an attach- 
ment pending in a state court. The 
proceedings and assignment in bank- 
ruptcy must be made known to that 
court, before a judgment of dissolution 
of the attachment can be rendered. 
Until they are made known, there is 



nothing on which to predicate such 
judgment. Of consequence, the at- 
tachment is legal and valid until dis- 
solved. (Cases.) The assignee in bank- 
ruptcy may intervene in the state conrt 
and obtain an order dissolving the at- 
tachment. (Cases.) The bankrupt can- 
not claim the dissolution." Sims, Har- 
rison & Co. r. Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala. 
186, 

As to vacation of writ» see In re Fed- 
eral Biscuit Co., 214 Fed. 221, 129 C. 
C. A. 635. 

Effect upon an attachment of exempt 
property, see Folger v, Putnam, 194 
Fed. 793, 114 C. C. A. 513; In re Forbes, 
186 Fed. 79, 108 C. C. A. 191; First 
Nat. Bank t?. Lee, 25 N. D. 197, 141 
N. W. 716. 

811-97 Colt V. Sistare, S5 Conn. 573, 

84 A. 119; Tetzloff v. May, 151 la. 

441, 131 N. W. 647, quaere as to an 

attachment on realty. 

812-99 Logan v. Greenwich Trust 

Co., 145 App. Div. 917, 129 N. Y. S. 

577. 

Death of a non-resident defendant after 
a valid levy and before service of 
summons or commencement of publica- 
tion does not dissolve the attachment 
where service of publication, within 
thirty days after granting the war- 
rant of attachment, was commenced 
against the personal representative of 
the decedent, he having been substituted 
as defendant. Logan v. Greenwich Trust 
Co., 203 N. Y. 611, 96 N. E. 1120. 

812-2 Craig v. Wagner, 88 Conn. 100, 

89 A. 916. 

812-3 Coit V. Sistare, 85 Conn. 573, 

84 A. 119. 

813-5 Nichols V. Ingram (Or.), 146 

P. 988; Van Voorhies V. Taylor, 24 Or. 

247, 33 P. 380. 

An undertaking on appeal, although 
operating to stay proceedings, does not 
prevent the dissolution of the lien by 
a judgment for the defendant. Nichols 
V, Ingram (Or.), 146 P. 988. 
The statutory duty of the connty clerk 
of entering a disdiarge of the lien on 
the margin of the record is not essen- 
tial to a discharge of the real prop- 
erty. Nichols V, Ingram (Or.), 146 P. 
988. 

813-6 First Nat. Bank v. Sanders 
Bros., 162 Ky. 374, 172 S. W. 689; 
Van Voorhies t?. Taylor, 24 Or. 247, S3 
P. 380, dismissal of the action. 



204 



ATTORNEYS 



Vol. 3 



813-8 Ordsr of sale will issue in case 
judgment is not paid. Jones v. Hed- 
strom, 89 Kan. 294, 131 P. 145. 

818-d See Hunneman v. Lowell Inst., 
209 Mass. 368, 95 K. E. 886. 

814-10 Mertens r. Northern State 
Bank, 68 Or. 273, 135 P. 885. 

816-17 If a second cause of action 
is added by amendment but abandoned 
at the trial, the attachment will not 
be dissolved. Boznik v, Becker, 68 
Wash. 63, 122 P. 593. 

816-20 Boznik 17. Becker, 68 Wash. 
63, 122 P. 593. 

816-29 Jackson v. Halsted, 82 N. J. 
lu 306, 82 A. 312. 

819-38 Inteirentlon of a third per- 
son in an attachment suit does not 
release an attachment. Meegan v. Pet- 
tibone-Gentry Co., 85 Kan. 536, 118 P. 
64. 

820-41 Tolman v, Carleton, 110 Me. 
57, 85 A. 390. 

The debtor must resume control of the 
property when the attachment is 
quashed on his motion. Jones & Nixon 
I?. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 140 
8. W. 116. 

820-43 Schunack v. Art Metal Nov- 
elty Co., 84 Conn. 331, 80 A. 290; 
Meegan v. Pettibone-Gentry Co., 85 
Kan. 536, 118 P. 64; Home Distilling 
Co. V. Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094. 
Consideration for bond. — ^The fact that 
the defendant does not forthwith re- 
ceive the property released from attach- 
ment does not cause a failure of con- 
sideration for the bond. The bond be- 
ing under seal imports consideration. 
Furthermore the discharge of the at- 
tachment by operation of the law is 
also a consideration. Jennings v. Wall, 
217 Mass. 278, 104 N. E. 738. 

821-46 Wan r. Kelly, 209 Mass. 370, 
95 N, E. 858; Leusch v. Nickel, 16 N. 
M. 28, 113 P. 595; Home Distilling Co. 
r- Himmel (W. Va.), 82 S. E. 1094; 
B<»aeh f. Blessing, 73 W. Va. 319, 80 
S. £. 453. 



State Nat. Bank v. Winn, 134 
639, 64 S. 495. 

Hanford r. Duchastel (N. J. 
li.), 93 A. 586; Hermida & Palos t*. 
Oestera, 20 P. B. 423. 

S2T-65 See 2 Standabd Pkog. 175. 



See 2 Standard Pace. 175. 

Judgment is not final as to any 
/act in the action notwithstanding the 



merits of the action have been inquired 
into. Lowe r. Swinehart Tire & Rub- 
ber Co., 211 Fed. 165. 

831-61 Consolidated A. Mill. Co. V. 
Roberts, 40 Okla. 304, 137 P. 1179. 

831-62 Johnson t?. Muenz, 76 Wash. 
526, 137 P. 126. 

Order denying motion for order direct- 
ing sale of perishable property is not 
appealable. Henry Cowell L. & C. Co. 
f. Figel (Cal. App.), 148 P. 796. 

882-63 Benoski v. C. F. Adams Co., 
18 O. C. C. (N. S.) 478. 

832-64 Haves v. Conger, 36 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 202. 

834-73 See 2 Standabd Paoo. 176. 

838-89 Fresno P. Mill Co. v. Man- 
ning, 20 Cal. App. 766, 130 P. 196. 

843-8 Absence of writ from record 
does not defeat appellant's right to be 
heard, where the attack is confined 
solely to the sufficiency of the papers 
on which it was granted. Frusher v. 
Vacuum Dye. Mach. Co., 148 App. Div. 
68, 131 N. Y. S. 994. 

843-10 On motion for reinstatement, 
the evidence considered on the motion 
to discharge the attachment should, if 
oral, be certified by the court in the 
same manner as bills of exceptions in 
ordinary actions upon appeal are re- 
quired to be certified. If the evidence 
was by depositions, a transcript of such 
written evidence, heard upon the trial 
of the attachment, should be prepared 
and certified as is required in equitable 
actions upon appeal, and unless the 
order discharging the attachment sufli- 
ciently identifies the depositions read 
or considered, the transcript should be 
accompanied by a certificate of the 
judge showing that the depositions con- 
tained in such transcript were so read 
and considered upon the hearing of the 
motion. Buck r. Watson, 161 Ky. 169, 
170 S. W. 509. 

844-15 On reversal of a Judgment for 
the defendant, the attachment remains 
effectual. McLain v, Parker, 92 Kan, 
561, 141 P. 243. 



ATTOBNBTS 

See the title ''Lawyer and Client." 

849-4 In re Berpreron (Mass.), 107 N. 
E. 1007; In to Kothachild, 140 App. 
Div. 583, 125 X. Y. S. 629; Crafts v. 
Lizotte, 34 R. I. 543, 81 A. 1081, rehear. 



!?C5 



Vol 3 



ATTORNEYS 



denied, 85 A. 384. See In re Thatcher, 
190 Fed. 969. 

859-7 In re Bergerson (Mass.), 107 
N. E. 1007. 

851-8 In re Flannery, 150 App. Div. 
.369, 135 N. Y. 8. 612. 

851-9 Hanson v, Grattan, 84 Kan. 
843, 115 P. 646, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
240; In re Bailey (Mont.), 146 P. 1101; 
Vernon Co. Bar Assn. v. MeKibbin, 153 
Wis. 350, 141 N. W. 283. 
Existence of quallficatloiis is for court. 
* ' The legislature cannot limit the courts 
in their right to determine the moral 
qualifications of their officers or pre- 
vent them from refusing to admit 
morally incompetent persons to prac- 
tice, nor compel them to retain such 
upon the roll." In re Platz, 42 Utah 
439, 132 P. 390. 

851-10 See Buxton v. Lietz, 136 N. 
Y. S. 829, aff. 139 N. Y. S. 46. 

852-13 Bead v. Neff, 207 Fed. 890; 
Williams v. Hatcher, 95 S. C. 49, 78 S. 
E. 615. 

852-14 €ollins v. Board of Supervis- 
ors, 158 la. 322, 138 N. W. 1095; Schaf- 
fer V. Troutwein, 36 Okla. 653, 129 
P. 696, appeal bond signed by attorney 
in case is void under Comp. Laws, 1909, 
|273. 

853-15 Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. (U. 
S.) 163, 12 L. ed. 387; Mills v, Duryee, 
7 Cranch 'U. S.) 481, 3 L. ed. 411; 
Jarrell v. Cole, 215 Fed. 315, 131 C. 
C. A. 589; Vandiever f. Conditt, 110 
Ark. 311, 162 S. W. 47; Wyatt v. Burr, 
25 Ark. 476; Parkside Eealty Co. v. 
MacDonald, 167 Cal. 342, 139 P. 805; 
Garrison v. McGowan, 48 Cal. 592; 
Wilson t?. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 192; Wil- 
liams V. Uncompahgre Canal Co., 13 
Colo. 469; Dobbins 17. Dupree, 39 Ga. 
394; Harrell v. Williams, 14 Ga. App. 
171, 80 S. E. 534; Williams t?. Butler, 
35 HI. 544; Horner V. Doe, 1 Ind. 130, 
48 Am. Dec. 355; Taylor v. New Or- 
leans, 41 La. Ann. 891, 6 S. 723; 
Patrick's Succession, 20 La. Ann. 204; 
Houston V, Wilcox, 121 Md. 91, 88 A. 
32; Kelso v. Stigar, 75 Md. 376, 24 
A. 18; Henck v. Todhunter, 7 Har. & 
J. (Md.) 275, 16 Am. Dec. 300; Dehn 
<?. Dehn, 170 Mich. 407, 136 N. W. 453; 
Masterson v. Le Claire, 4 Minn. 108; 
Eiley t?. O 'Kelly, 250 Mo. 647, 157 S. 
W. 566; Dexter Imp. Assn. v. Dexter 
Christian College, 234 Mo. 715, 138 S. 
W. 40; Miller v, Assur. Co. 233 Mo. 
91, 134 S. W. 1003, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 



102; Munhall v. Mitchell, 178 Mo. App. 
494, 163 S. W. 912; Mignogna V. Chiaf- 
farelli, 151 Mo. App. 359, 131 S. W. • 
769; Vorce f?. Page, 28 Neb. 294, 44 N. 
W. 452; Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 
28 N. H. 302; S. 17. Passaic Agr. Soc, 
54 N. J. L. 260, 23 A. 680; Dey 17. Tel. 
Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 419, 4 A. 675; Inter- 
national H. Co. f7. Champlain, 155 App. 
Div. 847, 140 N. Y. S. 842; Bacon v. 
Mitchell, 14 N. D. 454, 106 N. W. 129, 
4 L. B. A. (N. S.) 244; Campbell v, 
Kent, 3 Penr. ft W. (Pa.) 72; Patter- 
son V. Bogers, 53 Tex. 484; S. 17. Mur- 
phy (Tex. Civ.), 137 S. W. 708; Gregg's 
Case, 1 Salk. 89, 91 Eng. Beprint 83; 
Thompson 17. Blackhurst, 1 Nev. & M. 
(Eng.) 266, 271. See Howard 17. Burke, 
248 III. 224, 93 N. E. 775, 140 Am. St. 
159. 

853-16 An attorney most tfiow Ills 
authority to bring suit if called upon 
to do so. Gregory v, Hanna, 1 Haw. 
118; Spencer i?. Bailey, 1 Haw. 205. 
And if he fails after having filed a plea 
such plea may be stricken. Smyth c. 
Hegarty, 1 Haw. 366. 

853-17 P. V. Western Meat Co., 13 
Cal. App. 539, 110 P. 338; Miller c. 
Assur. Co., 233 Mo. 91, 134 S. W. 1003, 
Ann. Cas. 1912C, 102. 

854-18 A motion to dismiss is a 

proper method of challenging attorney 's 
authority. Angreation v. Laibe, 152 111. 
App. 417; Mead i?. Mead, 28 S. D. 131, 
132 N. W. 701. Such motion is ad- 
dressed largely to court's discretion. 
Beecher v, Henderson, 4 Ala. App. 543, 
58 S. 805. 

854-21 Seaward v, Tasker, 143 N. 
Y. S. 257. 

855-22 French v. Meyer (Mass.) 107 
N. E. 956; Montrose i?. Baggott, 161 
App. Div. 494, 146 N. Y. S. 649; Swin- 
fen V, Chelmsford, 5 Hurlst. & N. 
(Eng.) 890. 

An agreement not to take cliange of 

venue may be entered into by attorney. 
Terre Haute Brew. Co. v. Ward (Ind. 
App.), 102 N. E. 395. 
Payment of claims. — ^'^ While an attor- 
ney has a general authority to receive 
tender or payment of a claim in suit, 
it is evident that special circumstances 
may exist which limit this agency." 
Stratton v, Graham, 164 App. Div. 348, 
149 N. Y. S. 662. 

Stlimlatiomi as to evidenco. — ^May make 

stipulation for oral examination of wit- 

I nesses and that notes of testimony 



206 



ATTORNEYS 



Vol. 3 



taken by stenograplier shall be treated 
aa depositioiiB. Conrad's £zr. v, Con- 
rad, 156 Ky. 231, 160 S. W. 937. 

OallJiig in Jndge^ — May agree that a dis- 
qualified judge shall eall in another 
judge. Washoe Copper Co. v, Hickey, 
46 Mont. 363, 128 P. 584. 

S55-24 Grant City v. Simmons, 167 
Mo. App. 183, 151 8. W. 187; Bacon v. 
Mitchell, 14 N. D. 454, 106 N. W. 129, 
^ L. B. A. (N. S.) 244; Purman v, Bon 
Marche, 71 Wash. 238, 128 P. 210; Simp- 
son r. Brown, 1 Wash. Ter. 247. Contra, 
Bhutasel v. Rule, 97 la. 20, 65 N. W. 
1013; Steinkamp r. Gaebel, 1 Neb. 
(Unof.) 480, 95 N. W. 684. 

856-26 C&mp, Kinnegar r. Kinne- 
gar's Est., 168 111. App. 276. 

856-27 ICay stipulate issnes.-— May 
stipulate that on new trial being 
granted the case shall be submitted on 
the evidence in the bill of exceptions. 
Monk V. Wabash R. Co., 166 Mo. App. 
692, 150 S. W. 1083. 

856-29 Grant City v. Simmons, 167 
Mo. App. 183, 151 S. W. 187. 

That tMtimony in one sliall apply to alL 
May stipulate that, where there are a 
number of cases against several defend- 
ants, all the testimony admitted in one 
trial concerning all the offenses shall 
be received, but providing "only such 
evidence as may be pertinent against 
the defendant shall be considered in 
each case.'' Rogers v, S., 32 0. C. C. 
389. 

855-30 Forbes r. Chicago, R. I. & 
P. B. Co., 150 la. 177, 129 N. W. 810, 
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 311; Tyrrell t?. MU- 
liken, 135 Mo. App. 293, 115 S. W. 512; 
Tyrrel v, Hammerstein, 33 Misc. 505, 
67 N. Y. S. 717; Livingston Co. V. New 
York College, 31 Misc. 259, 64 N. Y. 
S. 140. Comp, Trimmier v. Thomson, 
41 S. C. 125, 19 S. E. 291. 

Stsnognphor's feeSwMiller «. Palmer, 
25 Ind. App. 357, 58 N. E. 213, 81 Am. 
St. 107; Thornton 17. Tuttle, 20 Abb. 
N. C. 308, 7 N. Y. S. 801 ; Harry r. HU- 
ton, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 199, 

85G-40 Bank of Glade Spring v, Me- 
Ewen, 160 N. C. 414, 76 S. E. 222, Ann. 
Cas. 1914C, 542. 

85T-44 Masterton 9. Le Claire, 4 
Minn. 163; Ashcraft 17. Powers, 22 
Wash. 440, 61 P. 161. 

IsBiumee and service of process may not 
he waived by him. Bice v, Bennett, 
29 S. D. 341, 137 N, W. 359. 



857-45 Bank of Glade Spring v. Me- 
Ewen, 160 N. C. 414, 76 S. E. 222, Ann. 
Cas. 1914C, 542. But see Salt Lake 
City V, Salt Lake Inv. Co., 43 Utah 
181, 134 P. 603; Cogswell v. Cogswell, 
70 Wash. 178, 126 P. 431^ wherein it 
was held that an attorney could stip- 
ulate for the entry of a decree quieting 
title in plaintiff. 

857-47 Biebold f). Hartzell, 23 N. B. 
264, 136 N. W. 247. 

857-48 See Vilas v. Bundy, 106 Wis. 
168, 81 N. W. 812; Armour v. Kilmer, 
28 Ont. (Can.) 618. 

Kot at dlent's expense. — Johnson v, 
Cunningham, 1 Ala. 249; Porter v. 
EUzalde, 125 Cal. 204, 57 P. 899; 
Lathrop v. Hallett, 20 Colo. App. 207, 
77 P. 1095; Chicago & S. Tract. Co. v. 
Flaherty, 222 111. 67, 78 N. E. 29; Con- 
tinental Adj. Co. V. Hoffman, 123 111. 
App. 69; Brewer v, Hartman, 116 Minn. 
512, 134 N. W. 113; Bentley v. Fidelity 
Co., 75 N. J. L. 828, 69 A. 202, 127 
Am. St. 837; Kneeland V, Hurdy, 97 
N. Y. S. 957; Paddock v. Colby, 18 Vt. 
485; Briggs V. Georga, 10 Vt. 68; Tay- 
lor V, Alexander, Bap. Jud. Quebec, 12 
C. S. 159; Auge v. Filiatrault, Bap. 
Jud. Quebec, 10 C. S. 157; Ex parte 
James, 8 N. Bruns. 286. 

857-51 Caxmot sae for rescission 
where only authorized to sue for spe- 
cific performance or to quiet title. 
Neill t?. McClung, 71 W. Va. 458, 76 
S. E. 878. 

858-54 Bank of Glade Spring e. Me- 
Ewen, 160 N. C. 414, 76 S. E. 222, Ann. 
Cas. 1914C, 542. 

858-56 Beinstatement. — An attorney 
may not consent to reinstatement after 
dismissal. Owens v, Cocroft, 14 Ga. 
App. 322, 80 S. £. 906. 

A retraxit mliy not be entered by an 
attorney without client's consent. Bin- 
con Water Co. v, Anaheim, 115 Fed. 
543; Coates v, Santa Fe P. & P. B. 
Co., 15 Ariz. 25, 135 P. 717; Hallack 
V. Loft, 19 Colo. 74, 34 P. 568; Harris 
r. Tiffany, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 225; Flan- 
nagan r. Elton, 34 Neb, 355, 51 N. W. 
967; Waldron t?. Angleman, 71 N. J. L. 
166, 58 A. 568; Sheffer r. Perkins & 
Co., 83 Vt. 185, 75 A. 6, 25 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 1313; Muse «. Farmers' Bank, 
27 Gratt. (Va.) 252; Forest Coal Co. 
V. Doolittle, 64 W. Va. 210, 46 S. B. 
238. See Westbay v. Gray, 116 Cal. 
660, 48 P. 800; Merritt V, Campbell, 47 
Cal. 542; Barnard v. Daggett, 68 Ind. 



207 



Vol. 3 



ATTORNEYS 



305; Andrews t\ O'Eeilly, 34 B. I. 256, 
83 A. 119. 

858-59 Miocene Ditch Co. V, Moore, 
150 Fed. 483, 80 C. C. A. 301; Harper 
t\ Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 281, 5 C. C. A. 
505; Abbe V, Bood, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 6; 
Senn v, Joseph, 106 Ala. 454, 17 S. 
543; Hall S. & L. Co. v, Harwell, 88 
Ala. 441, 6 S. 750; Bobinson v. Mur- 
phy, 69 Ala. 543; Pickett v. Bank, 32 
Ark. 346; Hallack v. Loft, 19 Colo. 74, 
34 P. 568; McMurray r. Marsh, 12 Colo. 
App. 95, 54 P. 852; Derwort v, Loomer, 
21 Conn. 245; Empire L. Ins. Co. v. Ma- 
son, 140 Ga. 141, 78 S. E. 935; Phillips 
t?. Dobbins, 56 Ga. 617; Boll t?. Kiv- 
ilecki, 11 Ga. App. 9, 74 S. E. 444; 
Schroeder v. Wolf, 227 111. 133, 81 N. 
E. 13; Danziger v. Shoe Co., 204 111. 
145, 68 N. E. 534, aff, 107 111. App. 
47; McClintoek v. Helberg, 168 HI. 384, 
48 N. E. 145; Jones v. Bansom, 3 Ind. 
327; Jennings V. Hoop. Co., 50 Ind. 
App. 241, 98 N. E. 194; Cottrell v. 
Wheeler, 89 la. 754, 57 N. W. 433; 
Martin v. Ins. Co., 85 la. 643, 52 N. 
W. 534; Bigler V. Toy, 68 la. 687, 28 
N. W. 17; Jones f?. Inness, 32 Kan. 
177, 4 P. 95; Marbourg v. Smith, 11 
Kan. 554; Loughridge v. Burkhart, 147 
Ky. 457, 144 S. W. 65; Sebastian t?. 
Bose, 135 Ky. 197, 122 S. W. 120; 
Heath & Co. v, C, 129 Ky. 835, 113 
S. W. 69; National Bank t\ Bowman, 
30 Ky. L. Bep. 1236, 100 S. W. 831; 
Landry's Succession, 117 La. 193, 41 
S. 490; Beal Estate Tr. Co. <?. Trust 
Co., 102 Md. 41, 61 A, 228; Hamburger 
r. Paul, 51 Md. 219; Bohr v, Anderson, 
51 Md. 205; Lewis v. Gamage, 1 Pick. 
(Mass.) 347; Fetz v. Leyendecker, 157 
Mich. 355, 122 N, W. 100; Eaton 17. 
Knowles, 61 Mich. 625, 28 N. W. 740; 
Bice i\ Troup, 62 Miss. 186; Parker V, 
M'Bee, 61 Miss. 134; Walden v, Bolton, 
55 Mo. 405; Grant City 17. Simmons, 
167 Mo. App. 183, 151 S. W. 187; David- 
son t\ Eozier, 23 Mo. 387; Schlemmer 
t\ Schlemmer, 107 Mo. App. 487, 81 
S. W. 636; Barton 17. Hunter, 59 Mo. 
App. 610; Harris i\ Boot, 28 Mont. 159, 
72 P. 429; Smith v. Jones, 47 Neb. 108, 
66 N. W. 19, 53 Am. St. 519; Hamrick 
r. Combs, 14 Neb. 381, 15 N, W. 731; 
Faughnan r. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 309, 
33 A. 212; Watts I?. Frenche, 19 N. J. 
Eq. 407; Lewis v. Duane, 141 N. Y. 
302, 36 N. E. 322; Mandeville t\ Bey- 
noldg, 68 N. Y. 528, aff* 5 Hun 338; 
McKechnie r. McKechnie, 3 App. Div. 
91, 39 N. Y. S. 402; Smith cw Brad- 



hurst, 18 Misc. 546, 41 N. Y. 8. 1002; 
Wilson 17. Jennings, 3 O. St. 528; Holden 
V. Lippert, 12 O. C. C. 767; Countee 17. 
Armstrong, 10 Wkly. L. B. 339; Turner 
t?. Fleming, 37 Okla. 75, 130 P. 551, 
Ann. Cas. 1915B, 831; Fleishman v. 
Meyer, 46 Or. 267, 80 P. 209; Gray i?. 
Howell, 205 Pa. 211, 54 A. 774; Brock- 
ley 17, Brockley, 122 Pa. 1, 15 A. 646; 
Isaacs 17. Zugsmith, 103 Pa. 77; North 
Whitehall Twp. v. Keller, 100 Pa. 105, 
45 Am. Bep. 361; Whipple t\ Whitman, 
13 B. L 512, 43 Am. Bep. 42; GiUi- 
land 17. Gasque, 6 S. C. 406; Davis 17. 
Home Ins. Co., 127 Tenn. 330, 155 8. 
W. 131, 44 L. B. A. (N. S.) 626; Con- 
ley 17. Whitthorne (Tenn.), 58 S. W. 
380; Mathews 17. Massey, 4 Bazt. 
(Tenn.) 450; Peters r. Lawson, 66 Tex. 
336, 17 8. W. 734; Cook t\ Greenberg 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 687; VaU 
17. Conant, 15 Vt. 314; Timm 17. Timm, 
34 Wash. 228, 75 P. 879; Budlong V. 
Budlong, 31 Wash. 228. 71 P. 751; Watt 
17. Brookover, 35 W. Va 323, 13 8. E. 
1007, 29 Am. St- 811; Crotty 17. Eagle's 
Admr., 35 W. Va. 143, 13 8. E. 59; 
Fosha 17. O'Donnell, 120 Wis. 336, 97 
N. W, 924; Kelly 17. Wright, 65 Wis. 
236, 26 K W. 610; Macaulay 17. Policy 
2 Q. B. 122; Fray t\ Voules, 1 El. & 
El. 839, 120 Eng. Beprint 1125; B. v. 
Pmsoneault, 22 Lower Can. Jur. 58; 
Bank of Neva Scotia i?. Morrow, 17 N* 
Bruns. 84?. But see Ins. Co. 17. Buch- 
anan* 100 Ind. 63: Combs t7. Combs (Ind. 
App.), 105 N. E. 944; Clinton t\ New- 
York Cent. & H. B. B. Co., 147 App. 
Div. 468, 13.1 N. Y. S. 881; Equitable 
Trust Co. 17. MacLaire, 77 Misc. 116, 135 
N. Y. 8, 1022; Prestwich 17. Foley, 18 
C, B. N. 8. (Eng.) 806. See also 
Chown 17. Parrott, 14 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 
74; Butler t/. Knight, L. B. 2 Exch. 
(Eng.) 10^; In re Wood, 21 W. B. 
(Eng.) 104. 

858-61 Henderson r. Bank of Ozark, 
178 Ala. 420, 59 S. 493. Comp. Lane 
17. Brinson, 12 Ga. App. 760, 78 S. E. 
725; McCornick 17. Shaughnessy, 19 Ida. 
465, 114 P. 22, 34 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
1188. 

Assigning Judgment. — Attorney has no 
authority to assign the judgment. Ritz 
17. Bea, 155 la. 181, 135 N. W. 645. 

Presumption of authority after Judg- 
ment. — In a divorce action there is no 
presumption that an attorney who ap* 
peared for defendant prior to final judg- 
ment has authority to appear in sub- 
sequent proceedings. Keller 17. Keller, 



208 



ATTOBNETS 



Vol. 3 



100 App. Div. 325, 91 K Y. S. 528; 
WulflP t;. Wulflf, 74 Misc. 213, 133 N. 
Y. S. 807, aff. 151 App. Div. 22, 135 
N. T. S. 289. 

859-64 See Greenburg v, B. Co., 210 
K. Y. 505, 104 N. E. 931, aff. 160 App. 
Div. 888, 144 N. Y. S. 1118. 

859-66 P. i\ Ceroid, 265 111. 448, 107 
N. E. 165; MUler v. Lloyd, 181 111. App. 
230. See Hickman v, McDonald, 164 
la. 50, 145 N. W. 322; Kerr v, Mosley, 
152 N. C. 223, 67 S. E. 482; Egolf B. 
Co. V, Cleaver, 228 Pa. 60, 77 A. 245. 
Attorney for adverse parties. — ^There 
is no statutory provision which forbids 
a creditor from retaining as his attor- 
ney the person who has acted as attor- 
ney for the bankrupt, but judicial pol- 
icy discourages the practice of an attor- 
ney acting at the same time for the 
bankrupt and the creditors, because such 
practice might lead to results which 
should be strongly condemned. In re 
KsDfman, 179 Fed. 552. 

860-67 Seaward v. Tasker, 143 N. 
Y. S. 257. 

861-72 In re Weill (App. Div.), 150 
N. Y. S. 802; In re Kopf (App. Div.), 
149 N. Y. S. 619; In re La Par, 164 
App. Div. 931, 149 N. Y. S. 435; In 
re Birdseye (App. Div.), 149 N. Y. S. 
617; In re JaflPe, 164 App. Div. 153, 
149 N. Y. S. 505; In re Thorn, 164 App. 
Div. 151, 149 N. Y. S. 507. 
Miflcondiict while acting as Judge 
cause for disbarment. S. v. Peck, 88 
Conn. 447, 91 A. 274. 
Xbe pnziKwe of disbarment is not pun- 
ishment but to protect the administra- 
tion of justice. In ire McDougall, 3 
Phil. Isl. 70. 

863-76 S. V, Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91 
A. 274. 

864-78 Wemimont v. S., 101 Ark. 
210, 142 S. W. 194, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
1156; P. t?. Amos, 246 111. 299, 92 N. E. 
857, 138 Am. St. 239; In re Baisch, 83 
N. J. Eq. 82, 90 A. 12; State Bar Com. 
r. Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745, 131 P. 703; 
In re Montague, 3 Phil. Isl. 577; In re 
Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217, rev, 
22 Utah 366, 62 P. 913, 83 Am. St. 
794, 53 L. B. A. 952; Vernon Co. Bar 
Assn. r. M'Kibbin, 153 Wis. 350, 141 
X. W. 283. 

865-79 Ex parte Quarrier, 2 W. Va. 
569. But see P. v, Payson, 215 111. 
476, 74 N. E. 383; S. v. Ebbs, 150 N. 
C, 44, 63 S. E. 190, 19 L. B. A. (N. S.) 

8.02. 



865-80 In Indiana the circuit court 
of a county wherein an attorney had 
tried a case has jurisdiction though he 
was not a resident thereof. In re 
Darrow, 175 Ind. 44, 92 N. E. 369. 

In New York under Laws, 1912, ch. 253, 
the power is in the appellate division. 
In re Flannery, 150 App. Div. 369, 135 
N. Y. S. 612. 

866-82 S. t?. Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91 
Ai 274. See In re Wilcox, 90 Kan. 646, 
135 P. 995. 

Nature of proceeding. — '^A proceeding 
to disbar an attorney is neither a civil 
nor a criminal action, but is a pro- 
ceeding sui generis, the object of which 
is not the . punishment of the offender 
but the protection of the court." In 
re Davis (Mo. App.), 166 S. W. 341. 
See also Wernimont v, S., 101 Ark. 210, 
142 8. W. 194; In re Spencer, 137 App. 
Div. 330, 122 N. Y. S. 190. 

866-84 Who may institnte. — The bar 
association (Boston Bar Assn. v. Casey, 
196 Mass. 100, 81 N. E. 892) ; a private 
individual with the sanction of the 
bar association (In re Danford, 157 Cal. 
425, 108 P. 322); *'any person inter- 
ested" (P. V. Palmer, 61 111. 255); 
a client (Wilson t?. Popham, 91 Ky. 
327, 15 S. W. 859); another attorney 
(Fairfield County Bar v, Taylor, 60 
Conn. 11, 22 A. 441, 13 L. B. A. 767; 
In re Davis [Mo. App.], 166 S. W. 341). 
The courts may of their own initiative 
and without complaint set on foot in- 
quiries; or they may entertain a com- 
plaint received from any source with- 
in or without the profession, so the 
state's attorney could prevent the com- 
plaint. S. V. Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91 
A. 274. 

Practise is to issue rule on attorney 
to show cause stating the substance of 
the charges. Barnes v, Lyons, 187 Fed. 
881, 110 C. C. A. 15. 

866-85 Notice unnecessary where 
statute provides for disbarment upon 
conviction of a felony. In re Sutton, 
50 Mont. 88, 145 P. 6. 

868-87 Construction of complaint. 

The sufficiency of the complaint must 
be looked on as a whole and determined 
upon such examination, and it cannot 
be tested by the same strictness as a 
pleading in a civil suit. S. v. Peck, 88 
Conn. 447, 91 A. 274. 

868-90 S. i\ Peck, 88 Conn. 447, 91 
A. 274. 



lA 



209 



Vol. 3 



AUDITA QUERELA 



869-91 Worthen v. S. (Ala.)? 66 S. 

686. 

Verlflcatloii not necessary under Comp. 

Laws, 1909, §267. State Bar Com. v. 

Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745, 131 P. 703. 

No verification necessary when the 
charges are made by a bar association 
or attorney general. P. v. Story, 265 
111. 207, 106 N. E. 797; In re Evans, 94 
S. C. 414, 78 S. E. 227. 

870-95 Bes Judicata. — No judgment 
rendered in a criminal prosecution can 
be invoked as a basis for plea of res 
judicata to an action for disbarment 
proceedings. S. v, Cary, 135 La. 579, 
65 S. 748. 

870-97 P. V. Phipps, 261 HI. 576, 104 
N. E. 144; P. V. Hooper, 218 111. 313, 
75 N. E. 896; S. f?. Fourchy, 106 La. 
743, 31 S. 325. See In re Whitridge, 
162 App. Div. 884, 146 N. Y. S. 336. 
But see P. v, Tanquary, 48 Colo. 122, 
109 P. 260. 

871-4 Wernimont v. S., 101 Ark. 210, 
142 S. W. 194, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1156. 
On the trial the court is not limited to 
the precise charges of the complaint, 
nor is it bound by any particular rule 
of law, nor is it necessary that the basis 
of discipline should be acts creating 
civil or criminal liability. Crafts v, 
Lizotte, 34 R. I. 543, 84 A. 1081, rehear, 
denied, 85 A. 384. 

871-5 Contra, Wernimont v, S., 101 
Ark. 210, 142 S. W. 194, Ann. Cas. 
1913D, 1156. 

871-11 S. V, McElhinney, 241 Mo. 
592, 145 S. W. 1139. See In re Selleck, 
168 Mo. App. 391, 151 S. W. 743. 

872-12 S. r. Snook, 78 Wash. 671, 
139 P. 764. See In re Robinson, 209 
X. Y. 354, 103 N. E. 160, af. 151 App. 
Div. 589, 136 N. Y. S. 548. 

872-14 Beview limited to question 
as to whether there is any evidence to 
sustain it. In re Flannery, 212 N. Y. 
610, 106 N. E. 630. 

873-15 Jones v. McCullough, 138 Ga. 
16, 74 S. E. 694. 

873-16 County bar association insti- 
tuting disbarment proceedings may ap- 
peal from order dismissing petition. 
Vernon Co. Bar Assn. v. McKibbin, 153 
Wis. 350, 141 N. W. 283. 

873-17 In re Oppenheim, 155 App. 
Div. 889, 139 N. Y. S. 1053; Nugent r. 
Metropolitan St. R, Co., 146 App. Div. 
775, 131 N. Y. S. 423; In re Adriatico, 
17 Phil. Isl. 324; In re Evans, 41 Utah 



282, 130 P. 217, rev, 22 Utah 366, 62 P. 
913, 83 Am. St. 794, 53 L. R. A. 952. 
See In re Hawkins (Del.), 87 A. 243. 
The sole question to be detexmlned is 
whether the granting of his application 
would promote the right administration 
of justice. In re Thatcher, 83 O. St. 
246, 93 N. E. 895, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 
810. 

873-19 Application not restricted to 
a procedure in the nature of a bill of 
review or other equity or common law 
rule. In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 
P. 217, rev. 22 Utah 366, 62 P. 913, 83 
Am. St. 794, 53 L. R. A. 952. 



AUDITA QX7EBELA 

877-3 Existence of another remedy 

will not defeat right to audita querela. 
Deal V. Powell (Vt.), 92 A. 648; Har- 
mon V, Martin, 52 Vt. 255; Edwards v, 
Osgood, 33 Vt. 224. 

877-4 Turknett v. Western College 
(N. M.), 145 P. 138. 
ProceedUig by sapersedeas will lie in 
place of audita querela. Henderson a. 
Bank, 178 Ala. 420, 59 S. 493. 

879-7 Improper serrice^-— When serv- 
ice has not been made as required by 
statute the defendant is entitled to 
have judgment vacated upon audita 
querela. Deal v, Powell (Vt.), 92 A. 
648; Hill t\ Warren, 54 Vt. 73; Folsom 
t\ Conner, 49 Vt. 4. 



BANEBUPTOY PSOCnEEEDINaS 

895-1 In re Weedman Stave Co., 199 
Fed. 948. 

897-5 |14b, danse 3 <<is not to be 

too liberally construed." Novick v. E. 
P. Reed & Co., 192 Fed. 20, 112 C. C. 
A. 408. 

A retroactiye effect may be given to 
the act. In re Farmers' Co-Operative 
Co., 202 Fed. 1008. 

898-8 Order No. xxxviii, published 
in 172 U. S. 653-723, 18 Sup. Ct. iv, 
89 Fed. xiv, 32 C. C. A. xxxvii; Sabin 
V. Blake-McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 
501. 

899-10 A daim based on a tort as 

known at common law is undoubtedly 
provable whenever it may be resolved 
into an implied contract. Reynolds r. 
New York Trust Co., 188 Fed. 611, 110 
C. C. A. 409. 

The open accounts must be such as 
would be available to the bankrupt 



210 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



Vol. 3 



with which to meet his liabilities with- 
in a reasonable time. Louisiana Nat. 
Life Assur. Soc. v. Segen, 196 Fed. 903. 

899-13 See In re Lyons Beet Sugar 
Ref. Co., 192 Fed. 445. 

90O-ie BlU of partlcalar8.~A ref- 
eree has power to require creditors to 
file a bill of particulars giving full 
specifications of the items of their 
claims. In re Siegel Co., 223 Fed. 368. 

901-18 In re Stradley & Co., 187 Fed. 
285. 

901-24 See In re Fitzgerald, 191 
Fed. 95. 

903-31 Mechanics' Nat. Bank v, 
Ernst, 231 U. S. 60, 34 Sup. Ct. 22, 68 
L. ed. 121; National City Bank r. 
Hotohkiss, 231 U. S. 50, 34 Sup. Ct. 20, 
58 L. ed. 115. 

903-38 In re McCarthy Portable 
Elevator Co., 205 Fed. 986. 
Tfine for prasentatlon of claImB of per- 
sona asserting right to property in 
hands of trustee may be limited by 
court in its discretion. But this does 
not apply to general creditors who are 
given a year within which to file claim. 
In re Lathrop, Haskins & Co. (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 912. 

Lachefl in presentliig claim is no bar 
to proving a claim if it is presented 
within the year and the delay has not 
been prejudicial to the rights of others. 
In re Dunlap Carpet Co., 206 Fed. 726. 
daiins of ownenliip adverse to the 
bankrupt and his estate are not within 
|57n. Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 193 
Fed. 350, 113 C. C. A. 274. 

905-38 01>j6ction after time for 
amendment of claim has lapsed comes 
too late. In re Stradley & Co., 187 
Fed. 285. 

906-44 The difltrlct court, sitting in 
bankruptcy, has jurisdiction to recon- 
sider allowed or disallowed claims, and 
allow or disallow them. In re Pater- 
son Co., 186 Fed. 629, 108 C. C. A. 493. 

900-45 Answer to petition. — ^In re 
Goble Boat Co., 190 Fed. 92. 

907-53 Petition for review of ref- 
eree's mUng on allowance of claim 
must be filed within a reasonable time. 
In re Verdon Cigar Co., 193 Fed. 813. 

O07-64 Le Master v. Spencer, 203 

Fed 210, 121 C. C. A. 416. 

908-58 In re Wentworth Lunch Co., 

189 Fed. 831. 

9KK65 In re Alexander, 193 Fed. 

749, 



911-72 In re National Boat & Sng. 
Co., 216 Fed. 208. 

913-76 In re UeLefyLJk, 204 Fed. 

482. 

914-77 Amendment of composition 

may be permitted where bankrupt was 
deprived of a chance to have the prop- 
erty in hands of the trustee examined 
and appraised for benefit of those who 
were to assist him financially and he 
was thus led, in good faith, to offer an 
agreement which was rejected as in- 
sufficient. In re Cockshaw, 220 Fed. 
239. 

914-78 Strict construction. — ''The 
provisions of the statute relating to 
compositions are in derogation of the 
common law in that they compel dis- 
senting creditors to accept the percent- 
age agreed upon by the majority in 
number and amount and deprive the 
minority creditors of their remedies 
on the balance of their respective 
claims. Such provisions are therefore 
strictly construed. " In re Kinnane Co., 
221 Fed. 762. In re Kinnane Co., 217 
Fed. 488; In re Goldstein, 213 Fed. 115. 
Composition proceedingB not in accord- 
ance with the provisions of the Bank- 
ruptcy Act, cannot be confirmed. In 
re Kinnane Co., 221 Fed. 762; In ro 
Kinnane Co., 217 Fed. 488; In re Gold- 
stein, 213 Fed. 115. 

914-79 In re Fox, 222 Fed. 135. 

914-80 In re Frischknecht (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 417. 

914-81 In re Fox, 222 Fed. 135. 
914-82 In re Kinnane Co., 217 Fed. 

488. 

915-83 In re Frischknecht (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 417; In re Fox, 222 Fed. 
135; In re Goldstein, 213 Fed. 115; In 
re The Jackson Stores, 192 Fed. 705. 
Consent of creditors. — ^If the bankrupt 
is allowed to amend his composition, 
he should obtain the consent of his 
creditors as stated in text. In re Cock- 
shaw, 220 Fed. 239; In re Kinnane Co., 
217 Fed. 488. 

915-84 In re Fox, 222 Fed. 135. 
915-86 Withdrawal of objections. 
Objections to an offer in composition 
which have been heard and sustained 
cannot be withdrawn after the decis- 
ion, under any agrement or transaction 
by which the objecting creditor re- 
ceives, directly or indirectly, a larger 
amount on its claim than other credi- 
tors of the same class. In re Levenson, 
1223 Fed. 874. 



?U 



Vol 3 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



915-87 In re Frischknecht (G. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 417. 

Interest accumulated on such deposit 
should be turned over to the bankrupt 
on final confirmation of the composition. 
In re Kelley, 223 Fed. 383. 

Deposit liable for damages or expemM 

to the estate occasioned by the offer 
of composition. In re "Wiener, 217 Fed. 
173, 215 Fed. 278. 

915-89 In re McVoy Hdw. Co., 200 
F. 949, 119 C. C. A. 337. 

Court may of its own motion inquire 
into the regularity of a composition. 
In re Kinnane Co., 221 Fed. 762. 

Facts relating to a composition should 
be investigated by the court independ- 
ently of any agreement the creditors 
may have made. In re Kinnane Co., 
221 Fed. 762. 

916-90 In re Bay State Mill Co. (C. 
C. A.), 223 Fed. 778; In re Maytag- 
Mason Motor Co., 223 Fed. 684; In re 
Frischknecht (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 417; 
In re Kinnane Co., 221 Fed. 762; In re 
McKee, 214 Fed. 885. 

Tlie word "dismissed** in il2e, provid- 
ing that upon confirmation of the com- 
position the case shall be dismissed, 
means "no more than that the court 
is not to proceed further with its ad- 
ministration of the estate under the 
bankruptcy act. It does not mean that 
there is to be no longer any case before 
the court, as if the petition or the pro- 
ceedings had been dismissed under sec- 
tions 3c, 18d, 18e, 58a (8), or 59d, 59g.*' 
U. S. t\ Sondheim, 188 Fed. 378. 

916-91 In re Maytag-^Iason Motor 
Co., 223 Fed. 684. 

916-92 • In re Lane, 125 Fed. 772. 

Dividends not claimed within a year 
by creditors under a composition agree- 
ment should be returned to the bank- 
rupt. In re Lane, 125 Fed. 772. 

916-93 In re May tag-Mason Motor 
Co., 223 Fed. 684; In re Lane, 125 Fed. 
772. 

916-96 In re Maytag-Mason Motor 
Co., 223 Fed. 684. 

917-9T Union Furn. Co. v. Walker- 
Cooley Furn. Co., 206 Fed. 217. 

917-2 In re Rochester S. & B. Co. 
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22. 

917-3 Baumhauer r. Austin, 186 Fed. 
260, 108 C. C. A. 306; In re People's 
Pept. Store Co., 159 Fed. 286; In re 
Swift, 118 Fed. 348, 



Unless the findings are manifestly er- 
roneous and flagrantly against the evi- 
dence, the findings will not be over- 
ruled. In re Brenner, 190 Fed. 209. 
See In re Boner, 189 Fed. 93. 

Determination of special master pre- 
sumed correct and not subject to be 
disregarded at court's discretion. In 
re Senoia Duck Mills, 193 Fed. 711. 

917-5 In re Waite, 223 Fed. 853; In 
re Sheinberg, 223 Fed. 218. 

The court is without Jurisdiction to 

discharge a bankrupt where there are 
no dischargeable debts; where the 
claims are disputed a discharge cannot 
be granted. In re Gulick, 190 Fed. 52. 

918-7 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113 
v/. \jt A. oOo. 

Computation of time. — ^The time of 
twelve months does not commence to 
run from the adjudication, but com- 
mences after the expiration of one 
month subsequent to adjudication. In 
re Walters, 209 Fed. 133. 

918-8 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113 
C. C. A. 358; In re Loughran, 215 Fed. 
271; In re Daly, 205 Fed. 1002; In re 
Churchill, 197 Fed. Ill; In re Chase, 
186 Fed. 408. 

That the discharge would be denied 
because of §14b, which prohibits a dis- 
charge within six years of a previous 
discharge, is not an unavoidable pre- 
vention. In re Yaine. 186 Fed. 535. 

Ko notice to creditors is required in 
determining whether or not the bank- 
rupt was unavoidably prevented from 
filing his application within the speci- 
fied time. In re Chase, 186 Fed. 408. 
Creditors waive objections to an order 
extending the time by filing specifica- 
tions of objection to the discharge. In 
re Casey, 195 Fed. 322. 

The application to permit filing within 
the enlarged time is one addressed to 
the discretion of the judge. In ro 
Churchill, 197 Fed. 111. 

918-9 In re Taunton, 216 Fed. 987. 

919-12 In re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330. 

919-13 The notice to creditors of 

the hearing and the fixing of the date 
should be upon order of the judge. In 
re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330. 

919-14 In re Hockman, 205 Fed. 330. 
The referee has no authority^ — ^In re 

Taylor, 188 Fed. 479. 

919-15 In re Gillardon, 187 Fed. 289. 
Any person may be appointed in the 



212 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



Vol 3 



court's discretion, although it is cus- 
tomary to appoint the referee. In re 
GUlardon, 187 Fed. 289. 

920-20 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113 
C. C. A. 358; In re Springer, 199 Fed. 
294; In re Westbrook, 186 Fed. 414; In 
re Bichter, 190 Fed. 905. 

Kew proceedings to secure discliarge. 
Bankrupt cannot institute a second pro- 
ceeding in bankruptcy involving the 
same debts, creditors, etc., merely for 
the purpose of procuring his discharge, 
which he had failed to secure within 
the statutory time in the original pro- 
ceeding. In re Loughran, 215 Fed. 271 ; 
In re Springer, 199 Fed. 294. 

920-21 In re Bacon, 193 Fed. 34, 113 
O. C At 358. 

921-22 Petition is in nature of sep- 
arate proceedings from the original 
cause. In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 479. 

921-2S In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 479. 

921-24 In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 479. 
A filing wltli the referee is not a filing 
with the court, but the irregularity in 
filing may be waived. In re Taylor, 
188 Fed. 479. 

921-25 Filing specifications is 
equivalent to an appearance. In re 
Magen Bros., 192 Fed. 883, 113 C. C. A. 
207. 

He is entitled to tlie whole day (during 
business hours, at least) to enter his 
appearance. In re Barrager, 191 Fed. 
247. 

922-28 A trustee may file objections 
when authorized to do so at a meeting 
of creditors called for that purpose. 
In re Reiff, 205 Fed. 399; In re Hock- 
man, 205 Fed. 330. 

022-29 In re Hagy (C. C. A.), 220 
Fed. 665; In re Miller, 192 Fed. 730. 
Xicaye to iile objections is necessary. 
In re Chase, 186 Fed. 408. 

"Wlio are parties In interest. — The time 
as of which the interest is to be de- 
termined is the time of the beginning 
of the opposition to a discharge. In 
r« Westbrook, 186 Fed. 414. A credi- 
tor is a party in interest although the 
statute of limitations has run against 
his cause of action. In re Westbrook, 
186 Fed. 414. 



Haley v. Pope, 206 Fed. 266, 
124 C. C. A. 330. 

023-34 Befnsal . of permission to 
veirlfy objections, filed without veri- 
flcation on the advice of the referee. 



is an abuse of discretion. In re Miller, 
192 Fed. 730. 

924-44 See In re Taylor, 188 Fed. 
479. 

924-48 In re Glasberg, 197 Fed. 896, 
117 C. C. A. 235; In re Downing, 199 
Fed. 329; In re Miller, 192 Fed. 730 
(obtaining credit on a false statement) ; 
In re Gara, 190 Fed. 112; In re Sussman, 
190 Fed. Ill; In re Graves, 189 Fed. 
847. 

Giving statement of financial condition 

to a mercantile agency is not ground 
for denial of discharge. Novick v. E. 
P. Reed & Co., 192 Fed. 20, 112 C. C. 
A. 408. 

925-52 In re 'Main, 205 Fed. 421, 
facts not legal conclusions must be 
stated. 

926-53 Facts stated on information 
and belief are insufilcient upon which 
to ground specifications in opposition 
to a discharge. In re White, 222 Fed. 
688. 

926-58 FoUowiog language of stat- 
ute not sufficient. In re Main, 205 Fed. 
421; In re Mintzer, 197 Fed. 647. 

926-59 In re Main, 205 Fed. 421. 

926-61 Troeder v. Lorsch, 150 Fed. 
710, 80 C. C. A. 376; In re White, 222 
Fed. 688. Contra^ In re Magen Bros. 
Co., 192 Fed. 883, 113 C. C. A. 207. 

Following the language of the statute 
is sufficient. It is sufficient to specify 
only in such substantial form as will 
inform one of the charges made against 
him. In re Magen Bros. Co., 192 Fed. 
883, 113 C. C. A. 207. 

927-63 See In re Sheinberg, 223 Fed. 
218. 

927-64 In re Magen Bros. Co., 192 
Fed. 883, 113 C. C. A. 207 (allegation 
held sufficient); In re White, 222 Fed. 
688. 

928-71 Demurrer not proper or nec- 
essary. In re Daugherty, 189 Fed. 239. 

928-72 If not filed before the order 
of reference is entered, objections are 
waived. In re Daugherty, 189 Fed, 
239. 

929-75 In re Curie, 217 Fed. 688. 

929-76 Withdrawal of opposition 

may be considered by the court where 

there is doubt as to the guilt of the 

bankrupt of the alleged frauds. In re 

Hammerstein, 189 Fed. 37, 110 C. C. A. 

472. 

A discharge cannot be pleaded as a do- 



213 



Vol 3 



BANKRUPTCY PHOCEEDINOS 



feiUM to a Buit until it is granted, and 
it is not available as a defense unless 
pleaded. In re Nuttall, 201 Fed. 557. 

929-77 In re Julius Bros. (C. C. A.), 
217 Fed. 3. 

Ezdudlng from discharge debts, which 
were scheduled under the' first petition 
under which the bankrupt failed to ap- 
ply for a discharge, is within the power 
of the court. In re Westbrook, 186 Fed. 
414. 

930-80 Comp. Lindeke v. Converse, 
198 Fed. 618, 117 C. C. A. 322. 

930-81 In re Walsh, 213 Fed. 643. 

930-82 In re Cuthbertson, 202 Fed. 
266; In re Downing,- 199 Fed, 329. 

Fraud involving moral turpitude is a 
sufiicient ground. In re Cuthbertson, 
202 Fed. 266. 

Failure of creditor to receive duly 
mailed notice of the hearing of the ap- 
plication for bankrupt's discharge is 
not sufficient ground to revoke the dis- 
charge. In re Walsh, 213 Fed. 643. 

930-83 In re Cuthbertson, 202 Fed. 
266. 

931-85 In re Cuthbertson, 202 Fed. 
266. 

931-88 Freed t\ Central Trust Co., 
215 Fed. 873, 132 C. C. A. 7; In re 
Probst, 205 Fed. 512, 123 C. C. A. 580; 
Kirsner v. Taliaferro, 202 Fed. 51, 120 
C. C. A. 305; In re Epstein, 219 Fed. 
635 (holding that referee has no juris- 
diction to restrain trustee from proceed- 
ing against bankrupt for contempt) ; In 
re Stern, 215 Fed. 979; In re Farkas, 204 
Fed. 343; In re Shear, 188 Fed. 677. 

931-89 In re J. Jungmann, 186 Fed. 

302, 108 C. C. A. 380; In re Krichevsky, 

219 Fed. 347. 

931-92 In re Kahn, 204 Fed. 581, 

123 C. C. A. 107. 

Beview of contempt order, see 5 Stanb- 

ABD Prog. 427 and supplement thereto. 

933-95 Who may be enjoined. — ^The 
bankruptcy court has power (by §2, 
ch. 15) to issue injunctions against per- 
sons within the court's jurisdiction, 
whether parties to the bankruptcy 
proceedings or not, to prevent the 
transfer or disposition of any part of 
the bankrupt's property. Morehouse 
u. Giant Powder Co., 206 Fed. 24, 124 

Cf. \J* A.m lOO. 

^nnction not granted as of course 
where no showing made that creditor's 
rights would be injured. In te Penn 
Development Co., 220 Fed. 222. 



933-1 In re Rochester S. & B. Co. 

(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22; In re Knox (C. 

C. A.), 221 Fed. 36. 

Approval discretionary, etc. In re 

Kreuger, 196 Fed. 705. 

Subject to approval* etc. — ^In re Merritt 

Const. Co. (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 555; 

Kiser Co. v. Georgia Cotton Oil Co., 208 

Fed. 548, 125 C. C. A. 550. 

934-2 In re Knox (C. C. A.), 221 
Fed. 36; In re Kellar, 192 Fed. 830, 113 
C. C. A. 154; In re Goldstein, 199 Fed. 
665; In re Evening Standard Pub. Co., 
164 Fed. 517; In re Cohen, 131 Fed. 391. 
The discretion of the referee is limited 
to determination of the qualifications 
of the trustee. In re Margolies, 191 
Fed. 369. 

934-4 In re Bochester S. & 6. Co. 
(C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22. 

Where the trustee has been approved, 

the power of the court to remove liim 
is not applicable. In re Kellar, 192 Fed. 
830, 113 C. C. A. 154. 

Effect of vacating order. — ^An order va- 
cating an order discharging a trustee, 
does not have the effect of restoring the 
old trustee. In re Rochester S. & B. 
Co. (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22. 

934-5 Corbett t?. Eiddle, 209 Fed. 
811, 126 C. C. A. 535; In re Farrell, 201 
Fed. 338, 119 C. C. A. 576; In re Na- 
tional Boat & Eng. Co., 216 Fed. 208; 
In re Newfoundland Syn., 196 Fed. 443. 
937-7 In re Arden, 188 Fed. 475. 

No Jurisdiction over exempt property. 
Property set aside as exempt cannot 
be ordered sold for any purpose by a 
court of bankruptcy. In re Yungbluth 
(C. C. A.), 220 Fed. 110; In re Bem- 
merde, 206 Fed. 822. 

937-8 In re Leigh, 208 Fed. 486. 

One not claiming title to property can- 
not question court's jurisdiction. In 
re Fogelman, 188 Fed. 755. 

937-9 In re Stipp Const. Co. (C. C. 
A.), 221 Fed. 372. 

937-11 Gibbons f). Goldsmith (C. C. 
A.), 222 Fed. 826; Le Master v. Spen- 
cer, 203 Fed. 210, 121 C. C. A. 416: 
In re National Boat & Eng. Co., 216 
Fed; 208; In re Plymouth E. Co., 191 
Fed. 633. 

Wliere a person is entitled to posaession 
of the property, the bankruptcy court 
is without jurisdiction to deprive him 
of it by a summary proceeding. In re 
Big Cahaba Coal Co., 190 Fed. 900. 
Whether the assertion of ownership is 



214 



BANKttUPTCt PROCEEDINGS 



Vol 3 



merely colorable may be determined 
however (In re Ironclad Mfg. Co., 191 
Fed. 831, 112 C. C. A. 345) in a plenary 
suit. In re Mimms & Parham, 193 Fed. 
276. 

938-13 In re Tomlinson. 193 Fed. 
101. 



In re United Wireless Tele. 
Co., 192 Fed. 238. 

939-23 Pleading in action to recover 
prefereiices. — See Gering v. Ley da, 186 
Fed. 110, 108 C. C. A. 222. 

Contents of complaint for rent of prem- 
ises of bankrupt estate. Crowe v. Bau- 
m&nn, 190 Fed. 399. 

Whether bill based on constructive 
fraud, filed by a trustee to set aside a 
preferential payment will lie, query. 
Johnson f?. Hanley, Hoye Co., 188 Fed. 
752. 

Intervention by one claiming a lien on 
the preferential transfer denied, for 
the reason that all persons entitled to 
participate in the assets or claiming a 
lien thereon may come into the bank- 
ruptcy court and have their rights ad- 
judicated. Lovell V. Latham & Co., 1S6 
Fed. 602. 

Gkmsent of defendant to be sued in the 
particular court need not be shown of 
record. Nor need it be given before 
the institution of the suit. McEldow- 
ney i?. Card, 193 Fed. 475. 

Katore of suit. — ^In re Raphael, 192 Fed. 
874, 113 C. C. A. 198. 

940-29 Kinder 17. Scharff, 231 U. S. 
517, 34 Sup. Ct. 164, 58 L. ed. 343; 
Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. v. Brewer, 231 U. 
S. 245, 34 Sup. Ct. 90, 58 L, ed. 204; 
Hammond t?. Whittredge, 204 U. S. 538, 
27 Sup. Ct. 396, 51 L. ed. 606; Dushane 
c. Beall, 161 U. S. 513, 16 Sup. Ct. 637, 
40 L. ed. 791. 

941-33 Sabin v. Larkin-Green Log. 
Co., 218 Fed. 984. 

941-36 In re Bochester Sanitarium 
A B. Co. (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 22; In re 
Butt Mfg. & S. Co. (C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 
16. 



Everett r. Judson, 228 U". S. 
474, 33 Sup. Ct. 568, 57 L. ed. 927; 
Acme Harvester Co. v. Beckman Lumb. 
Co., 222 U. S. 300, 32 Sup. Ct. 96, 56 
li. ed. 208; In re Bolognesi (C. C. A.), 
223 Fed. 771; Corbett v. Kiddie, 209 
Fed. 811, 126 C. O. A. 535; In re Flat- 
land, 196 Fed. 310, 116 C. C. A. 130; 
Board of Comrs. «. Hurley, 169 Fed. 92, 
94 C. C. A. 362; State Bank v. Cox, 143 



Fed. 91, 74 C. C. A. 285; In re Schow, 
213 Fed. 514; Matthews & Sons 17. 
Webre Co., 213 Fed. 396. 

942-38 In re Musica & Son, 205 Fed. 
413. 

942-39 Lindeke v. Converse, 198 
Fed. 618, 117 C. C. A. 322. 

943-41 Milkman r. Arthe (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 507. 

943-42 Breit v. Moore (C. C. A.), 
220 Fed. 97; Grandison t;. Bobertson, 
220 Fed. 985. 

944-44 In re Franklin Suit & Skirt 
Co., 197 Fed. 591. 

944-45 Lazarus v. Prentice, 234 U. 
S. 263, 34 Sup» Ct. 851, 58 L. ed. 1305. 
944-48 Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U. 
S. 102, 30 Sup. Ct. 372, 54 L. ed. 402, 
17 Ann. Cas. 969; Staunton v. Wooden, 
179 Fed. 61, 102 C. C. A. 355; Hartman 
v, Ackoury, 210 Fed. 188 (holding that 
one district court has ancillary juris- 
diction to aid any other United States 
court to reduce to possession property 
of a bankrupt estate situate within its 
territorial limits) ; In re Musica & Son, 
205 Fed. 413; In re Bathfon Bros., 200 
Fed. 108; In re Britannia Min. Co., 197. 
Fed. 459. 

Ancillary proceedings may he instituted 
by a creditor as well as the trustee. 
In re Brockton Ideal Shoe Co., 200 Fed. 
745. 

District court lias ancillary Jurisdiction 
upon the petition of a trustee appointed 
and qualified in bankruptcy proceed- 
ings in another district, to restrain a 
sale of the bankrupt's assets under a 
landlord's warrant of distress. In re 
Printograph Sales Co., 210 Fed. 567. 
945-50 In re Boston-Cerrillos Mines 
Corp., 206 Fed. 794; In re Britannia 
Min. Co., 197 Fed. 459; In re Harris 
Co., 173 Fed. 735, 23 Am. B. B. 237; 
In re Steele, 161 Fed. 886, 20 Am. B. 
B. 446; Sherman v, Bingham, 3 Cliflf. 
552; 7 N. B. B. 490, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 
12 762. 

946-51 In re Mitchell (C. O. A.), 
219 Fed. 690; In re Tennesseb Const. 
Co., 213 Fed. 33, 129 C. C. A. 627t In 
re Lemen, 208 Fed. 80; Hills v. F. D. 
M'Kinniss Co., 188 Fed. 1012. 
Voluntary appearance of parties sought 
to be adjudged bankrupts cannot give 
court jurisdiction in the absence of 
necessary length of residence in the 
district. In re Mitchell (C. C. A.), 219 
Fed. 690; Fogarty v. Gerrity, 1 Sawy. 
233, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,895. 



215 



Vol. 3 



BANKRUPTCY PHOCEEDINGS 



947-53 In re E. & G. Theatre Co., 
223 Eed. 657; In re Beiermeister Bros. 
Co., 208 Fed. 945; In re Wenatchee- 
Stratford Orchard Co., 205 Ped. 964. 

Wlukt is principal place of business. 
If it is doubtful where the principal 
place of businees of a corporation is 
the doubt should be resolved In favor 
of that jurisdiction in which the cor- 
poration obtained its corporate exist- 
ence and where the state law requires 
the maintenance of an office. In re 
Tennessee Const. Co., 207 Fed. 203; 
In re Tygarts Biver Coal Co., 203 Fed. 
178. 

Necessity of doing business within pre- 
ceding six months. — ^In re Thomas Mc- 
Nally Co., 208 Fed. 291. 

948-54 In re £. & G. Theatre Co., 
223 Fed. 657. 

948-56 In re Sterne & Levi, 190 Fed. 
70. 

949-58 Bank of Andrews t?. Gudger, 

212 Fed. 49, 128 C. C. A. 505; Corbett 
t?. Riddle, 209 Fed. 811, 126 C. C. A. 
535. 

950-59 In re Tennessee Const. Co., 

213 Fed. 33, 129 C. C. A. 627; In re 
Farrell, 201 Fed. 338, 119 C. C. A. 576; 
In re Commonwealth Lumb. Co., 223 
Fed. 667. 

952-61 In re Schow, 213 Fed. 514; 
In re Wagner's Est., 206 Fed. 364. 

952-63 Morehouse v. Giant Powder 
Co., 206 Fed. 24, 124 C. C. A. 158; In 
re Schow, 213 Fed. 514; Matthews & 
Sons V, Webre Co., 213 Fed. 396. 

953-65 In re Watts & Sachs, 190 U. 
S. 1, 23 Sup. Ct. 718, 47 L. ed. 933. 

953-66 Bank of Andrews r. Gudger, 
212 Fed. 49, 128 C. C. A, 505; In re 
Maplecroft Mills, 218 Fed. 659; In re 
Standard Fuller's Earth Co., 186 Fed. 
578. 

Property in hands of receiver. — ^Tho 
pendency of a suit in a state court 
for the dissolution of a corporation, in- 
stituted against a corporation by stock- 
holders for the protection of their 
rights, and the possession of the corpor- 
ate property by a receiver appointed 
in such suit, although appointed more 
than four months previous to the filing 
of the petition in bankruptcy, does not 
deprive creditors of the right to have 
the corporate assets brought in to the 
federal court fot administration under 
an adjudication in bankruptcy when 
they have duly asserted the right and 



had the corporation declared bankrupt 
as soon as it was known to be insolvent 
and had committed an act of bank- 
ruptcy. Bank of Andrews c. Gudger, 

212 Fed. 49, 128 C. C. A, 505. 

954-67 Corbett v. Riddle, 209 Fed. 
811, 126 C. C. A. 535. 

955-68 Bank of Dillon v. Murchison, 

213 Fed. 147, 129 C. C. A. 499; In re 
United Wireless Tel. Co., 196 Fed. 153 ; 
In re Zehner, 193 Fed. 787. 

955-70 The bankruptcy court should 

enjoin persons from proceeding in the 
state court, where it takes over exclu- 
sive jurisdiction. In re Maplecroft 
Mills, 218 Fed. 659. • 

955-71 In re Mitchell (C. C. A.), 219 
Fed. 690; In re Samuels, 215 Fed. 845, 
132 C. C. A. 187; In re Mitchell & Co., 
211 Fed. 778; In re Duke & Son, 199 
Fed. 199. 

Jurisdiction over estate of secret part- 
ner. — A court of bankruptcy in proceed- 
ings against a partnership has no juris- 
diction to administer upon the estate 
of an alleged secret partner without 
declaring him a bankrupt or findin|^ 
him insolvent. In re Samuels, 215 Fed. 
845, 132 C. C. A. 187, rev. 207 Fed. 195; 
In re Kramer, 218 Fed. 138. 

Jurisdiction to determine sdlvency of 
secret partner^ — ^Bankruptcy court h&s 
jurisdiction to determine whether one, 
who is alleged to be a secret partner 
of a firm against which bankruptcy 
proceedings are pending, is or is not a 
member of the firm, and if he is, 
whether he is solvent. In re Samuels, 
215 Fed. 845, 132 C. C. A. 187. 

958-83 In re Knox Auto Co., 210 
Fed. 569 (authorizing trustee to sell 
bankrupt's property at private ^sale). 
See In re Farmers ' & M. Bank, 190 Fed. 
726, 111 C. C. A. 454. 

Determination of validity of lien of 
creditor. — ^In re Jackson Brick & T. Co., 
189 Fed. 636. 

Of proceedings to collect assets. — ^In re 
Komit Mfg. Co., 192 Fed. 392. 

BiU of particulars. — ^A referee may 
compel the creditors to file a bill of 
particulars setting forth the items of 
their claims. In re Siegel & Co., 223 
Fed. 368. 

Keferee has Jurisdiction to determine 
whether a preference has been received 
or not. In re Keystone Press, 203 Fed. 
710. 

959-86 Board of dtreetefs can pat 



SIQ 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



Vol. 3 



the eorporation into bankruptcy. In 
re Kenwood Ice Co., 189 Fed. 525. 
Pendency of an InToluntary petition 
does not deprive the court of jurisdic- 
tion to receive and consider a volun- 
tary petition. In re Lachenmaier, 203 
"Fed. 32, 121 C. C. A. 3d8. 

OeO-S7 In ire Foster Paint & V. Co., 
210 Fed. 652. 

902-85 The fact that the adoption 
of a resolntion to file a petition in 
bankruptcy by the directors of a cor- 
poration is not shown in the petition 
is not ground for setting it aside, m 
re Kenwood Ice Co., 189 Fed. 525. 
Oontants of vdlnntary petition^ — ^The 
voluntary petitioner need only aver 
that he "owes debts" which he is un- 
able to meet and that he desires to' 
take the benefits of the act. He does 
not have to admit that he is insolvent 
much less that he has committed any 
act of bankruptcy within the preced- 
ing four months. In re Lachenmaier, 
203 Fed. 32, 121 C. C. A. 868. 

962-06 Sabin t?. Blake-McFall Co. 
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501. 

Form of yerlfication^ — ^Form No. 1, pub- 
lished in 89 Fed. zv, 32 C. C. A. xzxiz. 
PosltlTe statement of facts not xe- 
qnired; verification may be made upon 
the best of petitioner's knowledge, in- 
formation and belief. Sabin v. Blake- 
McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501. 
962-97 In re McKee, 214 Fed. 885. 
When notice necessary^ — The notice to 
creditors provided for by Bankruptcy 
Act, S59 (g) is required only when the 
petition is dismissed by the petitioners, 
or for want of prosecution, or by con- 
sent of the parties. Where there has 
been a full hearing on the merits, at 
which the petitioners have introduced 
evidence, the provisions of the section 
do not apply. In re Chalfen, 223 Fed. 
379. 

962-98 Bight to dismiss volimtary 
petition. — After adjudication a volun- 
tary petition in bankruptcy cannot be 
diRmissed upon motion of the bank- 
rupt with the consent of the creditors. 
In re McKee, 214 Fed. 885. 

962-99 In re Samuels, 215 Fed. 845, 
132 C. C. A. 187; Perkins v. Dorman, 
206 Fed. 858. 

Creditors when act of bankruptcy com- 
mitted. — To entitle a creditor to main- 
tain a petition in involuntary bank- 
ruptcy against his debtor, he must 
have been a creditor at the time the 



act of bankruptcy alleged was commit- 
ted. Brake r. Callison, 129 Fed. 201, 
63 C. C. A. 359; In re Farthing, 202 
Fed. 557; In re Callison, 130 Fed. 9S7. 
Purchaser of claim bought after filing 
of the petition in bankruptcy and to 
create an additional creditor is not a 
creditor, and cannot be counted in mak- 
ing up the statutory number. Emerine 
r. Tarault (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 68. 

Directors of a corporation who are also 
creditors are not disqualified from be- 
ing the petitioners because they were 
on the board which admitted the cor- 
poration's inability to pay its debts. 
Home Powder Co. v. Geis, 204 Fed. 568, 
123 C. C. A. 94. 

Secnred creditors may be comited as 
petitioning creditors in involuntary 
bankruptcy proceedings only to such 
extent as their provable claims are in 
excess of the value of their securities. 
Emerine v. Tarault (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 
68. 

Creditors who were parties to assign- 
ment for creditors, are disqualified 
from filing an involuntary petition 
based upon such assignment as the sole 
act of bankruptcy. Despres v. Galbraith, 
213 Fed. 190, 129 C. C. A. 534. And 
this disqualification extends to their 
subsequent vendees, who purchased 
solely to qualify them to join in as 
petitioners to make the required num- 
ber. Utz & Dunn Co. v. Regulator Co., 
213 Fed. 315, 130 C. C. A. 17. 

An amended petition will not be 
stricken from files because order ex- 
tending time within which to file the 
same was not filed within the time for 
filing the amended petition. In re B. 
L. Radke Co., 193 Fed. 735. 

963-1 Belative may be petitioner. 
The terms of this section, to the ef- 
fect that a relative or employe may 
not be counted apply only when he 
has not joined in the petition and da 
not prevent him from bringing bank- 
ruptcy proceedings. Perkins t?. Dor- 
man, 206 Fed. 858. 

963-2 In re Bolognesi (C. C. A.), 
223 Fed. 771. 

Withdrawal of petitioners may be per- 
mitted within the court's discretion. 
In re Bolognesi (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 771. 
Interveners may proceed in involun- 
tary bankruptcy proceedings after with- 
drawal of original petitioners. In re 
Bolognesi (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 771. 

963-4 What are acts of bankruptcy. 






Vol 3 



BANKRUPTCY mOCEEVlNGS 



An ''act of bankruptcy" must be such 
at the time the act is committed or it 
can not be the basis for involuntary 
proceedings. In re Folkstad, 199 Fed. 
363. 

964-6 Deflnition. — ''Wage earner." 
Blessing v, Blanchard (C. C. A.)> 223 
Fed. 35. 

964-7 Blessing v. Blanchard (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 35; Still's Sons v. Amer- 
ican Nat. Bank, 209 Fed. 749, 12a C. C. 
A. 473; In re Terry, 208 Fed. 162; In 
re Folkstad, 199 Fed. 363. 

Whetlier a debtor was or was not chief- 
ly engaged In fanning is to be deter- 
mined as of the time at which he com- 
mitted the act of bankruptcy charged 
against him. Counts v. Columbus Buggy 
Co., 210 Fed. 748, 127 C. C. A. 298; 
American Agr. Chem. Co. r. Brinkley, 
194 Fed. 411, 114 C. C. A. 373; Flick- 
inger v. First Nat. Bank, 145 Fed. 162, 
76 C. C. A. 132; In re Disney, 219 Fed. 
294. 

965-8 In re FUenbecker, 205 Fed. 
396. 

966-12 Partnership engaged chiefly 
in farming cannot be adjudicated an 
involuntary bankrupt. Still's Sons v, 
American Nat. Bank, 209 Fed. 749, 126 
C. C. A. 473. 

967-15 Oommerdal, moneyed and 
business corporation. — ^In re B. L. Radke 
Co., 193 Fed. 735. 

''^igaged principally in«" — ^In re Cool- 
idge Eef. & C. Co., 190 Fed. 908. 
968-17 A "partnership* ' Is not an 
"unincorporated company" within the 
terms of the act (1898, ch. 541, §4b). 
Still's Sons 17. American Nat. Bank, 209 
Fed. 749, 126 C. C. A. 473. 
97#-24 In re Mitchell (C. C. A.), 
219 Fed. 690; In re Lachenmaier, 203 
Fed. 32, 121 C. C. A. 368; In re Im- 
perial Film Exchange, 198 Fed. 80, 117 
C. C. A. 188; In re Lemen, 208 Fed. 80. 
Compliance of foreign corporation peti- 
tioner with provisions of state law need 
not be alleged. In re B. L. Badke Co., 
193 Fed. 735. 

Distinctions between petitions In volun- 
tary and involuntary proceedings. — In 
re Lachenmaier, 203 Fed. 32, 121 C. C. 
A. 368. 

970-25 In re Pressed Steel Wagon 
Goods Co., 193 Fed. 811. 
Time when the parties became creditors 
must be shown. Brake v, Callison, 129 
Fed. 201, 63 C. C. A. 359; In re Far- 
thing, 292 Fed. 557. 



Description of claim. — ^The sufficiency 
of the petition in respect to describing 
the claim is measured by the same 
rules as would be applied in testing the 
sufficiency of a complaint or declaration 
in an action on such claim. In re Far- 
thing, 202 Fed. 557. 

970-26 Act of bankmptcy^— A fail- 
ure to allege the commission of any 
act of bankruptcy renders the petition 
in involuntary bankruptcy proceeding 
fatally defective. In re Louisell Lumb. 
Co., 209 Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508. 
It is not sufficient to charge acts of 
bankruptcy in the language of the stat- 
ute. In re Deer Creek W., etc. Co., 205 
Fed. 205; In re Hallin, 199 Fed. 806. 

971-38 In re Condon, 209 Fed. 800, 
126 C. C. A. 524. 

971-39 In re Bosenblatt & Co., 193 
Fed. 638, 113 C. C. A. 506; In re Stone, 
206 Fed. 356. See In re B. L. Badke 
Co., 193 Fed. 735. 

972-47 Form of verification of 
creditor's petition^ — Sabin €>. Blake- 
McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; 
Form No. 3, published in 89 Fed. 
xxviii, 32 C. C. A. lii. 
A verification on Infonnatlon and be- 
lief is not sufficient. Sabin v, Blake- 
McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; In 
re Farthing, 202 Fed. 557. 
Defect In the verification Is not Juris- 
dictional.— Sabin V. Blake-McFall Co. 
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; In re Farthing, 
202 Fed. 557, cit. 3 Standard Proc. 973 
OommlBsloner of deeds may properly 
verify petition in bankruptcy. In re 
Morse, 210 Fed. 900. 

973-52 Amendment of verification 
is discretionary with the court. In re 
Farthing, 202 Fed. 557. It will be de- 
nied where it would not be in further- 
ance of justice nor in the interests of 
the creditors. In re Farthing, 202 Fed. 
557. 

973-57 Sabin «. Blake-McFall Co. 
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501; In re Podalin, 
202 Fed. 1014. 

974-60 Sabin f?. Blake-McFall Co. (C. 

C. A.), 223 Fed. 501. 

974-62 Sabin V. Blake-McFall Co. 

(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 501. 

975-64 Brandt v. May hew (C. C A.), 

218 Fed. 422; In re Crum, 221 Fed. 

729; In re Exum, 209 Fed. 716. 

Exemption may be waived either by 

bankrupt 's failure^ to claim it, or by 

a general or specific surrender of it. 

In re Exum, 209 Fed. 716. 



218 



BANKBUPTCT PROCEEDINGS 



Vol 3 . 



975-6S Brandt r. Mavhew (C. C. A.), 
218 Fed. 422. 

IJxnltotion of JnrlBdictloiL — It is the 
duty of the court of bankruptcy to de- 
termine claims of a bankrupt to an ex- 
emption and to sever the property found 
to be an exemption from the estate of 
the bankrupt, but it cannot grant an 
exemption. In re Elkin, 218 Fed. 971. 

975-66 Brandt i;. Mayhew (C. C. A.), 
218 Fed. 422; In re Humphreys, 221 Fed. 
997; In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729; In re 
Kelly, 199 Fed. 984. 

DoBciiptioii of property^.— Where the 
exemption is in specific property, a 
claim for exemption is invalid if it fails 
to accurately describe or designate the 
property. In re Exum, 209 Fed. 716. 

076-6T Brandt v. Mayhew (C. C. A.), 
218 Fed. 422; In re Harrell, 222 Fed. 
160; In re Humphreys, 221 Fed. 997; 
In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729; In re Elkin, 
218 Fed. 971; In re Bundy & Co., 218 
Fed. 711; In re Liby, 218 Fed. 90; In 
re Exum, 209 Fed. 716. 

976-68 In re Liby, 218 Fed. 90; In 
re Exum, 209 Fed. 716. 

977-69 In re Bundy & Co., 218 Fed. 
711. 

977-71 In re Beauchamp, 101 Fed. 

106. 

No ri^t of ezemiitlon in partnership 

asBOta. — In re Bundy A Co., 218 Fed. 

711; In re I. S. Vickerman & Co., 199 

Fed. 589; In re Mosier, 112 Fed. 138. 

In re Lentz, 97 Fed. 486. 

977-72 Chicago B. & Q. B. Co. f. 
HaU, 229 U. S. 511, 33 Sup. Ct. 885, 57 
L. ed. 1306; Brandt v. Mayhew (C. C. 
A.), 218 Fed. 422; In re Humphreys, 
221 Fed. 997; In re Crum, 221 Fed. 729; 
In re Cheatham, 210 Fed. 370; In re 
Kelly, 199 Fed. 984. 

979-86 By publication^^idney L. 
Bauman Diamond Co. v. Hart, 192 Fed. 
498, 113 C. C. A. 104. 

980-96 Mattoon Bank v. Bank, 102 
Fed. 728, 42 C. C. A. 1; In re Cohn, 220 
Fed. 956. 

981-3 Bemnrren abolidieiL — ^Demur- 
rers to petitions for an adjudication 
in bankruptcy are abolished, and every 
defense in point of law arising upon 
the face of such petition must be raised 
by motion to dismiss or in the answer 
(governed by Rule No. 29 of Equity 
Practice, 33 Sup. Ct. xxvii). In re 
Jones, 209 Fed. 717. 

982-8 An adjudication of baokrnptcy 



must follow tho petition where the 
answer interposed sets up ii6thing show- 
ing cause against the adjudication. In 
re Cohn, 220 Fed. 956. 

984-17 Chapman r. Brewer, 114 U. 
8. 169, 5 Sup. Ct, 799, 29 L. ed. 83; 
Bank of Andrews v. Gudger, 212 Fed. 
49, 128 C. C. A. 505; Corbett r. Riddle, 

209 Fed 811, 126 C. C. A. 535; Sabiu 
r- Larkin-Green Logging Co., 218 Fed. 
984; In re McKee, 214 Fed. 885. 

Bes adjudlcata. — ^''If petition charges 
different acts of bankruptcy and the 
adjudication does not show upon which 
one of them it proceeded, it does not 
render either charge res adjudicata in 
the further procedings." In re Julius 
Broa (C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 3. 

984-22 The Talne of the bankrupt 
estate must be considered in allowing 
costs to officers and attorneys for serv- 
ices rendered in the bankrupt case. In 
re Ellett Electric Co., 196 Fed. 400. 
985-25 The application for an ex- 
amination need not in detail set forth 
the nature and character of the testi- 
mony intended to be adduced. In re 
Bryant, 188 Fed. 530. _ 

Although an examination adjourned 
without day for further examination, a 
further examination may, in the court 's 
discretion, be granted. In re Bryant, 
188 Fed. 530. 

Time of examination. — At any time 
after the petition is filed and a receiver 
appointed an examination may be 
ordered. Cameron v, U. S., 231 U. S. 
710, 34 Sup. Ct. 244, 58 L. ed. 448; In 
re Bryant, 188 Fed. 530. 
987-83 Perjury in examination. 
The immunity from prosecution for per- 
jury given by §7 applies only to past 
transactions about which the bankrupt 
is examined and does not prevent a 
prosecution for perjury in the giving of 
testimony. Cameron «. U. S., 231 U. S. 
710, 34 Sup. Ct. 244, 58 L. ed. 448. 

Cro88-ezamination of bankmpt should 
be conducted as directed by General 
Order No. xxii (89 Fed. x, 82 C. C. 
A. xxv), and limited to matters sug- 
gested in the direct examination. In 
re Kinnane Co., 217 Fed. 488. 
987-87 In re Samuels (C. C. A.), 215 
Fed. 845. 

990-47 In re Double Star Brick 
Co., 210 Fed. 980. 
990-50 In re Double Star Brick Co., 

210 Fed. 980. 



219 



Vol. 3 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



992-58 Prancis v, McNeal, 186 Fed. 
481, 108 C. 0. A. 459. 

Allegation of insolvency. — See Francis 
V. McNeal, 186 Fed. 481, 108 C. C. A. 
459. 

992-61 Infancy of one partner. — Jen- 
nings €. William A. Stannus & Son, 
191 Fed. 347, 112 C. C. A. 91. 
993-65 Francis v. McNeal, 186 Fed. 
481, 108 C. C. A. 459; In re Young, 223 
Fed. 659. 

995-72 Corporation condnctlng a 
restaurant. — In re United States B. & 
E. Co., 187 Fed. 118, 109 C. C. A. 36. 

995-73 The forfeiture of the char- 
ter of a corporation under the state 
law does not deprive the bankruptcy 
court of jurisdiction to administer its 
estate. In re Double Star Brick Co., 
210 Fed. 980. 

996-76 In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209 
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508. 

996-77 In te Louisell Lumb. Co., 209 
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508. 

996-79 In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209 
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508. 

But this rule does not apply where the 
petition becomes sufficient only after 
amendment. In re Condon, 209 Fed. 
800, 126 C. C. A. 524. 

996-82 In re Louisell Lumb. Co., 209 
Fed. 784, 126 C. C. A. 508; In re Bosen- 
blatt & Co., 193 Fed. 638, 113 C. C. 
A. 506. 

Xnsafflcient amendment denied. — A 
petition to amend original petition by 
setting up a preference through legal 
proceedings, will be denied Where such 
amendment does not show that the al- 
leged act of bankruptcy was committed 
within four months prior to the filing 
of the original petition. In re Jones, 
209 Fed. 717. 

997-90 Despres e. Galbraith, 213 
Fed. 190, 129 C. C. A. 534. 
997-96 Dismissing as to the partner- 
ship allowable in a petition against a 
partnership and its members where it 
appears there is no partnership. In re 
Bichardson, 192 Fed. 50. 

998-5 Schedule may be corrected. 

If the bankrupt has failed to schedule 
property, which should be surrendered 
to his trustee, and this fact is shown 
upon his examination, he may be per- 
mitted to correct his schedule. In re 
Harrell, 222 Fed. 160. 
999-13 In re McCarthy Portable Ele- 
vator Co., 205 Fed. 986. 



999-16 Amending objectionfl to com- 
position. — Where the creditor alleged 
in the objections to the confirmation 
of a composition that certain transac- 
tions were fraudulent concealments and 
the proof disclosed that they were 
fraudulent conveyances, the creditor 
could amend his objections to conform 
to the proof. In re Burman, 210 Fed. 
512. 

1000-17 See In re Johnson, 192 Fed. 
356. 

Amended specifications inwifflclent. — ^In 

re Walker, 209 Fed. 144; in re Mintzer, 
197 Fed. 647. 

1000-23 In re Johnson, 192 Fed. 
356. 

1003-46 Home Bank v. Lohm (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 633. 

1005-55 Pindel v. Holgate (C. C. 
A.), 221 Fed. 342; Bernard V. Lea, 210 
Fed. 583, 127 C. C. A. 219. 

1006-57 In re Martin, 201 Fed. 31, 
119 C. C. A. 363; Bode & Horn c. Phipps, 
195 Fed. 414, 115 C. C. A. 316. 

1006-58 In re Gold, 210 Fed. 410, 
127 C. C. A. 142; In re Martin, 201 Fed. 
31, 119 C. C. A. 363. 

1007-62 Becord must diow that the 
point of law assigned as error was 
ruled on. Fidelity Trust Co. v, Bobin- 
son, 192 Fed. 562, 113 C. C. A. 34. 

1007-63 Hegner f?. American Tr. & 
Sav. Bk., 187 Fed. 599, 109 C. C. A. 429. 

1008-67 QiTii^ of bond not a juris- 
dictional requisite to an appeal allowed 
within the specified time. In te Qual- 
ity Shop Co., 202 Fed. 196, 120 C. C. A. 

410. 

1008-72 In re Quality Shop Co., 202 
Fed. 196, 120 C. C. A. 410. 

1009-74 Comp, In re Donnelly, 187 
Fed. 121, 109 C. C. A. 39. 

1009-76 The court, not the Judge, 

should be applied to for a stay. In 
re Ironclad Mfg. Co., 190 Fed. 320, 111 
C. C. A. 220. 

1009-79 Bison v. Parham (C. C. A.), 
219 Fed. 176, adjudication by referee 
that deed of trust had been paid can 
be reviewed only by appeal. 

1010-82 B.-B. Electric & Tel. Mfg. 
Co. t*. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 206 Fed. 885, 
124 C. C. A. 545. 

1010-83 In re Bay State Mill. Co. 
(C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 778; In re McVoy 
Hdw. Co., 200 Fed. 949, 119 C. C. A. 
337. 



220 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



Vol. 3 



A reftual to conflxni a composition does 
not always have the effect of denying 
a discharge and is not appealable as 
such denial. In re McVoy Hdw. Co., 
200 Fed. 949, 119 C. C. A. 337. 

10KK87 Order extending time with- 
in which to apply for a discharge is 
appealable. In re Casey, 195 Fed. 322. 
AppMl from Jndsment denying dis- 
chargOw — ^In re McVoy Hdw. Co., 200 
Fed. 949, 119 C. C. A. 337. 

lOia-88 Home Bank v, Lohm (C. C. 
A.), 223 Fed. 633; Southern Cotton Oil 
Co. V, Elliotte (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 567; 
Huttig S. & D. Co. t*. Stitt (C. C. A.), 
218 Fed. 1; In re Lane Lum. Co. (C. C. 
A.), 217 Fed. 546; Sterne v. Merchants* 
Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 216 Fed. 862; 
Bernard i\ Lea, 210 Fed. 583, 127 C. C. 
A. 219; Assets Bealization Co. f. Sov- 
ereign Bank, 210 Fed. 156, 126 C. C. 
A. 662; In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 775, 
126 C. C. A. 499; BR Electric & Tel. 
Mfg. Co. V, Aetna Life Ins. Co., 206 Fed. 
885, 124 C. C. A. 545; In re Streator 
Metal Stomping Co., 205 Fed. 280, 123 
C. C. A. 444; Lumpkin r. Foley, 204 Fed. 
372, 122 C. C. A. 542; Cooper t?. Miller, 
203 Fed. 383, 121 C. C. A. 567; Kiskad- 
den r. Steinle, 203 Fed. 375, 121 C. C. 
A. 559; In re Quality Shop Co., 202 Fed. 
196, 120 C. C. A. 410; Adams v. Deckers 
Valley Lumb. Co., 202 Fed. 48, 120 C. 
C. A. 302; Nauman Co. v. Bradshaw, 
193 Fed. 350, 113 C. C. A. 274. 

Bight to a lien contested. — ^New Hamp- 
shire Sav. Bank v. Varner, 216 Fed. 
721, 132 C. C. A. 631. 

Adjudging amonnt dne on clainu — ^Bell 
r. Arledge, 192 Fed. 837, 113 C. C. A. 
161. 

Order reanirlng an accounting of money 
received in contemplation of filing of 
a petition against a bankrupt. * In re 
Raphael, 192 Fed. 874, 113 C. C. A. 
198. 

1012-94 Assets Bealization Co. v. 
Sovereign Bank, 210 Fed. 156, 126 C. 
C. A. 662 (party to a controversy to 
determine ownership of a claim may 
appeal); In re Bandridge & Pugh, 209 
Fed. 838, 126 C. C. A. 562. 

1013-00 Writ of error as a petition 
to revieWw — A writ of error which is ad- 
dressed to questions of law involved in 
a "proceeding in bankruptcy" may be 
allowed to stand as a petition to review 
and revise, since both are ranged on 
the same side of the demarcating line 
and the methods are substontially alike. 



In re Breyer Print. Co. (C. C. A.), 216 
Fed. 878; Freed V. Central Trust Co., 
215 Fed. 873, 132 C. C. A. 7. 

1013-2 Bothwell v, Fitzgerald (C. C. 
A.), 219 Fed. 408 (order dissolving in- 
terlocutory injunction restraining pro- 
ceedings in state court 14 a controversy 
arising under bankruptcy proceedings) ; 
In re Gold, 210 Fed. 410, 127 C. C. A. 
142: In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 775, 126 
C. C. A. 499; In re Hamilton Automo- 
bile Co., 198 Fed. 856, 117 C. C. A. 
135; In re J. Jungmann, 186 Fed. 302, 
108 C. C. A. 380. 

1014-3 In re Hartzell, 209 Fed. 775, 
126 C. C. A. 499; In re Hamilton Auto- 
mobile Co., 198 Fed. 856, 117 C. C. A. 
135; In re Knosher & Co., 197 Fed. 136, 
116 C. C. A. 560. 

1015-4 Inre Orr (C. C. A.),216Fed. 
883; In re Lane Lumb. Co. (G. C. A.), 
217 Fed. 546; In re Breyer Print Co. 
(C. C. A.), 216 Fed. 878; Kirkpatrick 
f7. Harnesberger, 199 Fed. 886, 118 C. 
C. A. 334; In re Hamilton Automobile 
Co., 198 Fed. 856, 117 C. C. A. 135; 
Thompson D. Mauzy, 174 Fed. 611, 98 
C. C. A. 457. 

1015-6 In re J. Jungmann, 186 Fed. 
302, 108 C. C. A. 380. 

1016-8 Suit upon the trustee's bond 
is not a proceeding in bankruptcy but 
a plenary action and cannot be re- 
viewed by petition to revise, under 
Bankruptcy Act, §24b. XJ. 8. v. Bug- 
gies (0. a A.), 221 Fed. 256. 
1016-9 Southern Cotton Oil Co. V. 
Elliotte (C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 567. 

1016-10 In re Petronio (C. C. A.), 
220 Fed. 269, holding that a proceeding 
to determine title to property held by 
trustee and claimed adversely by one 
not a party to the proceedings is a 
summary proceeding and reviewable by 
petition to revise. 

1017-11 Pindel v. Holgate (C. C. 
A.), 221 Fed. 342; In re Lane Lumb. Co. 
(C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 546. 

Order's revisable. — This section (24b) 
does not require that the circuit court 
of appeals should revise every inter- 
locutory order that may affect the 
course of a bankruptcy proceeding, but 
only such orders or decrees as have a 
certain degree of definiteness and fin- 
ality. In re Chotiner (C. C. A.), 218 
Fed. 813. 

1017-12 Matter of Loving, 224 U. 
S. 183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. ed. 725; 



221 



Vol 3 



BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 



Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergli, 218 
TJ. S. 299, 31 Sup. Ct. 25, 54 L. ed. 
1047; Pindel <?. Holgate (C. C. A.), 221 
Fed. 342; Bernard t?. Lea, 210 Fed. 583, 
127 C. 0. A. 219; In re Judkins Co., 205 
Fed. 892, 124 C. C. A. 205; Williamson 
V. Eichardson, ^5 Fed. 245, 123 C. C. A. 
427; Stuart v. Reynolds, 204 Fed. 709, 
123 C: C. A. 13; In re Holden, 203 Fed. 
229, 121 C. C. A. 435; In re Witherbee, 
202 Fed. 896, 121 C. C. A. 254; In re 
Zinner, 202 Fed. 197, 120 C. O. A. 411; 
Johansen Bros. Shoe Co. v, Alles, 197 
Fed. 274, 116 C. C. A. 636; In re Flat- 
land, 196 Fed. 310, 116 C. C. A. 130. 

1018-15 In re Tanenhaus, 211 Fed. 
971, 128 O. C. A. 469 (within ten days) ; 
In re Wink, 206 Fed. 348, within fifteen 
days. 

1020-20 In re Throckmorton, 196 
Fed. 656, 116 C. C. A. 348. 

1020-21 In re Witherbee, 202 Fed. 
896, 121 C. C. A. 254. 

1022-39 In re Endlar, 192 Fed. 762, 
113 C. C. A. 48. 

1022-40 See Wells & Co. <?. Sharp, 
208 Fed. 399, 125 C. C. A. 615. 

1023-43 Eacli method of procedure 
for the review of orders in bankruptcy 
is exclusive of the - other. Pindel i?. 
Holgate (C. C. A.), 221 Fed. 342; Both- 
well V, Fitzgerald (C. C. A.), 219 Fed. 
408; Salsburg v, Blackford, 204 Fed. 
438, 122 C. C. A. 624; In re Martin, 201 
Fed. 31, 119 C. C. A. 363. 

1023-44 Matter of Loving, 224 U. S. 
183, 32 Sup. Ct. 446, 56 L. ed, 725; In 
re Lane Lumb. Co. (C. C. A.), 217 Fed. 
546; In re Orr (C. C. A.), 216 Fed. 883; 
In re Breyer Print. Co. (C. C. A.), 216 
Fed. 878; Freed v. Central Trust Co., 215 
Fed. 873, 132 C. C. A. 7: In re Strea tor- 
Metal Stamping Co., 205 Fed. 280, 123 
C. O. A. 444; Cooper r. Miller, 203 Fed. 
383, 121 C. C. A. 567; Kirsner t?. Talia- 
ferro, 202 Fed. 51, 120 C. C. A. 305. 
1023-45 Nelson D, Heckscher (C. C. 
A.), 219 Fed. 682. 

1023-46 Proceedings for the election 

of a trustee are properly reviewed by 
petition for review. In re Arti-Stain 
Co., 216 Fed. 942. 

Order to turn over property to the trus- 
tee reviewable by petition. Kirsner v. 
Taliaferro, 202 Fed. 51, 120 C. C. A. 
305. 

Other illnstrations. — Gibbons r. Gold- 
smith (C. C. A.), 222 Fed. 826; Shoa 
V. Lewis, 206 Fed. 877, 124 G. C. A. 



537 (whether district court erroneously 
exercised jurisdiction to determine the 
merits of an adverse claim to proper- 
ty); Nelson v. Hevkscher (C. C. A.), 

219 Fed. 682 (order denying the peti- 
tion of the trustee to recover certain 
dividends); Snow v. Dalton, 203 Fed. 
843, 122 C. C. A. 161, proceedings af- 
firming referee's order entitling third 
person to participate in certain secur- 
ities for indebtedness of bankrupt cor- 
poration. 

1024-50 Order snstalnlng a chattel 
mortgage executed by the bankrupt. 
In re Flatland, 196 Fed. 310, 116 C. C. 
A. 130. 

1024-51 Bight to a lien.— Where 
petitioner's claim has been allowed in 
full, but his right to a lien rejected, his 
remedy is to resort to a petition to re- 
vise the action of the court in denying 
the lien. Huttig S. & D. Co. v. Stitt 
(C. C. A.), 218 Fed. 1. 

1024-56 In re Goldstein (C. C. A.), 
216 Fed. 887. 

1024-57 In re Petronio (C. C. A.), 

220 Fed. 269, a proceeding to determine 
title to property held by trustee and 
claimed adversely by one not a party 
to the proceedings. 

1025-63 Pennitting or rofoBing 
amendments to petition in bankruptcy 
is matter of discretion with lower 
court and will not be reviewed unless 
abuse of discretion is shown. Sabin v, 
Blake-McFall Co. (C. C. A.), 223 Fed. 
501. 

1026-68 On reversal where it ap- 
pears the petition was delayed and the 
estate is substantially deteriorated and 
is insufficient to meet petitioner's claim 
costs will not be allowed either party. 
In re Endlar, 192 Fed. 762, 113 C. C. 
A. 48. 

1026-69 Mitchell Store Building Co. 
V, Carroll, 232 XJ. S. 379, 34 Sup. Ct. 
410, 58 L. ed. 650; Lumpkin v, Foley, 
204 Fed. 372, 122 C. C. A. 542. See 
Hobbs V, Head & Dowst Co., 191 Fed. 
811, 112 C. C. A. 325. 

1026-71 The statute relates only to 
appeals taken expressly under the 
bankruptcy statute. Hobbs t?. Head & 
Dowst Co., 191 Fed. 811, 112 C. C. A. 
325. 

1026-72 The remedy upon a dismis- 
sal of a petition to review a decision 
is by an application to the supreme 
court for a writ; of mandamus or of 



?2§ 



BANKS AND BANKING 



Vol. 4 



eertiorari. Kyle 9. Hammond, 192 Fed. 
559, 113 C. C. A. 31. 

1027-73 Lumpkin t?. Foley, 204 Fed. 
372, 122 C. C. A. 542. 

Findings should be raqnested. — Such 
findings and conclusions will not ordi- 
narily be made unless requested. The 
request should be made before the de- 
cree of court is entered. Washington 
r. Tearney, 197 Fed. 307, 117 C. C. A. 
53. 



BANKS AND BANKING 

4-5 After a bank corporation Is dis- 
solved it is incapable of maintaining 
an action. All actions by such a cor- 
poration which are pending when cor- 
poration is dissolved, abate upon such 
dissolution in the absence of a statute 
to the contrary. American Exchange 
Bank r. Mitchell, 179 111. App. 612. 

8-22 Depositor may sue to recover 
the amount of his deposit if payment 
is refused. Bank of Des'Are v. Moody, 
110 Ark. 39, 161 S. W. 134. 

8-23 Central Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v. 
Amalgamated Soc, 24 Colo. App. 438, 
134 P. 1007. 

Foxmal demand not necessary where 
bank denies that it holds any of de- 
positor's money. Altman v. Phillips 
County Bank, 86 Kan. 930, 122 P. 874. 

16-55 Toll V, Cobbey, 22 Colo. App. 
244, 124 P. 357. 

Pleading— aUegatlbns of liability^— A 
bill by a creditor seeking to subject 
the unpaid subscription to the stock 
of a bank to the payment of the bank 's 
debts was not demurrable for not show- 
ing liability of the stockholder, when 
it alleged that complainants were not 
preferred creditors, and that the as- 
sets of the bank, without the unpaid 
subscription, were not sufficient to pay 
the claims of preferred creditors and 
that it was necessary to subject the 
unpaid subscription. Drennen v. Jenk- 
ins, 180 Ala. 261, 60 8. 856. 

20-78 Toll V. Cobbey, 22 Colo. App. 
244, 124 P. 357. 

A bill seeking recovery of a fntctlonal 
part or percentage of the stockholders' 
liability comes within the equitable 
jurisdiction of the court. Bankin v. 
Miller, 207 Fed. 602. 
Aoconntlng.— As liability of stockhold- 
ers is secondary to that of the bank 
itself, a creditor may come into equity 
to have an accounting as to the liabil- 



ities of the corporation and the distribu- 
tion of its assets in order to determine 
the amount of his claim for which the 
stockholders are liable. Mosler Safe 
Co. V. Guardian Trust Co., 153 App. 
Div. 117, 138 N. Y. S. 298. 

Sequestration or Insolvency proceed- 
ings.— The stockholders' liability con- 
stitutes a reserve or trust fund for the 
benefit of creditors, and is enforceable 
only in sequestration or insolvency pro- 
ceedings in which all creditors are af- 
forded an opportunity to be heard. 
Northwestern Tr. Co. t*. Bradbury, 117 
Minn. 83, 134 N. W. 513, Ann. Cas. 
1913D, 69. 

23-86 Mosler Safe Co. v. Guardian 
Trust Co., 208 N. Y. 524, 101 N. E. 
786. 

23-90 Preliminary Judgment against 
corporation.— Though the liability of 
stockholders be secondary it is not 
necessary to first absolutely exhaust the 
assets of the corporation, legal and 
equitable, before suing stockholders on 
their liability, where the necessity for 
resorting to the liability of stockhold- 
ers is made to appear. Lamar v. Taylor, 
141 Ga. 227, 80 S. E. 1085. 

27-11 Stockholders of a safe deposit 
company under §303 of the New York 
Banking Law may be sued jointly or 
severally. Mosler Safe Co. v. Guard- 
ian Trust Co., 153 App. Biv. 117, 138 N. 
Y, S. 298, af. 208 N. Y. 524, 101 N. E. 
786. 

30-34 InferentlaUy alleged. — An al- 
legation that since a certain date the 
superintendent of banks has been in 
possession of the property, business and 
assets of the plaintiff, and is now in 
possession of the same "for the pur- 
pose of liquidating its affairs in accord- 
ance with section 19 pf the Banking 
Law of the State of New York,'* is 
sufficient to justify an inference of in- 
solvency. La Fayette Trust Co. v. 
Beggs, 163 App. Div. 959, 148 N. Y. S. 
414. 

32-44 In federal courts. — ^In the ab- 
sence of any provision in the act of 
congress creating the double liability 
of stockholders of national banks, fix- 
ing a period of limitation within which 
actions for its enforcement must be 
brought, the statute of limitations of 
the state where suit is brought governs, 
so far as applicable. Rankin v. Miller, 
207 Fed. 602. 
35-58 Separate decrees against any 



2^3 



Vol 4 



BANKS AND BANKING 



ofllcen of a bank participating in mis- 
appropriations and transactions occas- 
ioning losses, may be rendered, they 
being jointly and severally liable for 
813 ch misappropriations and losses. Ben- 
edum V, First Citizens' Bank, 72 W. 
Va. 124, 78 S. E. 656. 

35-63 Petition by one other than 
assignee should allege demand upon 
and refusal by assignee to sue, Mur- 
rell «. Traders' & Truckers' Bank, 113 
Va. 665, 75 8. E. 97. 

36-64 Snits by Stockholders— Where 

the receiver refuses to sue directors of 
a bank as its managing officers, to re- 
cover sums lost through their negli- 
gence and mismanagement, some of the 
stockholders may institute suit on be- 
half of all. Such receiver is properly 
made a party defendant. Ellis t?. H. P. 
Gates Mercantile Co;, 103 Miss. 560, 60 
S. 649, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 526, 43 L. B. A. 
(N. S.) 982. 

Averring depositors* right to anew — ^In 
an action by depositors of a bank where 
suit should be by receiver, an allega- 
tion that the receivers of said bank 
have declined to institute any suit 
against said directors to assert the 
liability herein asserted, but which 
does not state by whom or on what 
ground the demand, if any, was made, 
is insufficient to show right of de- 
positors to bring suit. Saunders r. 
Bank of Mecklenburg, 113 Va. 656, 75 
S. E. 94. 

36-67 Benedum t?. First Citizens' 
Bank, 72 W. Va. 124, 78 S. E. 656. 

38-82 COiarging usarlous Interest. 

An indictment charging that de- 
fendant on a certain date loaned S. 
B. the sum of $24.50, and between 
December 21, 1910, and March 3, 1911, 
did wrongfully and unlawfully charge 
said S. B. interest on the sum of $12.60, 
is not bad as alleging that the inter- 
est was charged after the loan was 
made, nor because it fails to state the 
time when the act was committed, or 
because it charges more than one crime. 
P. V. Young, 207 N. Y. 522, 101 N. E. 
451, af. 153 App. Div. 567, 138 N. Y. 
S. 50. 

Immaterial variance. — ^Where it ap- 
peared that the true balance due from 
one bank to another was $14,947.68 
instead of $14,895.97 as alleged in the 
indictment, a directed verdict on the 
ground of variance was properly re- 
fused. The gist of offense was the mak- 



ing of the false entry; exact amount of 
the balance stated was not material. 
Phillips V. U. 8., 201 Fed. 259, 120 C. 
C. A. 149. 

Instructions — ^In prosecution of nation- 
al bank officials for making a false 
report to comptroller of currency, the 
court properly charged the jury that 
the defendants might be found guilty 
upon proof that the false entries were 
made in pursuance of a previous ar- 
rangement between the clerk who made 
them and the defendants who insti- 
gated them. Kettenbach v. U. S., 202 
Fed. 377, 120 C. C. A. 505. 

30-88 Publishing false report. — ^As 

to indictment for making or publish- 
ing a false report of the condition of 
a bank, see, 8. v. O'Neil, 24 Ida. 582, 
135 P. 60. 

Surplusage. — Where an indictment 
charges offense of rendering a false 
statement to state corporation com- 
mission, and also charges a failure to 
make examination of money of bank 
as required by statute, the latter charge 
will be treated as surplusage and will 
not vitiate the indictment. Thornton 
V. C, 113 Va. 736, 73 S. E. 481. 

40-94 Morris v. S., 102 Ark. 513, 
145 S. W. 213; Brown V, S. (Tex.), 151 
S. W. 561. 

Description of deposit. — ^Allegation that 
'* seventy -five dollars" was received, 
sufficiently describes the property re- 
ceived as being seventy-five dollars in 
money and not some other species of 
property. S. V. Taylor (Miss.), 64 8- 
740. 

40-95 Brown r. S. (Tex. Civ.), 162 
8. W. 339. 

41-96 Brown «. 8., 71 Tex. Cr. 353, 
162 8. W. 339. 

Kecessary allegations. — ^Under act mak- 
ing it a criminal offense for a private 
banker or his employe to receive de- 
posits with actual knowledge that the 
bank at the time is insolvent, an in- 
dictment is insufficient which charges 
that the accused, being the cashier of 
a designated private bank, did with 
actual knowledge that the said bank 
was insolvent, receive the money of 
a depositor, without alleging who the 
owner or owners of the bank were, or 
that the accused was a private banker, 
or that he was the employe of a pri- 
vate banker. In order to bring the 
accused within the terms of the act, 



224 



BASTARDY PB0CEEDIN08 



Vol. 4 



he mnfft have b«en either a private 
banker Mmselfy or the employe of a 
private banker at the time he received 
the (kqposit; and to charge him as the 
employe of a private bank or bankers, 
it must be charged that said banker or 
bankers, or the owners of the private 
bank, were then insolvent. The allega- 
tion that the private bank desig- 
nated was insolveiity without stat- 
ing who its owner or owners were, 
is not a sufficient charge that the 
aeensed himself was insolvent if he was 
prosecuted as a private banker, nor that 
his principals were insolvent if he was 
being prosecuted as an employe. Boyen* 
ton r. C, 114 Va. 841, 76 S. E. 945. 

41-9T A designation of defendant as 
president of the bank is sufficient to 
show that he was an officer of the 
bank. Morris r. S., 102 Ark. 513, 145 
8. W. 213. 

Setttag out rsittesQiitatiTe capaoity of 
deftndaat. — An indictment alleging that 
the defendant as president of the bank, 
knowing and having good reason to 
believe the bank to be insolvent did 
unlawfully receive a deposit of seventy- 
five dollars in said bank, sufficiently al- 
leges that in receiving the deposit de- 
fendant was acting as agent or rep- 
resentative of the bank. 8. V. Taylor 
(Miss.), 64 S. 740. 8ee 8. f7. Winstand- 
ley, 154 Ind. 443, 57 N. E. 109, holding 
contra. 

41-98 Ohaiaetsr of money deposited 

need not be stated in the indictment; 
that is, whether it Vas coin, bank bills, 
treasury notes, etc., and the denomina- 
tion thereof. 8. «. Taylor (Miss.), 64 
8. 740. 



dent of the American National Bank 
of Bar ties ville, Okla., with acts of the 
same character and degree, an order 
of consolidation was permissible under 
§1024 of the Bev. 8t. of the United 
States (IT. 8. Comp. St., 1901, p. 720). 
Norton «. IT. 8., 205 Ped. 693, 123 
C. C. A. 609. 

43-10 Allsgatloii tliat bank smtalnml 

loss by the transaction, is not neces- 
sary in an indictment for misappro- 
priating funds of a bank. Norton v, 
U. 8., 205 Fed. 593, 123 C. C. A. 
609. 

44-15 DnpUflityw^Where an indict- 
ment charges that when a draft for 
$27,125 was drawn there was substi- 
tuted in its place three promissory 
notes, aggregating said sum of $27,125, 
which notes were fictitious, of no valne, 
and wortjiless, such indictment is not 
bad because of duplicity on the theory 
that as three notes were used as sub- 
stitutes for the draft, three offenses 
are charged. Norton f . U. 8., 205 Fed. 
593, 123 C. C. A. 609. 



a prosecution 
for receiving money with knowledge 
of bonks' insolvency the court should 
prcqperly instruet the jury in regard to 
the question of solvency. Brown v. 8. 
(Tex.), 161 8. W. 561. 

4S-9 taidictOMnt for permitting share- 
holders to become indebted to bank in 
a sum exceeding fifty per cent of the 
paid-up capital held Buffi<^ient where it 
charged that defendants, as officers and 
directors of a bank, knowing and wil- 
ling^ permitted shareholders, including 
themselves, to become indebted, etc. 8. 
V, MePherson, 30 8. D. 547, 139 N. W. 
368. 

CtoDBoUdatlon of indictments^— Where 

several indictments and all of the 
counts charged the defendant as presi- 



BASTABDT TROOEEDOXQB 

56-1 Powell V, 8., 84 O. St. 165, 95 
N. E. 660, 36 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 255. 

56-8 Belford v. 8., 96 Ark. 274, 131 
8. W. 953; Hamden v, Collins, 85 Conn. 
827, 82 A. 636; C. v. SmalHng, 146 
Ky. 197, 142 8. W. 372; Easton v. Eas- 
ton, 112 Me. 106, 90 A. 977, 52 L. 
B. A^ (N. 8.) 799; McDonald P. Brown, 
90 Neb. 676, 134 N. W. 268; 8. V, Cur- 
rie, 161 N. C. 275, 76 8. E. 694; S. V. 
Speed, 7 Okla. Cr. 47, 121 P. 1090; 
Anderson t?. 8., 42 Okla. 151, 140 P. 
1142; 8. t?. Pickering, 29 8. D. 207, 136 
N. W. 105, 40 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 144; 
S. V. Beese, 43 Utah 447, 135 P. 270; 
Bratt t?. Cornwell, 68 W. Va. 541, 70 
8. E. 271. 

57-4 8. V. Edens, 88 8. C. 302, 70 8. 
E. 609. 

68-S Smith i?. S., 146 Wis. Ill, 180 
N. W. 894, 33 L. B. A. (N. 8.) 463. 

68-6 S. 1?. Edens, 88 8. C. 302, 70 
S. E. 609. 

Jurisdiction of Justice of peace^ — Jus- 
tice of peace may only conduct pre- 
liminary examination and not try any 
one accused of violating Gen. Code, 
§13,008. McKelvy v. 8., 87 O. St. 1, 
99 N. E. 1076. 

69-T Belford v, S., 96 Ark, 274, 131 



225 



Vol. 4 



BASTARDY PROCEEDINGS 



S. W. 953; Dent v. McDougle (W. Va.), 
84 S. £. 382. 

59-8 P. 17. Michael, 189 111. App. 495; 
P. 17. Hill, 152 111. App. 78; P. v. Anders, 
173 HI. App. 561. 

60-10 P. V. Oppenheimer, 170 Mich. 
595, 136 N. W. 399. See S. t?. Bowdle 
(Del.), 83 A. 1084; Jones v. S., 11 Ga. 
App. 760, 76 S. E. 72; Anderson r. 8., 
42 Okla. 151, 140 P. 1142. 
Where mother is not emanelpated suit 
may be brought in county where her 
parents reside. S. v. Stark, 149 la. 749, 
129 N. W. 331, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 362. 

60-11 That child waa bom In an- 
other county does not affect mother's 
right to bring action. P. v. Graft, 170 
m. App. 309. 

Bule as to venue. — ^<'In fixing the place 
for trial, it makes no difference where 
the cause of action arose, where the 
child was bom, or where the mother or 
child may be domiciled at the time the 
action is brought." S. r. Pickering, 29 
S. D. 207, 136 N. W. 105, 40 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 144; 8. V, Etter, 24 S. D. 636, 
124 N. W. 957, 140 Am. St. 801; S. v. 
Patterson, 18 S. D. 251, 100 N. W. 162. 

62-23 Private counsel may prosecute. 
* 'Section 1533m (ch. 648, Laws, 1907) 
was designed to provide counsel at the 
expense of the state for every mother 
who desired to avail herself of its 
provisions; but she is not limited to 
the services of the district attorney." 
Smith t?. S., 146 Wis. Ill, 130 N. W. 
894, 33 L. B. A. (N. S.) 463. 

63-27 Waiver of defective verifica- 
tion. — A complaint verified before a 
notary public is insufficient; but if no 
objections are made until after the 
hearing before the justice of the peace 
the objection is waived. Sutorius v. 
Stalder, 88 Neb. 843, 130 N. W. 750. 

64-30 Place of birth. — Complaint 
must show that child was born in the 
county where action is brought. Camp- 
bell V. S., 64 Fla. 39, 59 S. 893. 

65-33 Contra, a complaint which fails 
to allege the residence of the mother 
within the county is fatally defective. 
Anderson v. S., 42 Okla. 151, 140 P. 
1142. 

65-37 Hamden v. Collins, 85 Conn. 
327, 82 A. 636. 

66-40 Not retroactive^ — ^An amend- 
ment to the return on the warrant does 
not go back and validate proceedings 
where court had erroneously assumed 



K 

jurisdiction and entered judgment. 
Hamden v. Collins, 85 Conn. 327, 82 A. 
636. 

67-49 S. €. Edens, 88 S. C. 302, 70 
S. E. 609. See Howe v. Grimes, 211 
Mass. 33, 97 N. E. 371. 
Where the bond Is refased the magis- 
trate must commit accused for trial, 
and the remand for and refusal of bond 
need not be entered on the warrant. 
Watts r. S., 12 Ga. App. 350, 77 S. E. 
206. 

68-52 S. V. Bowell, 4 Ala. App. 207, 
58 S. 1007; P. V. Anders, 173 111. App. 
561. 

70-57 Oral denial — ^Denial under 
oath need not be in writing. S. v. 
Currie, 161 N. C. 275, 76 S. E. 694. 

71-62 Acqnlttal of sednctlon. — ^A 

plea is not good which avers that ac* 
cused had been prosecuted and ac- 
quitted of seduction, or that the prose- 
cution had been abandoned. Tolbert 
t?. S., 12 Ga. App. 685, 78 S. E. 131. 

72-64 McKelvy v, 8., 87 O. St. 1, 
99 N. E. 1076. 

73-72 S. V, Noxon, 96 Neb. 843, 148 
N. W. 903. 

73-74 See Sutorius v. Stalder, 88 
Neb. 843, 130 N. W. 750. 
Municipal conrts should give instruc- 
tions. P. t?. Lamberg, 160 HI. App. 
644. 

Where Instructions not requested no 
error can be predicated on the failure 
to give them. P. f). Oppenheimer, 170 
Mich. 595, 136 N. W. 399. 

73-75 Besemblance between the al- 
leged parent and child is a proper sub- 
ject of argument (P. v. Wing, 115 Mich. 
698, 74 N. W. 179; Gilmanton v. Ham, 
38 N. H. 108. See P. v. White, 53 
Mich. 537, 19 N. W. 174), but to call 
the attention of jurors to similar 
peculiarities not brought out in evi- 
dence is prejudicial. Hanawalt v, &,, 
64 Wis. 84, 24 N. W. 489, 54 Am. Bep. 
588. 

Exhibiting child to 0how resemblance 
to parent. — See 2 Standard Paoo. 746, 
note; 2 Enct. of £v. 254, and supple- 
ment thereto. 

73-76 Error not xnreJudlclaL — ^Where 
state's attorney in argument said, ''a 
bastardy action is to find out who the 
father of the child is, otherwise the 
support of the child would fall upon 
the state," without referring to the 
particular case at bar, it was not error 



226 



BIOAMY 



Vol 4 



to ^ail to admonish the jury to dis- 
regard the statement. S. r. Banik, 21 
N. D. 417, 131 N. W. 262. 

74-78 In name of county court. 
Where after compromise the woman 
attempts to discontinue the prosecution, 
the circuit court has jurisdiction to 
order the proceedings to be had in the 
name of the county court. Dent v. Me- 
Dougle (W. Va.), 84 S. E. 382. 

74-70 Burnham t?. Tyron, 112 App. 
Div. 769, 98 N. Y. S. 600; 8. v, Ad- 
dington, 143 N. C. 683, 57 8. K. 398, 
11 Am. & Eng. And. Cas. 314. 

74-80 Smith v. Lint, 37 Me. 546; 
Meredith v. Wall, 96 Mass. 155; Han- 
isky t?. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N. 
W. 208- P. V. Beehler, 63 Hun 42, 17 
N. Y. S. 418; Hinton v. Dickinson, 19 
0. St. 683; Jerdee v. 8., 36 Wis. 170. 

75-89 Belford v, 8., 96 Ark. 274, 
131 8. W. 953. 

76-92 Imprisonment unconstltutlonaL 
In Utah that part of a statute provid- 
ing for imprisonment for an insolvent 
defendant is held to be unconstitution- 
al. 8. V. Beese, 43 Utah 447, 135 P. 
270. 

76-95 8. r. Hess (la.), 150 N. W. 
609. 

77-96 The mother who signs the com- 
plaint, not being the "losing party," 
is not liable for costs. 8. v. Hess (la.), 
150 N. W. 609. 

79-14 See Kennedy v. 8., 9 Ga. App. 
219, 70 S. E. 986. 

79-16 The commonwealth may ap- 
peal from a judgment of acquittal. C. 
r. Smalling, 146 Ky. 197, 142 8. W. 
372. 

79-19 In Arkansas the appeal lies to 
the circuit court. Belford v, 8., 96 
Ark. 274, 131 S. W. 953. 

Criminal court of appeals has no juris- 
diction inasmuch as bastardy actions 
are civil in nature. 8. V, Speed, 7 Okla. 
Cr. 47, 121 P. 1090. 

80-26 Belford r. 8., 96 Ark. 274, 131 
8. W. 953; 8. 17. Edens, 88 8. G. 302, 
70 S. B. 609. 

Exclusion of certain spectators is not 
error in absence of showing of abuse 
of discretion. 8. v, Adams (8. C), 84 
S. £. 368. 

A dismissal erroneously ordered is re- 
viewable. Bratt V. Cornwell, 68 W. Va. 
541, 70 S. E. 271. 

80-27 The weiSbt of the evidence 



will not be considered on review. P. v. 
Baker, 171 111. App. 611; M'ClelUn v. 
8., 54 Ind. App. 144, 101 N. E. 887. 

Where no assignments of error are 
made there is nothing to review. S. 
r. Dodd, 9 Ala. App. 65, 64 8. 169. 
See 2 Standakd Proc. 472. 

Verdict will not be disturbed if sup- 
ported by the evidence (P. v. Gasner, 
152 111. App. 54), or because the evi- 
dence was conflicting (P. v. Bhodes, 153 
111. App. 14; Cowan v, Ertel, 95 Neb. 
380, 145 N. W. 841), unless clearly and 
manifestly against the weight of evi- 
dence. F. V. Guenther, 160 111. App. 
279. 

81-89 Exhibition of the babies. 
Where after both sides had closed, 
arguments had been made, and the 
judge had delivered his charge, one 
of the jurors asked if the jury could 
see the babies the judge ordered the 
exhibition of the alleged bastards, and 
no objection was made by defendant 
until after jury had retired, whereupon 
a motion was made for a mistrial, 
which the court refused, there was no 
error. Sims v, 8. (Ga. App.), 84 8. E. 
976. 



Brantley v. 8., 11 Ala. App. 
144, 65 8. 678; P. i?. McKeown, 171 111. 
App. 146. 

82-43 Brantley v. 8., 11 Ala. App. 
144, 65 8. 678. 

82-47 Costs follow conviction.— P. 
V. Anders, 173 111. App. 561. 



BENEFICIAL AS80CIATI0K8 

86-18 In names of trastees. — ^Where 
suit is to protect property rights, and 
the legal estate is vested in trustees 
the action should be brought in the 
names of the trustees. Wolfe v. Lime- 
stone Council, 233 Pa. 357, 82 A. 499. 



BIGAMY 

89-2 In Philippine Islands one who 
contracts a second marriage while his 
first wife is living, except in the event 
of a bona fide absence of the first wife 
for a period of seven years, and whose 
whereabouts are unknown, or cannot 
with due diligence be ascertained, is 
guilty of illegal marriage. XJ. S. v. 
Biasbas, 25 Phil. Isl. 71; U. S. V. San 
Luis, 10 Phil. Isl. 163. 
92-12 8. 9. Marks, 127 La. 1031, 54 
8. 340. 



227 



Vol 4 



BILLS AND ANSWERS 



93-15 P. V. Priestley, 17 Cal. App. 
171, 118 P. 965; Apkins «. C, 148 Ky. 
662, 147 S. W. 376. 

94-18 That the womaii is not lacwtvO. 
wife of co-accused must be alleged. 
Teston v. S., 66 Fla. 244, 63 S. 433. 

94-20 P. 17. Price, 250 111. 109, 95 N. 
E. 68; Richardson v, S., 71 Tex, Cr. 
Ill, 158 S. W. 617. 

94-22 P. V. Devine (Mich.), 151 N. 
W. 646. 

96-27 8ez of parttea.— The indict- 
ment need not aver that one of the 
parties was a man and the other a 
woman. Witt V, S., 5 Ala. App. 137, 59 
8, 715. 

98-46 Nnllityof fonneriiutxtlagew— A 

defense that the former marriage was 
null and void is a good defense. P. 
I?. Shaw, 259 Dl. 544, 102 N. E: 1031. 
But an erroneous assumption that first 
marriage was void or had been annulled 
or dissolved is no defense. P. t?. Priest- 
ly, 17 Cal. App. 171, 118 P. 965. For 
example, the fact that defendant at 
time of first marriage was under the 
age of consent is no defense where the 
first marriage had not been annulled. 
Gamer v. S., 9 Ala. App. 60, 64 S. 183. 

98-61 Honest belief in death of for- 
mer spouse is no defense. Band V. S., 
129 Ala. 119, 29 S. 844; Jones V. S., 67 
Ala. 84; Parnell v. S., 126 Ga. 103, 54 
S. E. 804; Comett v, C, 134 Ky. 613, 
121 8. W. 424; C. v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 
453, 40 N. E. 846, 47 Am. St. 468, 28. 
L. B. A. 818; 0. V. Marsh, 7 Met. 
(Mass.) 472; S. V. Ackerly, 79 Vt. 69, 
64 A. 450, 118 Am. St. 940, 8 Am. & 
Eng. Ann. Cas. 1103. But the follow- 
ing English cases hold it is a defense: 
B. V. Tolson, L. B. 23 Q. B. IHv. 168, 
8 Eng. Bui. Cas. 16; B. v. Bennett, 14 
Cox C. C. 45; B. V. Moore, 13 Cox 0. C, 
544. 

98-55 Decree Interlocntory. — Or 
where decree was inoperative on its 
face until after six months. Witt c. 
S., 5 Ala. App. 137, 59 8. 715. 
A mere belief of defendant that first 
wife had divorced him based solely ou 
an order of publication in a news- 
paper of suit by wife is no defense. 
S. V, Trainer, 232 Mo. 240, 134 S. W. 
528. 

99-56 Stalev f?. S., 89 Neb. 701, 131 
N. W. 1028, 34 L. B. A. (N. S.) 613. 
99-58 Staley v, S., 87 Neb. 539, 127 
N. W. 878. See Lesueur v. S., 176 Ind. 
448, 95 N. E. 239. 



99-59 Cowtra, Bunlap r. S., 126 Tenn. 
415, 150 S. W. 86, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 
264, 41 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1061. 

99-63 Bennett v. S., 100 Miss. 684, 
66 S. 777. 



BXU« AND AK8WSBB 

107-1 Praser t?. Fraser, 78 N. J. 
Eq. 296, 81 A. 1133, aff. 77 N. J. Eq. 
205, 75 A. 979. 

113-Sl Wilson V. American Ice Co., 
206 Fed. 736. 

116-41 Schwitters v. Barnes, 157 IlL 
App. 381. 

118-43 On fUdlim to state Jniiedic- 
tional fact! the court must of its own 
motion dismiss the bill. Stockbridge v. 
Phoenix Ins. Co., 193 Fed. 558. 

118^44 Southern States Fire Ins. 
Co. 17. Kelley, 186 Ala. 259, 65 S. 828. 
Thoi]^h claim for damages Is barred 

the bill is not demurrable where it 
states a cause for equitable relief. 
Walshe v. D wight Mfg. Co., 178 Ala. 
310, 59 8. 630. 

121-60 Botli legal and eqnltable. 
Because a bill contains a legal demand 
as well as a sufficient equitable cause 
of action does not render it demurrable. 
Lewis V. Orcgor, 73 W. Va. 564, 80 
S. E. 057. 

122-61 Antoszewski v. City Plumb- 
ing Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 635. 

123-62 Gragg v. )lA:aynard, 164 lOeh. 
535, 129 N. W. 723. 

Several distinct and tmeomiected mat- 
ters may be united in the same bill. 
New Orfeans B. Co. v. N. O. Oreat 
Northern B. Co. (Miss.), 65 S. 508. 
12S-J64 A clear and accvxate state- 
m^ent of the facts is necessary. Maiden 
Gaslight Co. v. Chcvndler, 200 Mass. 
354, 95 N. E. 791. 

124-65 Woodward r. S., 173 Ala. 7, 
55 S. 506; Bozeman f>. Sun Ins. Co., 170 
Ala. 373, 54 S. 178. 

124-67 Warner v, Mettler, 260 HI. 
416, 108 N. E. 259; Baltimore, etc. B. 
Co. V. Latimer, 118 Md. 183, 84 A. 377. 
126-76 Collier t?. Board, 106 Ark. 
151, 153 S. W. 259. 

128-81 An emissloA to flXL In date 
in the space left blank for that pur- 
pose is not fatal where the time may 
be made certain by reference to other 
parts of bill and to the exhibits. Peer- 
less Coal Co. V. Lamar, 180 Ala. 307, 60 
S. 837. 



228 



hlLLS AND ANSWERS 



Vol. 4 



See Wilson r. American Ice 
Co., 206 Fed. 736. 

X30-9I> NiogatlT^ pregoaat. — ^An al- 
legation that A's ''appearance waa not 
entered by any one lawfully authorized 
to enter same," is a negative preg- 
nant and repugnant to good pleading. 
MeBride v. Worley, 66 Fla. 564, 64 
8. 235. 

Id3-T In re Connor's Est., 254 Mo. 
65, 162 S. W, 252, 49 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
1108. See Brandt v. Luce, 177 Mich. 
184, 142 N. W. 1117. 

13T-aO Hayward v. MoDcwald, 192 
Ped. 890, 113 C. C. A. 368; Wade i^ 
Moore, 66 Fla^ 3^7, 63 S. 582. See 
Brooka 9. Eosenbaum, 217 Mass* 172, 
104 N. E. 469, 

13S-32 Hayward v. McDonald, 192 
Fed. 890, 113 C. C. A. 368; Thompson 
V. Lindsay, 242 Mo. 53, 145 S. W. 472. 

142i-40 Norsworthy v. WiUonghby, 
176 Ala. 145, 57 S. 717. 

142-41 Vciisfe^ — A special primer not 
necessary to warrant equity in estab- 
lishing a trust. Book Depository f. 
Trustees^ 117 Md. 86, 83 A. 50. 

143-48 Beiger v. Tnrley, 151 la. 491, 
131 V. W. 86«w 

14S-S8 Jackson f^. Putnam, 180 Ala. 
39, 60 S. 61. 

146-68 aigiilBg aflldaTit appended to 
bill and Terifying allegations is suffi- 
cient signing of bill. Augii* ft Co. V. 
Warder (W. Va.), 81 S. B. 708. 

14T^€I0 Aiigir «. Warder (W. Va.), 
81 a E. 708. 

14I^T9 Hogan 9. Scott, 186 Ala. 310, 
65 S. 209; Conoly v, Harrell, 182 Ala. 
243, 62 S. 511; Cox «. Smith, 99 Ark. 
218, 138 S. W. 978; Carpenter v. Dong- 
lass, 104 Miss. 74, 61 S. 161, 425. See 
Evans «. Pettus, 112 Ark. 572, 166 a 
W. 955; Peabody v. George's Creek 
Coal & L Co., 120 Md. 659, 87 A. 
1097. 

149-80 Cox V. Smith, 99 Ark. 218, 
138 S. W. 978; Freeman v. Carnegie 
Natural Gas Co. (W. Va.), 81 S. E. 
572; Atlantie Term Cotta Co. i^ Moore 
Const. Co., .73 W. Va. 449, 80 S. B. 
924. 

150-84 Holland Beformed School i^. 
De Lozier. (K J. £q.), 93 A. 199. 

160-86 Schnbs t^ Ziegler, 80 N. J. 
Eq. 199, 83 A. 968, 43 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
98. 

151r91 Qt(}«ciiioii to JmlfldiotkNi 



may bo taken by answer. Baltimore 
Trust Co. 13. George's, etc. Coal Co., 119 
Md. 21, 85 A. 949. 

151-93 Bight to answer does not rest 
in court's discretion; therefore the 
court can impose no arbitrary condi- 
tions. Jackson Skirt Co. v, Bosenbaum, 
190 Fed. 197. 

In absoice of an answer no decree 
for relief can be taken against him. 
Boss' Admz. v. Boss, 72 W. Va. 640, 78 
S. E. 789. 

15a-4 Bender v. Dialogue, 80 N. J. 
Eqh 408, 84 A. 202. 

153-5 Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co. 
V, Vacuum Cleaner Co., 194 Fed. 172. 

155-20 Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co. 
V, Vacuum Cleaner Co., 194 Fed. 172. 

156-21 Somerville Water Co. r. Bor- 
ough of Somerville, 78 N. J. £q. 199, 
78 A. 793. 

159-30 An allegation in any way 
relavant or which might influence the 
decision of subject-matter is not im- 
pertinent. Jones V. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532, 
62 S. 583. 

161-43 New matter^ — ^An answer de- 
nying the contract alleged in the bill, 
not in affirmative or negative terms, 
but by statement of same contract 
with conditions or limitations not men- 
tioned in the bill is defensive and suffi- 
cient if the truth of the averments 
would preclude the relief sought. Ash 
«. Lynch, 72 W. Va. 238, 78 S. E. 365. 

161-44 Stemm v, Gavin, 255 HI. 480, 
99 N. £. 663. 

165-61 Southern States Fire Ins. 
Co. i;. Kelley, 186 Al^. 259, 66 S. 328; 
Fowler v Alabama L & S. Co., 164 Ala. 
414^ 51 S. 393. 

167-70 Bucker v. Jackson, 180 Ala. 
109, 60 8. 139. 

167-74 Comp. Wayland Creamery 

Co. V. Dean, 169 Mich. 223, 134 N. W. 

1116. 

168-77 Trustees v. Boot, 63 Fla. 666, 

58 S. 371. 

170-87 S. f?. Heaphy (Vt.), 92 A. 

813. 

171-92 Christopher v. Mungen, 66 

Fla. 467, 63 8. 923. 

172-99 Christopher v. Mungen, 66 

Fla. 467, 63 8. 923. 

177-30 Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co. 

V. Vacuum Cleaner Co., 194 Fed. 172, 

waiver of answer under oath does not 

effect an answer of a corporation. 



229 



Vol. 4 



BILLS AND NOTES 



178-34 Any time before final hearing 
(Augir V. Warder [W. Va.], 70 S. E. 
719), or final decree. Collier v. Sew- 
ard, 113 Va. 228, 74 S. E. 155; Ash v. 
Lynch, 72 W. Va. 238, 78 S. E. 365. 

Answer tendered alter final decree pro 
conf esso is properly rejected unless ac- 
companied by affidavits showing good 
reason for delay. McDonald v. Mc- 
Donald's Planing Mill Co., 73 W. Va. 
78, 79 S. E. 1081. 

179-36 Withdrawing answer to file 
pleas, after reference to master, allow- 
able. Stephens V. St. Louis Union 
Trust Co., 260 Dl. 364, 103 N. E. 190. 

179-45 Daugherty v. Camine, 261 
111. 366, 103 nT E. 1003. 

180-62 Law r. Taylor, 63 Pla. 487, 
58 S. 844. 

181-63 Delegal «. Delegal, 65 Fla. 
190, 61 S. 444; Smythe V. Central Ver- 
mont By. Co. (Vt.), 90 A. 901. 

182-68 Delegal v. Delegal, 65 Fla. 
190, 61 S. 444. 

182-69 Pinellas Packing Co. v. Clear- 
water, etc. Assn., 67 Fla. 433, 65 S. 
591. 

184-77 Consenting to a reference to 

a master, waives exceptions. Perry v, 
Pye, 215 Mass. 403, 102 N. E. 653. 

185-86 Antoszewski r. <^ty Plumb- 
ing Co. (Mich.), 151 N. W. 635. 

186-89 Solficient ground' most 1>e 
shown.— Where an amendment does not 
present any ground for equitable relief 
different from that shown by the bill 
it is not error to deny leave to file 
the amendment. Hilton v. Meier, 257 
111. 500, 100 N. E. 962. 

186-93 Taylor v. Taylor, 259 Dl. 524, 
102 N. E. 1086. 

187-97 See Mills v. Mason, 182 111 
App. 69. 

190-12 A party plaintiff may be 
omitted. Backus v. Brooks, 195 Fed. 
452, 115 C. C. A. 354. 

191-14 Ez parte Delpey (Ala.), 66 
S. 22. 

193-23 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. 
New York City By. Co., 190 Fed. 602; 
Boberts V, Hughes Co., 86 Vt. 76, 83 
A. 807. 

196-31 SloBs-Sheffield Steel Co. v. 
McLauffhlin, 182 Ala. 266, 62 S. 96. 
196-33 Magaw v. Huntley, 36 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 26. 

Narrowing prayer for ieli«f does not 



make a new case. Fisher v. Villamil, 
65 Fla. 488, 62 S. 481. 
A distribution per capita may be asked 
for in amended bill though the original 
bill prayed for a distribution per 
stirpes. Wetmore V, Henry, 259 111. 80, 
102 N. B. 189, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 247. 

Adding grounds to sustain relief. 
Where the original bill asked for ap- 
pointment of receiver and the amended 
bill stated the grounds to sustain the 
petition, asking furthermore the dis- 
solution and winding up the affairs, 
there was no inconsistency. Ward f . 
Hotel Bandolph Co., 69 W. Va. 197, 71 
S. E. 105, Ann. Cas. 1913A,,607. 

Bill for dissolution of partnenOiip can- 
not be amended to change the cause 
to a partition actiou between tenants 
in common. Fooks v. Williams, 120 
Md. 436, 87 A. 692. 

197-34 Sloss-Sheffield Steel Co. v. 
McLaughlin, 182 Ala. 266, 62 S. 96. 

198-37 Ward v. Hotel Bandolph Co., 
69 W. Va. 197, 71 S. E. 105, Ann. Cas. 
1913A, 607. 

200-49 Starke 17. Storm's Exr., 115 
Va. 651, 79 S. E. 1057. 
Amendment discretionary pending de- 
murrer. Crown Film Co. v. Bettls 
Amusement Co., 206 Fed. 362. 

200-50 Bowe v. Scott, 113 Va. 499, 
75 S. E. 123. 

203-66 Bay «. Mills, 213 Mass. 585, 
100 N. E. 1113. 

203-66 Too late five months after 
final decree dismissing bill. Pittsburg 
V. Pittsburg By. Co., 230 Pa. 189, 79 
A. 235. 

213-16 In Delaware party may file 
an additioiial answer. Bancroft v. Ban- 
croft (Del.), 85 A. 561. 

214-20 Bancroft f. Bancroft (Del.), 
85 A. 561. 

214-22 McSwegln v. Howard, 70 W. 
Va. 783, 74 S. E. 948. 

216-29 Brown v. King, 172 Mich. 
355, 137 N. W. 729. 

218-45 Taylor v, Taylor, 259 HI. 524, 

102 N. E. 1086. 

218-46 Taylor t?. Taylor, 259 HL 
524, 102 N. E. 1086. 



BllJJSt AND NOTES 

223-2 Standard v. Thurmond (Tex. 

Civ.), 151 S. W. 627. 

229-20 National City Bank v. Bank- 



880 



BILLS AND NOTES 



Vol 4 



era' Trust Co., 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
553; Perry r, Pye, 215 Maes. 403, 102 
N. E. 653; Gray V. Altman (Tex. Civ.), 
149 S. W. 760. 

230-21 Loeb r. Weil, 209 Fed. 608, 
126 C. C. A. 430. 

231-25 Boiler t\ McKinney, 159 N. 
C. 319, 74 S. E. 966. 
Note payable to cashier. — Where a bank 
discounts a note payable to its cashier, 
it may sue thereon in its own name, 
even though the note be not negotiable. 
Eades r. MuhlenbergCounty Sav. Bank, 
157 Ky. 416, 163 S. W. 494. 

232-26 Nelson v. Piper^ 213 Mass. 
531, 100 N. E. 749. 
The payee of a note for a sum to be 
divided between herself and another 
is entitled to sue thereon as the real 
party in interest. Harris v. Johnson^ 75 
Wash. 291, 134 P. 1048. 

234-30 An nnrestrlcted Indorsement 
of a cheek confers upon the indorsee 
the legal title and the right to sue 
thereon, although the check is taken f ot 
collection. Citizens' State Bank f). 
Tessman & Co., 121 Minn. 34, 140 N. 
W. 178, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 606. 

234-31 Southard v. Latham, 18 N. 
M. 503, 138 P. 205; Baldwin v. Jordan 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1016. 

235-82 Consent of payee nnneces- 
sary^ — ^Assignee of a non-negotiable note 
may bring an action against the maker 
for his own benefit in the name of 
the payee without the latter 's consent. 
Pierce v, Talbot, 213 Mass. 830, 100 
N. E. 553. 

236-33 If the indorsement is re- 
stricted by the words, * ' for collection, ' ' 
no right to sue is conferred. Citizens' 
State Bank v, Tessman & Co., 121 Minn. 
34, 140 N. W. 178, 45 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
606. 

236-34 A note payable to two per- 
sons in the alternative creates a joint 
interest in the payees neither of whom 
can, in the lifetime of the other, main- 
tain an action on the note without 
joining the other. Passut v. Heubner, 
81 Misc. 249, 142 N. T. S. 546; Sweeney 
V. Van Schaick, 144 N. Y. S. 319. 

237-39 A party not Uable either as 
maker or indorser is not a necessary 
or proper party to a suit on a promis- 
sory note. Grisham r. Connell Lumb. 
Co. (Tex. Civ.), 164 8. W. 1107. 

President of coxporation^ — In an action 
on a promissory note payable to a cor- 



poration, where the defense is fraud, 
failure of consideration, and non-deliv- 
ery, and the president of such cor- 
poration is charged with personal re- 
sponsibility for all the infirmities of 
such note, and the note is indorsed in 
blank by the corporation through its 
president, and pledged by such presi- 
dent to secure his own individual debt, 
it is error to refuse to allow such 
president to be made a party defend- 
ant. Jenkins v. Planter' & Mechanics' 
Bank, 84 Okla. 607, 126 P. 757. 

In what name saed« — ^An action upon 
a promissory note may properly be 
brought against the maker thereof in 
the name by which he signed the note. 
Bresee v. Snyder, 94 Neb. 884, 143 
N. W. 219. 

238-40 Sharpe v. Baker, 51 Ind. App. 
547, 96 N. E. 627, 99 N. E. 44. 

238-41 Henderson v. Holcomb, 11 
Ga. App. 353, 75 S. E. 268; Sharpe v. 
Baker, 51 Ind. App. 547, 96 N. E. 627, 
99 N. E. 44. 

Dismissal as to some of the Joint mak- 
ers.— Where an action is brought on a 
joint and several note against all the 
makers, who appeared and pleaded 
jointly, and in the midst of the trial 
the plaintiff elected to dismiss the 
action as to two of the makers, the 
effect of this action was to discontinue 
the suit as to all the defendants, be- 
cause the plaintiff might have sued 
them all jointly, or each of them sev- 
erally, but might not sue a part of them 
jointly, under the circumstances men- 
tioned. Springstead v, CrawfordvUle 
State Bank, 63 Fla. 267, 57 S. 668. 

241-47 Knozville Banking & Trust 
Co. V, Mershon, 152 Ky. 169, 153 S. W. 
238. 

Irregnlar indorser and the maker are 
not properly joined. Matawan Tile Co. 
V. Golden, 53 Pa. Super. 430. 

242-61 Joint payees or indorsees who 

indorse are deemed to do so jointly and 
severally, wherefore an action lies 
against any one of them individually. 
Hodgens v. Jennings, 148 App. Div. 879, 
133 N. Y. S. 584. 

243-62 One of seveni^ indorsers to 
a note may be sued at option of holder, 
without joining all the indorsers as 
parties defendant. Home v, Oklahoma 
State Bank, 42 Okla. 37, 139 P. 992. 

246-66 Stone v. Goldberg & Lewis, 6 
Ala. App. 249, 6Q S. 744. 



831 



Vol. 4 



BILLS AND NOTES 



Statutory foxm for dedaratioiis is not 
subject to demurrer. St. Petersburg 
Novelty Works r. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 
63 S. 445. 

Sufficient oomplalntr— A complaint in 
an action upon a promissory note which 
in substance alleges that on or about 
a certain date tke defendants made 
their promissory note ^hereby they 
promised to pay to the order of the 
plaintiff a certain sum of money on. a 
certain date with interest at six per 
cent, but that no part thereof has been 
paid, states a cause of action. First 
Nat. Bank v, Stallo, 160 App. DiT. 702, 
145 N. Y. 8. 747. 

249-S7 Setting out the taxmB of the 
written promise, where the terms are 
the ordinary terms of a promissory 
note, is sufficient, without setting forth 
a copy of the written promise and 
designating it a promissory note. 
Equitable Trust Co. v. Stadler, 142 N. 
Y. S. 292. 

24T-60 Bowman t^. First Nat. Bank, 
115 Va. 463, 80 S. B. 95. 

248-63 Aatioipatlng and negativing 
poflslble defenses not necessary. Davis 
r. McEwen Bros., 193 Fed. 305, 113 
C. C. A. 229. 

249-419 Accoomu>dationindoi8er«— An 

allegation that a defendant is sued as 
indorser of a promissory note, but that 
he received no independent considera- 
tion, is equivalent to an averment that 
he is an accommodation indorser and 
■urety Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 6a. 
App. 173, 74 S. B. 937. 

24^7Q Location of payee bank. 
Where a promissory note is made pay- 
able to a certain bank or bearer, it is 
unnecessary to allege where the bank 
is located, or what particular bank was 
referred to as payee of the note, al- 
though there may be a number of banks 
known by the same name. Harper v, 
Peeples, 11 Ge. App. 161, 74 S. B. 
1008. 



First Nat. Bank «. Silver, 45 
Mont. 231, 122 P. 584; Gallway & Co. 
«. GoUiek & Smith, 142 N. Y. S. 468. 
Hon-payniMit by the maker need not 
be averred in an action by the holder 
of a negotiable note against the in- 
doreers only. Farmers' Nat. Bank «. 
Howard, 71 W. Va. 57, 76 S. E. 122. 
254-90 Suflloleiit aUegation of non- 
paymentw— Allegation that the defend- 
antot ''^not regturding the said promises, 
have not perxonned the same or paid 



said sum of money, though often re- 
quested, but have refused and neg- 
lected so to do,'' sufficient. Trask v, 
Karrick, 87 Vt. 451, 89 A. 472. 

254-81 Baldwin d. Jordan (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1016. See also 6 
Stanpabd Prog. 684, n. 15. 

256-96 Beasonable value of attor- 
ney's servloes need not be alleged if 
note is set out. Florence O. & a, Co. 
V, Hiawatha, etc. Co., 55 Colo. 378, 135 
P. 454. 

A copy of the notice of intention to 

bring suit need not be attached to the 
petition, where the petition alleges that 
the notice has been nven to defendant. 
Setze V. First Nat. Bank, 140 Ga. 603, 
79 S. E. 540. 

258-6 If Judgment is demanded for 
the face of the note with interest and 
there is an allegation that no part of 
the note has been paid and that it is 
overdue, it is auffioient. First Nat. 
Bank 17. Stallo, 160 App. Div. 702, 145 
N. Y. S. 747. 

259-8 Baker r. Hahn (Tex. Civ.), 
161 S. W. 443. 

259-10 Allegation that the note was 
**niade" by the defendants is equiv- 
alent to an allegation that it was both 
signed and delivered to take effect as 
a negotiable instrument. First Nat. 
Bank v, Stallo, 160 App. Div. 702, 145 
N. Y. S. 747. 

259-11 Settbig out the note in the 

petition including the signature of de- 
fendant is not equivalent to an allega- 
tion that defendant executed the 
note. Baker v. Hahu (Tex. Ci^.), 161 
S. W. 443. 

259-12 DellTory to Indoreee is suffi- 
ciently alleged where there is an allega- 
tion that the note was "indorsed" to 
him, as this term imports the delivery 
of the instrument. Trask v. Karrick, 
87 Vt. 451, 89 A. 472. 

260^14 Kenison r. Campbell, 21 Cal. 
App. 193, 131 P. 89; First Nat. Bank 
V. StaUo, 160 App. Div. 702, 145 N. Y. 
S. 747; Beall v. Bussell, 76 Misc. 244, 
134 N. Y. a 633; Hudson e. Moon, 42 
Utah 377, 130 P. 774. 

If oonaidMafeion is aBeced it must be 

shown to be sufficient. Nelson e. Diflen- 

derffer, 178 Mo. App. 46, 163 S. W. 

271. 

A tranaferee witHout indooMniflat of an 

instrument made x>ayable to ''order" 

must allege and prove consideration. 



232 



BILLS AND NOTES 



Vol. 4 



Witt I?. Segap Co., 66 Or. 144, 134 P. 
316. 

261-16 Kerr v. Smith, 156 App. Div. 
807, 142 N. Y. S. 57. 
Facts not condosioiu^ — ^A complaint 
against the maker of a non-aegotiable 
promissory note which merely alleges 
that defendant's promise to pay was 
made for a Taluable consideration, but 
alleges nothing farther as to the con- 
sideration, is demurrable on the ground 
that it does not state facts sufficient 
to constitute a cause of action. St. 
Lawrence Co. Bank f. "Watkins, 195 
App. Div. 884, 139 N. Y. 8. 1143. 

262-20 JefiPerson County Sav. Bank 
17. Interstate Sav. Bank, ff Ala. App. 
363, 59 S. 348. 

Good faithw— An averment that the 
holder of a note purchased the same 
in good faith is not equivalent to the 
averment that the indorsee took the 
note without notice of the maker's de- 
feases against the payee. Union Trust 
Co. V. Adams, 54 Ind. App. 166, 101 
N. E. 741. 

Allegation that note lawfully eame 
Into jwsfleaiiion of plaintiff for value is 
not equivalent to a plea that plaintiff 
was a holder in due course, and in any 
aspect was defective as stating mere- 
ly a legal conclusion. Laing «. Hudgens, 
82 Misc. 388, 143 N. Y. S. 763. 
Sufllciant allegation as to tranrfar. 
Where a suit was brought on a nego- 
tiable note payable to the order of a 
decedent and alleged to have been 
transferred for value by his administra- 
tor and indorsed by him before due, 
there waa no error in overruling a de- 
murrer tiiereto. Miles v. Bank of Har- 
lem, 139 6a. 498, 77 S. E. 579. 

When the holder buos on the note it 
is not necessary to allege and prove 
indorsement or assignment, unless the 
indorsement or assignment is denied on 
oath. Harper v. Peoples, 11 G^ App. 
161, 74 8. E. 1008. 

A bona fide ptixehaaer who seeks pro- 
tection against secret defenses set up 
by the niaker is required to plead his 
bona fides. German-American Nat. Bank 
«. Lewis, 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 8. 741. 

263-22 Action by dhUdien of de- 
ceased payee« — ^A complaint to recover 
on a promissory note which alleges that 
the payee died intestate, that he left 
no widow, that he left plaintiffs ''as 
his children and only children and heirs 
at law," that all debts and claims 



against the deceased have been paid, 
that no letters of administration have 
been granted on said estate, and which 
also alleges that plaintiffs are the own- 
ers of the note, is sufficient to show 
the right of plaintiffs to maintain the 
action. The phrase ''only children" 
in the absence of words of qualifica- 
tion must be construed to include de- 
ceased as well as living children. Bar- 
rett 17. Sipp, 50 Ind. App. 304, 98 N. £. 
310. 

2611^-30 Zndoxsement before maturity 
need not be alleged in an action against 
the maker of an overdue note. Beall 
v. BusseU, 76 Misc. 244, 134 X. Y. 8. 
633. 

267-36 Beall v. Bussell, 76 Misc. 
244, 134 N. Y. 8. 633: Baldwin v. Jor- 
dan (Tex. Civ.), 171 8. W. 1016. 

26d-41 Burwell r. Gaylord, 119 
Minn. 426, 138 N. W. 685; Shaffer v, 
Govreau, 36 Okla. 267, 128 P. 507; 
Dunn 17. Townsend (Tex. Civ.), 163 8. 
W. 312. 

ITotlce. — ^Allegation that the note in 
suit "was duly protested for non-pay. 
ment" 'sufficiently alleges due notice 
to the indbrsers of its non-payment. 
Gleason t?. Thayer, 87 Conn. 248, 87 A. 
790, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1069. 

Ifotlce of presentment, dlalumor and 
protest to the maker need not be al- 
leged. Badt €. Miller, 150 App. Div. 
920, 135 N. Y. 8. 13. 

272-49 Bombolaski v. First Nat. 
Bank, 55 Ind. App. 172, 101 N. E. 837, 
103 N. E. 422. 8ee Jackson €. Georgia 
Fire Ins. Co. (Ala.), 66 8. 588. 
Where forgery is relied upon as defense. 
First Nat. Bank t?. Pennsboro (W. Va.), 
83 8. E. 898. 

A plea of non est ffectom by the de- 
fendant denies that he executed the 
note described in the petition, and also 
denies that it was executed by any 
person authorized by him to sign or 
execute the same for him. Connor f. 
Uvalde National Bank (Tex. Civ.), 156 
8. W. 1092. 

A personal xepresentative being sued 
on a note purporting to have been 
executed by his decedent, a denial that 
he has sufficient knowledge or informa- 
tion to form a belief that the note was 
executed is a plea of non est factum. 
Walsh V. Pearce, 148 Ky. 760, 147 8. 
W. 739. 

272-50 Denial of absolute delivery 
and the allegation of conditional de- 



233 



Vol 4 



biLLS AND NOTES 



livery of the note in the answer is, in 
effect; a denial of complete execution 
of the same, it appears. Jones v. Bank, 
39 Okla. 393, 135 P. 373. 

272-51 Booth t\ Irving Nat. Exch. 
Bank, 116 Md. 668, 82 A. 652. 

273-53 State Bank of New Boston 
V. Livingston, 182 111. App. 529; Gran- 
nis i\ Stevens, 157 App. Div. 561, 142 
N. Y. S. 835; Spencer & Co. r. Brown, 
143 N. Y. S. 994. 

Denial of consideration in absence of 
general deniaL — Where the complaint 
contains no specific allegation that 
checks were given for a valid considera- 
tion, under a plea, which contains no 
general denial but which raises the is- 
sue of want of consideration, by a de- 
nial of consideration, and an affirmative 
statement of want of consideration, 
this special defense should not be dis- 
missed as being inconsistent with any 
admission by failure to deny. West v. 
Jarmulowsky, 144 N. Y. 8. 755. 

274-54 Sharp v. Sharp, 145 N. Y. S. 
386. 

274-65 In Shalleck u. Munzer, 121 
Minn. 65, 140 N. W. Ill, an answer 
examined and held to state a valid de- 
fense of want of consideration and that 
the instrument was an accommodation 
note as between the real parties to 
the action. 

274-56 Goding f?. MacArthur Go., 181 
111. App. 373. 

''Without consideration."— A special 
plea setting up that the instrument 
sued on "is without consideration," is 
sufficient. Cochran v, Burdick Bros., 7 
Ala. App. 274, 61 S. 29. 

274-57 Tatum v. Commercial Bank & 
Trust Co., 185 Ala. 249, 64 S. 661; 
Dicks V. Johnson, 66 Fla. 306, 63 S. 
700. 

A motion to strike properly lies to a 
plea which attempts to set up fraud, 
the allegations of which are not suffi- 
cient. Morgan v. Cobb, 137 Ga. 545, 73 
S. E. 844. 

274-58 Allegation of knowledge^— A 
plea alleging a failure of consideration 
for the note, and breach of warranty, 
of which the indorsees had knowledge 
at the time of the indorsement to them, 
is not obnoxious to demurrer for failure 
to allege knowledge. Springstead v. 
Crawfordville State Bank, 63 Fla. 267, 
57 S. 668. 

274-59 Goding «?. MacArthur Co., 
181 HI. App. 373 J First Nat. Bank t;. 



Bupert, 178 Ind. 669, 100 N. E. 5; 
Lemond t?. Smith (Tex. Civ.), 149 S. W. 
751; Key f?. Hickman (Tex. Civ.), 149 
S. W. 275. 

Failure of consideration sufficiently al- 
leged where the answer specifically al- 
leges that part of the consideration for 
the execution of the two notes, one 
of which is involved in the suit, was 
that plaintiff should take back certain 
goods set out in the pleading, and 
credit the invoice price thereof upon 
the notes executed, and that notwith- 
standing the continued willingness of 
defendant to deliver the goods, plaintiff 
has failed and refused to receive them. 
Clayton v. Western Nat. Wall Paper 
Co. (Tex.), 146 S. W. 695. 

Facts eonstitnting tbe failure.— A plea 
of failure of consideration should show 
in what manner it has failed; the cir- 
cumstances of the failure should be 
set out with as much precision as in a 
declaration. Farris v. Alfred, 171 Bl. 
App. 172. 

276-64 Mizell v. Farmers' Bank, 180 
Ala. 568, 61 S. 272; Warner v. Bonds, 
111 Ark. 238, 163 S. W. 788; First Nat. 
Bank v. Rupert, 178 Ind. 669, 100 
N. E. 5; Thomson t?. Citizens' Nat. 
Bank, 32 0. C. C. 131, aff. 82 O. St. 446, 
92 N. E. 1125. 

Use of word "ftand" is not necessary 
if the facts constituting such fraud 
are sufficiently alleged. Muir v, Ede- 
len, 156 Ky. 212, 160 S. W. 1048. 

Duress, conclusion as to. — An answer 
which alleges that plaintiff's attorney 
approached defendant about the date of 
the note, and threatened him to such 
an. extent that he signed some kind of 
a writing to pay something, will be 
treated as a mere conclusion of the 
pleader. Sutton i;. Hurley, 12 Qa. App. 
312, 77 S. E. 218. 

In absence of objections general aver- 
ments of fraud and collusion against 
the plaintiff are sufficient to raise an 
issue upon which the defendant is en- 
titled to be heard before a jury. Daniel 
r. Browder-Manget Co., 13 Ga. App. 
392, 79 S. E. 237. 

Knowledge of falsity most appear. — ^In 

action by bolder against an indorser a 
plea that plaintiff made false repre- 
sentations to induce defendant to pur- 
chase certain receivers' certificates for 
which the note was given is insufficient 
in the absence of an allegation that 
the representations were false to the 



234 



hlLLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



Vol. 4 



knowledge of the plaintiff when made. 
Hodgens t?. Jennings, 148 App. Div. 
879, 133 N. Y. S. 584. 

277-65 Name of defendant on note 
Ijy mlatake. — ^Where the name of a 
party was inadvertently written on the 
face of the note, this question is not 
properly raised by answer in an action 
at law to recover the amount due on 
the note, but a complaint in equity 
in the nature of a cross-bill to have 
the alleged mistake corrected should be 
filed. Liumbermen's Nat. Bank 17. 
Campbell, 61 Or. 123, 121 P. 427. 

A mistake in tbe aocnracy of an ac- 
connty where the stating of such account 
is the consideration moving between 
the parties, must be specially pleaded 
when suit is brought on the settlement, 
or notice of the special matter must 
be given where such notice is a sub- 
stitute for special pleadings. Lowen- 
stein V, Michael, 55 Pa. Super. 628. 

277-66 Prayer for reformation is not 

necessary where the mistake is merely 
set up as a defense, and the correction 
or reformation is not necessary in order 
to place the defendant in statu quo. 
Short r. Thomas, 178 Mo. App. 400, 
163 8. W. 252. 

277-67 Liab v. Kozuhowski, 53 Pa. 
Super. 50. 

In City State Bank r. Pickard, 35 Okla. 
243, 129 P. 38, which was an actioh 
by an indorsee on a note, the plea of 
defendants held not to show that the 
indorser had no title to the note, or 
that the indorsee had notice that he had 
no title. 

In absence of plea of non est factmn 
an indorsee is not required to prove the 
execution of the indorsement. Butler 
fT. First Nat. Bank, 13 Ga. App. 35, 78 
S. E. 772. 

279-70 Plea of non est factnnu — ^A 
plea denying the allegation of the 
petition that plaintiff is the bona fide 
holder of the note, for value and be- 
fore maturity, is not the equivalent 
of a plea of non est factum as to the 
indorsement, although such plea is 
sworn to. Butler v. First Nat. Bank, 
13 Ga. App. 35, 78 S. E. 772. 

280-72 That note was delivered In 
escrow is sufficiently pleaded by alleg- 
ing indorsee is not a bona fide holder 
and that note was delivered to payee 
on certain conditions, to be effective 
only when conditions complied with, 
and that payee transferred note to 



avoid performance of conditions. Bank 
of Cartersville t?. Gunter, 4 Ala. App. 
539, 58 S. 757. 

282-77 Plea of extension of time 
should allege that there was a valid 
agreement supported by a considera- 
tion, for such extension of time. 
Hodgens v. Jennings, 148 App. Div. 
879, 133 N. Y. S. 584. 

283-79 Specific denial of non-pay- 
ment as alleged in the complaint is not 
necessary; it is sufficient to plead pay- 
ment affirmatively. Harris v. Striker, 
77 Misc. 219, 135 N. T. S. 762. 

285-86 German-American Nat. Bank 
t\ Lewis, 9 Ala. App. 352, 63 S. 741 ^ 
Balie v, Tett (Tex. Civ.), 164 S. W. 
30. 



BILLS OF EXOEPTIOKS 

292-1 Padgett v, Gulfport Fertilizer 
Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866; Yates 
r. McGill Brother, 1 Liberian Bep. 2. 

Other definitions. — A bill of exceptions 
is a memorial of matters occurring at 
the trial of a cause which do not other- 
wise appear of record. Kubik t\ Davis 
(Or.), 147 P. 552. 

292-2 Padgett v, Gulfport Fertilizer 
Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866; Meek 
r. Chicago By. Co., 183 111. App. 256, 
quot, from Lassers v. North -German 
Lloyd Steamship Co., 244 111. 570, 91 
N. E. 676; Bichmond v. Enochs (Miss.), 
67 S. 649. See also 2 Standard Prog. 
342. 

293-3 Bichmond i\ Enochs (Miss.), 
67 8. 649. 

294-4 Norfolk & W. By. Co. f?. Hol- 
brook, 215 Fed. 687, 131 C. C. A. 621; 
P. u. Larsen, 265 111. 406, 106 N. E. 
947;Yott v, Yott, 257 111. 419, 100 N. E. 
902; Yates v. McGill Brother, 1 Liberian 
Bep. 2; Bichmond v. Enochs (Miss.)y 
67 S. 649; Fenn v, Beber, 153 Mo. App. 
219, 132 S. W. 627; Bedsecker r. Wade, 
69 Or. 153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485; Eaton 
V, Oregon By. & Nav. Co., 22 Or. 497, 
30 P. 311. 

295-6 Weil v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 
264 111. 425, 106 N. E. 246; S. v. Gray, 
112 Me. 558, 91 A. 787. 
297-13 Lees v. U. S., 150 U. S. 476, 
482, 14 Sup. Ct. 163, 37 L. ed. 1150; 
Norfolk & W. By. Co. v. Holbrook, 215 
Fed. 687, 131 C. C. A. 621; Copper Elv- 
er, etc. Bv. Co. V. Beeder, 211 Fed. 
280, 127 C. C. A. 648. 
297-14 Copper Biver, etc. By. Co. «• 



235 



Vol 4 



BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



Beeder, 211 Fed. 280, 127 C. C. A. 648. 
Prior term bills assembled in final one. 
All prior term bills of exceptions must 
be assembled in the one final or gen- 
eral bill of exceptions which incor- 
porates the motion for new trial or 
other appropriate motion for review 
after final judgment. Bohn r. Lucks, 
165 Mo. App. 701, 147 S. W. 1112. 

298-17 S. V. Gray, 112 Me. 558, 91 
A. 787: State f?. Bogers, 253 Mo. 399, 
161 S. W. 770. 

298-19 Hatterman v. Tiernan, 182 
111. App. 24; Kubik v, Davis (Or.)/ 147 
P. 552; Byrd v. Cooper, 69 Or. 406, 139 
P. 104; Sutherlin v. Bloomer, 50 Or. 
398, 93 P. 135. 

298-21 Nelms v, S. (Ark.), 174 S. 
W. 233; Schultz v. Teaming Co., 182 
111. App. 498; S. V. Evans, 135 La. 891, 
66 S. 259; Glass v, Gould, 41 Okla. 
424, 138 P. 796; Denton v. English (Tex. 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 248. 
Bill of ezceptionB unnecessary to review 
matters appearing on record. P. r. Lar- 
son, 265 111. 406, 106 N. £. 947. 

302^7 AifidaTits filed in support of 
motion must be embodied in bill of ex- 
ceptions. Smith V. Eirk, 48 Mont. 482, 
138 P. 1086. 

Motions for new trial and for judg- 
ment on findings of fact are not part 
of record proper. Veverke v. Frank, 
41 Okla. 142, 137 P. 682. 

A sabseqnently settled bill of eze^ 

tlons is not a part of the authorized 
record on appeal from an order grant- 
ing or refusing a new trial, except 
when the motion was made on the min- 
utes of the court, or where the new 
trial was ordered by the court of its 
own motion. Frost v. Los Angeles By. 
Co., 165 Cal. 365, 132 P. 442. 

803-29 An affidavit in sapport of a 

motion for change of judge, cannot be 
presented by a bill of exceptions. Flat- 
ter V. S. (Ind.), 107 N. E. 9; Adams v. 
8., 179 Ind. 44, 99 N. E. 483. 

303-32 Johnson v. Citizens' Bank 
(Ind. App.), 107 N. E. 35. 

304-34 North Biinningham Trust 
Bank v. Adams, 184 Ala. 564, 63 S. 
1022; liinn-McCabe Co. v. Williams 
(Ark.), 172 S. W. 895. 

304-44 Continental Casualty Co. «. 

Ogburn, 186 Ala. 398, 64 S. 619; Poncot 
V. St. Louis Ry. Co., 176 Mo. App. 225, 
161 S. W. 1190. 

305-47 Pamphlet of court rnlaa may 



be made part of record in bill of ex- 
ceptions. Weil r. Federal Life Ins* €o^ 
264 111. 425, 106 N. E. 2i6. 

306-80 Hughes f. S. (Ala.), 66 S. 
844; Morton €. Clark, 10 Ala. App. 439, 
65 S. 408; Tenn. Valley Bank v. Avery 
& Sons, 9 Ala. App. 363, 63 S. 813; 
Birmingham By., L. ft P. Co. v. Leach, 
5 Ala. App. 546, 59 S. 358; Qerdowsky 
17. Zawlewicz, 180 HI. App. 481; Doyles- 
town Agr. Co. v, Brackett, Shaw ft Lunt 
Co., 109 Me. 301, 84 A. 146; Hagerstown 
Brew. Co. v. Gates, 117 Md. 348, 83 A. 
576; Ferguson v. Baker, 186 Mo. App. 
619, 173 S. W. 41; MiUer V, Engle, 185 
Mo. App. 558, 172 8. W. 631; Capps v. 
Johnson (Tex. Civ.), 174 8. W. 294; 
Texas & P. Ey. Co. t?. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 
173 HI. 548: Gulf, etc. R. Co. v. Hig- 
ginbotham (Tex. Civ.), 173 8. W. 482; 
Quanah By. Co. v, Galloway (Tex. Civ.), 
165 8. W. 546. 

Exceptions well taken^ — ^Unlike a mem- 
orandum of exceptions, a bill of excep- 
tions need not contain a statement of 
counsel that exceptions are well taken. 
Ward V, Pittsburg Silver Peak Gold 
Mining Co. (Nov.), 143 P. 119. 

Exceptions sared to one order of the 

court overruling two motions will pre- 
serve for review the action of the court 
upon both motions. Sotham v, Drovers 
Tel. Co., 239 Mo. 606, 144 8. W. 428; 
Mugan t7. Wheeler, 241 Mo. 876, 145 8. 
W. 462. 

306-61 Owens f. 8. (Ala. App.), 66 
8. 852. 

Ko presomption there were any excep- 
tions taken. Lamport v, Smedley (N. 
y.), 106 N. E. 922. 

306-62 MMteni ooenrdng ftt time 
Judgment by default ia rcNodeced are 
immaterial, where an appeal is taken 
from the overruling of a motion to set 
aside the default; such matters are un- 
necessarily incorporated in the bill of 
exceptions. S. v. Allen, 168 Mo. App. 
463, 151 8. W. 756. 

30T-63 Deasou f>. Ghray SKeriif 
(Ala.), 66 8. 646; Salter v. Greenwood, 
112 Me. 548, 92 A. 786; Gill V. Bog- 
gles, 97 8. C. 278, 81 8. E. 519; Best 
V, State, 72 Tex. Cr. 201, 164 S. W. 
996; Martinez i?. Gutierrez's 'Ueiiu 
(Tex. Civ.), 172 8. W. 766. 

307-54 BulingB on pleadfagWir— Tbe 

action of the trial court in striking 
special pleas will not be reviewed where 
the bill of exceptions does not disclose 
that action or that any exception was 



^36 



BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



Vol. 4 



reserved to it. Sovereign Camp, W. O. 
W.ty. J0116B (Ala. App.)f 66 8. 834. 

Attacbiiig all tevtimony to 'bUl of ez- 
ovttona does not make it part of the 
bill although |3, art. 7 of state consti- 
tntion aaye it may be so attached. Nat. 
Couneil v. McQinn, 70 Or. 457, 138 P. 
493. 

807-«5 P. V. Scanlan, 265 HI. 609, 
107 N. E. 149; Hennessey v. Preston, 219 
Mass. 61, 196 N. E. 570; Hoag t?. Wash- 
ington-Oregon Corp. (Or.), 144 P. 674; 
National Council v. McGinn, 70 Or. 457, 
188 P. 493; Bedsecker v. Wade, 69 Or. 
153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485; Hahn V. 
Maekay, 63 Or. 100, 126 P. 12, 991; 
Sanger f>. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 
170 S. W. 1087 (Rev. Civ. St., art. 
2059) ; St. Louis Southwestern By. Co. v. 
Wadsaek (Tex. Civ.), 186 S. W. 42; 
Houston Transp. Oo. v, San Jacinto 
Biee Co. (Tex. Civ.), 163 S. W. 1023. 

All original bill of ezeeptlona provided 
for by §657 Bums' St., 1908, should 
contain nothhig but the evidence and 
matters Incident thereto. Leach 17. Mat- 
tix, 149 Ind. 146, 48 N. E. 791; McCoy 
V, Able, 131 Ind. 417, 30 N. E. 528, 31 
N. E. 453; Jose v. Huntet (Tnd. App.), 
103 N. E. 392* Stapf v. State, 33 Ind. 
App. 255, 71 NT. E. 165; consequently 
an objection contained therein to the 
fiHnff of a supplemental complaint can- 
not be considered. Jose v. Hunter (Ind. 
App.), 103 N. E. 892. 

30S-56 Cooley v. Jones, etc. Mfg. Co. 
(6a. App.), 84 S. E. 232; Coach v. 
Gage, 70 Or. 182, 138 P. 847: Prata f. 
S. (Tex. Cr.), 172 S. W. 974; Thomas r. 
Barthold (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1071; 
MOler 17. Campbell (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. 
W. .251. 

Ezceirtlon to adninioa of evidenoa 

need not be reserved by 'bill of ex- 
ceptions but may be reserved and noted 
in the statement of facts. Houston, 
etc. B. Co. V, Cavanaugh (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 619. 

3<^4S7 McLaughHn v. S. (Ark.), 174 
8. W. 234. See 2 Standi&d Pbog. 352. 

What bin of exceptioiiB may conslBt of 
tmiflanpt of proceedinga^-AlI of plain- 
tiff's testimony is necessary in the bill 
of exceptions in eases where the error 
complained of is the overruling of the 
defendant's motion for a nonsuit. All 
testimony of both parties must be in- 
cluded -vi^ere it is sought to review the 
action of the court on a motion for a 
directed verdict. National Council t*. 



McGinn, 70 Or. 457, 138 P. 493; West 
V. McDonald, 67 Or. 551, 136 P. 650; 
Hahn r. Maekay, 63 Or. 100, 126 P. 12, 
991. 

S08-ft9 White v. Snyder, 124 Md. 395, 
92 A. 763. 

808-60 Alabama Terminal B. Co. v. 
Benns (Ala.), 66 S. 589. 

aOO^l ITo presnlliption. — Where it 
is not shown by bill or judge's certifi- 
cate that all the evidence is incorpor* 
ated in the bill it cannot be presumed 
it was. Iowa State Sav. Bank v. Henry 
(Wyo.), 136 P. 863. 

809-62 Ingham v. Mitchell, 176 HI. 
App. 469, a statement that ''the above 
and foregoing is all the evidence heard, 
offered or considered by the court on 
the trial of this cause" is sufficient. 

809-64 Williams t^. Wallace, 111 Ark. 
509, 164 S. W. 301. ' 

809-66 That no stenographer was 
preseiit will not deprive the parties 
from having the substance of the evi- 
dence inserted in the settled record. 
Wood 17. McCain, 34 S. D. 544, 149 N. 
W. 426. 

810-67 Bradley v. S. (Ala. App.), 
66 S. 820; Beaule v. Acme Finishing 
Co., 36 E. I. 74, 89 A. T3. 

Inooiporating ezdndod evidence. — It 

is not fatal to a bill of exceptions that 
it failed to state that the witnesses 
would have testified to the matters * * of- 
fered to be proved." Hartfield v. Gre- 
ber (Tex. Civ.), 160 S. W. 603. 

Filing transcript of evidence. — ^It is not 
necessary that a transcript of the evi- 
dence should be filed in the clerk's of- 
fice before beingincorporated in a bill 
of exceptions. Huffman v, Thompson, 
177 Ind. 366, 98 N. E. 113. 

Incoiporation by reference.— If the bill 
refers to the pages of the transcript 
where evidence can be found, it is suffi- 
cient. Norfolk & W. By. Co. t?. Hol- 
brook, 216 Fed. 687, 131 C. C. A. 621. 

810-69 Grand Trunk By. Co. v. Ives, 
144 U. S. 408, 12 Sup. Ct. 679, 36 L. ed. 
485; Johnston t?. Jones, 1 Black (U. 
S.) 209, 17 L. ed. 117; Cincinnati Trac- 
tion Co. V, Beebusch, 192 Fed. 520, 113 
C. C. A. 76; Taylor v. Pierce Bros., 219 
Mass. 187, 106 N. E. 565; Cornell-An- 
drews S. Co. t\ Boston & P. B. Corp., 
215 Mass. 381, 102 N. E. 625; West t;. 
McDonald, 67 Or. 551, 136 P. 650. 
Manner of setting out testimony. — The 
bill of exceptions should give the sub- 



237 



1 



Vol 4' 



BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



stance of the testimony in a narrative 
form and not by question and answer. 
Wheeling Terminal B. Co. v, Bussell, 
209 J'ed. 795, 126 C. C. A. 519 ; Cornell 
Andrews S. Co. v. Boston & P. E. Corp., 
215 Mass. 381, 102 N. E. 625. But see 
Higdon V, Warrant Warehouse Co., 10 
Ala. App. 496, 63 S. 938. 
A bill containing the evidence in ez- 
tenso will be stricken notwithstanding 
the evidence be short. Irby v, Kaigler, 
6 Ala. App. 91, 60 S. 418. 

311-71 Immatexial and nselesa mat- 
ters should be eliminated in setting 
forth the testimony in a bill of excep- 
tions. S. ex rel. v. District Court 
(Mont.), 148 P. 383. 
312-74 Attached transcrliit. — A 
transcript, certified as containing all 
evidence, riveted to bill of exceptions, 
is sufficient to form part of bill of ex- 
ceptions. McFarland v. Oregon Elec. 
E. Co., 70 Or. 27, 138 P. 458. 

312-76 A skeleton bill of exceptions 

including the transcript of the sten- 
ographer sufficiently identified, will do. 
Bent V. People's Bank (Ark.), 169 S. 
W. 821; Cable Co. V. Mathers, 72 W. Va. 
807, 79 S. E. 1079. See Padgett v. Gulf- 
port Fertilizer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 
66 S. 866, for a discussion of the ques- 
tion whether documents may be made 
part of a bill of exceptions by being 
attached as exhibits without further 
identification. 

Common law and statutory role^ — ^< Un- 
der the common-law practice, docu- 
ments that it was desired should be a 
part of the bill were required to be 
written out therein in full before the 
bill was signed and sealed. . . . An- 
nexation of such documents as exhibits, 
or a reference thereto elsewhere in the 
record was insufficient. Under mod- 
ern practice, however, the rigor of these 
rules have been, to some extent, modi- 
fied, and it is now generally permis- 
sible to omit copying into the bill itself 
the document that it is desired to in- 
corporate, provided the bill, at the 
place where it is desired to insert the 
document, properly describes and iden- 
tifies the document and contains there 
a direction to the clerk to so insert it 
when making out the transcript of the 
original." Padgett v. Gulf port Fertil- 
izer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866. 
Texas rule. — Documents need not be 
copied in the bills of exceptions, pro- 
vided there is a sufficient reference in 
the bill by which the document con- 



tained in the record may be identified. 
Sanger t?. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 
170 S. W. 1087. 

Position of document in record not ma- 
terlaL — A paper read as evidence to 
the jury and described in a skeleton 
bill of exceptions in such manner as to 
make its identity reasonably certain is 
properly a part of such bill of excep- 
tions if it appears to be copied by the 
clerk into any part of the certified rec- 
ord. Rowland L. Co. v, Barrett, 70 W. 
Va. 703, 75 S. E. 57. 

314-78 Jones v. White (Ala.), 66 S. 
605; Bley v. Lewis (Ala.), 66 S. 454; 
Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 
145 Ala. 351, 40 8. 965; Elliott v. Round 
Mountain Coal & Iron Co., 108 Ala. 
640, 18 S. 689; Parsons V. Woodward, 73 
Ala. 348, 351; Padgett t?. Gulf port Fer- 
tilizer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866. 
The role requiring certainty of identi- 
fication is satisfied if the reference 
identifies the document in a way "to 
reasonably exclude a mistake with ref- 
erence thereto." Bley v. Lewis (Ala.), 
66 S. 454, holding a direction to insert 
a deed from A <'and" B justifies the 
clerk in inserting a deed from A "to" 
B. 

A benefit oerti&ate is sufficiently in- 
corporated in the record where the . 
record shows by the filing marks of 
the clerk that the paper was filed as a 
part of the pleadings before the trial 
commenced and the stenographer's 
transcript of the evidence as incorpor- 
ated in the bill of exceptions shows 
that the policy was read in evidence 
and also shows a call directing the clerk 
to copy the same. Eminent Household 
of Columbian Woodmen v, Howie, 109 
Ark. 400, 160 S. W. 238. 

Papers similarly marked. — A reference 
in a bill of exceptions to a paper as 
containing the evidence adduced on 
the trial, suffices to incorporate in It 
two batches of transcribed evidence, 
bearing the same marks of identifica- 
tion and obviously heard in tne same 
trial. Marshall r. Stalnaker, 70 W. Va. 
394, 74 S. E. 48. 

316-80 Alabama Terminal R. Co. 9. 
^enns (Ala.), 66 S. 589. See Conti- 
nental G. Co. t7. Milbrat, 10 Ala. App. 
351, 65 S. 425. 

Where bine print is not identified as 
having been received in evidence or 
filed with clerk of court it will be dis- 
regarded. McFarland v. Oregon Elec. 
R. Co., 70 Or. 27, 138 P. 458. 



238 



mLLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



Vol 4 



315-81 By whom identified.— Papers 
which show that they were identified 
and made exhibits to a deposition by 
the notary public taking same, need 
not be identified or authenticated by a 
chancellor or trial judge in order to 
permit their incorporation into a bill of 
exceptions. Great Eastern Casualty Co. 
1?. Parsons (Tenn.), 177 S. W. 937. 

316-83 Martinez v. Gutierrez's 
Heirs (Tex. Civ.), 172 S. W. 766. 

316-84 Brown v. S. (Ala. App.), 66 
S. 829; McLaughUn v, S. (Ark.), 174 S. 
W. 234; Thompson v. Miller (Ind.), 107 
N. E. 74; S. V. Hamilton (Mo.), 172 S. 
W. 593; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Graham 
(Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 297; Texas & P. 
B. Co. 17. Hall (Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 
548; Gulf, etc. B. Co. v. Higginbotham 
(Tex. Civ.), 173 S. W. 482; Williams v, 
Phelps (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. *1100; 
Gulf T. & W. By. Co. v. Dickey (Tex, 
Civ.), 171 S. W. 1097; Horton v, Tex. 
Midland B. B. (Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 
1023; Cleburne St. By. Co. v, Barnes 
(Tex. Civ.), 168 S. W. 991; Batliff v. 
Meadows, 116 Va. 975, 83 S. E. 395. 
See St. Louis Southwestern By. Co. v, 
Wadsack (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 42. See 
also 2 Standard Proc. 280, 359. 

Chsagea requested. — "Where there is 
no statement in the bill of exceptions 
proper showing that the charges were 
requested in writing as that they were 
either given or refused by the court, 
the charges can not be reviewed." An- 
derson 17. Anniston Electric & Gas Co., 
11 Ala. App. 560, 66 S. 925. 

316-85 Willey v. Herrett, 66 Or. 348, 
133 P. 630. 

Instmctlons are not prox^erly Identified 
where they are referred to by number 
only and no numbered instructions are 
in the record. Harris v. Bremerton 
(Wash.), 147 P. 638. 

318-87 Ikumfflcient recital. — ^The fol- 
lowing recital in a bill of exceptions 
is not sufficient to include in the bill 
the instructions referred to: *' defend- 
ants moved the court to give the jury 
instructions marked 1, 2, 3 and 4 (see 
pag e for instructions.) ' ' Mudd v. 

Shroader, 152 Ky. 696, 154 S. W. 21. 

318-89 Cornell-Andrews S. Co. V. 
Boston & P. B. Corp., 215 Mass. 381, 
102 N. E. 625. See Wise, Boles & Bow- 
doin V. Fuller (Ala. App.), 66 S. 827. 

319-91 Within vbat time.— Court 
cannot incorporate in the record its 
findings of fact and conclusions of law 



after the time allowed by law for fil- 
ing them by attaching the same to a 
bill of exceptions taken to his failure 
to sooner find and file them. Hanks V. 
Holt (Tex. Civ.), 148 S. W. 599. 

319-92 Bemarkfl of connsel must be 
incorporated in bill of exceptions or 
they will not be considered on appeal. 
St. Paul, etc. Ins. Co. v, Kendle, 163 
Ky. 146, 173 S. W. 373. Prejudicial re- 
marks of prosecuting attorney, made on 
the voir dire examination of jurors can- 
not be considered, unless the examina- 
tion is preserved in the bill of excep- 
tions. S. V, Morris (Mo.), 172 S. W. 
603. But counsel's remarks are prop- 
erly in the bill of exceptions in so far 
as error is assigned upon or grew out of 
them. P. 1?. Chytraus, 183 111. 190, 55 
N. E. 666; L. C. Smith & Bros. Type- 
writer Co. V, Blakemore, 183 111. App. 
14. 

Befusal to allow case to be argued 
should be pointed out by a bill of ex- 
ceptions. Campbell v, Chitwood (Ky.), 
176 S. W. 36. 

Incorporating statements of Jurors. 
The declaration of counsel that he de- 
sired the record to show that certain 
statements of fact had been made by 
certain jurors did not, without more, in- 
corporate such statemests as facts in 
the record. Denver City Tramway Co. 
f?. Carson, 21 Colo. App. 604, 123 P. 
680. 

320-93 Louisville & N. B. Co. v, Mc- 
Mullen, 5 Ala. App. 662, 59 S. 683; 
Colorado Midland By. Co. -p. Edwards, 
24 Colo. App. 350, 134 P. 248; St. Al- 
bans Granite Co. v, Elwell & Co. (Vt.), 
92 A. 974. 

ITotwithstanding the biU recites that it 
contains all the evidence, yet if it con- 
tains other statements affording a rea- 
sonable inference that admits of a dif- 
ferent conclusion that construction un- 
favorable to the party excepting will 
be adopted. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron 
Co. V, Bedd, 6 Ala. App. 404, 60 S. 468. 

321-98 P. V. Northern Trust Co., 266 
111. 139, 107 N. E. 190; Thomas Bros. v. 
St. Louis & S. F. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 
173 S. W. 96; West i?. McDonald, 67 Or. 
551, 136 P. 650; Eaton v. Oregon By. & 
Nav. Co., 22 Or. 497, 30 P. 311; Shaw 
V, Garrison (Tex. Civ.), 174 S. W. 942; 
Sanger v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ.), 
170 S. W. 1087; Stone & Webster En- 
gineering Corp. V. Goodman (Tex. Civ.), 
167 S. W. 10; St. Louis Southwestern 



239 



Vol. 4 



BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



Ry. Co. V. Wadsack (Tex. Civ.i, IW S. 
W. 42. 

Oommlngllng exceptions. — ^Where sev- 
eral exceptions are included in each bill 
they will not be considered. Citizens' 
Mnt. Fire Ins. Co. v, Conowingo Bridge 
Co., 116 Md. 422, 82 A. 872; Junkins 17. 
Sullivan, 110 Md. 539, 73 A. 264; Tall 
V. Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A. 
1007, 47 L. E. A. 120. 

Transcript of proceedings and evidence 

is not a proper bill of exceptions. Hoag 
V. Washington-Oregon Corp. (Or.), 144 
P. 574; Willis f?. Horticultural Fire Be- 
lief (Or.), 137 P. 761; West t?. McDon- 
ald, 67 Or. 551, 136 P. 650; Eaton v, 
Oregon By. & Nav. Co., 22 Or. 497, 30 
P. 311; 8. I?. Murray, 11 Or. 413, 5 P. 
55. 

A bill of exceptions, to be suiBlcient, 
shoiild p9 complete witbin itself, ex- 
cept where the statute permits a refer- 
ence to other parts of the record for a 
statement of the facts necessary to a 
proper explanation of the ruling to be 
reviewed. Padgett v, Gulfport Fertil- 
izer Co., 11 Ala. App. 366, 66 S. 866; 
Texas & P. By. Co. v. Ha» (Tex. Civ.), 
173 S. W. 548. 

Logical arraagementw — ^The fact that 
certain recitals appear in the wrong 
place in the biU of exceptions is imma- 
terial. Thomas Bros. t*. St. Louis & S. 
F. B. Co. (Mo. App.), 173 S. W. 96. 

822-99 Dennis v. Waterford Pack. 
Co. (Me.), 93 A. 58. 

Motion for a new trial— Wherre the bill 
of exceptions states an exception to 
the overruling of a motion for a new 
trial, it will suffice if the language used 
is the same as that of the court in its 
order. Nolan r. Metropolitan St. B. 
Co., 250 Mo. 602, 157 S. W. 637. 

323-1 Bosenheim Shoe Co. f>. Home, 
10 Ga. 582, 73 S. E. 953 (bill of excep- 
tions held to sufficiently disclose the 
parties to it); Huffman v, Thompson, 
177 Ind. 366, 93 N. E. 113. 

Labeled a memonuidiim of ezci^tlons. 

The fact that the instrument is im- 
properly labeled a memorandum of ex- 
ceptions is immaterial if it is properly 
settled as a bill of exceptions. Ward 
tJ. Pittsburg Silver Peak Gold Min. Co. 
(Nev.), 143 P. 119. 

A transcript not styled a bill of excep- 
tions cannot be considered for that pur- 
pose even though the judge certified it 
as containing all the evidence at the 



trial save certain exhibits. Litscher v. 
Alexander, 68 Or. 369, 136 P. 847. 

824-4 Copper Biver By. Co. v. 
Beeder, 211 Fed. 280, 127 C. C. A. 648; 
Meek v. Chicago By. Co., 183 Dl. App. 
256. 

324-10 Antrey v. S. (Ala.), 67 8. 
237; 8. V. Powell, 184 Ala. 46, 63 S. 
542; Marshall u. Stalnaker, 70 W. Va. 
394, 74 S. E. 48; Tracy's Admx. v. Car- 
ver Coal Co., 57 W. Va. 587, 50 S. E. 
825. 

327-15 Code Civ. Proc, §650; HaT- 
baugh V, Lassen Irr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 
773, 142 P. 847. 

A notation by tbe deik of court in a 
criminal case that the defendant excep- 
ted and reserved a bill cannot be con- 
sidered a bill of exceptions. S. v, Brad- 
ley, 136 La. 55, 66 S. 395. 

32S-19 St^ulfttion. — Parties may 
agree upon bill when correctness is at- 
tested by counsel for both sides and in- 
dorsed on bill. Houck Piano Co. V. 
Primm, 112 Ark. 80, 164 S. W. 1138. 

328-20 McDonough V. Blossom, 109 
Me. 141, 83 A. 323. 

Date of presentation. — ^Bequirement of 
Code, 1907, §3019 that bill must show 
date of presentation to the trial judge 
is mandatory. Box v. Southern B. Co.. 
184 Ala. 598, 64 S. 69. 

328-21 Moultrie v, Tarpio, 147 Cal. 
876, 81 P. 1112. 

Delay of reporter. — ^If the reporter is 
unable to prepare the bill within the 
proper time, the appellant should pre- 
pare ''a bill of exceptions in the case 
as if there had not been a stenographer 
therein." Yazoo & M. V. B. Co. r. 
Dampeer (Miss.), 66 S. 814. 

328-23 Cato f. Crystal Ice Co. 
(Miss.), 67 S. 155. 

330-24 Flatter v. S. (Ind.), 107 K. 
£. 9. 

331-27 St. Louis Southwestern By. 
Co. V. Wadsack (Tex. Civ.), 166 S. W. 
42. 

831-28 Missouri B. Co. t> . Beed, 110 
Ark. 296, 161 S. W. 192; Ward r. Pitts- 
burg, etc. Co. (Nov.), 143 P. 119; Pal- 
mer V, Allen, 18 N. M. 237, 135 P. 1173; 
Texas Midland B. B. v, Becker & Cole 
(Tex. Civ.), 171 S. W. 1024; Moore t?. 
Harrison, 114 Va. 424, 76 S. E. 920. 

331^^ Thompson r. Alexander City 
Cotton Mills Co. (Ala.), 67 8. 407; 
Cerny v. Glos, 2C1 111. 331, 103 N. E. 



240 



BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS 



Vol.4: 



973; Proctor Coal Co. r. Strunk, 28 Ky. 
L. R. 241, 89 S. W. 145; Groaa v. Wood, 
117 Md. 362, 83 A. 337, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 
30; S. V, District Court (Mont.), 148 P. 
383; Texas Midland B. B. r. Bay (Tex. 
Civ.), 168 S. W. 1013; Boyal Ins. Co.