CHAFFIN et al. v. LOVE et al. (Supreme GULF COAST LIFE INS. CO. v. SMITH. Court of Arkansas. May 21, 1923.) Appeal (Supreme Court of Arkansas. Sept. 18, 1922.) from St. Francis Chancery Court; A. L. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; J. M. Hutchins, Chancellor. Jackson, Judge.
PER CURIAM. Reversed and dismissed, pursuant to stipulations of parties.
COLE v. MCGILL BROS. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. Dec. 11, 1922.) Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court, Northern District; John M. Elliott, Chancellor.
PER CURIAM. Settled, and appeal dismissed, on appellant's motion.
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, on appellant's motion.
HELTON v. HOWE et al. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. Dec. 11, 1922.) Certiorari to Circuit Court, Pulaski County, Third Division; A. F. House, Judge.
PER CURIAM. Petition denied.
LUSBY v. DURST. (Supreme Court of ArAppeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Martineau, Chancellor. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, for noncompliance with rule 9.
DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v.kansas. Dec. 4, 1922.)
ROSENZWEIG et al. (Supreme Court of
Arkansas. Dec. 4, 1922.) Appeal from Cir-
cuit Court, Little River County; Jas. S. Steel,
Judge.
PER CURIAM. Settled, and appeal dismissed, by consent.
(Supreme Court Appeal from CirGeo. R. Haynie,
MCDONALD v. HARRIS. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 11, 1923.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; D. H. Coleman, Judge.
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, at the cost of the appellee, pursuant to stipulations
DILLARD v. JOHNSON. of Arkansas. Jan. 8, 1923.) cuit Court, Nevada County; Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed, on appellee's mo- of the parties. tion, for noncompliance with rule 9.
MCILROY V. BAIRD et al. (Supreme Court
of Arkansas.
Washington Chancery Court; B. F. McMahan,
Jan. 15, 1923.) Appeal from
Chancellor.
EXCHANGE NAT. BANK v. HAMILTON.
(Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 4, 1923.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County;
W. B. Brooks, Judge.
PER CURIAM. Settled, and appeal dismiss-ing been perfected in time.
ed, on appellant's motion.
FRANCIS v. JOHNSON et al. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. May 14, 1923.) Appeal from Clark Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor.
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, on appellant's motion.
GEORGIA STATE SAV. ASS'N OF SAVANNAH et al. v. MCCARTY et al. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. March 26, 1923.) Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court, Southern District; J. M. Brice, Special Chancellor.
PER CURIAM. Settled, and appeal dismissed, on appellants' motion,
GRAND LODGE, A. O. U. W., v. FRYBACK. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 30, 1923.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; James Cochran, Judge.
PER CURIAM. Settled, and appeal dismissed, on appellant's motion.
GREENE v. STATE. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. Oct. 8, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W. B. Sorrells, Judge.
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, for failure to lodge transcript within time.
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, not hav
O'BRYANT v. STATE. Arkansas. May 7, 1923.)
(Supreme Court of] SITTON v. STATE. (Supreme Court of Appeal from Cir- Arkansas. Dec. 11, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W. B. Sorrells, cuit Court, Boone County; J. M. Shinn, Judge. Judge. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, on appellant's motion.
PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, on motion of the Attorney General, for failure to perfect the same within time.
SPENCER et al. v. NORRIS et al. (Supreme Court of Arkansas. Feb. 5, 1923.) Apvens, Chancellor.
ORR v. STATE et al. (Supreme Court of peal from Union Chancery Court; J. Y. SteArkansas. July 9, 1923.)
THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
45 (Mo.App.) Suits against receiverships
not abated by change of receivers.-Davis v.
Fleming, 798.
47 (Mo.App.) Permitting filing of amended
petition bringing in new receivers held proper.
-Davis v. Fleming, 798.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
1. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
(F) Hostile Character of Possession.
73 (Tex.Civ.App.) Patent "color of title"
within three-year limitation; "title."-Wolf v.
Scott, 905.
III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND
V. DEATH OF PARTY AND REVIVAL OF Carlisle v. Elks Home Ass'n, 546.
115(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence
make title by limitation question for jury.—
held to
(A) Abatement or Survival of Action.
58(1) (Mo.App.) Action for assault and
battery commenced before defendant's death
may be revived against his executrix.-Primm
v. Schlingmann, 469.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Compromise and Settlement.
ACCOUNT, ACTION ON.
12 (Tex.Civ.App.) Verified denial of legal
validity of account held not to render it inad-
missible.-Housley v. Strawn Merchandise Co.,
116(1) (Mo. App.) Question
possession held sufficiently submitted to jury.
of adverse
-Fette v. McCooey, 392.
6 (Tex.) Cotton grower held member of
co-operative marketing association and mar-
keting agreement a contract between them.-
1101.
Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall,
sociation and cotton grower held supported by
Contract between co-operative marketing as-
valid consideration.-Id.
Contract between cotton grower and co-oper-
ative marketing association held sufficiently
definite.-Id.
Contract held sufficiently definite as to price.
-Id.
III. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
57 (Tenn.) Statute requiring certificate of
authority of officer of other state taking ac-
knowledgment to be attached to acknowledg-
Contract for delivery of cotton to co-opera-
ment held not to circumscribe authority of of-tive marketing association for pooling and sale
ficers previously authorized to take acknowl- held one of purchase and sale not of agency.
edgments.-First Nat. Bank v. Howard, 961.
-Id.
See Carriers, 228; Railroads,
See Abatement and Revival; Dismissal and 50(2) (Ark.) Contest of stock law election
Nonsuit.
barred by limitation of general election law.-
Alexander v. Stuckey, 9.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA-
TION, AND SEVERANCE.
38(1) (Mo.App.) Facts held to
finding of five separate running accounts giving
warrant
rise to separate causes of action.-Loyless v.
Roberts, 207.
53(1) (Mo.App.) Single demand cannot be
split into several causes of action.-Loyless v.
Roberts, 207.
53(3) (Mo.App.) Separate suits for differ-
ent transactions kept in separate running ac-
counts maintainable.-Loyless v. Roberts, 207.
~80(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Order appointing in motion for new trial not considered.-Kirby
trustee and requiring report from receiver v. Heston, 21.
predecessor held interlocutory.-First Nat. 301 (Mo.App.) Reference of counsel to
Bank v. Weiner, 615.
failure of insurer to return assessments held
not reviewable where not mentioned in motion
for new trial.-Welch v. Fraternal Aid Union,
187.
V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVATION
IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
OF REVIEW.
301 (Mo. App.) Granting amendment
pleading not objected to at trial or motion for
new trial and based on contested issue not re-
viewable.-Berry v. Peacock Coal & Develop-
ment Co., 456.
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
17! (3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Acquiescence by an-
swer in construction of contract by plaintiff
held to preclude contrary construction on ap-
peal.-Smith & Hayslip v. Wilcox Oil Co., 641.301 (Tex.Civ.App.) Error not going to
173(2) (Mo.) Objections to judgment dif- foundation of action is not "fundamental er-
ferent from that raised in the answer and on ror."-Schaff v. Lynn, 590.
trial not considered on appeal.-National Sure-302 (4) (Mo.App.) Reference to instruction
ty Co. v. Casner, 1057.
in motion for new trial held not sufficient at-
tack thereon.-Humpert v. Wells, 60.
173(4) (Mo.App.) Premium need not be
returned to defendant on ground arising after
issuance of policy and where no point in that
regard was made in trial court, it could not be
considered on appeal.-Beazell v. Farmers'
Mut. Ins. Co. of Livingston County, 125.
179(4) (Mo.App.) General reference to
constitutional right is insufficient to raise con-
stitutional question.-Crowell v. Metta, 205.
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
194(4) (Mo.App.) Counterclaim held suffi-
cient as against objection made for first time
on appeal.-Wheeler-Motter Mercantile Co. v.
Hirsch, 163.
195 (Mo. App.) Granting amendment to
pleading not objected to at trial and based on
contested issue not reviewable.-Berry v. Pea-
cock Coal & Development Co., 456.
205 (Mo.App.) Exclusion of evidence held
not ground for reversal in absence of offer of
proof.-Piper v. Wayne Mfg. Co., 437.
Defendant held not entitled to complain of
exclusion of evidence without offer of proof.
-Id.
303 (Tex.Civ.App.) Assignment of
for refusal to grant new trial on newly dis
covered evidence not considered on appeal,
where motion was not supported by facts in
record.-Langston v. Robinson, 654.
374(4) (Tex.) Statute exempting "heads
of state departments" from giving bond on ap-
peal exempts the prison commission.-Herring
v. Houston Nat. Exch. Bank, 813.
216(2) (Mo.App.) Instruction not embody-
ing every element of affirmative defense held
Mention of specific department in statute ex-
error though additional instructions not re-empting heads of state departments from ne-
quested.-Willock Realty & Loan Co. v. Smith, cessity of giving bond on appeal held not to
45.
limit its application.-Id.
218(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) To complain of a
special issue a charge curing the defect should
have been offered.-Berry v. First Nat. Bank,
537.
218(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Party failing to
submit special issue cannot complain of form
used by court.-Ford v. Wichita Falls & S. Ry.
Co., 932.
223 (Tex.Civ.App.) Inclusion of par value
of stock in judgment for lien held fundamental
error.-Breckenridge City Club v. Hardin, 873.
230 (Tex.Civ.App.) Submission of special
issues will not be considered unless objections
thereto made before submission to jury.-Ben-
son v. Gregston, 684.
231 (8) (Mo.App.) Total absence of proof
on essential fact available, though there was
only a general demurrer.-Lester v. Wells, 387.
232(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Error in admitting
deed to refute defendant's claim that code-
fendant was partner not being fundamental,
appellant confined to objections in court be-
low.-Sewell v. Lake Charles Planing Mill Co..
233(1) (Mo.App.) One of two defendants
jointly sued cannot urge that as to him com-
plaint states no cause of action where no sep-
arate demurrer or answer was filed.-Sinclair
v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 380.
237(3) (Mo.App.) Plaintiff who did not
file demurrer to evidence cannot complain of
insufficiency of evidence to support verdict.
Williams v. Barnes, 807.
242(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where affirmative
action requested on motion for finding of facts,
motion deemed waived.-Hardin v. Palm, 948.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
301 (Mo.App.) Errors assigned as to the
fraudulent conduct of arbitrators not assigned
376 (Tex.Civ.App.) One not party to suit
not necessary payee in writ of error bond.-
Payne v. Livingston, 701.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice.
427 (Tex.Civ.App.) Return of service of
citation in error held defective as not showing
delivery to defendant in error in person.-Fel;
ton v. Seeligson, 896.
(E) Entry, Docketing, and Appearance.
435 (Tex.Civ.App.) Appellate court has
jurisdiction, though return of service of cita-
tion did not show delivery to defendant in er-
ror in person, where latter filed motion to af-
firm on certificate.-Felton v. Seeligson, 896.
VIII. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF CAUSE
OR PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR.
(A) Powers and Proceedings of Lower
|