distribution in due course of administration,
held erroneous.-Gray v. Doubikin, 166 S. W.
1070.
IV. PROTECTION AND ENFORCE-
MENT OF RIGHTS.
108 (Mo.App.) Exemptions are allowed to
a fee bill debtor the same as to an execution
debtor.-Farris v. Smithpeter, 166 S. W. 655.
EXPERT TESTIMONY.
8437 (Mo.) Though a suit against an execu-
trix, brought within the period of limitations
prescribed by the general and special statutes,
was dismissed, the suit was an exhibition of the
claim which removed the bar of the special stat- See Evidence, §§ 471-568; Witnesses, § 373.
ute leaving the claim subject thereafter only to
the general statute of limitations.-Knisely v.
Leathe, 166 S. W. 257.
XII. FOREIGN AND ANCILLARY AD-
MINISTRATION.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
I. CIVIL LIABILITY.
$523 (Ky.) The surety on the general bond
of an executor is not liable for the proceeds of
the sale of land of testator which came into
the executor's hands, the will having given him
no power of sale; but the sale having been
made under the law of another state, where the (A) Acts Constituting False Imprisonment
land was, and where the executor, as such, had
no power.-Costigan v. Kraus, 166 S. W. 755.
XIII. LIABILITIES ON ADMINISTRA-
TION BONDS.
§ 528 (Ky.) The surety on the bond of an ex-
ecutor is not chargeable with the amount of
notes of the executor to testator, they being
worthless and uncollectible throughout the term
of the executorship.-Costigan v. Kraus, 166 S.
W. 755.
§ 530 (Ky.) No recovery can be had on the
bond of executor for a legatee, the surety
pleading settlement, and proving that on the
legatee demanding payment he offered her a
certain sum in full of all claims, and, on her
acceptance, paid it, taking her receipt there-
for; fraud not being shown, and want of con-
sideration not being pleaded.-Costigan
Kraus, 166 S. W. 755.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
See Damages, § 87.
EXEMPTIONS.
See Homestead; Taxation, § 244.
(A) Nature, Creation, Duration, and Effect
in General.
and Liability Therefor.
§8 (Ark.) A warden in charge of convict la
borers held bound, on delivery of a pardon to
him, to himself examine the books to see if the
pardon covers all the offenses for which the con-
vict was committed, if he would escape liability
for false imprisonment in holding the convict.-
Weigel v. McCloskey, 166 S. W. 944.
§ 15 (Ark.) Where a warden appointed by a
contractor for convict labor and confirmed by
the court under the statute refuses, on the
ground of lack of authority to release a con-
vict laborer of whom he had charge, on deliv-
ery of a pardon to the warden, he is liable for
false imprisonment.-Weigel v. McCloskey, 166
S. W. 944.
§ 4 (Tex.Civ.App.) Exemption statutes must See Master and Servant, §§ 179-202.
be liberally construed to affect their objects and
promote justice.-Campbell v. Honaker's Heirs,
166 S. W. 74.
§ 13 (Tex.Civ.App.) That one who conducted
a moving picture show in a leased building was
removing his appliances therefrom at the expira-
tion of the lease did not show an abandonment
of the business so as to remove the appliance
from the protection of the exemption statute.
Rev. St. 1911, art. 3785, subd. 5.-Campbell v.
Honaker's Heirs, 166 S. W. 74.
(C) Property and Rights Exempt.
§ 45 (Tex.Civ.App.) One conducting a moving
picture show is engaged in a trade or profession
within Rev. St. 1911, art. 3785, subd. 5, exempt-
ing from execution tools and apparatus belong-
ing to any trade or profession.-Campbell v.
Honaker's Heirs, 166 S. W. 74.
$25 (Mo.App.) Where a horse, turned loose
in field separated from defendant's land by a
partition fence, was injured on a strand of
barbed wire stretched entirely on defendant's
land, and nowhere near a highway, held that
there could be no recovery.-Teague v. Clem-
ons, 166 S. W. 641.
The owner of an animal cannot recover dam-
ages from the owner of the land on which the
animal strays and is injured by reason of
fences, not so closely located to a highway
that persons or animals might, by a misstep,
be injured.-Id.
Appliances producing moving pictures are ex- See Chattel Mortgages, 88 87, 150; Indictment
empt from execution as tools or apparatus with-
in Rev. St. 1911, art. 3785, subd. 5, but chairs
used by the audience are not exempt.-Id.
That one was operating an opera house and a
moving picture show at the same time in differ-
ent parts of rented premises did not prevent him See Trial, § 390.
from claiming the appliances used to produce
the moving pictures as exempt within Rev. St.
1911, art. 3785, subd. 5.-Id.
See Highways, § 164; Penalties, § 1.
See Damages, § 111; Railroads, § 479; Waters dor, and who made an investigation of the
and Water Courses, §§ 206, 209.
See Eminent Domain, § 133.
85 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, arts.
2822, 2844, 2845, 2847, 2849, where school
building was erected with contributions from
citizens of the community on land conveyed
on condition that it should revert to the gran-
tors when the land ceased to be used for school
purposes, held, that the building did not so re-
vert, though the contributors and trustees in-
tended it to remain permanently on the land,
and it could be removed by the trustees.-
Allen v. Franks, 166 S. W. 384.
$23 (Tex.Civ.App.) A purchaser who could
determine the facts equally as well as the ven-
facts, held not to rely on the vendor's repre-
sentations.-Luckenbach v. Thomas, 166 S. W.
99.
§ 30 (Tex.Civ.App.) One of several grantors
was not entitled to object, as against the gran-
tee, that she had been misinformed as to her
liability on a mortgage on the land unless she
was deceived and misled by the grantee.-Coop-
er v. Marek, 166 S. W. 58.
850 (Ky.) Actual knowledge of a material
fact concealed upon a sale of land need not be
shown, if the facts proven warrant an infer-
ence of such knowledge.-Adkins v. Stewart, 166
S. W. 984.
There is a presumption of innocence and
against fraud, which must be overcome by legal
evidence.-Id.
$52 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the issue of fraud-
ulent representations made by a vendor to a
purchaser could only be determined by virtue
of the credit to be given to the testimony of the
parties as to whether representations were
See Bail, 88 75, 94; Insurance, §§ 141, 236, 245, made, and whether they were true or false, evi-
388, 668, 695, 755, 756; Penalties, § 1.
See Acknowledgment, § 62; Bills and Notes, 88
370, 378, 520; Cancellation of Instruments,
$50; Contracts, § 94; Corporations, § 80;
Criminal Law, § 1165; Deeds, § 70; Dower,
$49; Evidence, § 434; Exchange of Property,
83; Frauds, Statute of; Fraudulent Convey-
ances; Guaranty, § 26; Insurance, §§ 236,
559, 723; Limitation of Actions, 88 37, 99,
100; Principal and Agent, § 136; Release,
$59; Sales, 88 53, 130; Trial, §8 235, 240;
Trusts, 895; Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 33,
44, 127; Wills, §§ 155-165.
I. DECEPTION CONSTITUTING
FRAUD, AND LIABILITY
THEREFOR.
§ 16 (Ky.) Where the vendor of land conceals
a hidden defect which the purchaser could not
discover by ordinary examination, he is guilty of
actionable fraud.-Adkins v. Stewart, 166 S. W.
984.
A vendor of land is not guilty of fraud in
concealing defects, unless they must have been
known to him, or the circumstances were such
as to charge him with knowledge.-Id.
That vendor of land who did not long own
it lost by overflow the only crop planted on a
part is insufficient to charge him with knowl-
edge that the fertility of the soil of that part
had been destroyed thereby, and render his fail-
ure to disclose same fact to a purchaser fraud-
dence of the general reputation of the vendor
for truth and veracity was inadmissible.-Luck-
enbach v. Thomas, 166 S. W. 99.
§ 59 (Tex. Civ.App.) The measure of dam-
ages for a vendor's misrepresentation as to
the number of acres in a tract of land sold at
an agreed price per acre was the amount paid
by the purchaser for the number of acres which
he failed to get, regardless of the increased
value of the other land.-Smalley v. Vogt, 166
S. W. 1.
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.
See Appeal and Error, § 173; Trusts, §§ 17,
18, 922.
III. PROMISES TO ANSWER FOR
DEBT, DEFAULT OR MISCAR-
RIAGE OF ANOTHER.
$17 (Tex.Civ.App.) A parol promise by a
purchaser of merchandise from a dealer indebt-
ed to the seller thereof for the price to pay the
debt if the seller did not do so is a conditional
promise to pay the debt of another, and is not
enforceable within the statute of frauds.-Wil-
liams v. City Nat. Bank, 166 S. W. 130.
§ 23 (Mo.App.) Promise by executrix, who
was also sole beneficiary, to pay attorneys indi-
claim held an original promise not required to
vidually employed by her to defend against
be in writing by Rev. St. 1909, § 2783.-Gabbert
v. Evans, 166 S. W. 635.
§ 23 (Mo.App.) That plaintiff or his bookkeep-
er erroneously charged a purchase made by de-
fendant to another is not conclusive that the
debt was that of a third person, so as to require
a note or memorandum, under the statute of
frauds, in order to render defendant liable.-
Wittenberg v. Fisher, 166 S. W. 1106.
Where credit is extended only to defendant,
and there is no liability but his, his promise to
pay for goods, though they be delivered to a
third person, is original, and not within the stat-
V. AGREEMENTS NOT TO BE PER-struction of which the lessee had agreed to pay
FORMED WITHIN ONE YEAR.
$49 (Mo.App.) A parol contract of employ-
ment for no definite time is not within the stat-
ute of frauds (Rev. St. 1909, § 2783).-Ham-
mack v. Friend, 166 S. W. 647.
§ 52 (Ark.) An oral contract by the seller of
goods to carry insurance on the goods until the
notes given for the price should mature, was
not void under the statute of frauds, since the
agreement to take out the insurance was to be
performed immediately, although the insurance
was to continue for more than one year.-
Brickey v. Continental Gin Co., 166 S. W. 744.
VI. REAL PROPERTY AND ESTATES
AND INTERESTS THEREIN.
a part, and which, though not on the leased
land, created a lake thereon, used for irrigation
purposes, and a valuable and permanent im-
provement, was properly included.-Id.
§ 139 (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff fully per-
formed a contract to purchase a livery and
undertaking business, including the unexpired
term of a lease extending for more than a year,
the statute of frauds was no defense on de
fendant's failure to procure a valid transfer of
the lease.-Ordelheide v. Traube, 166 S. W.
1108.
$139 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where a parol grant of
a way has been acted upon by the expenditure
of moneys which would be lost if the right of
way be revoked, an easement arises by estop-
pel.-Bowington v. Williams, 166 S. W. 719.
§ 56 (Ky.) Breach of an oral agreement,
whereby the mortgagee of property of a bank-
rupt corporation agreed to transfer the prop-
erty to corporate stockholders after he bought
in at foreclosure, held not to raise a construc-
tive trust; the agreement being within the stat-cepted the agreed rent therefor, held to have
ute of frauds, Ky. St. § 470.-Willis v. Lam,
166 S. W. 251.
After a bankrupt corporation, whose affairs
have been liquidated, has gone out of existence,
stockholders cannot enforce a parol contract
with reference to property formerly owned by
it, made by them in their individual capacity
with a third person.-Id.
§ 60 (Tex.Civ.App.) A perpetual easement in
land liable to be divested only if the use of the
dominant tenement be changed must be created
by deed; parol license being insufficient.-Bow-
ington v. Williams, 166 S. W. 719.
VIII. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY
OF WRITING.
$110 (Tex.Civ.App.) A contract to sell a
place consisting of four lots in a certain town,
it appearing that vendor owned only one place
in that town which consisted of four lots, de-
scribes the property with sufficient certainty
to comply with the statute of frauds.-Beaton v.
Fussell, 166 S. W. 458.
IX. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF
STATUTE.
§ 125 (Tex. Civ.App.) A contract is not un-
lawful because not in compliance with the stat-
ute of frauds, as the statute presupposes its le-
gality, the enforcement of which is only sus-
pended until the provisions of the statute are
satisfied.-Edwards v. Old Settlers' Ass'n, 166
S. W. 423.
§ 129 (Mo.App.) Where an owner orally em-
ployed an agent to procure a purchaser and
recognized the agent's relation to the transac-
tion at the time of the consummation of the deal,
the right of the agent to compensation could
not be defeated under the statute of frauds
(Rev. St. 1909, § 2783).-Hammack v. Friend,
$144 (Tex.Civ.App.) A widow of one enter-
ing into a verbal lease contract, who, after his
death, allowed permanent and valuable im-
provements to be made thereon, and who ac-
thereby ratified such verbal lease.-Edwards v.
Old Settlers' Ass'n, 166 S. W. 423.
§ 144 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where an answer pleads
a defense within the statute of frauds and a
general demurrer filed thereto is waived, the an-
swer is as effective as though no demurrer had
been filed.-Savage v. Mowery, 166 S. W. 905.
X. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL,
AND REVIEW.
§ 149 (Tex.Civ.App.) In a lessee's action to
enjoin interference with its exclusive and quiet
enjoyment of the premises, allegation of pay-
ment to the lessor according to contract, deliv-
ery of possession, and permanent valuable im-
provements held all that was necessary to take
the verbal lease out of the statute of frauds.-
Edwards v. Old Settlers' Ass'n, 166 S. W. 423.
§ 152 (Tex.Civ.App.) The statute of frauds
must be pleaded when relied upon to defeat a
contract.-Edwards v. Old Settlers' Ass'n, 166
S. W. 423.
§ 158 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where an oral lease
was made under which the lessee went into
possession and made valuable improvements,
the fact that it was agreed that the lease should
be reduced to writing does not conclusively
show that the improvements were made on the
faith of the promised written lease, and not on
the strength of the oral one.-Edwards v. Old
Settlers' Ass'n, 166 S. W. 423.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.
III. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS AND
PURCHASERS.
§ 295 (Mo.App.) Evidence held to justify a
finding that a judgment debtor fraudulently con-
veyed his property to garnishees, so as to sup-
port a judgment against them in favor of the
judgment creditor.-Gould v. Gibson, 166 S. W.
648.
§ 129 (Tex.Civ.App.) A joint and mutual will
executed by husband and wife and a deed ex-
ecuted by them as part of the same transac-
tion, in consummation of a parol contract be-
tween them for the equitable disposition of their See Carriers, § 194.
property between their children, constitute part
performance of the parol agreement as to take
it out of the statute of frauds.-Larrabee v.
Porter, 166 S. W. 395.
§ 129 (Tex.Civ.App.) Improvements begun by
the lessee under a verbal lease during a few
months between the lease and the death of the
lessor held sufficient to take the lease out of the
statute of frauds, even though no part of the
improvement was completed in the lifetime of
the lessor.-Edwards v. Old Settlers' Ass'n, 166
S. W. 423.
In considering improvements which would
take a verbal lease with delivery of possession
out of the statute of frauds, a dam for the con-
See Costs, § 173; Courts, § 169; Fraudulent
Conveyances, § 295; Justices of the Peace, §
87.
II. PERSONS AND PROPERTY SUB-
JECT TO GARNISHMENT.
$29 (Tex.Civ.App.) Whether money pledged
with the sureties on a bail bond to secure them
is subject to garnishment depends on whether | jury refused to be sworn to testify because she
the pledgee's rights will be prejudiced thereby, presumed that she would be questioned about
and not on whether the property is in custodia alleged incestuous relations between herself and
legis.-Waggoner v. Briggs, 166 S. W. 50. her father did not excuse her for her refusal
Where money was pledged to the sureties on to be sworn, but, after being sworn, she would
a bail bond to secure them against liability, and be justified in refusing to answer questions re-
at the time judgment was rendered against the lating to the subject.-Id.
sureties as garnishees the condition of the bond
had been performed, the money was subject to
garnishment under Rev. St. 1911, arts. 293, See Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 176, 180, 274.
294, 3744.-Id.
VI. PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT OR
ENFORCE.
§ 158 (Mo.App.) An answer by plaintiff, in
garnishment held sufficient to advise the gar-
nishee of the issues.-Gould v. Gibson, 166 S.
W. 648.
VII. QUASHING, VACATING, DISSO-
LUTION, OR ABANDONMENT.
§ 196 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where the original suit
in which a writ of garnishment was sued out
was brought against an alleged corporation, and
after service of the writ the petition was amend-
ed, so as to make the action one against an in-
dividual instead of a corporation, the garnish-
ment proceedings were thereby discharged.-
Pickering Mfg. Co. v. Gordon, 166 S. W. 899.
See Evidence, § 419; Frauds, Statute of, §§ 17,
23.
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
§ 26 (Ark.) Whether plaintiff induced de-
fendant by fraud to enter into the contract of
guaranty of payment of accounts turned over
in payment held, under the evidence, a question
for the jury.-Martin v. Monger, 166 S. W. 566.
II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
§ 46 (Ark.) The agreement of one turning
over accounts in payment "to make them all
good at collection time, all due August 11, 1913.
I certify that the accounts are true
and will make them all good, and will collect
all I can free of costs"-is an absolute guaran-
ty to pay at collection time, under which no at-
tempt by the guarantee to collect is necessary.
IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS.
§ 14 (Ky.) Council of fifth class city held to
have no authority to adopt an ordinance impos--Martin v. Monger, 166 S. W. 566.
ing fines on corporations for discriminating be-
tween patrons, notwithstanding a franchise
granted by it to a gas company requiring the
company not to discriminate in delivering gas.
-United Fuel & Gas Co. v. Commonwealth, 166
S. W. 783.
See Adverse Possession, §§ 60, 112, 115.
I. INTER VIVOS.
§ 32 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where V. executed
note to A. and B., which, with a paper asking
them to accept it, was placed in an envelope
and sealed, and the same was found in V.'s
house after his death, there was no gift inter
vivos, because of the absence of a delivery to
A. and B. by V. during his lifetime.-Maris v.
Adams, 166 S. W. 475.
$ 47 (Ky.) Where one permits another for ac-
commodation to enter and occupy land without
consideration, and under a verbal consent, no
presumption of gift arises from the mere tak
ing of possession.-Tippenhauer v. Tippenhauer,
166 S. W. 225.
§ 48 (Tex.Civ.App.) Declarations made by a
donor to a third party that she had that day
given the land to the donee, and was going to de-
liver possession, held admissible to prove the
gift.-Sockwell v. Sockwell, 166 S. W. 1188.
§ 49 (Ky.) Evidence in an action involving
the right to realty, in which plaintiff claimed
through a gift to her husband from her father-
in-law and by adverse possession by herself and
husband, held not to show an express or un-
qualified gift of the property to plaintiff's hus-
band.-Tippenhauer v. Tippenhauer, 166 S. W.
See Bills and Notes, $$ 348-378, 497, 525;
Chattel Mortgages, § 153; Specific Perform-
ance, § 97.
§ 78 (Tex.Civ.App.) The fact that the note
sued on was given by defendant to guarantee
the payment by a contract purchaser of land of
the consideration of the purchase, and not as
a forfeit upon the purchaser's failure to per-
form, would not be a defense to an action on
the note by vendor on the purchaser's failure
to perform.-Sears v. Ainsworth, 166 S. W. 60.
GUARDIAN AND WARD.
See Parent and Child, § 2.
III. CUSTODY AND CARE OF WARD'S
PERSON AND ESTATE.
§ 62 (Ark.) A life tenant, holding under a
conveyance of mortgaged lands to herself and
the heirs of her body, could not have con-
firmed, as against the remainderman, her mi-
nor daughter, the title which she attempted to
acquire at the mortgage foreclosure sale; Kir-
by's Dig. § 3757, making the mother the natural
guardian of her daughter.-Hawkins v. Reeves,
166 S. W. 562.
§ 130 (Ark.) A life tenant, holding under a
conveyance to herself and her bodily heirs, who
purchased the property at a mortgage foreclo-
sure sale, cannot, in an action to confirm her
title as against her minor daughter, assert her
right to recover notwithstanding the insuffi-
ciency of the petition, on the ground that de-
fendant should have offered contribution for
the purchase price; plaintiff having declined to
amend her petition so as to ask foreclosure of
her lien. Hawkins v. Reeves, 166 S. W. 562.
HABEAS CORPUS.
See Criminal Law, § 189.
II. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS,
AND RELIEF.
§ 36 (Tex.Cr.App.) One who, when summoned
before the grand jury, refuses to be sworn, and § 50 (Tex.Cr.App.) A writ of habeas corpus,
who, when brought before the district judge, applied for on the morning of the day on which
again refuses to be sworn, is guilty of con- the indictment found some time before, and un-
tempt, in the absence of proof that her refus der which accused was imprisoned, was set for
al was on account of any religious or other con- trial, held properly denied; no sufficient reason
victions.-Ex parte Barnes, 166 S. W. 728. for his failure to apply sooner therefor appear-
The bonded indebtedness of a special road dis-
trict, created under Rev. St. 1909, §§ 10611-
10625, held not an indebtedness, within Const.
art. 10, § 12, limiting municipal indebtedness.
$85 (Tex.Cr.App.) An application for writ
of habeas corpus for the discharge of relator
is merely a pleading, and, in the absence of any
evidence of the truth of the application, relator
must be remanded.-Ex parte Barnes, 166 S.-Id.
W. 728.
See Constitutional Law, §§ 208, 290;
Domain, § 101; Railroads, § 95.
IV. TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, AND
WORK ON HIGHWAYS.
§ 122 (Mo.) Rev. St. 1909, §§ 10611-10625,
providing for special road districts and special
taxes for benefits from road improvements, is
Evidence, not unconstitutional.-Embree v. Kansas City-
Liberty Boulevard Road Dist., 166 S. W. 282;
Stepp v. Same, Id. 291; Klein v. Kingshighway
Road Dist. of New Madrid County, Id.
Rev. St. 1909, § 10615, dividing special road
districts into three beneficial zones, and assess-
ing the lands in each at a different percentage
without notice to the property owners, held not
Eminent unconstitutional.-Id.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.co.za/books/content?id=HTgLAAAAYAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA1255&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:HARVARD32044098885452&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1lW-RGgZqaewhAhXawnwAb2ZUq1A&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=62,483,417,230)
872 (Mo.App.) In the absence of ten days'
notice of appeal required by Rev. St. 1899, §
10347, a county court acquired no jurisdiction
of an appeal from an order of a township board
denying a petition to open and change a public
road. State ex rel. Wiseman v. Urton, 166 S.
W. 895.
A motion to dismiss an appeal to the county
court from an order of a township board is the
proper remedy, where no notice of the appeal,
as required by Rev. St. 1899, § 10347, has been
given. Id.
Where a motion to dismiss for want of prop-
er notice was sustained, an order dismissing the
"cause" would be construed to operate only as
a dismissal of the appeal.-Id.
§ 76 (Mo.App.) The public has a vested in-
terest in a public highway, and it cannot be va-
cated, except as prescribed by Rev. St. 1909,
§§ 10444, 10445.-State v. Faith, 166 S. W.
649.
§ 77 (Mo.App.) Under Rev. St. 1909, § 10444,
the county court, ordering the vacation of a
part of a highway, may impose conditions and
may provide what proof will satisfy it that the
conditions have been complied with to make the
order effective.-State v. Faith, 166 S. W.
649.
II. HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND
$90 (Mo.) A road district created under Rev.
St. 1909, §§ 10611-10625, is a public corpora-
tion.-Embree v. Kansas City-Liberty Boule-
vard Road Dist., 166 S. W. 282; Stepp v.
Same, Id. 291; Klein v. Kingshighway Road
Dist. of New Madrid County, Id.
assessments authorized by
$95 (Mo.) The
Rev. St. 1909, §§ 10611-10625, for the payment
of road improvements in special road districts,
are not an indebtedness, within Const. art. 10,
§ 12, limiting municipal indebtedness.-Embree
v. Kansas City-Liberty Boulevard Road Dist.,
166 S. W. 282; Stepp v. Same, Id. 291; Klein
v. Kingshighway Road Dist. of New Madrid
County, Id.
V. REGULATION AND USE FOR
TRAVEL.
(A) Obstructions and Encroachments.
§ 163 (Mo.App.) One who obstructs a public
road after petitioning for a change therein, but
before the order of vacation has become effec-
tive, is guilty of obstructing a highway, in vio-
lation of Rev. St. 1909, § 10533.-State v.
Faith, 166 S. W. 649.
The intention with which one obstructs a
highway in violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 10533,
is immaterial.-Id.
§ 163 (Tex.Cr.App.) Person who, against pro-
tests and objection of county authorities, un-
dertook to determine that properly constructed
road was not properly constructed, and to con-
struct it differently to suit his own desires, held
guilty of a violation of Penal Code 1911, art.
812, as amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 128.-
Brown v. State, 166 S. W. 508.
§ 164 (Tex.Cr.App.) On a trial for willfully
obstructing and injuring a public road, and
causing it to be done, evidence held sufficient to
support a conviction.-Brown v. State, 166 S.
W. 508.
Under Penal Code 1911, § 812, as amended
by Acts 33d Leg. c. 128, fine of $50 for cutting
a smooth gravel road and putting in a wooden
culvert and starting to cut it at another point
held proper.-Id.
On trial for willfully injuring public road in
violation of Penal Code 1911, art. 812, as
amended by Acts 33d Leg. c. 128, evidence as
to accused's remarks, on receipt of a message
from the county commissioner, that the road
was not the cause of backwater, and upon be-
ing told by a constable that he and those aiding
him would be prosecuted, held admissible on the
issue of willfulness.-Id.
(B) Use of Highway and Law of the
Road.
§ 181 (Mo.App.) If an injury is the proxi-
mate cause of the violation of the provisions
of Rev. St. § 8519, enjoining upon autoists the
duties of running at reasonable speed, keeping
vigilant watch for vehicles drawn by animals,
the autoist is liable for all resultant damage.-
Roberts v. Trunk, 166 S. W. 841.
"Vigilant watch," as used in Rev. St. 1909, §
8517, enjoining upon autoists the duty of keep-
ing a vigilant watch for all vehicles drawn by
animals, includes not only the looking ahead
for animal-drawn vehicles, but, while approach-
ing them, to keep a sharp lookout for any ex-
hibitions by such animals of fright.-Id.
HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS.
See Wills, §§ 132, 134.
|