« PreviousContinue »
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE. below.-Southwestern Supply Co. v. Hood Tire
(D) Finality of Determination.
Co., 230 P. 237.
78(4) (Idaho) Order dismissing, action is pleadings to sustain judgment waived where
Em 236(2) (Okl.) Objections to sufficiency of
"final judgment," and appealable.-Marshall v.
not attacked below by demurrer or motion for
Enns, 230 P. 46.
judgment.-Beam v. Farmers' & Merchants
Bank, 230 P. 881.
(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of De On 237(2) (Or.) Supreme Court could not
consider alleged error in admission of evidence
103 (Okl.). Order striking amended petition where not objected to nor ruled on.-Hostetler
as supplemental not appealable.-Adams v.
v. Eccles, 230 P. 549.
Webb, 230 P. 878
em 237 (3) (N.M.) In absence of motion to
www 106 (Idaho) Order sustaining objection to withdraw evidence from jury and request to so
introduction of evidence not appealable.-Mar- instruct, point not available on appeal.-Cande-
shall v. Enns, 230 P. 46.
laria v. Gutierrez, 230 P. 436.
m238(4) (Mont.) Where decree of foreclos.
ure of mortgage failed to except paramount
IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
lien from provision barring claims of all defend-
ants, correction of error should have been asked
in trial court.-Bohan v. Harris, 230 P. 586.
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
Om242(2) (N.M.) Motion to strike portion of
Om 169 (N.M.) Generally, propositions of law complaint, not called to attention of trial court
not presented below cannot be decided on ap- for ruling, unavailable.-Candelaria v. Gutier.
peal.-Candelaria v. Gutierrez, 230 P. 436. rez, 230 P. 436.
Three exceptions to general doctrine that m 242(4) (Or.) Supreme Court could not
propositions of law not presented to trial court consider alleged error in admission of evidence
cannot be decided on appeal stated.-Id.
where not objected to nor ruled on.-Høstetler
Om 171(1) (Okl.) Supreme Court will not try v. Eccles, 230 P. 549.
case on theory different from that followed be-
low.-Harrison v. Cummings, 230 P. 702.
Om 171() (Okl.) Decree, fixing boundaries in
suit to reform deed, not disturbed, where all ww263(1) (N.M.) No error can be assigned
rights protected and adjudicated.–Robbins v. for erroneous instruction, where no exception
Warren, 230 P. 929.
saved.-Candelaria v. Gutierrez, 230 P. 436.
Om 171 (3) (Okl.) Judgment on answer filed
264 (Or.) No exception necessary to re-
out of time, regarded by parties as forming view, verdict wrong on its face.-Fenlason v.
basis of relief granted, will not be set aside. - Pacific Fruit Package Co., 230 P. 547.
Muegge v. Muegge, 230 P. 482.
Theory voluntarily adopted in trial court can-
(D) Motions for New Trial.
pot be changed on appeal.--Id.
On 294 (2) (Okl.) To review judgment vacat-
173(9) (Wash.) Estoppel cannot be urged ing former judgment, motion for new trial nec.
on appeal, unless pleaded or raised in lower essary.-Brady v. Sampson, 230 P. 248.
court.-Young v. American Can Co., 230 P. Cm 296 (Colo.) Motion for new trial not con-
dition precedent to review of ruling on motion
for judgment notwithstanding verdict.-Fincher
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings v. Edwin M. Bosworth & Co., 230 P. 596,
On 300 (Okl.) Motion for new trial filed more
Em 192(1) (Okl.) Objections to sufficiency of than three days after rendition of judgment
pleadings and evidence to sustain judgment cannot be considered on appeal.--Woodyard v.
waived where not attacked below.-Beam v. Burdett, 230 P. 903.
Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 230 P. 881. Cum 302(!) (Kan.) Chief purpose of motion for
ww204(1) (Or.) Supreme Court could not new trial stated.-Brick v. National Fire Ins.
consider alleged error in admission of evidence Co. of Hartford, Conn., 230 P. 309.
where not objected to nor ruled on.-Hostetler Trial errors not specifically pointed out in
v. Eccles, 230 P. 549.
motion or on presentation of motion for new
C210 (Okl.) Objections to sufficiency of evi- trial generally considered waived.-Id.
dence to sustain judgment waived where not
attacked below by demurrer or motion for
judgment.-Beam v. Farmers' & Merchants' mw 327 (7) (Colo.) Defendant held decessary
Bank, 230 P. 881.
party to proceeding in error.--Burke v. Boul-
Cw216(1) (Okl.) Failure to direct' attention der Milling & Elevator Co., 230 P. 398.
of court to omission in instructions precludes 329 (N.M.) Parties omitted from appeal or
making failure available as reversible error.- writ of error cannot be joined after time within
Chisholm v. Blanton, 230 P. 683.
which appeal or writ may be prosecuted.–Clark
Cm 216(1) (Okl.) Counsel must request addi v. Rosenwald, 230 P. 378.
tional instructions to make omissions therein am 336(2) (Colo.) Rather than dismiss writ
reversible error.–Gourley v. Oklahoma City, of error because of omission to name neces-
230 P. 923.
sary party, Supreme Court will grant applica-
C218(2) (Kan.) Interested party, failing to tion to amend so as to bring in necessary par-
request appropriate in lieu of unresponsive an-
ty.-Burke v. Boulder Milling & Elevator Co.,
swer to special interrogatory, cannot complain 230 P. 398.
that requirement not made.-Grubb v. Sargent,
230 P. 1043,
Cw221 (N.M.) Remoteness of damages must
FOR TRANSFER OF CAISE.
be properly raised below to be reviewable on
(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
appeal.--Candelaria v. Gutierrez, 230 P. 436.
221 (Or.) Appellant could not complain for 356 (Okl.) Appellate court acquires no ju-
first time on appeal of alleged error in measure risdiction of appeal not commenced within
of damages for conversion of crops.-Hostetler statutory period. -Gelabert v. State, 230 P.
v. Eccles, 230 P. 549.
mm 230 (N.M.) Errors assigned in motion for
new trial for first time unavailable, where not (B) Petition or Prayer, Allowance, and
saved during trial.--Candelaria v. Gutierrez.
Certificate or Affidavit.
230 P. 436.
361 (2) (Colo.) Filing transcript and as-
Cm 233(2) (Okl.) Error in permitting question signment of error sufficient application for writ
concerning document erroneously admitted may of error in Supreme Court.-Diebold v. Die-
be urged without objection specifically made bold, 230 P. 605.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT INCm766 (Okl.) Appeal dismissed for failure of
plaintiff in error's brief to set forth specifica-
(A) Matters to be shown by Record. tions of error, argument, and authorities.-
Om494 (Okl.) Mere record recital that mo-
Rourke v. Gerlach-Barklow Co., 230 P. 901.
tion or demurrer overruled or sustained insuffi - Em773(1) (Idaho) Where neither side submits
cient to support assignment of error.–Jackson brief and only respondent appears, Supreme
v. Fennimore, 230 P. 689.
Court may dismiss cause, which results in
affirmance, or render judgment on merits.--
(B) Scope and Contents of Record. Honnold v. Starkweather, 230 P. 40.
m516 (Colo.) To bring rules of district XIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR
court before Supreme Court they should be
embodied in bill of exceptions.-Alsup v. Al-
ww781(1) (Okl.) Appeal dismissed, where
sup, 230 P. 796. .
questions have become moot.-Garrett v. Lash-
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
er, 230 P. 720.
or Statement of Facts.
m783(2) (Okl.) Appeal from order setting
em 544(1) (Cal.) Finding of nothing due hela aside former judgment where no motion for
new trial filed should be dismissed.-Brady v.
to support judgment for defendant and not re-
Sampson, 230 P. 248.
viewable on appeal on judgment roll.-Peak, 790(2) (Wash.) Action to enjoin tenant's
Republic Truck Sales Corporation, 230 P. 948. removal of house purchased from mortgagor
544(1) (Mont.) Respondent's cross assign- dismissed on appeal as presenting moot ques-
ments of error not considered, where neither tion-Naylor v. Morrow, 230 P. 143.
bill of exceptions nor statement was before com 807 (Or.) Appeal dismissed by court on
court.-Thompson v. Twodot Fertilizer Co., motion without notice must be reinstated.-
230 P. 588.
Western Grain Co. v. Beaver Land-Stock Co.,
C554(2) (Okl.) Where errors assigned are
230 P. 103.
such as could only be presented by case-inade
or bill of exceptions, appeal by transcript will
be dismissed.-Blumenfeld v. Anthis, 230 P. 228.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
ww554(2) (Wash.) Appeal from order grant- un 837 (2) (Colo.) Records and briefs in other
ing motion for new trial for erroneous instruc, cases considered on request.–Ellis v. Moses,
tions dismissed, in absence of statement of 230 P. 802.
facts.-Fuller v. Friedman, 230 P. 155.
854 (2) (Wash.) Theory on which trial
court arrived at correct conclusion immaterial.
(D) Contents, Making, and Settlement of -Nelson v. Nelson, 230 P. 819.
Case or Statement of Facts.
Om564(3) (Okl.) District judge assigned out. (B) Interlocutory, Collateral, and Supple-
side district, cannot, after expiration of as-
mentary Proceedings and Questions.
signment, extend time to prepare and serve mo870(5) (Okl.) Order striking amended pe-
case-made.-Boswell v. Ingram, 230 P. 909. tition as supplemental not appealable.-Adams
v. Webb, 230 P. 878.
(I) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
Omw 648 (Cal.App.) Trial court properly or-878(1) (Cal.App.) Cause of action,
dered correction of transcript to include in- which appellant recovered judgment not ap-
structions proposed by parties, etc., inadvert- pealed from, not considered.-Equitable Life
ently omitted.-Dowd v. Superior Court of Cal- Assur. Soc. of U. S. v. Jacobson, 230 P. 200.
ifornia for City and County of San Francisco, Cw880 (2) (Okl.) Misjoinder of actions by de-
230 P. 961.
fendant, in quieting title suit against sureties
cm 659(6) (Cal.App.) In view of findings no and principal on supersedeas bond for plain-
need to order trial judge to certify to waiver. tiff's occupation of premises, may be raised only
--Covell v. Lee, 230 P. 208.
by sureties.-Johnson v. Johnston. 230 P. 480.
ww660(!), (Cal.App.) On motion for direction om882(5) (Cai.) Plaintiff could not object to
to trial judge, instrument treated as judgment, defective answer caused by defective complaint.
as agreed by parties.-Covell v. Lee, 230 P.-Peak v. Republic Truck Sales Corporation,
230 P. 948.
882(5) (Colo.) Where counsel insisted that
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
motion be treated as general demurrer, coin-
Om671 (4) (Cal.App.) Failure to allow partner plaint may not be made that it was so treated.
for expenses not reviewable, where record does -Anglo-American Mill Co. v. First Nat. Bank,
not segregate expenses.-Ross v. Burr, 230 P. 230 P. 118.
Om882(7) (Utah) Answer to question wheth-
Om695(1) (Cal.App.) Record must disclose er infant received consideration for note held
evidence before appellate court can deter- sufficient, where incompleteness was due to
mine sufficiency of evidence to support finding. plaintiff's objection to answer.--Merchants'
--Ross v. Burr, 230 P. 986.
Credit Bureau v. Kaoru Akiyama, 230 P. 1017.
em 701 (1) (Okl.) Judgment on insufficiency of 882(8) (Colo.) Admission of evidence not
cotton tickets will not be reversed, where no ground for complaint, where same matter testi-
objections on trial, and tickets or copies there-fied to by appellant's witnesses.-In re Foley's
of not in record.-Harley y. Damron, 230 P. Estate, 230 P. 618.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF 'ERRORS.
(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and
Trial of Cause Anew.
719(5) (Or.) Failure of assignments of
error to refer to claimed error in admission of ww889(2) (Wash.) Defects in pleading pre-
evidence precluded consideration of such error. sumed cured by amendment.-Skibsaktieselska-
--Hostetler v. Eccles, 230 P. 549.
pet Bestum III v. Duke, 230 P. 650.
750 (7) (Okl.) Scope of appellate review on Cm889 (3) (Okl.) Pleading deemed amended to
assignment that judgment is contrary to law, conform to proof, where variance not called to
stated.-Beam v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, trial_ court's attention.-Parsons V. Heenan,
230 P. 881.
230 P. 502.
Om757(4) (Okl.) Where complaining party Cm907(2) (Cal.) In absence of record, find-
fails to set out separately in brief portion of ings taken as supported by evidence.-Kemp
instructions objected to they will not be con v. Enemark, 230 P. 441.
sidered on appeal.-Brown v. Brown, 230 P. 907 (2) (Cal.) When appellate court must
conclude evidence sustains findings, and that
trial court committed no error in receiving it, , V. S. Smelting, Refining & Mining Explora-
stated.-In re Randall's Estate, 230 P. 445. tion Co. v. Wallapai Mining & Development
O907(2) (Mont.) Court's findings presumed Co., 230 P. 1109.
supported by evidence not in record.—First Cm1003 (Okl.) Verdict as to buyer's purpose
Nat. Bank v. Marlowe, 230 P. 374.
in retention of goods, clearly contrary to evi-
ww907(3) (Cal.) Appellant denying indebted-dence, reversed. --Iron Trades Product Co. v.
ness alleged in answer must bring up evidence. Murray Tool & Supply Co., 230 P. 703.
-Peak v: Republic Truck Sales Corporation, Om 1004(2) (Mont.) Verdict of $300 for team
230 P. 948.
of horses would not be set aside as result of
925(2) (Colo.) Holding directors of irri, passion and prejudice.-Klus v. Lamire, 230 P.
gation district not de facto officers presumed 364,
correct on collateral attack.-Kerber Creek Irr. m 1005 (2) (Okl.) Verdict reasonably
Dist. v. Woodard, 230 P. 807.
ported by evidence after legal, impartial trial
Om926(5) (Cal.) Appellants complaining of not disturbed.- National Bond & Investment
deprivation of opportunity of offering evidence Co. v. Dickens, 230 P. 911.
in support of objections to final distribution om 1008(1) (Cal.App.) Appellate court bound
must show error.-In re Randall's Estate, 230 by findings of fact. --Commonwealth Ins. Co. of
New York v. Riverside-Portland Cement Co.,
Em927 (2) (Cal. App.). Presumed trial court 230 p. 995.
proceeded regularly:--Montgomery vir Fidelity 1008 (1) (Okl.) Special findings of fact and
& Deposit Co. of Maryland, 230 P, 993.
Em928(4) (Colo.) Appellate court justified in those based on oral testimony by court without
presuming that trial court in its written in- jury, conclusive on appeal.-Myers y. Denison,
230 P. 742.
structions, if requested, directed jury to disre- 1008(2) (Okl.) Finding of court reason-
gard improper remarks.-Capitol Syndicate v. ably supported by evidence not disturbed.—Pio-
Green, 230 P. 1007.
neer Mortg. Co. v. Ragsdale, 230 P. 259.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
Om 1008 (2) (Okl.) Findings by trial court
without jury have effect of verdict and are con-
Om 948 (Cal.App.) Abuse of discretion not clusive on doubtful questions of fact.-Myers
presumed.-Lynch v. Lynch, 230 P. 462.
v. Denison, 230 P. 742.
957 (1) (Mont.) Courts favor trial on mer 1009(1) (Okl.) Issues triable at law, where
its.-Brothers v. Brothers, 230 P. 60.
decision nécessarily antecedent to and deter-
957(1) (Oki.) Order on application to va minative of equitable remedy sought, are not
cate default judgment not disturbed, unless of purely equitable cognizance.-Pioneer Mortg.
abuse of discretion appears.-Goodwill Oil Co. Co. v. Ragsdale, 230 P. 259.
v. Elliott, 230 P. 902.
Em 978(1) (Wash.) Granting new trial error land alleged executed contemporaneously with
Action on agreement to pay indebtedness on
of law, where no other verdict than one re-
deed held law action.-Id.
turned' could be sustained.-Mount v. Krilich, Om 1009 (3) (Okl.) Judgment in equity action
230 P. 828.
984 (1) (Cal.) Allowance in discretion of against its weight.-Katter v. Rodgers, 230 P.
on conflicting evidence affirmed unless clearly
trial judge and not interfered with except for
abuse.-Puppo y, Larosa, 230 P, 440,
1010(1) (Kan.) Court's finding that deed
with separate written contract to convey on
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and
payment of existing debt was absolute con-
veyance, sufficiently supported by evidence,
Cm 987 (2) (Or.) Verdict supported by materi- not disturbed.-Perkins v. Citizens' State Bank,
al evidence cannot be set aside.-Sig C. Mayer 230 P. 1040.
& Co. y. Smith, 230 P. 355.
Cam 1010(1) (Kan.) Finding not supported by
www.989 (Mont.) In reviewing order directing substantial evidence insufficient to support
verdict for defendant, Supreme Court considers judgment.-J. R. Watkins Co. v. Waldo, 230 P.
only “plaintiff's evidence.”—Johnson v. Chicago, 1051.
M. & St. P. R. Co., 230 P. 52.
Om !010(I) (Okl.) Judgment in law action
C989 (Okl.) Sole question for review on tried to court not upheld, unless reasonably
question of contributory negligence is proper sustained by competent evidence. Okmulgee
submission.-Waddle v. Stafford, 230 P. 855. Democrat Pub, Co. v. National Supply Co., 230
Com992 (Wash.) Supreme Court cannot inter- / P. 231.
fere with trial court's judgment that proof of-Com 1010(1) (Okl.) Judgment in law action
fered to impeach public record is insufficient.- tried to court reasonably sustained by evidence,
Wade v. City of Tacoma, 230 P. 99.
will not be disturbed.--Allen v. Redfield, 230 P.
ww994(3) Cal.App.) Conflict in testimony 694.
solely for trial court sitting without jury.- Cw1010(1) (Okl.) Judgment in law action
Correa v. Davis, 230 P. 994.
tried without jury reasonably supported by evi-
Cw999 (3) (Okl.) Verdict on question of con dence not reversed for insufficiency thereof.--
tributory negligence when properly submitted | Harrison v. Cummings, 230 P. 702.
not disturbed.-Waddle v. Stafford, 230 P. 855. C1010(1) (Utah) Court's finding supported
Com 1001 (1) (Kan.) Jury's determination of by competent evidence conclusive on appeal in
procuring cause of exchange of land supported law action.-Kelley v. Moab State Bank, 230
by evidence conclusive on appeal.-Frederick v. P. 566.
Veiberline, 230 P. 75.
On 1011(1). (Cal.App.) Findings of trial court
C1001(1) (Okl.) Verdict as to broker pro on conflicting evidence not disturbed.-Star
curing cause of sale, reasonably supported by Drilling Mach. Co. v. Henry Cowell Lime &
evidence, not disturbed.--Stuart v. Mathews, Cement Co., 230 P. 174; Davis v. Wilson, 230
230 P. 096.
Cm 1001(1) (Okl.) Judgment reasonably gur-m1011(1) (Cal.App.) Conflict in testimony
ported by evidence not disturbed for insutii solely for trial court sitting without jury.-
ciency thereof.--Waddle v. Stafford, 230 P. 855. Correa v. Davis, 230 P. 984.
C1001 (1) (Okl.) Verdict reasonably sup Decision on facts, authorizing decision ei-
ported by evidence, conclusive on appeal, in ther way, not disturbed.--Id.
absence of prejudicial trial error.-Adrean v. Ci 1011(1) (Colo.) Findings of trial court
Mathews, 230 P. 889.
on conflicting evidence not disturbed.-Denton
C1002 (Mont.) Verdict finding, substantial v. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co., 230
support in conflicting evidence will not be dis- P. 128; Valley Lands & Investment Co. v.
turbed.--Klus v. Lamire, 230 P. 364.
Killean, 230 P. 393; Ft. Lyon Canal Co. v.
Cow 1003 (Ariz.) Jury's verdict on nonconflict- Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land
ing evidence not binding on Supreme Court.- Co., 230 P. 615.
For cases In Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
@mw 1011(1). (Kan.) Finding sustained by evi- answer special questions cautiously held not
dence conclusive on appeal.-Baldwin v. Kan- reversible error.–Lynch v. Payne, 230 P. 85.
sas Soldiers' Compensation Board, 230 P. 82. On 1060(4) (Colo.) Improper remarks of
Om 1011 (1) (Kan.) Judgment conflicting counsel not prejudicial, in view of court's ac-
evidence that World War veteran not Kansas tion and amount of verdict.--Capitol Syndicate
resident at time of entering military service, v. Green, 230 P. 1007.
not disturbed.-Lord v. Kansas Soldiers' Com 1064 (1) (Colo.) Instruction on tenant's
pensation Board, 230 P. 1033.
right to renew lease, if landlord was ignorant
Om1011(1) (Mont.) Findings on conflicting of default, held prejudicial error as relieving
evidence not disturbed, where evidence does not tenant of burden of proving faithful perform-
preponderate against finding.–Batchoff v. Melz- ance.-Hall Hotel Co. v. Stille, 230 P. 125.
ner, 230 P. 48.
Em 1067 (Okl.) Judgment not reversed for re-
Om 1011(1) (Mont.) Court's findings on con- fusal of defendant's requested remote instruc-
Aicting evidence not disturbed.-Torgerson y. tions where facts and law fairly covered by
Stocke, 230 P. 1096.
given charge.-Pittsburg County Ry. Co. v.
Om !012(1) (Okl.) Finding and judgment fore. Palmer, 230 P. 256.
closing lien not disturbed for insufficiency of Cw1068(1) (Cal.App.) Error in instruction
evidence unless against clear weight thereof.- held not cured by answer to special issue.-
Tague v. Willis, 230 P. 698.
Gray v. Los Angeles Ry. Corporation, 230 P.
1012(1) (Wash.) Supreme Court bound by 970.
fact finding not against preponderance of evi- Om 1071(1) (Cal.App.) Error in finding as to
dence.-Young v. American Can Co., 230 P. 147. acreage damage held immaterial in view of find-
@mw 1012(1) Wash.) Finding against which ing as to detinite amount of damage.--McIntosh
evidence does not preponderate is conclusive v. Brimmer, 230 P. 203.
on appeal.-Glacier Fish Co. v. North Pacific Om 1071(5) (Cal.App.) That immaterial find-
Sea Products Co., 230 P. 410.
ings are not supported by evidence is harmless
Om 1013 (Okl.) Trial court's allowance of at- error.-McIntosh v. Brimmer, 230 P. 203.
torney's fee supported by evidence not disturb-
ed.-Ardmore Hotel Co. v. J. B. Klein Iron &
(I) Error Waived in Appellate Court.
Foundry Co., 230 P. 734.
Om 1078(1) (N.M.) Assignments of error not
argued in briefs will be considered abandoned.
(H) Harmless Error,
-Candelaria v. Gutierrez, 230 P. 436.
em 1078(1) (Utah) Assignment not discussed
1030 (Cal.App.) Causes should be heard in brief nor referred to in oral argument deem-
on merits, where violence not done rules of ed abandoned.—Kelley V. Moab State Bank,
procedure and practice.-Gerrior v. Superior 230 P. 566.
Court in and for Mariposa County, 230 P. 967. Com | 078 (5) (Mont.) Grounds for relief not
Cum 1033 (7) (Mont.) Appellant could not com- argued in appellant's brief disregarded.-Lee
plain of judgment unfavorable to respondent as v. Lee Gold Mining Co., 230 P. 1091.
not following findings and evidence.-Mathews 1079 (Cal.), Counsel must show by argu-
v. Marsden, 230 P. 775.
ment and citation of authorities that claimed
Om 1042(5) (Mont.) Striking portion of an error exists.-In re Randall's Estate, 230 P.
swer held harmless where evidence was intro- |445.
duced covering matter stricken, and consid-
(K) Subsequent Appeals.
ered by trial court.-Mathews v. Marsden, 230w 1097(1). (Or.) Proposition decided on form-
er appeal became law of case.-Hostetler v.
1046(1) (Colo.) Refusal to strike case Eccles, 230 P. 549.
from trial calendar held not prejudicial.-Alsup
V. Alsup. 230 P. 796.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOSI-
Disregard of rule of trial court as to notice
TION OF CAUSE.
of trial immaterial, unless harm results there-
en 1146 (Or.) When Supreme Court cannot
en 1048(7) (Cal.App.) Sustaining objections determine what judgment should have been ren-
to questions as to prior statements by defend- dered below, it cannot correct judgment.-Fen.
ant held not error.-Collette v. Sarrasin, 230 lason v. Pacific Fruit Package Co., 230 P. 547:
@mw 1050(1) (Kan.) Plaintiff's evidence of dif-
ference in value of land per acre before and On 1170(7) (Cal.App.) Procedural
after injury held not reversible error.-Lynch limiting cross-examination not prejudicial,
v. Payne, 230 P. 85.
where substantial justice has been done.-Weh-
Om 1050(1) (Wash.) Erroneous admission of per v. Wehner, 230 P. 458.
evidence, not affecting result, not reversible.-en 1170(7) (Okl.) Judgment not reversed for
Colby v. Nelson, 230 P. 629.
exclusion of evidence, unless miscarriage of
Om 1052(7) (Wash.) Ruling on evidence im- justice probable result, or constitutional or
material in view of justified finding.-Lee v. statutory right violated.-Holley & Means v.
Willman, 230 P. 148.
Foster, 230 P. 879.
Om 1053(4) (Kan.) Caution should be exer- cm 1173(1) (Colo.) Joint judgment not sup-
cised to prevent irrelevant testimony prejudic-ported by evidence as to two of three defend-
ing jury from reaching jury:-Zecha v. Citi- ants, reversed.-Fulton Inv. Co. v. Fraser, 230
zens' State Bank, 230 P. 1058.
1054(3) (Kan.) Admission of incompetent 1175(7) (Okl.) In equity issues only may
testimony not prejudicial error, where court's appellate court weigh evidence and render dif-
findings supported by competent evidence. ferent judgment, where that below against clear
Crum v. Guffey-Gillespie Oil Co., 230 P. 299. weight of evidence.-Pioneer Mortg. Co. v.
Om 1056(1) (Colo.) No reversal for rejection Ragsdale, 230 P. 259.
of evidence, which could not alter result.-In re 1 178(6) (Cal.App.) Judgment not modified
Danikas' Estate, 230 P. 60S.
where no 'finding made, but whole judgment
m 1056(4) (Utah) Exclusion of evidence as not reversed.-Pereira Farms Corporation v.
to value of plaintiff's property, if error, not Simas, 230 P. 976.
prejudicial, where false representations
found.-Showell v. Upton, 230 P. 1023. (E) Rendition, Form, and Entry of Judg-
Om 1058(1) (Or.) Erroneous exclusion of tes-
timony held not cured by subsequent admission w 1184 (Cal.) Where appellant died subse.
of evidence of same import.-Fenlasan v. Pa- quent to submission of cause, appellate court
cific Fruit Package Co. 230 P. 547.
would order judgment to be filed nunc pro tunc
Om 1060(1) (Kan.) Refusal to discharge jury as of date of submission.--In re Randall's Es-
for remarks of attorney admonishing jury to Itate, 230 P. 445.
(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower 40 (N.M.) $5,143, for shooting through
chest resulting in permanent injuries, held not
Om 1213 (Cal.) Rule as to contributory neg excessive.-Candelaria v. Gutierrez, 230 P. 436.
ligence of passengers in taxicab driven at un-
II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
lawful speed, declared by Supreme Court on
previous appeals, should have been included in
instructions.-Dowd v. Atlas Taxicab & Auto C 48 (N.M.) "Assault" defined.-State
Service Co., 230 P. 958.
Martinez, 230 P. 379.
Resulting battery not necessary constituent
(G) Jurisdiction and Proceedings of Ap- element of assault.--Id.
pellate Court After Remana.
Om 1218 (Cal.App.) Going down of remittitur
(B) Prosecution and Panishment.
deprives appellate court of jurisdiction except 91 (Wash.) Evidence held to sustain con-
in case of mistake, fraud, or imposition upon viction for second degree assault.-State v.
court.-Petersen v. Civil Service Board of City Smith, 230 P. 822.
of Oakland, 230 P. 196.
ww95 (Wash.) Evidence in prosecution for
first degree assault held sufficient for jury-
XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND
State v. Serfling, 230 P. 847.
Om96(8) (Wash.) Submission of third degree
On 1234(6) (Okl.) Plaintiff in possession un assault held properly refused.-State v. Serf-
der supersedeas bond may recover against de- | ling, 230 P. 847.
fendant for destruction of crop by unlawful
entry and possession.-Johnston v. Johnson,
230 P. 700.
Plaintiff may recover for destruction of crop
See Municipal Corporations, Ow493; Taxation,
by defendant in possession pending appeal un-
der void order of court.-Id.
Measure of damages for possession of plain-
1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
tiff pending unsuccessful appeal stated; rea-
(A) Property, Estates, and Rights
sonable rental value of land may be offset in
plaintiff's action for destruction of crop.-Id.
Em 27 (Cal.) Assignment of substantial prop-
erty right carries with it right to sue in equity,
where incidental to property right.-Kemp v.
On 24 (5) (Idaho) Defendant's general appear-
Enemark, 230 P. 441.
ance cures defective service of summons.-Pit-
(B) Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment.
tenger v. Al. G. Barnes Circus, 230 P. 1011.
31 (Okl.) Intention of assignor must be to
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.
transfer a present interest in subject matter.-
American Inv. Co. v. Baker, 230 P. 724.
See Criminal Law, Ow706; Trial, em 129-133.
III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
ww90 (Wash.) Assignment of chose in action
II. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.
gives assignee no greater rights than assigpor
063(3) (Oki.Cr.App.) Arrest without war-
had.-Young v. American Can Co., 230 P. 147.
rant cannot be made for misdemeanor not com-
Om93 (Okl.) Payment of debt to assignor or
mitted in officer's presence.-Gaines v. State, release by him after notice to debtor of as-
230 P. 916.
signment to another is no defense to assignee's
cm 63(4) (Okl.Cr.App.) Rule as to officer's claim.-American Inv. Co. v. Baker, 230 P. 724.
right to arrest on suspicion for commission of
felony stated.-Crossman v. State, 230 P. 291.
ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF
Cum 63(4) (Okl.Cr.App.) Arrest for felony
without warrant may be made when officer has
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY,
reasonable cause to believe that felony has
been committed.--Gaines v. State, 230 P. 9-16. (F) Filing, Recording, and Registration.
Cm7! (Okl.Cr.App.) Search of one legally ar Omw 163 (Colo.) Unrecorded power of attorney
rested permissible; search for narcotic drugs to distribute assets held not assignment for
thrown away by person at time of arrest per- creditors.-Kinney v. Yoelin Bros. Mercantile
missible.-Gaines v. State, 230 P. 946.
Co., 230 P. 127.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
I. CIVIL LIABILITY.
See Master and Servant, w217-221.
(A) Acts Constituting Assault or Battery
and Liability Therefor.
m10 (Wash.) Liability of deputy sheriff for
making arrest, stated.--Coles v. McNamara, 230
I. NATURE AND GROUNDS.
Om 15 (Colo.) Plaintiff held not justified in (A) Nature of Remedy, Causes of Action,
precipitating conflict.-Fulton Inv. Co. v. Fras-
er, 230 P. 600.
Cm l (Mont.) "Attachment" defined. --Daley V.
Advice of attorney held not excuse for re- Torrey. 230 P. 782.
sisting mortgagee's entry under mortgage to Cum 7 (Mont.) Writ of attachment may issue in
secure possession of mortgaged property.-Id. tort action, to cancel oil lease, and recover pen-
C 15 (N.M.) Instruction held not erroneous alty and damages.--Daley v. Torrey, 230 P. 782.
as injecting false issue.-Candelaria v. Gutier-
rez, 230 P. 436.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
18 (Colo.) Mortgagee's manager held not See Criminal Law, 6706; District and Prose-
liable for assault on mortgagor's wife by deputy
cuting Attorneys; Trial, em 129-133.
constable.-Fulton Inv. Co. v. Fraser, 230 P.
II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY.
Cm76(2) (Okl.) Death of party employing at-
Cro26 (Colo.) Plaintiff held required to show torney to take charge of defense of another
that defendant used more force than necessary. does not terminate employment contract.-
-Fulton Inv. Co. v. Fraser, 230 P. 600.
Spurr v. Pryor & Stokes, 230 P. 267,