ror, and reverse and remand the cause. On the other questions presented, we rule against appellant. Reversed and remanded.

HILL et al. v. HYSON et al.1 (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. May 3, 1899.) Appeal from district court, Bowie county; J. M. Talbot, Judge. Action by Helen Hyson and others against Wash Hill and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. F. M. Henry, for appellants. Vaughan & Vaughan and John J. King, for appellees.

FLY, J. This is an action of trespass to try title, instituted by appellees against appellants; the case being similar to that of Hill v. Jackson (this day decided by this court) 51 S. W. 357. The points raised in this case being the same raised in that case, reference is made to that case for the reasons which induce this court to affirm the judgment. The judgment is affirmed.

HILL et al. v. JACKSON.1 (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. May 3, 1899.) Appeal from district court, Bowie county; J. M. Talbot, Judge. Action by Bud Jackson against Wash Hill and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed. F. M. Henry, for appellants. John J. King and Vaughan & Vaughan, for appellee.

FLY, J. This is a companion case to that of Hill v. Jackson (this day decided by this court) 51 S. W. 357. The facts and points raised being the same as in that case, it becomes unnecessary to further discuss them, and, for the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment in this case will be affirmed.

HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. SALLIS. (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Oct. 25, 1899.) Appeal from Washington county court; E. P. Curry, Judge. Action by William Sallis against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and Frank Andrews, for appellant. NEILL, J. This is a companion case of Same Appellant v. Cohn (decided by this court October 19, 1899) 53 S. W. 698. Upon the authori

1 Writ of error denied by supreme court.

ty of our opinion in that case, the judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

SMITHERS v. SERVAES. (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Oct. 25, 1899.) Error from Bell county court; D. R. Pendleton, Judge. Action between J. T. Smithers and Jul. Servaes. From the judgment the former brings error. Affirmed. A. M. Monteith, for plaintiff in error. Butler & Riley, for defendant in error.

FISHER, C. J. There is no bill of exceptions in the record to the admission of evidence. The assignments of error complain of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the trial court and the judgment based thereon. We have carefully read and considered the testimony, and have reached the conclusion, upon all the points of objection, that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of the court below. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. ARMSTRONG. (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Oct. 25, 1899.) Appeal from district court, Lamar county; É. D. McClellan. Judge. Action by H. W. Armstrong against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. T. J. Freeman, F. B. Dillard, and Head, Dillard & Muse, for appellant. Dudley & Moore, for appellee.

KEY, J. This is a damage suit. The plaintiff recovered $405, and the defendant has appealed. There is testimony that will support a finding, and, in support of the verdict, we therefore find that the defendant was guilty of negligence, as charged in the plaintiff's petition; that he and his wife were not guilty of contributory negligence, as charged in the defendant's answer; and that, as a consequence of defendant's negligence, the plaintiff's wife was injured to the extent of $405. The principal question in the case is the right to recover compensation for the mental suffering of the plaintiff's wife, under the circumstances disclosed by her testimony. That question has been certified to the supreme court, and decided in appellee's favor. Railway Co. v. Armstrong, 51 S. W. 835. Ou the other questions presented in appellant's brief, we rule against it, and affirm the judg ment. Judgment affirmed.

ABANDONMENT.

Of homestead, see "Homestead," § 2.

ABATEMENT.

Of nuisance, see "Nuisance," § 1.

ACCEPTANCE.

Of dedication, see "Dedication," § 1.

ACCESSION.

ACCIDENT.

Accident insurance, see "Insurance," § 9.

ACCOMPLICES.

Testimony, see "Criminal Law," § 11.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See "Release."

ACTION.

Between parties in particular relations, see
"Master and Servant," § 5; "Partnership,"
§ 2.

Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law."
Election of remedy, see "Election of Remedies."
Limitation by statutes, see "Limitation of Ac-
tions."

Particular forms of action, see "Account, Ac-
tion on": "Ejectment"; "Replevin"; "Tres-
pass," § 2; "Trespass to Try Title."

proceedings in actions, see "Damages";
"Dismissal and Nonsuit"; "Evidence"; "Ex-
ecution"; "Judgment"; "Jury"; "Parties";
"Pleading"; "Process"; "Trial."

remedies in or incident to actions, see "At-
tachment"; "Garnishment."

Review of proceedings, see "Appeal and Error";
"Certiorari"; "Exceptions, Bill of"; "New
Trial"; "Review."

Suits in equity, see "Equity."

Actions by or against particular classes of
parties.

See "Carriers," §§ 1-5; "Corporations," § 3;
"Executors and Administrators," § 8; "Hus-
band and Wife," § 4; "Infants," § 2; "Part-
nership," § 3.

Assignees, see "Assignments," § 2.

Particular causes or grounds of action.
See "Assault and Battery," § 1; "Bills and
Notes," § 4: "Insurance," § 13; "Judgment,"
§ 8; "Libel and Slander," § 3; "Nuisance,"
§§ 1, 2.

Breach of contract,

"Sales," § 4.

see "Contracts," § 4;

Particular causes or grounds of action, see
"Trespass."

Price of goods, see "Sales," § 3.
Personal injuries, see "Carriers," § 3.

Recovery of interest, see "Interest," § 1.
of land, see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 6.

of price paid for land, see "Vendor and
Purchaser," § 7.

Particular forms of special relief.
See "Creditors' Suit"; "Divorce"; "Injunc-
tion"; "Marshaling Assets and Securities";
"Partition," § 1.

Establishment and enforcement of right of ex-
emption, see "Exemptions," § 2.

Establishment of boundaries, see "Boundaries,"
of homestead, see "Homestead," § 3.
§ 2.

§ 1. Grounds and conditions precedent.
Subscriber to building contract, payment of
which was to be due at certain time after com-
pletion of building, is not entitled to demand be-
fore suit.-Davis & Rankin Bldg. & Mfg. Co.
§ 2.
v. Caigle (Tenn. Ch. App.) 240.

Nature and form.

ly sold the lands to plaintiff, is maintainable at law. Mitchell v. Simons (Tex. Civ. App.) 76.

3. Joinder, splitting, consolidation, and severance.

Where an heir sued to have a claim allowed to her against the estate, and prayed that her brother be charged with an advancement, that a partial settlement by the administrator be surcharged, and that the entire estate be settled and distributed, but a single cause of action was stated.-Caldwell's Adm'r v. Hampton (Ky.) 14. Joining of mortgagors and an insurance company in suit to foreclose and recover loss under policy on mortgaged premises held no misjoinder of causes of action.-Sun Insurance Office v. Beneke (Tex. Civ. App.) 98.

4. Commencement, prosecution, and

termination.

In an action, under Civ. Code Prac. § 237, upon a debt not due, a petition alleging that defendant is a nonresident of the state, and "is about to remove his property from this state, that is, the material part thereof."-is not good; there being no allegation that not enough of defendant's property will be left in the state "to satisfy the plaintiff's claim or the claims of defendant's creditors."-Hey v. Harding (Ky.) 33. In an action upon a debt not due, plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the debt after it matured, no answer being filed.-Hey v. Harding (Ky.) 33.

Proof of resemblance of child seven months old to reputed father held inadmissible to establish paternity, in prosecution against him for adultery with another.-Hilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 113.

Where offense of adultery consists of "habitual carnal intercourse" by parties not living together, proof of occasional acts held insufficient to sustain conviction.-Hilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 113.

In prosecution for adultery, held harmless error to submit to jury question whether defendant's paramour was his accomplice.-Hilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 113.

Where defendant's paramour testified to one act of intercourse with him in another county, held error to charge that jury could consider it as corroborative of her other testimony as to offense charged.-Hilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 113.

Where there was evidence of statements made by defendant's paramour to others, held error to refuse to charge that jury could not consider them as corroborative of her testimony.-Hilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 113.

Where offense consists of "habitual carnal intercourse," held not error to refuse to charge what "habitual" meant.-Hilton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 113.

ADVANCEMENTS.

See "Wills," § 5.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

1. Nature and requisites.

One in possession under adverse claim for sev en years held entitled to the land actually in his possession.-Louisville Trust Co. v. Alford (Tenn. Ch. App.) 974.

§ 2. Operation and effect.

Where boundaries of two state grants of land conflict, and a defendant, claiming under a deed. executed by one having no apparent title, for part of the oldest grant, takes possession of part of deeded land, and also incloses adjoining land, and holds it, claiming title, for more than seven years, and one claiming under second grant dispossesses him, he is entitled to rent for land so deeded and adjoining land so inclosed, and no more.-Clariday v. Reed (Tenn. Ch. App.) 302. 3. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re

view.

Title by adverse possession for more than seven years cannot be destroyed by testimony of witness that claimant's grantor never owned part of land in controversy.-Clariday v. Reed (Tenn. Ch. App.) 302.

AFFIDAVITS.

See "Depositions."

In attachment proceedings, see "Attachment," § 2.

Where the jurat to an affidavit, made the basis of a motion in the supreme court, was signed by the clerk of the district court, but not attested by his official seal, it cannot be considered.-Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Brown (Tex. Sup.) 1019.

AGENCY.

See "Principal and Agent."

AGREEMENT.

See "Contracts."

ALLOWANCE.

To surviving wife, husband, or children of decedent, see "Executors and Administrators," § 4.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

Making material alteration in promissory note without maker's knowledge, but not with fraudulent intent, invalidates note, but does not extinguish original consideration.-Hampton v. Mayes (Ind. T.) 483.

AMENDMENT.

Of pleadings, see "Pleading," § 4.
Of statute, see "Statutes," § 3.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
Jurisdictional amount, see "Appeal and Error,"
§ 2.
ANIMALS.

Carriage of live stock, see "Carriers," § 1. Injuries from operation of railroads, see "Railroads," § 10.

Under Sand. & H. Dig. §§ 1700, 1764, it is not necessary, in an indictment for changing the

mark of a hog with intent to steal same, to
allege its value.-Houston v. State (Ark.) 44.

Where the owner of a cow places her in a
public stock pen, when he knows, or might by
reasonable care know, her to be vicious, he is
liable for injuries inflicted upon a person exam-
ining the cow with a view to buying; cattle
being placed in the pen with the expectation
that buyers would examine them.-Brooks v.
Brooks (Ky.) 645.

A buyer is not guilty of contributory negli-
gence, in making a reasonable and prudent ex-
amination of cattle in a public stock pen, so as
to preclude him from recovering for injuries in-
flicted by a vicious animal.-Brooks v. Brooks
(Ky.) 645.

Under Pen. Code, arts. 883, 903, on a prosecu-
tion for fraudulently altering the marks on
goats, held not error to refuse to instruct that,
to convict, the jury must believe that goats of
the value of $65 were marked.-Diaz v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 632.

On a prosecution for fraudulently marking
goats, held not error to refuse to strike out tes-
timony as to the marking of such goats previous
to the date fixed by a witness as the time when
they were all in the herd.-Diaz v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 632.

On a prosecution for altering the marks on
goats, an instruction to acquit, if the jury be-
lieved certain facts, held properly refused.-Diaz
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 632.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See "Certiorari"; "Exceptions, Bill of"; "New
Trial"; "Review.'

Appellate jurisdiction of particular courts, see
"Courts," § 3.

Review of criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal
Law," §§ 26-30; "Homicide," § 14.

of proceedings of justices of the peace, see
"Justices of the Peace," § 2.

§ 1. Nature and form of remedy.

Error of chancellor in refusing to grant appeal
on dismissal of injunction should be corrected by
bill of error.-Boyd v. Knox (Tenn. Ch. App.)

972.

§ 2. Decisions reviewable.

Order quashing execution held appealable.-
Little v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Ind. T.)
331.

Where the petition shows that the principal
of the debt sued for is less than $200, an appeal
does not lie, though the judgment is for more
than that amount, and does not show that any

---

part of the amount is interest. Spiceland's
Adm'r v. Shelton's Adm'r (Ky.) 274.

Though appellant admits that, save for his
counterclaim for damages, he owes the sum
sued for, and for which judgment was render-
ed, the amount in controversy is the full amount
of the dismissed counterclaim, and not merely
the difference between the two sums.-Ward v.
Rhorer's Adm'r (Ky.) 649.

Decree dismissing a bill as to certain things,
but retaining it as to others, held not final and
appealable. Woman's College v. Horne (Tenn.
Ch. App.) 980.

The court has no jurisdiction of an appeal
from a judgment which does not adjudicate the
rights of two of the parties to the suit, as such
judgment is not final.-Davis v. Martin (Tex.
Civ. App.) 599.

§ 3. Presentation and reservation in
lower court of grounds of review.
Appeal dismissed where record showed no mo-
tion for new trial was made.-Harris v. Bru-
ton (Ind. T.) 322.

Record held to show errors reviewable without
motion for new trial.-Little v. Atchison, T. &
S. F. Ry. Co. (Ind. T.) 331.

There can be no reversal for error in instruc-
tions to the giving of which no exceptions were
taken.-Davis v. Bailey (Ky.) 31.

There can be no reversal for error in instruc-

tion unless it was excepted to, mere objection to
giving it not being sufficient.-Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Bowcock (Ky.) 262.

There can be no reversal for an error admit-

ting or rejecting testimony where it is not as-
signed as a ground for new trial.-City of Lud-
low v. Mackintosh (Ky.) 524.

A judgment will not be reversed for a ruling
Dammann v. City of St. Louis (Mo.) 932.
on evidence to which no exception is reserved.-

Where the competency of a witness was not
challenged in the trial court, such competency
cannot be raised on appeal.-Sprague v. Sea
(Mo.) 1074.

Error in instructions will not be reviewed,
where no objection is made or exceptions saved
when the instructions are given. Taylor v.
Pullen (Mo.) 1086.

-

An objection to evidence, failing to state the
grounds on which it is based, will not be re-
viewed.-Taylor v. Pullen (Mo.) 1086.

General exception to entire deposition will not
be considered, if part thereof is admissible.-Lee
v. Johnson (Tenn. Ch. App.) 183.

Where party takes chances of verdict being
favorable to him on issue submitted, and re-
quests no instruction on another issue involved,
he cannot afterwards complain that other issue
was not charged upon.-Behrends v. Crenshaw
(Tex. Civ. App.) 586.

A question of title under community held not
raised by objection to evidence of deed when
such evidence is admissible on grounds inde-
pendent of those named in objection.-Bludworth
v. Poole (Tex. Civ. App.) 717.

§ 4. Parties.

When judgment is rendered against a prin-
cipal and sureties, the sureties are, on an appeal
by the principal, properly made parties.-Lange
v. Fritze (Tex. Civ. App.) 583.

§§ 5, 6. Record and proceedings not in
record-Scope and contents of
record.

Record of the chancery court of appeals, relied
upon to prove res adjudicata, which is not of-
fered or filed in the trial court, will not be
considered on appeal.-Clariday v. Reed (Tenn.
Ch. App.) 302.

§.7.

Necessity of bill of exceptions,
case, or statement of facts.
Where error in quashing execution appears
in the record, a bill of exceptions is not requir-
ed.-Little v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Ind.
T.) 331.

Court's failing to regive all instructions given
in case when jury returns for instructions on
some particular point held not error.-American
Well Works v. De Aguayo (Tex. Civ. App.) 350.
§ 8. Contents, making, and settle-
ment of case or statement of facts.
Paper styled "Agreed Facts," but not signed
by attorneys for parties nor approved and sign-
ed by trial judge, will not be considered by ap-
pellate court.-Maury v. Keller (Tex. Civ. App.)
59.

An appellant cannot have a reversal for failure
of the trial judge to prepare a statement of
facts, on failure of the parties to agree, where he
did not apply for a mandamus to compel the
judge to do so.-Guerguin v. McGown (Tex. Civ.
App.) 585.