THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
Co. v. Telechronometer Co. of America, 227 P.
867.
3 (Idaho) Right of action against abstrac-
ter for failure to show mortgage not limited 36 (Okl.) Controversy as to ownership of
to action on statutory bond.-Merrill v. Fre-proceeds of policy does not change nature of
mont Abstract Co., 227 P. 34.
action.-Royal Neighbors of America v. Fletch-
er, 227 P. 426.
Relief on abstracter's bond extends to all
persons who suffer damage by reason of error,
omission, or deficiency of abstract.-Id.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Compromise and Settlement.
ACCOUNT STATED.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA-
TION, AND SEVERANCE.
57(1) (Cal.App.) One may not voluntarily
split action.-Standard Livestock Co. v. Bank
of California, National Ass'n, 227 P. 962.
(Cal.) Agreement between corporation
owner and director, canceling past indebted- See Boundaries.
ness for transfer of bonds, held to constitute.-
Wenban Estate v. Hewlett, 227 P. 723.
Adjustment of doubtful right constitutes good
consideration therefor.-Id.
ADMINISTRATION.
See Executors and Administrators.
4 (Cal.) Unnecessary to set out mutual or
cross accounts or demands between parties to
constitute.-Wenban Estate v. Hewlett, 227 P. See Pilots.
8 (Cal.) Legal effect not defeated by show-
ing lack of consideration.-Wenban Estate v.
Hewlett, 227 P. 723.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
III. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
1. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
(A) Acquisition of Rights by Prescrip-
tion in ueneral.
13 (Idaho) Statute must be followed to ac-
quire title to land by adverse possession.-Mey-
er v. Schoeffler, 227 P. 1061.
(B) Actual Possession.
52 (Okl.) Wife acknowledging deed to
homestead after permitting husband to sign
her name, adopts signature; wife ratified
deed; wife held estopped by conduct to assert
invalidity of deed to homestead after separa-27 (Cal.App.) Evidence held to sustain
tion from husband.-Stidham v. Moore, 227
P. 128.
55(1) (Okl.) Notary's certificate of ac-
knowledgment, regular on its face, strong evi-
dence of facts therein stated.-Stidham v.
Moore, 227 P. 128.
IV. PLEADING and EVIDENCE.
62 (2) (Okl.) Notary's certificate of ac-
knowledgment, regular on its face, impeached
only by clear and convincing testimony.-Stid-
ham v. Moore, 227 P. 128.
finding of title by adverse possession.-Moun-
tain Club v. Pinney, 227 P. 630.
Evidence held to sustain finding that land
was sufficiently cultivated.-Id.
(G) Payment of Taxes.
89 (Idaho) Payment of all state, county,
and municipal taxes for five consecutive years
indispensable requirement to establish title by
adverse possession.-Meyer v. Schoeffler, 227
P. 1061.
94 (Idaho) Payment of taxes assessed on
governmental subdivision does not constitute
payment on adjoining tract known included in
another subdivision.-Meyer v. Schoeffler, 227
1061.
62 (4) (Okl.) Presumptive truth of notary's
certificate cannot be overcome solely by testi-
mony of grantor, where circumstances as con-
sistent with the truth thereof as with denials.-P.
Stidham v. Moore, 227 P. 128.
1. GROUNDS AND CONDITIONS PRE-
CEDENT.
(Mont.) "Cause of action"
Butte Electric Ry. Co. v. McIntyre, 227 P. 61
95 (Cal.App.) Finding that claimant com-
plied with requirement as to payment of taxes
sustained by facts.-Mountain Club v. Pinney,
227 P. 630.
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
(A) Extent of Possession.
100(1) (Cal.App.) Party entering in good
faith under color of title deemed to have pos-
22 (Wash.) Action on note and open ac- session of whole tract within boundaries of
count held equity case.-Puget Sound Telephone [deed.-Devlin v. Powell, 227 P. 231.
III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND 237(5) (Okl.) Assignment of insufficiency
of evidence not reviewable, unless challenged
114(2) (Cal.App.) Evidence held sufficient below.-Holman v. Lozier, 227 P. 886.
to show possession up to line claimed.-Devlin
v. Powell, 227 P. 231.
117 (Cal.App.) General verdict held not af-259 (N.M.) Denial of jury trial not re-
fected by special verdict as to adverse posses- viewable, when no exception taken.-Brown v.
sion.-Devlin v. Powell, 227 P. 231.
Heller, 227 P. 594.
See Certiorari; Courts, 204-209; Criminal
Law, 1028-1202; Exceptions, Bill of.
For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-414 (Or.) Separate decrees as to three co-
361(1) (Okl.) Jurisdiction of Supreme
Court not invoked by filing motion for new trial
in court below.-Bilby v. Harrison, 227 P. 407.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice.
defendants held to divorce their interests so
that notice to them of appeal by one defendant
was not necessary.-Adams v. Kennard, 227
P. 738.
I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.
14(2) (Mont.) Appeal after remittitur by
plaintiff as required on remand,_ _not__ enter-
Rule for determining whether party is ad-
tained.-Phelps v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 227418 (Or.) Codefendant held to have appeal-
verse, requiring notice of appeal, stated.-Id.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
ed only from decree against him.-Adams v.
Kennard, 227 P. 738.
VIII. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF CAUSE
OR PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR.
(C) Amount or Value in Controversy.
45 (Or.) Appellate jurisdiction of suit to
foreclose materialman's lien not limited by (A) Powers and Proceedings of Lower
amount in controversy.-Northwest Lumber &
Fuel Co. v. Plantz, 227 P. 1116.
45 (Wash.) Replevin action in which de-
fendant sought foreclosure of lien for repairs
held not "civil action at law" within constitu-
tional limitation of appellate jurisdiction by val-
ue of property.-Lloyd v. Reinard, 227 P. 855.
(D) Finality of Determination.
82(2) (Cal.App.) Order denying motion to
amend entry of judgment nunc pro tune held
appealable.-Oliver v. Superior Court in and
for City and County of San Francisco, 227 P.
647.
V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVATION
IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
OF REVIEW.
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
~169 (Idaho) Question not put in issue by
pleadings not considered.-Coulson v. Aber-
deen-Springfield Canal Co., 227 P. 29.
~~171(1) (N.M.) Case considered upon plead
ings and issues framed below. -Smith v. Bor-
radaile, 227 P. 602.
ruling defendant's motion for new trial, with-
439 (Okl.) Order setting aside order over-
out notice to plaintiff set aside on appeal.-
Kennedy v. Sherman, 227 P. 884.
(B) Scope and Contents of Record.
525(3) (Idaho) Requested instructions not
reviewable unless containing written notation
of refusal.-Hoy v. Anderson, 227 P. 1058.
533(1) (Cal.App.) Trial court's opinion is
not part of record on appeal.-Arnheim v.
Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J., 227 P.
676.
| (C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts.
544(1) (Mont.) Absence of bill of excep-
tions in record on appeal from judgment held
to preclude review. Atkinson v. Roosevelt
County, 227 P. 811.
Absence of bill of exceptions on appeal from
173(2) (Mont.) Question not raised in dis-
order dissolving temporary injunction held not
trict court or on appeal not considered by ap-544(1) (Or.) Bill of exceptions or tran-
to preclude review.-Id.
pellate court.-State v. Certain Intoxicating
Liquors, 227 P. 472.
175 (Wash.) Pleadings deemed sufficient to
bring issues into case tried on such
Stanton v. St. Michell, 227 P. 737.
script of evidence need not be filed to confer
jurisdiction of appeal.-Meaney v. State In-
theory.-553(2) (Nev.) Statute permits use of re-
dustrial Accident Commission, 227 P. 305.
porter's transcript, instead of bill of exceptions.
-Barbash v. Pitt, 227 P. 1018.
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
194(1) (Colo.) Failure to object to im-
proper joinder of defenses held not to preclude
objection that plea not sufficient to raise de-
fense. Hickman-Lunbeck Grocery Co. v. Hag-
er, 227 P. 829.
197(4) (Cal.App.) Variance between plead-
ing and proof in action for value of legal serv-
ices held not available.-Campbell v. Hanford,
227 P. 234.
Objection to evidence of value of lawyer's re-
tainer held not available.-Id.
(D) Contents, Making, and Settlement of
Case or Statement of Facts.
568 (Okl.) Where no notice of time of set-
tlement of case-made given or waived, appeal
dismissed.-Correll v. Shepherd, 227 P. 874.
(E) Abstracts of Record.
584 (Or.) Abstract not objectionable be-
cause under same cover with appellant's brief.
Meaney v. State Industrial Accident Com-
mission, 227 P. 305.
585(1) (Or.) Respondent on insufficiency 773(5) (Okl.) Judgment may be reversed
of abstract should file additional one under and remanded for new trial where appellee files
court rule.-Meaney v. State Industrial Acci- no brief.-Doggett v. Pricer, 227 P. 875.
dent Commission, 227 P. 305.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.lv/books/content?id=p1I8AAAAIAAJ&hl=lv&output=html_text&pg=PA1123&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:ISBN0123704901&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1taBVKY3xg3yab-ZPk8BYiAryttw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=95,173,398,206)
644(1) (Nev.) Respondent held to have
waived irregularities in the appeal.-Barbash v.
Pitt, 227 P. 1018.
649 (Cal.App.) Insertion in transcript aft-
er filing of notice of appeal, without notice to
respondent, held not to invalidate proceedings.
-Gulf Mail S. S. Co. v. W. A. Hammond S. S.
Co.. 227 P. 938.
655(1) (Nev.) Motion to dismiss and
strike, filed 2 months after transcript, is too
late.-Barbash v. Pitt, 227 P. 1018.
655(3) (Cal.App.) On appeal on judgment
roll alone, matter purporting to be statement
of facts material to case stricken.-Greene v.
Town of Lakeport, 227 P. 645.
659(3) (Cal.App.) Method of correcting
omission in record of statement of reason for
granting new trial held proper.-Gulf Mail S.
S. Co. v. W. A. Hammond S. S. Co., 227 P.
940.
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
673(2) (Kan.) Litigant relying on statute
of limitations for reversible error should set
out dates or specify limitation periods.-Dixon
v. Continental Oil & Refining Co., 227 P. 325.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
843 (3) (Mont.) Matters not necessary to
decision on review not considered.-Atkinson v.
Roosevelt County, 227 P. 811.
854(3) (Cal.App.) Order sustaining de-
murrer sustained if complaint insufficient upon
any ground properly specified.-Davie v. Board
of Regents, University of California, 227 P.
243.
866(1) (Cal.App.) On dismissal of suit fol-
lowing award of arbitrators, appellate court has
no power to modify award on appeal.-Alameda
County Water Dist. v. Spring Valley Water
Co., 227 P. 953.
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
880(1) (Cal.App.) Counsel for appellant
partnership cannot object to improper joinder
of individual members.-Oliver v. Staples &
Pfeiffer, 227 P. 927.
882(1) (Okl.) Reversal of judgment can-
not be secured on invited error.-Hutchins v.
Richardson, 227 P. 432.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
inconsistent with
that below cannot be taken.-Hutchins v. Rich-
719(1) (Mont.) Question not raised in dis-ardson, 227 P. 432.
trict court or on appeal not considered by ap-883 (Wash.) On failure to oppose motion
nellate court.-State v. Certain Intoxicating to strike testimony of witness, error cannot
Liquors, 227 P. 472.
be based thereon.-Vizzaro v. King County, 227
719(5) (Colo.) Exclusion of evidence not P. 497.
considered in absence of assignment of error.-
Losasso v. Cefalu, 227 P. 834.
719(6) (Okl.) Supreme Court without ju-907 (3) (Cal.) Presumed findings of fact
risdiction to review judgment, where, ques- sustained by evidence in absence of bill of ex-
tion of weight of the evidence not raised in ceptions or transcript.-Arnheim v. Firemen's
petition in error.-Watchorn v. Watchorn, 227 Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J., 227 P. 676.
P. 435.
722 (1) (Utah) Separate assignments of
error required.-Thomas v. Perry Irr. Co., 227
P. 268.
In equity cases, observance of rule relative to
assignments of error imperative.-Id.
731 (2) (Utah) Assignments of error held
insufficient in so far as they assailed findings
of facts.-Thomas v. Perry Irr. Co., 227 P. 268.
748(1) (Ariz.) Record examined for any
prejudicial errors notwithstanding failure to
specify ground of error assigned.-Colvin v.
Weigold, 227 P. 985.
907(3) (Cal.App.) No inference can pre-
vail over express findings of trial court.-Arn-
heim_v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J.,
227 P. 676.
have
930 (2) (Nev.) Jury presumed to
obeyed instruction to diminish damages in pro-
portion to contributory negligence.-Ames v.
Western Pac. R. Co., 227 P. 1009.
| 930(2) (Utah) Presumed that jury consid-
ered all instructions, unless contrary is mani-
fested.-Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co., 227
P. 791.
758(3) (Idaho) Particulars of insufficiency
of evidence to support judgment must be point-
ed out in brief.-Merrill v. Fremont Abstract
Co.. 227 P. 34.
0762 (Colo.) Points first urged in reply
brief considered, where made in reply to an-
swer brief.-Snider v. Town of Platteville, 227
P. 548.
768 (Okl.) Contention of appellant may be
sustained where appellee's brief incomplete.--
Mayo v. Overstreet, 227 P. 396.
773(5) (Okl.) Court will not search record
for theory to affirm judgment where defendant
in error files no brief.-Board of Com'rs of
Grant County v. Ridings, 227 P. 96.
931 (1) (Cal.App.) Court findings con-
strued to support judgment where possible.-
Sidney v. Wilson, 227 P. 672.
931(1) (Mont.) Every presumption indulg-
ed in favor of findings of trial court in deter-
mining sufficiency of evidence to support.-At-
kinson v. Roosevelt County, 227 P. 811.
931 (6) (Mont.) Alleged errors in admis-
sion of incompetent testimony and reservation
of rulings on admissibility held not available in
equity case.-Atkinson v. Roosevelt County, 227
P. 811.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
954(1) (Cal.) Finding that remedy at law
inadequate not disturbed unless evidence is
legally insufficient to support.-People v. Staf-
ford Packing Co., 227 P. 485.
Finding that remedy at law inadequate held |
not to be disturbed.-Id.
959(1)(Idaho) Order refusing permission
to amend pleading reversed when discretion
clearly abused.-Mole v. Payne, 227 P. 23.
959(1)(Idaho) Ruling on motions to
amend pleadings not disturbed unless abuse of
discretion affirmatively appears.-Hoy v. An-
derson, 227 P. 1058.
1004 (1) (Utah) Jury's verdict not set
aside, if within the evidence and not obviously
inconsistent therewith.-Stuck v. Delta Land &
Water Co., 227 P. 791.
1008(1) (Okl.) Rule to determine weight
to be given judgment of trial court on conflict-
ing evidence stated.-Halsell v. Beartail, 227
P. 392.
1008(2) (Okl.) Judgment supported by
960 (2). (Colo.) Action of court in matter evidence, if evidence reasonably tends to sup-
of making complaint more definite and spe- port it. Halsell v. Beartail, 227 P. 392.
cific not disturbed, except discretion abused.1008 (2) (Okl.) Findings of trial court rea-
Sheridan Oil Corporation v. Davidson, 227 P.
553.
960 (2) (Colo.) Overruling motion to make
complaint more specific in court's discretion.
Louden Irrigating Canal & Reservoir Co. v.
Neville, 227 P. 562.
979(2) (Cal.App.) Grant of new trial re-
versed only for gross abuse of trial court's dis-
cretion.-Goehring v. Rogers, 227 P. 687.
979(2) (Cal.App.) Order granting new
trial for insufficiency of evidence not disturbed,
except for abuse of discretion.-Gulf Mail S. S.
Co. v. W. A. Hammond S. S. Co., 227 P. 940.
983 (3) (Okl.) Motions to set aside judi-
cial sales addressed to reasonable discretion
of court; order on motion not disturbed un-
less abuse of discretion appears.-Keller
Cooper, 227 P. 102.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find-
ings.
sonably supported by conflicting testimony not
disturbed.-Evans v. Irby, 227 P. 433.
1009 (4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity not re-
versed unless clearly against weight of testi-
mony.-Sibel v. Vawter, 227 P. 103.
1009(4) (Okl.) Findings in equity action
not set aside unless clearly against weight of
evidence.-Roeser v. Citizens'-First Nat. Bank
of Independence, Kan., 227 P. 114.
1009 (4) (Okl.) Decree in equity proceed-
ing not set aside unless clearly against weight of
evidence.-Graham v. Cosby, 227 P. 888.
1010(1) (Cal.App.) Judgment not disturb
ed, where findings are supported by the evi-
dence.-Ingle Mfg. Co. v. San Diego Oil Prod-
ucts Corporation, 227 P. 627.
1010(1) (Cal.App.) Findings of trial court
supported by evidence not disturbed because of
evidence supporting contrary finding.-Hollen-
beck v. Lunderville, 227 P. 679.
1010(1) (Cal.App.) Judgment properly af-
firmed, where contrary finding not compelled
by evidence.-San Francisco Laundry Ass'n v.
Ragon, 227 P. 686.
989 (Ariz.) Supreme Court will not deter-
mine weight of evidence on appeal from equity
judgment.-Donahue v. Babbitt, 227 P. 995.
994 (2) (Cal.App.) Full weight given testi-1010(1) (N.M.) Findings of fact support-
ed by substantial evidence not disturbed.-
mony in support of judgment though contra-
dicted. Campbell v. Hanford, 227 P. 234.
Brown v. Heller, 227 P. 594.
997 (3) (Or.) On motion to direct judg-1010(1) (Okl.) Findings of fact reason-
ment by both parties; judgment for plaintiff Thompson v. Smith, 227 P. 77: York v. J. P.
ably supported by evidence not disturbed.-
if any evidence of material matters. Hudel- Chamblee & Son, 227 P. 90; Roeser v. Citi-
son v. Sanders-Swafford Co., 227 P. 310.
zens'-First Nat. Bank of Independence, Kan.,
999 (1) (Wash.) Verdict conclusive as to
facts in a case of legal cognizance.-Collins v.
Harris, 227 P. 508.
1001 (1) (Colo.) Judgment supported by
some evidence not disturbed.-Louden Irrigat-
ing Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Neville, 227 P.
1010(1) (Okl.) Judgment supported by
sufficient evidence not reversed for insufficiency
thereof.-Royal Neighbors of America V.
Fletcher, 227 P. 426.
1011(1) (Cal.App.) Findings of trial court
resting on conflicting evidence not disturbed.-
Pye v. Eagle Lake Lumber Co., 227 P. 193.
1001 (1) (Colo.) Verdict for minor
ployee held not to show such passion, prejudice,
or sympathy as to require reversal.-Pawnee 1011(1) (Cal.App.) Finding of trial court
Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Powell, 227 P. 836. on conflicting evidence must prevail.-Lichtig &
1001 (1) (Okl.) Judgment based on verdict Rothwell v. Ruggles, 227 P. 781.
reasonably supported by evidence not dis-1011(1) (Cal.App.) Decision by trial court
turbed.-Paulsen v. Hourigan, 227 P. 82; Smith on conflicting evidence not disturbed.-McRae
Motor Co. v. Button, 227 P. 95; Bain v. Wolf- v. McRae, 227 P. 933.
enbarger, 227 P. 108; Livingston v. Brown, 227
P. 124; Russell Jobbers' Mills v. Dill-Crossett,
227 P. 126.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Where no evidence reason-
ably tending to support defendant's verdict,
cause reversed.-Grant-Sprague Lumber Co. v.
First Nat. Bank, 227 P. 104.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Verdict unsupported by
competent evidence reversed.-Chicago, R. I.
& P. Ry. Co. v. Long, 227 P. 389.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Finding supported by evi-
dence, verdict on disputed facts not disturbed.
-Reeves v. Sifford, 227 P. 872.
1001(1) (Okl.) Verdict reasonably sup-
ported by evidence not disturbed.-Holman v.
Lozier, 227 P. 886.
1011(1) (Mont.) Finding on conflicting ev-
idence not disturbed.-Spokane News Co. v.
Northern Montana Ass'n of Credit Men, 227
P. 39.
1011(1) (N.M.) Conclusion as to adverse
possession supported by substantial evidence
not disturbed.-Smith v. Borradaile, 227 P.
602.
1011(1) (Wash.) Questions of fact as to
which evidence is in dispute conclusively de-
termined by trial court.-Goodsell v. Phillips,
227 P. 13.
1012(1) (Mont.) Court findings not dis-
turbed where evidence does not preponderate
against them.-Dyk v. H. S. Buell Land Co.,
227 P. 71.
1001 (1) (Or.) Judgment supported by ma-
terial evidence not disturbed.-Snodgrass
(H) Harmless Error.
Wallowa Milling & Grain Co., 227 P. 294.
1033(9) (Okl.) Error in verdict for less
1002 (Okl.) Verdict reasonably supported than warranted by evidence not available to
by evidence not disturbed on appeal.-Maupin defendant.-Combs v. Langston Inv. Co., 227
v. Binnion, 227 P. 390.
1004(1) (Okl.) Principle requiring exces-1035 (Okl.) Refusal of jury harmless,
sive verdict set aside applies only where dam- when issues of fact determined in favor of de-
ages sought are liquidated; verdict for breach manding party.-Thompson v. Smith, 227 P.
of contract for less than maximum recovery 77.
not set aside because exact calculation cannot
be made. Russell Jobbers' Mills v. Dill-Cros-
sett, 227 P. 126.
1037 (Cal.App.) Partnership members, for
whom general appearance was made, cannot
complain of improper joinder on appeal from
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
judgment against them and firm.-Oliver v.
Staples & Pfeiffer, 227 P. 927.
1039 (9) (Kan.) Refusal to require elec-
tion in action for balance on land contract not
reversible error.-Kindig v. Smith, 227 P. 373.
1043 (3) (Or.) Indefinite description in or-
der for sale of attached property immaterial
where no order necessary.-Hudelson
Sanders-Swafford Co., 227 P. 310.
1047(1) (Okl.) Case not reversed for er-
ror in admission or rejection of evidence un-
less prejudicial.-Maupin v. Binnion, 227 P.
390.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOSI-
TION OF CAUSE.
1151 (2) (Cal.App.) Error in amount of
judgment held curable by modification.-Coats
& Williamson v. Moran & Co., 227 P. 213.
(D) Reversal.
1170(1) (Mont.) Statutory requirement
that error not affecting substantial rights be
disregarded imperative.-Atkinson v. Roosevelt
County, 227 P. 811.
1170(5) (Idaho) Reversal cannot be predi-
1048 (2) (Kan.) Judgment not reversed for cated on immaterial variance unless prejudicial.
expert testimony as to cost of annuity and life-Merrill v. Fremont Abstract Co., 227 P. 34.
expectancy where general condition of health 1178(1) (Okl.) Order setting aside order
disclosed.-Spencer Kansas Casualty & overruling defendant's motion for new trial,
without notice to plaintiff set aside on appeal.
Surety Co., 227 P. 357.
1048(6) (Cal.App.) Refusal to permit de--Kennedy v. Sherman, 227 P. 884.
fendant to cross-examine plaintiff's witness
held not prejudicial.-Clarkson v. United Rail-
roads of San Francisco, 227 P. 710.
1050(2) (Kan.) Judgment not reversed for
admission of immaterial evidence unless preju-
dicial.-Spencer v. Kansas Casualty & Surety
Co., 227 P. 357.
of evidence
1052(5) (Utah) Admission
held not prejudicial, where jury awarded less
than true measure of damages permitted.-
Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co., 227 P. 791.
1056(1)(N.M.) Rejection of evidence to
establish laches held harmless.-Smith v. Bor-
radaile, 227 P. 602.
1058(1) (Colo.) Exclusion of contract not
prejudicial where party testified to everything
therein contained.-Losasso v. Cefalu, 227 P.
834.
1060(1) (Colo.) Exhibition of and refer-
ence to map by plaintiff's attorney in opening
statement held not prejudicial error.-Louden
Irrigating Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Neville,
227 P. 562.
1064(1) (Utah) Instruction on agents' au-
thority in exchange of land held not prejudi-
cial. Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co., 227
P. 791.
1064 (4) (Wash.) Instruction withdrawing
issue of res judicata held not to require reversal
for technical error.-Allbin v. City of Seattle,
227 P. 322.
1178(8) (Cal.App.) Judgment on demurrer
not reversed merely in order to allow amend-
ment where plaintiff elected to stand upon
complaint.-Davie v. Board of Regents, Univer-
sity of California, 227 P. 243.
(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower
(Cal.App.) Proceedings subse-
1203 (1)
quent to reversal upon appeal conform to per-
tinent amendatory legislation.-Hall v. Fair-
child-Gilmore-Wilton Co., 227 P. 649.
XVIII. LIABILITIES ON BONDS AND
1227 (Wash.) Plaintiff's institution of con-
tempt proceeding against defendant pending ap-
peal did not release sureties on defendant's
bond.-Buttnick v. Buttnick Jobbing & Invest-
ment Co., 227 P. 852.
1241 (Wash.) That appealing parties were
dismissed from original action held no defense
to action on bond.-Buttnick v. Buttnick Job-
bing & Investment Co., 227 P. 852.
18 (Cal.App.) Agreement by parties to ar-
bitrate not to be treated as a stipulation to dis-
miss.-Alameda County Water Dist. v. Spring
Valley Water Co., 227 P. 953.
1065 (Colo.) In equitable action error can-
not be assigned on rulings on instructions.21 (Cal.App.) Dismissal of suit according
Sheridan Oil Corporation v. Davidson, 227 P. to arbitration agreement held proper.-Alameda
County Water Dist. v. Spring Valley Water
553..
Co., 227 P. 953.
1066 (Cal.App.) Verdict based on proper
and improper issues, in which it cannot be told
to what degree they figured in finding, cannot
stand.-Markart v. Zeimer, 227 P. 683.
1066 (Idaho) Charge on question not at
issue, together with failure to instruct on ma-
terial issues supported by substantial evidence,
held reversible error.-Lloyd v. Anderson, 227
P. 32.
1066 (Kan.) Instruction submitting issue
of damages, in absence of evidence of extent
thereof,
and prejudicial.-United
Iron Works v. L. J. Smith Const. Co., 227 P.
369.
1067 (Cal.App.) Refusal of instructions
concerning railroad's duty to ring its bell held
not reversible error, where such failure would
not have relieved street railroad from liabil-
ity.-Clarkson v. United Railroads of San
Francisco, 227 P. 710.
1067 (Idaho) Charge on question not at is-
sue, together with failure to instruct on ma-
terial issues supported by substantial evidence,
held reversible error.-Lloyd v. Anderson, 227
P. 32.
1068 (1) (Or.) Any error in instruction
held harmless, in view of jury's answer to sub-
mitted question.-O'Brien v. Royce, 227 P. 520.
on damages
1068 (4) (Utah) Instruction'
held not prejudicial, where jury awarded less
than true measure of damages permitted.-
Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co., 227 P. 791.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.lv/books/content?id=p1I8AAAAIAAJ&hl=lv&output=html_text&pg=PA1125&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:ISBN0123704901&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1brpU0I9nilUNtXc5htIRdUip6fA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=525,969,394,211)
≈22 (Or.) Allegation of ownership essen-
tial.-State v. Director, 227 P. 298.
25 (Or.) Discrepancy between allegation
and proof respecting first initial of name of
owner not material variance.-State v. Direc-
tor, 227 P. 298.
Averment of ownership must be proved as
laid.--Id.
37(1) (Or.) Criminal agency and identifi-
cation may be established by circumstantial
evidence.-State v. Director, 227 P. 298.
37 (3) (Or.) Ownership need not be proved
with same degree of fullness required in ac-
tions involving title or right of possession.-
State v. Director, 227 P. 298.
|