THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
See Compromise and Settlement.
ACCOUNT STATED.
(Utah) Transaction held not to involve
ADMINISTRATION.
See Executors and Administrators.
ADMIRALTY.
1. JURISDICTION.
an account stated.-Eagle Lumber Co. v. Bur-20 (Cal.) Amendment of federal judicial ton Lumber Co., 1069.
(Okl.) "Cause of action" defined.-Secu- rity Nat Bank of Tulsa v. Geck, 373.
2 (Okl.) Petition for damages for breach of obligation to pay money held sufficient. Security Nat. Bank of Tulsa v. Geck, 373.
Where plaintiff complies with statutory pro- visions governing pleading, cause of action shown, and relief granted at law or in equity. -Id.
Code as to rights under state compensa- tion laws held unconstitutional.-James Rolph Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of Cali- fornia, 669.
Injuries to stevedores not within workmen's compensation acts.-Id.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES. (F) Hostile Character of Possession. 66 (2) (Wash.) Possession of strip of lot held adverse.-King v. Bassindale, 777. Plaintiff held strip of lot in hostility to true owner; "hostile."-Id.
(G) Payment of Taxes.
90 (Wash.) Payment of taxes according to legal description held not to defeat adverse possession. King v. Bassindale, 777.
II. OPERATION AND EFFECT. (B) Title or Right Acquired. 106(4) (N.M.) Possession for 10 years un- der land grant gives complete title.-Hoskins v. Talley, 1007.
109 (N.M.) Facts held not to create es- toppel to claim title.-Hoskins v. Talley, 1007.
2 (Okl.) Failure to perform service for See Principal and Agent. another not basis of legal action, in absence of contract or legal requirement; right of action rests on breach of legal duty resulting in dam- See Submission of Controversy. ages.-Derdyn v. Low, 945.
7 (Utah) Dismissal of suit, and institution
ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. of another not cause of action or counterclaim See Husband and Wife, 334. in equity or otherwise.-McLaughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
II. NATURE AND FORM. 2 (Okl.) What is a "material alteration" 32 (Oki.) Common-law precedents resort-stated.-J. R. Watkins Co. v. Powell, 585. ed to when necessary.-Security Nat. Bank of 16 (Okl.) Different construction of altered Tulsa v. Geck, 373. contract as to principal and surety held error. -J. R. Watkins Co. v. Powell, 585.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA-
TION, AND SEVERANCE.
45 (3) (Mont.) Statute authorizing joinder
of causes of action for "injuries to property" See Railroads, 443.
construed.-Weibush v. Jefferson Canal Co., 99.26(1) (Okl.) Statutory lien for feeding not 50(3) (Kan.) Numerous persons defraud-dependent on possession.-Hall v. Black, 50. ed by identical false representations by same 26(4)_(Okl.) Lien for pasturing held not tort-feasor cannot join.-Holland Oil & Gas waived.-Hall v. Black, 50.
26(5) (Okl.) Replevin lies to enforce lien
50 (5), (Okl.) When actions on different for pasturing cattle.-Hall v. Black, 50. bonds may be joined stated.-Gerber v. Wehner,
Evidence held to sustain judgment foreclosing lien for pasturing.-Id.
67 (Okl.) Owner's liability depends on rea- sonable anticipation of injury to others.- O'Neal v. Vie, 853.
70 (Kan.) Owner held liable for death by vicious mule.-Carl v. Ackard, 515.
71 (Kan.) Person killed by vicious animal held not negligent.-Carl v. Ackard, 515.
74(5) (Kan.) Evidence held to sustain re- covery for death by vicious animal.-Carl v. Ackard, 515.
106 (Okl.) Notice of sale given before ex- piration of notice of impounding void.-McDon- ald v. Lawrence, 473.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
See Courts, 207; Criminal Law, 1204; Exceptions, Bill of.
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings Thereon.
193 (9) (Okl.) Sufficiency of petition to state cause of action may be questioned for first time on appeal.-Gourley v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 645.
193(9) (Ok!.) Insufficiency of petition to support verdict may be first raised on appeal.- Commercial Inv. Trust v. Ferguson, 925.
195 (Cal.App.) Party not asking leave to amend cannot complain of denial of leave.-Si- mons v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 425.
197(3) (Okl.) Unless called to attention of court below, judgment not reversed for slight variance not misleading.-Chambers v. Wil- liams, 638.
1023-209 (2) (Wash.) Question not raised be- low not considered on appeal.-Parsons V.
For review of rulings in particular actions or Tracy, 813.
proceedings, see also the various 'specific top-216(1) (Kan.) Error cannot be predicated
I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.
on refusal to give instruction unless requested. -Turman v. Solvay Process Co., 510.
216(2) (Cal.App.) Objection that instruc- tion incomplete held too late on appeal.-Brown
2 (Or.) Statute abolishing appeals applies v. Beck, 14. equally to pending and unperfected appeals.216 (3) (Kan.) Instruction as to degree of Moss v. Woodcock, 1017. 9 (Idaho) Error cannot be predicated on less.-Liberal Coal & Mining Co. v. McAlester preponderance of evidence, if error, held harm- refusal to reopen case for additional evidence Fuel Co., 178. after close of trial.—Caravelis v. Cacavas, 110.219(2) (Cal.App.) Objection to form of findings made for first time on appeal not II. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF APPEL- considered.-Dixon v. Norman, 321.
219(2) (Okl.) Refusal of request for spe-
21 (Mont.) Counsel cannot by stipulation cial findings and conclusions held preserved present moot question for consideration.-Fox for review.-Grant v. Mathis, 331. v. Hacker, 749.
237 (2) (Okl.) Evidence of attorney's fees not reversible error in view of charge and ver- dict.-Municipal Excavator Co. V. Walters,
237 (5) (Okl.) Sufficiency of evidence not reviewable unless called to attention of trial court.-State v. Wells, 341.
248 (Okl.) Errors not excepted to waived. -Byers v. Burton, 476.
71(2) (Utah) Garnishee could appeal from order directing transfer of property to sheriff. -Bankers' Trust Co. v. District Court of Web-263(1) (Okl.) Parties concluded on appeal er County, 708. by failure to take exceptions to instructions.- Simpson v. Plummer, 342.
(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of De-
263 (1) (Okl.) Instructions will not considered unless exceptions saved below.- Commercial Inv. Trust v. Ferguson, 925.
122 (Mont.) Appeal may not be taken from part of a judgment.-Lohman v. Poor.273(6) (Utah) Instructions correct in part 1094.
(B) Estoppel, Waiver, or Agreements Affecting Right.
154(1) (Okl.) Recognition by appellant of validity of judgment a waiver of right to ap- peal.-Johnson v. Gibson, 47.
V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVATION IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
held not reviewable on exception to whole.-Mc- Laughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
289 (Kan.) Errors in admission of evi- dence must be presented in motion for new trial.-Bennett v. Davis, 1031.
301 (Okl.) Overruling demurrer held not reviewable, unless presented in motion for new trial.-Commercial Inv. Trust v. Ferguson, 925.
330(1) (Okl.) Adjudication of plaintiff held not to prevent defendant from defending on ap- peal.-Seyler Development Co. v. Mullen, 471. 334 (7) (Okl.) Where case not revived on death of appellee appeal dismissed.-Mathews v. Ward, 335.
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. (A) Time of Taking Proceedings. (A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court. appeal held not retroactive.-Cook v. Massey, 338 (2) (Idaho) Law shortening time of 170(1) (Mont.) Errors specified and ar- 1088. gued outside the issue not considered on ap-339(1) (Okl.) Assignee of rights may ap peal.-Western Montana Marble & Granite Co. peal from adverse determination of heirship v. Rhone, 413. within 30 days.-Mainard v. Thompson, 880.
171(1) (Wash.) New theory cannot be urged on appeal.-Culp v. Western Loan & Building Co., 766,
173(6) (Colo.) Issue not made at trial not considered.-Contos v. Darrow, 996.
(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds or Other Securities.
376 (Wash.) Not necessary to make code- fendant beneficiary of bond.-Metropolitan
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Club v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance 627 (2) (Idaho) Unless appellant is with- Co., 818.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice. 424 (Wash.) Appeal not dismissed for fail- ure to serve notice upon sureties on cost bond. -Henry D. Davis Lumber Co. v. Pacific Lum- ber Agency, 804.
427 (Wash.) Time for proof of service of notice of appeal on codefendant.-Metropolitan Club v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 818.
IX. SUPERSEDEAS OR STAY OF PRO- CEEDINGS.
466 (Okl.) Bond for stay of execution of money judgment is statutory bond.-National Surety Co. v. Craig, 943.
485 (2) (Okl.) Statutory supersedeas bond stays execution of money judgment pending ap- peal.-National Surety Co. v. Craig, 943. X. RECORD AND
(A) Matters to be Shown by Record. 500(1) (Okl.) Motions and rulings thereon, can be presented only by case-made or bill of exceptions.-Harris v. Tupeker, 634.
501 (1) (Okl.) Motions and exceptions thereto can be presented only by case-made or bill of exceptions.-Harris v. Tupeker, 634. 501(4) (Wash.) Error in instructions not considered, in absence of exceptions shown by record. Shamek v.. Metropolitan Bldg. Co., 816.
out fault, appeal will be dismissed where tran- script not filed within 90 days.-Intermountain Ass'n of Credit Men v. Rexburg Farmers' Soc. of Equity, 114.
627 (2) (Or.) Filing of transcript within required time jurisdictional, and failure ground for dismissal.-Kallunki v. City of Astoria, 145; Growman v. City of Astoria, 1118.
(1) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and
648 (Idaho) Party not entitled to correc- tion of transcript on witness' statement as to his testimony.-Barton v. Dyer, 488.
653(3) (Okl.) Appeal not dismissed for want of notice where case-made was corrected by stipulation, so as to show notice.-Knights and Ladies of Security v. Bell, 594.
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
671 (3) (Cal.App.) Construction and suf- ficiency of findings only questions on appeal in absence of evidence.-Dixon v. Norman, 321.
688(1) (Or.) Counsel's contentions reject- ed or criticized by charge should appear in record.-Sather v. Giaconi, 740.
688 (2) (Okl.) Judgment rendered on plead- ings and opening statement of counsel not re- viewable where opening statement not part of record proper.-Collinsville Nat. Bank v. Ward, 864.
688 (2) (Wash.) Error cannot be predicat- ed in dismissing complaint on opening statement not appearing in the record.-Metcalfe v. Men- tal Science Industrial Ass'n, 1.
502(3) (Nev.) Where there is no motion for new trial, and findings are in favor of ap-692(1) (Okl.) Excluded evidence not in pellant, judgment affirmed.-Warren v. Wilson, 242.
(B) Scope and Contents of Record. 516 (Okl.) Opening statement of counsel not part of record proper unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made.-Collinsville Nat. Bank v. Ward, 864.
520(1) (Okl.) Motions, rulings thereon, and exceptions thereto can be presented only by case-made or bill of exceptions.-Harris v. Tupeker, 634.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case, or Statement of Facts.
544(1) (Mont.) Evidence and proceedings not considered in absence of bill of exceptions. -Weibush v. Jefferson Canal Co., 99.
544(1) (Okl.) Denial of new trial and of judgment on pleadings reviewable only on case- made or bill of exceptions.-Shinn v. Hoopes, -470.
Errors not reviewable on transcript.-Id.
553 (2) (Idaho) Trial judge in settling transcript must rely on reporter's notes and on his own recollection of testimony in ab- sence of agreement between the parties as to corrections.-Barton v. Dyer, 488.
(D) Contents, Making, and Settlement of Case or Statement of Facts.
564 (3) (Okl.) What necessary to authorize extension of time for serving case-made stated. -Nonnamaker v. Lively, 926.
565 (Wash.) Service of statement of facts on other than adverse party not jurisdictional. -Metropolitan Club v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 818.
(H) Transmission, Filing, Printing, and Service of Copies.
record not considered.-Byers v. Burton, 476. 699(4) (Kan.) Refusal of instructions not reversed, in absence of showing in record.- Wilson v. Doolittle, 508.
708 (Colo.) Attorneys held technically present at hearing for settlement of exceptions. -Kinney v. Yoelin Bros. Mercantile Co., 998.
(L) Matters Not Apparent of Record.
713(1) (Okl.) Incorporation of papers in- to preamble of journal entry does not consti- tute them part of record.-Collinsville Nat. Bank v. Ward, 864.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
731 (2) (Utah) Assignment of errors, lating to findings of fact not reviewed where couched in general terms only.-Eagle Lumber Co. v. Burton Lumber Co., 1069.
747 (2) (Ariz.) Complaint as to judgment in appellee's brief not considered where appel- lee did not file cross-assignments.-Barth v. A. & B. Schuster Co., 391.
750 (4) (Okl.) Assignments held to raise question as to sufficiency of evidence to prove parent's agreement to pay daughter for serv- ices.-Hapke v. Hapke, 660.
759 (Okl.) Brief held in substantial compli- ance with court rules as to assignments of error.-Armstrong v. Wasson, 643.
767(1) (Colo.) Motions to strike brief from file well taken where appeal based on charge of collusion unsupported by evidence.-Koch v. Knuth, 500.
773(1) (Okl.) Supreme Court will not search record for theory to sustain judgment, where appellee files no brief.-Hedden v. Vaughan, 337.
624 (Idaho) Appeal will be dismissed where transcript not filed within 90 days, 773(1) (Okl.) Where appellant alone has though extension granted after time had expir- filed brief, court will not search record for ed.-Intermountain Ass'n of Credit Men v. Rex- grounds to affirm.-Mogul Mining Co. v. Smith, burg Farmers' Soc. of Equity, 114. 475.
624 (Or.) Supreme Court not authorized 773(1) (Okl.) Appellate court not required to extend time for filing of transcript.-Kal- to search record for theory to sustain judg- lunki v. City of Astoria, 145; Growman v. ment, where appellee files no brief.-Wilkinson City of Astoria, 1118. v. Criswell, 477.
773(5) (Okl.) Judgment reversed where | (D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and appellant's brief plausible and no controverting brief.-Rourke v. Cockrell, 44.
773(5) (Okl.) Judgment may be reversed introduced in trial de novo.-Obermeyer v. Ken- 897 (Idaho) New cause of action cannot be on brief of appellant where appellee files no dall, 751. brief.-Payne v. Beaty, 336.
773 (5) (Okl.) Appellate court will not search for theory on which to affirm judgment, when 907 (2) (Cal.App.) Presumed that evidence appellee files no brief.-Merchants' Southwest Transfer & Storage Co. v. Wood-up.-Reid v. Kerr, 688. sustained finding where evidence not brought ruff, 337.
773(5) (Okl.) Where appellant alone has filed brief, court need not search record to af- firm.-Jenkins v. Hampton, 469.
773 (5) (Okl.) Where appellee has filed no brief, case may be reversed on appellant's brief without searching record.-Beamer v. Robinson,
907 (2) (Kan.) In absence of evidence and special findings, determination of jury on par- ticular phase assumed harmonious with gen- eral verdict.-Stevens v. Keegan, 1050.
907 (3) (Cal.App.) On appeal on judgment roll alone presumed that failure to find on new matter in answer not improper.-Reid v. Kerr, 688.
773 (5) (Okl.) Court not required to search928(1) (Colo.) Abstract showing that in- record for theory on which judgment may be structions not included therein were given rais- sustained, in absence of brief by defendant in es presumption that jury were properly and error.-Swartz v. Bigby, 579. fully instructed.-Hall v. Farmers' Bank of Severance, 237.
773(5) (Okl.) Where appellee files no brief, cause may be reversed.-Merchants' & Planters' Nat. Bank of Ada v. Cole, 609; Stocker v. Lawrence, 635.
773 (5) (Okl.) Judgment may be reversed where appellee files no brief.-Bailey v. Smith, 852.
781(1) (Mont.) Appeal dismissed where no controversy.-Fox v. Hacker, 749.
781 (2) (Mont.) Whether instrument was valid contract held to present moot question only.-Fox v. Hacker, 749.
781(4) (Kan.) Appeal dismissed as moot. -Hesser v. Bale, 274.
928 (4) (Kan.) Instructions presumed cor- rect and complete in absence of contrary show- ing. Wilson v. Doolittle, 508.
930(1) (Utah) Evidence viewed most fav- orably to appellee.-McLaughlin v. Chief Con- sol. Mining Co., 726.
930(4) (Utah) Adoption of theory sup- ported by evidence assumed.-McLaughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
931 (1) (Cal.App.) Evidence finding on conflicting evidence presumed true. supporting -Teresi v. Cavala, 686.
931 (1) (Colo.) Presumptions are in favor of judgment on general finding.-Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Denver Live Stock Exchange, 402.
931(1) (Kan.) Evidence shown disbelieved below disregarded.--Taylor v. Walker, 518. Evidence of prevailing party regarded in most favorable light.-Id.
792 (Colo.) Appellate court may and will dismiss writ of error on own motion when without jurisdiction.-Unzicker v. Unzicker, 495.931(4) (Colo.) After general finding, con- 801 (1) (Or.) Court will dismiss unperfect- sistent specific finding warranted by evidence ed appeal barred by intervening statute, to presumed.-Greek Catholic Church of Trans- avoid needless trouble.-Moss v. Woodcock, figuration of Christ v. Hunau, 981. 1017.
931 (6) (Colo.) Presumption that court ad- mitted only competent evidence.-Nelson v. Lunt, 1006.
(A) Scope and Extent in General. 843 (3) (Colo.) Unnecessary assigned errors where rulings correct or im-934(3) (Utah) Presumption material.-New York Life Ins. Co. v. Haru Fukushima, 994.
933(1) (Okl.) Ruling of court on motion for new trial presumed correct.-Eldred v. Pittsburg County Ry. Co., 351. that com-
845 (2) (Okl.) Sole question for review of judgment on agreed facts is propriety of judg- ment on such facts.-Anderson v. Keystone Supply Co., 605.
plaint, after parts thereof stricken out, author- v. Guaranty Mortg. Co., 1067. ized court to enter default_judgment.-Taylor
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
dente lite not reversed, in absence of clear abuse of discretion.-Moran v. Park, 589.
856 (5) (Or.) Order granting new trial af-955 (Okl.) Appointment of receiver pen- firmed if there was ground therefor, though not that assigned by trial court.-American Nat. Bank v. Kerley, 116.
856 (5) (Wash.) Order granting new trial can be sustained on any or all grounds included in motion.-Young v. Dille, 782.
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
959(1)(Idaho) Granting or refusing amendments within discretion of trial court and not disturbed unless abuse of discretion appears.-Swanson v. Olsen, 407.
959(1) (Okl.) Allowance or refusal of amendments not disturbed in absence of show- ing of prejudice.-Barnett v. Etna Explosives
878(1) (Ariz.) Complaint as to judgment Co., 874.
in appellee's brief not considered where appel-970 (3) (Or.) Order of proof in discretion lee did not appeal.-Barth v. A. & B. Schuster of trial court, not reviewable except for abuse. Co.. 391.
-Sather v. Giaconi, 740. may977(3) (Okl.) Order granting new trial not reversed, unless error of law clearly shown.- Eldred v. Pittsburg County Ry. Co., 351. Strong showing of error necessary for rever- sal of order granting new trial.-Id.
878(4) (Okl.) Defendant in error raise questions of sufficiency of petition for first time on appeal to invoke aid of harmless error doctrine.-Gourley v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 645.
878 (6) (Or.) Party not appealing cannot insist on more favorable decree.-Dolph v. Len- non's, Inc., 161.
882 (2) (Cal.App.) Plaintiff held bound by his claim as to venue in the trial court.-Reid v. Kerr, 688.
882(8) (Okl.) Introduction of records, facts in which are shown by sworn petition of opponent, not error.-Kirk v. McClendon, 949.
977(5) (Idaho) Order denying new trial should be reversed only on clear showing of abuse of discretion.-Caravelis v. Cacavas, 110.
978(1) (Wash.) Granting of a new trial not disturbed, where oral instruction of trial court may have misled jury.-Babcock v. M. & M. Const. Co., 803.
978(3) (Kan.) Granting new trial because jury misapprehended issues and failed to fol-
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
low instructions will not be reversed on appeal. [1009(4) (Okl.) Findings in equity case not -Johnson v. Combination Oil & Gas Co., 176. reversed unless clearly against evidence.-Byers 982(1) (Okl.) Application for vacation for v. Burton, 476. want of notice addressed to discretion and not disturbed on appeal.-Ross v. Irving, 642.
994 (2) (Utah) Credibility of witnesses not for Supreme Court.-McLaughlin v. Chief Con- sol. Mining Co., 726.
995 (Or.) Supreme Court cannot weigh
evidence.-Maeder Steel Products Co. v. Zan- ello, 155.
1009(4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity not re- versed unless clearly against weight of evi- dence.-Norris v. American Vacuum Syringe Co., 577.
1009 (4) (Okl.) Supreme Court will not re- verse judgment in equitable case unless clearly against weight of evidence.-Parks v. De Ar-
1009 (4) (Okl.) Judgment not set aside in equitable action unless clearly against evidence. -Davis v. Littlefield, 830.
999 (1) (Cal.App.) On all questions of fact1009 (4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity case not reversed for insufficiency of evidence unless submitted, jury's verdict conclusive.-Brown v. clearly against weight.-Wright v. Anstine, 928. Beck, 14.
1000 (Cal.App.) Verdict of jury and find-1009 (4) (Okl.) Fact findings in equity case will not be disturbed, unless clearly against ings of trial court on conflicting evidence con- weight of evidence.-Campbell v. Campbell, 955. clusive on appeal.-Stone v. McCarty, 690. 1010(1). Finding sustained by evidence not disturbed. (Cal.App.) Gimeno v. Martin, 1076; (Colo.) Koch v. Knuth, 500.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Where evidence reasonably tends to support verdict, it will not be disturb- ed.-Baker-Riedt Motor Co. v. Moore, 25; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Keffer, 361.
1001 (1) (Okl.) When verdict will be set aside stated.-McKinney v. Biggs, 459.
1001(1) (Okl.) Judgment based on verdict of properly charged jury not disturbed.-Rapp v. Hicks, 465.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Judgment based on compe- tent evidence not reversed.-Seyler Develop- ment Co. v. Mullen, 471.
1001(1) (Okl.) Verdict sustained by some legal evidence not disturbed.-Knights and La- dies of Security v. Bell, 594.
1001(1) (Okl.) Jury's findings of fact not disturbed.-Wetzel v. Rixse, 607.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Judgment reasonably sup- ported by testimony not reversed.-Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Lewis, 639.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Verdict not disturbed if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support it.-Twin States Oil Co. v. Westerly Oil Co., 839.
1002 Verdict on conflicting evidence not disturbed.
(Okl.) Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Pearson, 632; Baker-Riedt Motor Co. v. Moore, 25;
(Utah) McLaughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
1010(1) (Colo.) Conclusions of trial court not disturbed where supported by evidence.- New York Life Ins. Co. v. Haru Fukushima, 994. 1010(1) (N.M.) Findings not supported by substantial evidence not upheld.-Hoskins v. Talley, 1007.
1010(1) (Or.) Findings supported by evi- dence and conclusions therefrom conclusive against appellant.-Van Hee v. Rickman, 143.
1010(1) (Or:) Findings of fact, like ver- dict, cannot be set aside if material allegations are supported by evidence.-Maeder Steel Prod- ucts Co. v. Zanello, 155.
Fact findings set aside only when clearly un- supported by evidence.-Id.
1010(1) (Utah) Court held bound by find- ing that buyer did not waive seller's breach of contract.-Eagle Lumber Co. v. Burton Lum- ber Co., 1069.
Court held bound by finding of seller's breach of contract of sale.-Id.
1011(1) Trial court's findings on conflict- ing evidence will not be disturbed. (Ariz.) Shelton v. Culley, 229; (Kan.) Gray v. Hedge, 259; (Okl.) Nunley v. Loftis, 841.
1002 Supreme Court does not determine1011(1) (Cal.App.) Question of conflict_in weight of evidence.
-(Utah) McLaughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726;
(Wash.) Fox v. Anderson, 771.
1002 (Okl.) Verdict reasonably supported by evidence not disturbed.-Municipal Excava- tor Co. v. Walters, 456.
1004 (1) (Cal.App.) Where no legal_meas- ure, assessment of damages for jury.-Brown v. Beck, 14.
1005(3) (Okl.) Judgment on conflicting evidence not disturbed. Brockhaus v. Killough,
1005 (3) (Utah) Approved verdict on con- flicting evidence not disturbed.-McLaughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
evidence for trial court.-Reid v. Robinson, 676. Conclusions of court on conflicting evidence not disturbed on appeal.-Id.
1011(1) (Cal.App.) Finding on conflicting evidence that land sale contract was accepted by vendee conclusive.-Teresi v. Cavala, 686.
1012(1) (Wash.) Appellate Court will not disturb findings of trial court unless evidence preponderates against them.-Embola v. Tup- pela, 789.
1024 (1) (Okl.) Order making request for findings part of case-made, supported by com- petent evidence not disturbed.-Grant v. Ma- this, 331.
errors pot 1008 (1) (Cal.App.) Findings of court that certain plaintiffs had no notice of fraud of di-1026 (Okl.) Nonprejudicial rectors of corporation held conclusive.-Reid ground for reversal.-Twin States Oil Co. v. Westerly Oil Co., 839. v. Robinson, 676. court given 1008(1) (Okl.) Findings of weight and effect of verdict.-Mott v. Nelson,
1008 (2) (Okl.) Findings of fact, when jury waived, not disturbed, where supported by evidence.-Cooper v. Long, 610.
1009(2) (Idaho) Rule that decision sup- ported by substantial evidence will not be set aside applicable to actions to reform written contracts.-Exum v. Portneuf-Marsh Valley
1009 (4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity cases will not be reversed unless against weight of evidence.-Rogers v. Brummet, 362.
1027 (Okl.) Decision of law harmless if application of correct law would have cast equal burden on adverse parties.-Gourley v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 645. of question 1033(4) (Or.) Submission whether injured workman elected to take under Compensation Act held not reversible error.— Hicks v. Peninsula Lumber Co., 133; Senter v. Peninsula Lumber Co., 139.
1036(4) (Okl.) Substitution of assignee as plaintiff held harmless error.-Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Lewis, 639.
1039 (11) (Kan.) Departure in pleadings immaterial, unless substantial prejudice has re-
« НазадПродовжити » |