Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

INDEX-DIGEST

KEY NUMBER SYSTEM

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

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.

[blocks in formation]

(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.

AGENCY.

AGREED CASE,

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

ANIMALS.

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.

Co. v. Holland, 1044.

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,

648.

220 P.-71

Evidence held to sustain judgment foreclosing
lien for pasturing.-Id.

(1121)

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

ics.

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.

LATE JURISDICTION.

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.

[blocks in formation]

237 (2) (Okl.) Evidence of attorney's fees
not reversible error in view of charge and ver-
dict.-Municipal Excavator Co.
V. Walters,

456.

237 (5) (Okl.) Sufficiency of evidence not
reviewable unless called to attention of trial
court.-State v. Wells, 341.

(C) Exceptions,

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-

cision.

be

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.

[blocks in formation]

(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

OF REVIEW.

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.

VI. PARTIES.

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

PROCEEDINGS

RECORD.

NOT IN

(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

Correction.

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.

re-

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.

XII. BRIEFS.

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.

Trial of Cause Anew.

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.

(E) Presumptions.

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,

474.

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.

[blocks in formation]

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.

XVI. REVIEW.

to consider

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-

1125

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

[ocr errors]

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.

[blocks in formation]

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-

man, 619.

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,

863.

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.

(H) Harmless Error.

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,

617.

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

Irr. Co., 112.

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 »