THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
2 (Cal.App.) Distinguished from neglect. See Executors and Administrators.
City of Vallejo v. Burrill, 676.
4 (Cal.App.) City held not to have aban-
doned pipe line.-City of Vallejo v. Burrill, 676.
ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL.
I. OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION.
3 (Okl.) Demurrer challenging jurisdiction
held well taken.-Dooley v. Foreman, 47.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Compromise and Settlement. -
8(1) (Okl.) When payment of liquidated
amount not satisfaction of unliquidated claim
stated.-Commercial Union Assur. Co., Limit-
ed, of London, Eng., v. Creek Cotton Oil Co.,
499.
II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
(Cal.) Existence of relationship requir-
ing accounting and statement that balance is
due plaintiff may be only issues raised by
pleadings.-Whann v. Doell, 899.
on sole ground that parents unknown.-Vaughan
(Idaho) Adoption of child not authorized
v. Hubbard, 1107.
7 (Idaho) Consent of parents essential to
valid adoption, except as provided by statute.—
Vaughan v. Hubbard, 1107.
parent nonresident where not personally ap-
It must affirmatively appear that qualified
pearing.-Id.
to adoption executed must appear before pro-
Parent within county when verified consent
bate judge when order made.-Id.
10 (Idaho) Personal appearance of resi-
dent parent necessary to give probate judge
Hubbard, 1107.
power to make valid adoption.-Vaughan v.
14 (Idaho) Order may be attacked directly
or collaterally when statutory power not shown
on face of record.-Vaughan v. Hubbard, 1107.
Failure of record to show personal appear-
void.-Id.
sent, if nonresident, renders order of adoption
Mere statement of balance due without set-
ting out items or showing disposition of contro-ance of parent, if resident, or filing of con-
versy as to particular items insufficient.-Id.
Any procedure or record from which issues
and disposition thereof may be ascertained suf-
ficient statement.-Id.
18(2) (Okl.) Evidence to impeach account
for materials held properly admitted.-Amsden
Lumber Co. v. Wilkinson, 513.
19(3) (Cal.App.) Set-off against account
stated held not sustained by the evidence.-
Newman v. Newby, 386.
See Abatement and Revival; Dismissal and
Nonsuit.
II. NATURE AND FORM.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
1. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
(C) Visible and Notorious Possession.
31 (Cal.App.) Owner must have knowledge.
-City of Vallejo v. Burrill, 676.
C6 (Cal.App.) Option of co-operative asso-
ciation to purchase own stock held not to in-
25(4) (Colo.) Equitable defenses proper in er.-Poultry Producers of Central California
validate produce sale agreement with subscrib-
legal actions.-Schmidt v. Wither, S85.
v. Murphy, 962.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING, CONSOLIDA-
TION, AND SEVERANCE.
48 (2) (Idaho) Cause of action in conver- See Husband and Wife,
sion held properly joined in foreclosure action.
-Bank of Roberts v. Olaveson, 560, 563.
IV. COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION,
AND TERMINATION.
63 (Ariz.) Courts do not favor stale de-
mands.-Pendleton v. Brown, 213.
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.
See Boundaries,
221 P.-71
205-230; Railroads, ~411-
2 (Utah) Dog is "property."-Pardee v.
Royal Baking Co., 847.
23(2) (Okl.) Burden on bailee of cattle to
pasture to show loss or absence was without
his fault.-Maher v. Smith, 749.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
See Certiorari; Courts, 209-212; Criminal
Law, 1023-1186; Exceptions, Bill of
For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-
ics.
I. NATURE AND FORM OF REMEDY.
14(2) (Okl.) Action in accordance with
Supreme Court's directions not considered on.
subsequent appeal.-Ward v. Carter, 48.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(D) Finality of Determination.
82(3) (Cal.App.) Order denying motion to
set aside judgment appealable; "special order
made after final judgment."-Westervelt v. Mc-
Cullough, 661.
(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of De-
cision.
109 (Wash.) Appeal does not lie from de-
nial of motion for judgment n. o. v.-Adams v.
Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co., 993.
(F) Mode of Rendition, Form, and Entry
of Judgment or Order.
123 (Cal.App.) Appeal does not lie from
findings or conclusions of law.-Ouzoonian v.
Vaughan, 958.
134(2) (Ariz.) Appeal could not be predi-
cated on so-called minute entries by clerk, and
trial court will not be prohibited from proceed-
ing notwithstanding notice of appeal.-Arizona
Corporation Commission v. Superior Court of
Maricopa County, 1076.
IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW.
(A) Persons Entitled.
151(5) (Wash.) Person left in possession
of one of two positions in litigation held to
have no appealable interest.-State v. City of
Seattle, 997.
AND RESERVATION
IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS
OF REVIEW.
V. PRESENTATION
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
cannot shift
173(1) (Okl.) Defendant
ground of defense on appeal.-Collings v. In-
dustrial Sav. Soc., 1036.
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
Thereon.
193(9) (Cal.App.) Sufficiency of complaint
may be first urged on appeal.-Tietke v. For-
rest, 681.
216(3) (Okl.) Instruction not ground for
reversal, in absence of proper request.-Fisher
v. Woolery, 45.
301 (Okl.) Error in instruction not pre-
sented by motion for new trial not considered.
Benecke v. Johnson, 14.
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS
FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.
356 (Cal.App.) Appeal not timely filed, nu-
gatory. Ouzoonian v. Vaughan, 958.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice.
414 (Idaho) "Adverse party" defined.—
Wright v. Spencer, 846.
Motion to dismiss appeal on ground that nec-
essary party hopelessly insolvent not served
with notice will be denied.-Id.
414 (Or.) Service of notice on legatee of
appeal from allowance of attorney's fee not
necessary; not being an "adverse party."-In
re Prince's Estate, 554.
419(1) (Or.) Appeal held to be from de-
cree on final accounting, directing payment of
attorney's bill for services to executor, and not
from interlocutory order fixing fee; "final de-
cree."-In re Prince's Estate, 554.
VIII. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF CAUSE
OR PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR.
(A) Powers and Proceedings of Lower
436 (Òkl.) Jurisdiction of trial court sus-
pended on perfection of appeal.-Dooley v.
Foreman, 47.
After appeal, trial court cannot make orders
affecting parties.-Id.
440 (Okl.) Orders of trial court before
mandate filed void.-Dooley v. Foreman, 47.
IX. SUPERSEDEAS OR STAY OF PRO-
CEEDINGS.
461 (Idaho) How execution of decree dis-
tributing storage water stayed stated; "prop-
erty."-Salmon River Canal Co. v. District
Court, of Eleventh Judicial Dist. in and for
Twin Falls County, 135.
to fix
465(2)(Idaho) Duty of court
amount of supersedeas bond.-Salmon River
Canal Co. v. District Court of Eleventh Judi-
cial Dist. in and for Twin Falls County, 135.
to grant stay
479 (2) (Wash.) Refusal
pending appeal from injunction not abuse of
discretion.-State v. Hewen, 976.
(A) Matters to be Shown by Record.
501 (4) (Okl.) Instruction not ground for
reversal, in absence of exception.-Fisher v.
Woolery, 45.
(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts.
232(1) (N.M.) Parties not joining in mo-544 (1) (Colo.) Questions as to evidence
tions or objections derive no benefit therefrom. not considered without bill of exception.-
-Yates v. Vail, 563.
Schmidt v. Wither, 885.
237(3) (Okl.) Assignment of insufficiency
of evidence not considered, unless presented to
trial court.-Keith v. Baldwin, 419.
237 (3) (Okl.) Sufficiency of evidence not
considered in absence of demurrer.-Smith
Ferguson, 447.
544 (3) (Cal.App.) Printed transcript con-
taining no copy of bills of exceptions, judgment
roll alone considered.-Oberkotter v. Spreckels,
698.
v.544 (3) (Okl.) Ruling on demurrer may be
presented for review without incorporation in-
to the case-made.-Gamble v. Emery, 514.
553(1) (Mont.) Certified excerpts
stenographic transcript not substitute.-Smith
v. Rodriguez, 530.
237 (5) (Okl.) Sufficiency of evidence not
considered in absence of motion for directed
verdict.-Smith v. Ferguson, 447.
268(2) (Okl.) Exception to trial court's
fact findings not necessary to review sufficiency
of evidence in equity.-Papoose Oil Co. v.
Swindler, 506.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
(D) Contents, Making, and Settlement of
Case or Statement of Faets.
565 (Okl.) Case-made not showing a filing
in court below is a nullity.-Kemp, v. Mayer,
460.
(G) Authentication and Certification.
294 (2) (Nev.) Motion for new trial neces-
sary to secure consideration of evidence.-Gian-616(2) (Idaho) Where transcript of mo-
tion for new trial not accompanied by certifi-
notti v. De Bock, 520.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No:Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
cate of trial judge, not reviewable.-Thomas v. XIV. DOCKETS, CALENDARS, AND PRO-
Union Sav. Building & Trust Co., 132.
CEEDINGS PRELIMINARY TO
811 (Wash.) Supreme Court will advance
hearing of cases to prevent judgment being in-
effective.-State v. Fawcett, 305.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
839(1) (Okl.) Supreme Court reviews er-
rors of law only. Smith v. Ferguson, 447,
843 (2) (Cal.App.) Issue not raised
pleadings at time of trial not discussed.-Smith
v. Whyers, 387.
854(2) (Mont.) Dissolution of injunction
will be sustained if warranted, though wrong
reason assigned.-Claussen v. Chapin, 1073.
856(5) (Cal.App.) Supreme Court may af
firm order for new trial though trial court
granted it on other grounds.-Smith v. Mitchell,
964.
(B) Interlocutory, Collateral, and Supple-
mentary Proceedings and Questions.
870(2) (Wash.) Appeal does not lie from
denial of motion for judgment n. o. v. but rul-
ing reviewed on appeal from final judgment.-
Adams v. Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co.,
874(5) (Wash.) Granting new trial for in-
adequacy of damages where evidence insuffi-
cient error reviewable on appeal.-Adams v.
Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co., 993.
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
882 (12) (Cal.App.) Erroneous instruction
held not ground for complaint.-Vickerson v,
Standard Auto Sales Co., 392.
882 (12) (Okl.) Invited error not ground
for reversal.-Nichols-Williams Zine Co. v.
Sewell Well Co., 459.
883 (Mont.) Filing nunc pro tune order by
successor of judge, if error, was mutual, in
view of acquiescence of parties. In re Brad-
field's Estate, 531.
907 (3) (Cal.App.) On appeal on judgment
roll alone, intendments favor trial court's ac-
tion.-Oberkotter v. Spreckels, 698.
757 (3) (Okl.) Assignment as to insufficien-907 (3) (Mont.) Sufficiency of evidence not
cy of evidence ignored where no abstract in considered in absence of statutory record.-
brief.-Nolan v. Clift, 430.
Smith v. Rodriguez, 530.
759 (Okl.) Specifications of error not in 907 (3) (Wash.) Record held insufficient to
same language or order as assignments in pe- permit review of court's exclusion of evidence.
tition held sufficient.-Papoose Oil Co. v. Swind-Oliphant v. Gilham, 298.
ler, 506.
928(5) (Idaho) Jury presumed to give due
766 (Idaho) Where appellant's brief con-
tains no enumeration of errors relied on, ap--Monske v. Klee, 152.
consideration to entire charge, and not misled.
peal dismissed.-Thomas v. Union Sav. Build-930(1) (Cal.) Appellate court will construe
ing & Trust Co., 132.
evidence most favorably to respondent.-Gett
v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 376.
773(5) (Okl.) Court not required to search
record for theory on which to sustain judgment.930(1) (Or.) Testimony of prevailing par-
-Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. McAnaw, 416.
ty taken as true.-Bank of Jordan Valley v.
773 (5) (Okl.) Judgment reversed, where Oliver, 1067.
defendant in error filed no brief.-Hastings V.931 (1) (Cal.) Presumption in favor of trial
Morris, 490.
XIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR
781(1) (N.M.) Moot questions not decided.
-Yates v. Vail, 563.
781(1) (Okl.) When question moot pro-
ceedings dismissed.-Ex parte Brown, 11.
Abstract or hypothetical questions not ex-
amined. Id.
799 (Mont.) Facts held to justify overrul-
ing motion to dismiss appeal on ground that
bill of exceptions was not legally settled.-In re
Bradfield's Estate, 531.
799 (N.M.) Evidence of settlement dehors
the record considered.-Yates v. Vail, 563.
801(4) (Cal.App.) Appellate court cannot
order judgment on merits on motion to dismiss
appeal.-Ouzoonian v. Vaughan, 958.
court's action on contested items.-Whann v.
Doell, 899.
931(3) (Ariz.) In absence of findings from
record, presumed that they support judgment.
Thomas v. Newcomb, 226.
931 (3) (Cal.) Determination of contro-
verted facts favorably to respondent assumed
on appeal.-Whann v. Doell, 899.
(F) Discretion of Lower Conrt.
959(1) (Okl.) Order on application to
amend pleadings not disturbed unless abuse of
discretion shown.-Magna Oil & Refining Co.
v. Parkville Oil Corporation, 65.
966(1) (Okl.) Refusal of continuance not
disturbed, in absence of clear abuse of discre-
tion.-Johnston v. Shaffer, 748.
971(2) (Okl.) Court's ruling on competen-
cy of witness as to qualification not disturbed
except for abuse of discretion.-Selby Oil &
Gas Co. v. Rogers, 1012.
981 (Okl.) Denial of new trial on ground
of newly discovered evidence not disturbed, in
absence of abuse of discretion.-Johnston v.
Shaffer, 748.
1010(1) (Ariz.) Findings sustained in ab-
sence of affirmative error.-Thomas v. New-
comb, 226.
1010(1) (Cal.App.) Sufficiency of evidence
to overcome presumption generally for trial
court.-Motor Inv. Co. v. Breslauer, 700.
982 (1) (Okl.) Ruling on application to va-1010(1) (Okl.) Judgment not supported by
cate judgment not disturbed unless clear abuse competent evidence reversed and remanded.—
of discretion shown.-Wilson v. Porter, 713. Conner v. State, 418.
983 (2) (Okl.) Ruling on application to
modify judgment not disturbed unless clear
abuse of discretion shown.-Wilson v. Porter,
713.
1010(1) (Okl.) Plea of res judicata sus-
tained.-Webb v. Vaden, 1031.
1010(1) (Utah) Findings supported by evi-
dence not disturbed.-Western Securities Co.
v. Spiro, 856; Teuscher v. Utah-Idaho Flour
1010(1) (Wash.) Trial court's conclusions
of fact not disturbed.-Johnson & Higgins v.
American Indemnity Co., 291.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find- & Grain Co., 1096.
995 (Cal.App.) Rule as to two possible
causes for injury, one of which relieves defend-1011(1) Findings on conflicting evidence
ant, is matter for jury.-Tietke v. Forrest, 681.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Supreme Court will dis-
turb verdict where supported by competent
evidence.-Schaff v. Hudgins, 90.
Verdict supported by evidence not disturbed,
where no prejudicial error of law.-Id.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Verdict reasonably
ported by evidence not disturbed.-Charley v.
Nowell, 255.
-(Cal.App.) Smith v. Flynn, 384;
(Idaho) Morrison v. Morrison, 156.
1011(1) (Cal.App.) Findings supported by
substantial evidence not disturbed.-Stockton v.
Santa Paula Oil Co., 661.
1011(1) (Cal.App.) Abandonment of con-
tract by employee held for trial court.-Ander-
son v. Standard Lumber Co., 686.
1001(1) (Okl.) No reversal if verdict rea-1011(1) (Okl.) Fact findings by court will
sonably supported. Sherry v. North, 497. not be disturbed where reasonably supported.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Judgment without compe--Jacobson v. Kill, 21.
tent evidence to support it reversed.-Skelly1012(1) (Utah) Record of evidence not
Oil Co. v. Pruitt & McCrory, 709.
controlling in determining whether findings
sup- against weight of evidence.-Kakunis v. Ogden
Rapid Transit Co., 853.
1001(1) (Okl.) Verdict reasonably
ported by evidence not disturbed.-Reinheimer
v. Comegys & Kessler, 727.
1001 (1) (Okl.) Verdict as to ultimate fact
not disturbed unless contrary to evidence.
Moss v. James, 735.
1001(1) (Okl.) Verdict supported by any
competent evidence not disturbed, for insuffi-
ciency.-Maher v. Smith, 749.
1001(1) (Okl.) Where verdict reasonably
supported by evidence, judgment not disturbed.
-Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bernard, 1011.
1012(1) (Utah) Findings of fact of lower
court not binding if against all the evidence.-
Stringfellow v. Botterill Auto Co., 861.
1012(1) (Wash.) Findings not against pre-
ponderance of evidence not disturbed.-Kalmans
v. Lyons, 291.
1012(1) (Wash.) Evidence must prepon-
derate against findings before they will be over-
turned.-Lung v. Bank of California, N. A., 293.
1015(2) (Wash.) Granting new trial not
disturbed, where evidence conflicting.-Alberts
Rasher, Kingman, Herrin, 975.
100!(!) (Okl.) Verdict reasonably support-
ed by evidence not disturbed in absence of prej-v.
udicial trial error.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
v. Lawton Grain Co., 1013.
1015(3) (Wash.) Order granting new trial
affirmed where no proof to support verdict.—
Miles v. Hoffman, 316.
1002 (Cal.App.) Conflict in testimony not
ground for reversal.-Tietke v. Forrest, 681.1024(2) (Okl.) Order discharging garnish-
1002 (Okl.) Verdict of properly instructed ment not disturbed when grounds supported by
jury on conflicting evidence not disturbed. substantial testimony.-Brennan v. Moore, 40.
Melton v. Perkins, 70.
1002 (Okl.) Finding on conflicting_evidence
not disturbed.-Smith v. Ferguson, 447.
1003 (Okl.) Verdict reasonably sustained
by evidence not disturbed.-Amsden Lumber Co.
v. Wilkinson, 513.
1004 (1) (Okl.) Power of granting new
trial for excessive damages sparingly exercised.
-Consumers' Gas Co. v. O'Bannon, 423.
1029 (Okl.) Judgment affirmed if error did
not result in miscarriage of justice.-Purdy v.
Miller Hunter Co., 490.
1031(1) (Wash.) Denial of absolute right
1008 (2) (Okl.) Finding of trial court not presumed prejudicial.-Americus v. McGinnis,
disturbed where supported by evidence.-Bil-1033 (7) (Cal.) Appellant cannot complain
lings v. News Pub. Co. of Enid, 12; Same v.
of general finding according with her own
Eagle Printing & Publishing Co., 13; Wood v.
claims.--Whann v. Doell, 899.
Wood, 24.
1008 (2) (Okl.) Judgment reasonably sup-
ported by evidence not disturbed.-Sinclair Re-
fining Co. v. Keith, 1003.
versed at instance of party not deprived of
1039(2) (Mont.) Case should not be re-
substantial rights.-Campana v. Dobry, 540.
1039 (13) (Cal.App.) No reversal merely
1009(2) (Cal.App.) Finding of fact sup- to require plea of former adjudication of issue.
ported by evidence conclusive upon appeal.-Smith v. Whyers, 387.
Poultry Producers of Central California v.1047(1) (Okl.) Rulings on evidence not
Murphy, 962.
ground for reversal if not prejudicial.-Nolan
1009(4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity case V. Clift, 430.
sustained unless clearly against weight of evi-1054(1) (Utah) When admission of incom-
dence.-Foster v. Whitenton, 52.
petent evidence in cause tried to court does not
1009 (4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity not require reversal stated.-Western Securities Co.
clearly against evidence not disturbed.-Flow-v. Spiro, 856.
ers v. Flowers, 483.
Admission of witness' declarations respecting
1009 (4) (Okl.) Findings sustained in equi- his relation to plaintiff held not reversible er-
ty action, unless against weight of evidence.-ror in case tried without jury.→Id.
Claggett v. Hampton, 707.
1009 (4) (Okl.) Findings in equitable ac-
tion not disturbed unless clearly against evi-
dence.-McMillan v. Gentry, 717.
1060(1) (Okl.) Where possible to deter
mine from whole record that jury not preju-
diced by misconduct of counsel cause not re-
versed. Charley v. Nowell, 255.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
1061(4) (Okl.) Direction of verdict for 1170(9) (Okl.) Instruction placing burden
plaintiff for least amount returnable on plead- of proving defendants partners on defendant
ing and evidence of defendant not prejudicial.- held reversible error.-Sanders v. Percy, 420.
Harris v. Davis, 1009.
1172(1) (Nev.) Upon
Court may affirm in part and reverse in part
appeal, Supreme
though judgment an entirety.-Sorge v. Sierra
Auto Supply Co., 521.
1064(1) (Okl.) Erroneous instruction,
which could not have misled jury, not ground
for reversal.-Fisher v. Woolery, 45.
1064(1) (Okl.) Instruction improper but
not prejudicial not reversible error.-Mathews
v. Cifers, 468.
1064(1) (Okl.) Harmless instruction not
ground for reversal.-Parker-Gordon Cigar Co.
v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 711.
Instruction held harmless in view of proof;
evidence held to prove consignee's failure to
remove goods within required time after notice.
-Id.
1064 (1) (Okl.) Instruction as to degree of
proof required held harmless.-Star v. Star,
721.
1066 (Okl.) Harmless instruction, although
not applicable to issues, not ground for revers-
al.-Parker-Gordon Cigar Co. v. Chicago, R. I.
& P. Ry. Co., 711.
1176(6) (Utah) Where difficulty arose out
of misunderstanding, Supreme Court will re-
and modify contract.-Owens v. Neymeyer, 160.
mand cause to enable parties to adjust difficulty
1176(6) (Wash.) Where evidence insuffi-
with directions to dismiss.-Adams v. Anderson
cient to take case to jury, cause remanded,
& Middleton Lumber Co., 993.
1177(1) (Or.) Case tried on wrong theory
gon-Washington R. & Nav. Co., 1062.
should be remanded for retrial.-Ebell v. Ore-
(F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower
suit to quiet title, in which defendant sets up
1203 (5) (Colo.) Plaintiff may not dismiss
determine damages only.-Phares v. Don Car-
an interest where cause has been remanded to
los, 883.
Ci-1210(1) (Colo.) Reversal for sustaining de-
for plaintiff.-Coates v. Board of Com'rs of
murrer to complaint did not require judgment
Prowers County, 1090.
1068(5) (Okl.) Erroneous instructions as
to burden of proof of damages held harmless,
when verdict for defendant.-Mathews v.
fers, 468.
1071(6) (Cal.) Failure to find as to matter
not disputed not ground for retrial.-Whann v.
Doell, 899.
Appellant held not prejudiced by court's fail-
ure to find on contested items of account.-Id.
1071(6) (Cal.App.) Failure to find that
defendant was not common carrier held not
injurious.-Gornstein v. Priver, 396.
Failure to find on issues not reversible er-
ror, where findings made controlling.-Id.
1071(6) (Utah) Finding that note was val-
id and subsisting obligation includes finding of
valuable consideration and court's failure to so
find held harmless error.-Western Securities
Co. v. Spiro, 856.
(K) Subsequent Appeals.
1096(3) (Okl.) Questions which
have been presented on first appeal cannot be
should
presented on second.-Midland Valley R. Co.
v. Clark, 1025.
1097(1) (Idaho) Law of case as to court
of intermediate jurisdiction.-Sala v. Crane,
556.
XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPOSI-
TION OF CAUSE.
(A) Decision in General.
63(4) (Okl.Cr.App.) Officers seeing opera-
without warrant.-Francis v. State, 785.
tion of moonshine stills may arrest_operators
11. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.
71 (Okl.Cr.App.) Officers seeing operation
of moonshine stills may arrest operators and
seize stills without warrant.-Francis v. State,
785.
ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
970.
ARSON.
1106 (5) (Colo.) Mixed questions of law See Criminal Law,
and fact must be decided below or judgment
will be reversed.-Cook v. Cook, 883.
31 (Utah) Discrepancy between value of
property and insurance thereon competent to
prove motive.-State v. Horr, 867.
36 (Utah) Evidence in rebuttal as to value
of property destroyed held properly excluded.—
State v. Horr, 867.
1146 (Nev.) Upon appeal, Supreme Court
may modify judgment though an entirety. See Homicide.
Sorge v. Sierra Auto Supply Co., 521.
1151 (2) (Cal.App.) Judgment modified by
striking out concededly erroneous award.
Smith v. Whyers, 387.
1151 (2) (Nev.) Judgment for lump sum
properly modified on appeal where one of caus-
es of action not established.-Sorge v. Sierra
Auto Supply Co., 521.
II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
(A) Offenses.
56 (Okl.Cr.App.) Assault with a dangerous
deadly weapon.-Castleberry v. State, 1044.
weapon held of lesser degree than assault with
(B) Prosecution and Punishment.
95 (Okl.Cr.App.) Undescribed pocketknife
not deadly or dangerous weapon per se; wheth-
er knife used by accused in assault dangerous
1044.
weapon held for jury.-Castleberry v. State,
See Highways, 142; Taxation, 362–453.
|