1081 For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER to his vendees for unlawful detention of possession.-Scott v. Habinck, 817. VENUE. See Criminal Law, 108. I. NATURE OR SUBJECT OF ACTION. III. CONTRACTS TO DEVISE OR BE QUEATH. 66 (Wis.) No breach of contract by devisee to care for testator, defeating the will.-In re Derusseau's Will, 705. IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. 119 (S.D.) Evidence held to show sufficient 8 (S.D.) Statute relating to venue in action for "damages to persons" applicable only declaration by testatrix to witnesses that into actions for physical injuries.-Kayser v. Nel-strument was her will.-Hauer v. Hauer, 1. son, 361. II. DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE OF PAR TIES. 22(3) (Neb.) Plaintiff failing to present issuable controversy against defendant in county of suit cannot rightfully serve other defendants outside such county.-Bailey v. Chilton, 939. III. CHANGE OF VENUE OR PLACE OF 37 (Iowa) Change for fraud in inception of note sued on cannot be granted after continuance.-Bilbo v. District Court of Ringgold County, 640. Reply to answer not necessary to make up issues to bring case within rule against change of venue after continuance granted.-Id. (F) Mistake, Undue Influence, and Fraud. 163(2)(Wis.) Evidence held to show no fiduciary relationship existed with devisee.In re Derusseau's Will, 705. ~164(1) (Minn.) In a contest for undue influence, excluding evidence of a matter not probably influencing testator held not error.In re Brewster's Estate, 564. 166(1)(Minn.) Evidence held to support !finding of absence of undue influence.-In re Brewster's Estate, 564. 166(1) (Minn.) Evidence held to show testator not under undue influence.-In re Wood's Estate, 955. 166(1) (S.D.) Evidence held sufficient to show that testator was not unduly influenced. -In re Whitman's Estate, 975. 166 (2) (Wis.) Evidence held to support the finding that testator was not unduly influenced. de--In re Derusseau's Will, 705. 41 (N.D.) Change to residence county of private and corporate defendants, on joint mand of both, was proper.-Farmers' Security 166(5) (S.D.) Weight of unnatural dispoBank of Conway v. Springen, 664. VERDICT. See Trial, 3211⁄2-349. WATERS AND WATER COURSES. See Drains. V. SURFACE WATERS. sition of property in showing undue influence depends on motives controlling testator.-In re Whitman's Estate, 975. 166(7) (S.D.) That beneficiary had opportunity to influence testator not legal proof of influence.-Gillette v. McLaughlin, 277. (G) Revocation and Revival. 184(1) (Iowa) Will held not revoked by codicils.-Bennett v. Primer, 392. Will not revoked by codicil, unless by conflict in terms or by express provisions.-Id. 119(2) (S.D.) Statute permits drainage184(4) (Iowa) Fourth codicil held to realong natural course, but law does not permit voke third codicil, although using words in adit along artificial course.-Rae v. Kuhns, 280.dition to legacies already made; "said."-In re 126(2) (S.D.) Evidence held to show lowDaniels' Estate, 647. er landowners' damage from drain not trifling. -Rae v. Kuhns, 280. V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND AN- (I) Hearing or Trial. 324(3) (Mich.) Execution with knowledge of contents and without fraud in procuring signature question for jury.-Gutt v. Walter's Estate, 529. Contestants' testimony of execution without knowing instrument was a will negatives claim of undue influence.-Id. See Descent and Distribution; Executors and 324 (3) (S.D.) Evidence held insufficient Administrators. II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. 52(6) (Wis.) Testamentary incapacity cannot be presumed because testator had epilepsy. -In re Derusseau's Will, 705. 55(1) (Minn.) Evidence held to support finding of mental capacity.-In re Brewster's Estate, 564. for submission of undue influence.-Gillette v. McLaughlin, 277. (K) Review. 384 (Mich.) Erroneous ruling that contestants were incompetent witnesses prejudicial. -Gutt v. Walter's Estate. 529. 384 (Minn.) In a contest for undue influence, excluding evidence of happenings_after error.-In re 55(1) (Minn.) Evidence held to show tes-execution held not reversible tator of sound and disposing mind. In re Brewster's Estate, 564. Wood's Estate, 955 55(1) (S.D.) Evidence held sufficient to show testamentary capacity.-In re Whitman's Estate, 975. 55(5) (Wis.) Evidence held to show that a testator was competent to execute his will.-In re Derusseau's Will, 705. 55(10) (S.D.) Weight of unnatural disposition of property in showing testamentary incapacity depends on motives controlling testator.-In re Whitman's Estate, 975. VI. CONSTRUCTION. (A) General Rules. 476 (Iowa) Will and codicil should be construed together.-Bennett v. Primer, 392. (B) Designation of Devisees, and Legatees and Their Respective Shares. 524 (2) (Neb.) Devise to daughter for life, remainder to her children, refers to children in being.-Nitz v. Widman, 172. credibility tests.-In re County Ditch No. 33, Marshall County, 374. 634 (10) (Iowa) Devise of remainder, after life estate, to children, with share of deceased (B) Character and Conduct of Witness. child to her issue, held to vest only half inter-337 (5) (Neb.) Defendant witness may be est in surviving son on death of life tenant, asked if ever convicted of felony.-Denker v. though children of deceased sister died intestate prior thereto.-Dowd v. Scally, 340. State, 945. 634(15) (Iowa) "On the death of my wife" and "at the death of my wife" denote time or event on which remaindermen come into possession, not time remainder vests.-Dowd v. Scally, 340. 635 (Neb.) Devise to daughter for life, remainder to her children, refers to children in being, but will open and let in after-born children.-Nitz v. Widman, 172. (H) Estates in Trust and Powers. VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF.DEV- ness as to whether federal officer had investi345(1)(Iowa) Cross-examination of witgated charges against him improper.-Dickson v. Yates, 310. 345 (1) (Mich.) Evidence as to conviction Niedzinski v. Coryell, 476. of witness admissible to affect his credibility.345 (4) (Iowa) Verdict of which no judgment has been entered not a guilty upon "conviction" within statute.-Dickson v. Yates, 310. as to plea of guilty in another case to affect 345(4) (Neb.) May not be cross-examined credibility, since such is not a "conviction" under the statute.-Ford v. State, 70. (C) Interest and Bias, of Witness. (A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen-372(1) (S.D.) Court, on cross-examination eral. 719 (Mich.) Mere delay in presenting will for probate not estoppel against claiming under will.-Barney v Barney, 860. to show bias, cannot exclude evidence that is 743 (Mich.) Consideration for assignment by legatee of amount payable to him from estate held inadequate.--Mulford v. Stender, 490. (B) Specific, Demonstrative, and General 383 (Iowa) May be impeached by proof of Devises and Bequests. former inconsistent statements material to is750 (Iowa) Distinction between "specific" sue.-Borough v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., and "general" legacy stated.-In re Daniels' 388 (5) (Iowa) Exclusion of question on 320. Estate, 647. WITNESSES. See Depositions; Evidence. I. ATTENDANCE, PRODUCTION OF DOCU- 28(1) (Neb.) Expert only entitled to utory fee.-Ulaski v. Morris & Co., 946. II. COMPETENCY. cross-examination, laying foundation for impeachment, held error.-McDonald v. Yellow Taxicab Co., 291. 388(10) (Iowa) Proper foundation held laid for impeaching witness.-Borough v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 320. stat-389 (Iowa) Court erred in not admitting impeaching testimony, when witness denied making inconsistent statement.-Borough Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 320. (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representatives, Survivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased or Incompetent. V. 390 (Iowa) Impeaching evidence held admissible.-Borough v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 320. (E) Contradiction and Corroboration of Witness. 131 (Mich.) Opposite party statute inapplicable to will contests.-Gutt v. Walter's Es-398 (3) (Mich.) Defendant bound by crosstate. 529. 146 (Neb.) Husband of nonresident married woman competent to testify to conversations with decedent.-Kiser v. Sullivan, 93. 178(4) (Wis.) Plaintiff's testimony as to transaction with decedent admissible, where deposition introduced by defendants.-Lamberson v. Lamberson, 708. (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications. 202 (Mich.) Conversation between attorney who drew deed and father admissible in action between son and daughter as to validity of father's deed.-Warner v. Kerr, 425. 268 (2) (Neb.) Wide latitude allowed in cross-examination of indorsee's cashier to show bona fides.-Union Nat. Bank of Beloit, Kan., v. Moomaw, 51. examination of plaintiff.-Harley v. Hartford Fruit Growers' & Farmers' Exch., 507. WORDS AND PHRASES. "Assistant."-Lower v. State (Neb.) 174. "Bona fide purchaser."-Miller V. Vanicek "Bridge."-Central Bridge & Construction Co. "Case."-E. H. Emery & Co. v. American Re- 268(15) (Minn.) Latitude in cross-examination is within court's discretion.-State v. "Compensation."-State v. Reeves (S. D.) 993; Minneapolis Cold Storage Co., 854. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT, CON- 319 (Minn.) On appeal to district court, a viewer as a witness is subject to the usual Christopherson v. Reeves (S. D.) 1015. "Conviction."-Dickson v. Yates (Iowa) 310; Ford v. State (Neb.) 70. "Culvert."-Central Bridge & Construction Co. v. Saunders County (Neb.) 220. "Current year."-Central Bridge & Construction Co. v. Saunders County (Neb.) 220. For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER "Damages."-Renner v. Model Laundry, Clean- "Pleading."-Hogan v. City of Beloit (Wis.) ing & Dyeing Co. (Iowa) 611; Scott v. 687. Habinck (Iowa) 817. "Damages to persons."-Kayser v. Nelson (S. D.) 361. "Disability."-Moses v. National Union Coal "Due process of law."-Albin v. Consolidated "Emolument."-State v. Reeves (S. D.) 993. tion Co. v. Saunders County (Neb.) 220. "Hedging."-Edgeley Co-op. Grain Co. v. Spitzer (N. D.) 880. "Holder in due course."-Britton Milling Co. v. "Immediate disability."-Rathbun v. Globe In- "Immediate notice."-Frommelt v. Travelers' "Pledge."-Clark v. Chapman (Mich.) 497. "Police power."-City of Des Moines v. Man- "Proceeding."-Hogan v. City of Beloit (Wis.) 687. "Public purpose."-State v. Reeves (S. D.) 993. "Revision of statutes."-Becker v. Green Coun- 647. "Total disability."-Rathbun v. Globe Indemnity Co. (Neb.) 303. "Infamous crime."-Becker v. Green County "Willful neglect."-Preston v. State (Neb.) (Wis.) 715. "In statu quo."-Rickman v. Houck (Iowa) 657. "Last clear chance."-Miller v. Sioux Falls Traction Co. (S. D.) 233. "Loss."-Moses v. National Union Coal Mining "Loss of use."-Moses v. National Union Coal 218. V. Robinson (Neb.) 925. "Work."-State v. Dean (Minn.) 275. "Works of necessity."-State v. Dean (Minn.) WORK AND LABOR. 24(1) (Minn.) On counterclaim for labor, held error to submit reasonable value of serv ices. Siverts v. Dahoot, 839. "Motor vehicle."-Niedzinski v. Coryell (Mich.) 28(4) (Mich.) Proof should be specific_as to value of work done.-Kitchen v. Hill, 465. 476. "Napropathy."-Carpenter v. State (Neb.) 941.29(2) (Mich.) Recovery by employee on "Not previously unchaste."-Christiancy V. quantum meruit on breach of contract.-Kitchen v. Hill, 465. State (Neb.) 948. "On the death of my wife."-Dowd v. Scally 30(3) (Mich.) Instruction as to recovery (Iowa) 340. "Ordinance."-City of Detroit v. Detroit Unit--Kitchen v. Hill, 465. on implied contract not required under proofs. ed Ry. (Mich.) 516. "Ordinance, order, or resolution."-Hamre v. City of Thief River Falls (Minn.) 225. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. "Partition fence."-Osgood v. Names (Iowa) See Master and Servant, 331. "Pay."-Christopherson v. Reeves (S. D.) 1015. "Performing services growing out of and inci 348-420. WRIT OF ERROR. WRITS. dental to his employment."-U. S. Casualty See Appeal and Error. Co. v. Superior Hardware Co. (Wis.) 694. "Perpetual."-Widener v. Sharp (Neb.) 161. "Perquisite."-State v. Reeves (S. D.) 993; Christopherson v. Reeves (S. D.) 1015. "Personal estate."-Maxwell v. Maxwell (Neb.) 227. See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Garnishment; Injunction; Mandamus; Process; Prohibition; Quo Warranto. IN STATE REPORTS VOL. 212, MICHIGAN REPORTS Mich. N. W. Rep. Rep. Mich. Rep. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vel. 1 179 254 137 180 7 179 259 139 N. W. Mich. N. W. Rep. 180 480 236 180 Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. 180 180 180 386 614 180 474 180 409 622 180 629 495 516 180 |