Lien-Purchaser Without Notice.-Under section 4021 of the
Kentucky Statutes, the tax lien exists for five years, and this
lien cannot be defeated by a sale of the property, as the pur-
chaser is charged with notice of the lien; but a purchaser,
without notice, after the expiration of five years from the
time the tax became due, will be protected, unless notice of
the suit to collect the tax was given in compliance with
section 2358a of the Kentucky Statutes. Idem.
TELEGRAM-WHEN COPY OF MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE
to Set Aside Appointment of Re-
ceiver Question of Compensation.-The East Tennessee
Telephone Co. had a trade agreement with the Eastern Ken-
tucky Telephone Co. to exchange messages. Appellee Watson
was appointed receiver for the Eastern Kentucky Telegraph
and Telephone Co. and he filed a suit in the Montgomery Cir-
cuit Court against the East Tennessee Telephone Co. to have
it restrained from disconnecting its toll lines with the ex-
change of the local company. The East Tennessee Telephone
Co. sought to have the appointment of Watson as receiver set
aside as disqualified by reason of being an interested party.
Held that section 300 of the Civil Code prohibits persons
interested in the subject of litigation from being appointed
receiver, but having accepted such appointment it will not
be heard to complain because the court permitted him to act
after objection was made, and, having agreed to accept a
stipulated compensation, he will not now be heard to say that
the court erred in fixing a compensation even less than that
agreed to by appellant. If these toll receipts were not a trust
fund in the hands of the home company, the mere appoint-
ment of a receiver for the company cannot make them such.
East Tennessee Telephone Company v. Watson....
TENANT-See Landlord and Tenant.
Peremptory Instruction.-Where the plaintiff sued for damages
for injuries caused by being struck by an elevator while he
was at work on the elevator shaft, and the proof being con-
tradictory and conflicting as to whether he was guilty of
negligence, the trial court properly overruled defendant's
motion for a peremptory instruction, and submitted the case
to the jury. Otis Elevator Co. v. Wilson...
TRANSCRIPT-TWO APPEALS-WHEN ONE FEE CHARGED.
TRESPASS-ACTION FOR-See Land, 1, 2.
TRIALS-See Instructions; Pleadings-
Instructions.-Where the court gave an instruction, based
upon facts which would authorize the jury to find for the
plaintiff, it was not a reversible error for it to fail to connect
said instruction, by reference, to subsequent instructions
which authorized a finding for the defendant upon the state
of facts therein predicated. If all the instructions, considered
as a series, presented the law applicable to the case fully
and accurately, it is sufficient. White v. Jouett............. 198
Exception to Ruling Necessary. In order that a ruling of
the circuit court may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, it
is necessary that an exception be taken thereto at the time
the ruling is made. Blanton v. Commonwealth....
Misconduct of Attorney.-The misconduct of an attorney in
the argument of the case cannot be reviewed where no ob-
jection was made to the conduct, at the time. Idem..... 812
Misconduct of Counsel Must be Shown by Bill of Exception.—
Where there was a failure to object to the misconduct of
counsel, at the time, the alleged misconduct cannot be
brought before the court by affidavits filed in support of a
motion for a new trial; such misconduct can only be shown
by the bill of exceptions, and that the objection was taken
at the time of the alleged misconduct. Idem..
TRUSTEE, ACTION ΤΟ SURCHARGE
UNDERTAKER-See Funeral Expenses, 1, 2—
Furnishing Carriage-Negligence of
Away-Injury to Occupant-Liability.-Where an undertak-
ing concern, in conducting a funeral furnished a carriage
and team in which a lady was taken to the funeral, and, on
returning there from the team by the negligence of the driver
which was left unhitched and unattended at a cafe, ran away
and injured her, the undertaker is liable to her for the dam-
ages she sustained. Radel Company v. Borches..
.. 506
1. No usury can be regarded as paid until the satisfaction of the
principal and legal interest. Cambron v. Boldrick, Trustee,
et al. .
Right to Recover-Second Lien Holder-Right to Prove Prior
Lien of Usury.-Where a partnership buys property and to
pay for it borrows money secured by a lien on the property
and then sells it to a member of the firm in consideration of
his assuming the lien indebtedness and executing his notes
to the other partners secured by a second lien and the vendee
becomes insolvent and the property is sold and the proceeds
are not sufficient to pay the second lien the second lien hold-
ers are entitled to have the first lien purged of usury for
their benefit and until their debt is paid, the vendee cannot
recover usury of the first lien holder. Idem....
Erroneous Method Employed in Fixing It.-Where it is
clear from the evidence that the jury used erroneous data as
the basis for their calculation in fixing the amount of their
verdict, and thereby gave plaintiff a verdict for largely more
than the proof warranted, the judgment will be set aside
upon the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence.
White v. Jouett
Question Whether so Excessive as to Indicate Prejudice
and Passion on Part of Jury.-In an action to recover dam-
ages for personal injury, the only question was as to whether
the verdict was excessive and whether it resulted from
prejudice and passion on the part of the jury. Held, That
from an examination of the evidence and authorities cited it
cannot be said the verdict was excessive. Mutual Wheel Com-
pany v. Meaders .
3. Will Not Be Disturbed Unless Palpably Against Weight of
Evidence. It is not sufficient that a verdict is against the
weight of the evidence, or that the court would have found
the facts differently. The verdict must be palpably against
the evidence or it will not be disturbed. Emerald Chief Stock
Farm v. Patrick & Bohanan, et al..........
VOLUNTARILY PAYING DEBT OF ANOTHER-
No Recovery Can Be Had Therefor.-As a general proposition
one who voluntarily pays for another a debt or obligation
owed by the other, without the request of that other, or who
expends money on account of another without the consent of
that other, cannot recover the money laid out, and this upon
the principle that no man can of his own volition, make an-
other his debtor. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Central Kentucky
Traction Co., et al..
WARRANTY-See Principal and Agent.
In the absence of pleading and proof showing that an agent em-
ployed to sell a sifter system was a general agent, or had
authority from his principal to do more than make con-
tracts in respect to the machinery he sold, his principal will
not be bound by his warranty that the machinery already in
the purchasers mill would furnish sufficient power to operate
the sifter system. Case Manufacturing Co. v. Vickers...... 396
COURSE-LEGISLATURE MAY CONFER AUTHOR-
ITY ON FISCAL OR OTHER COURTS TO MAKE USE OF
WATER COURSES.
WILLS-See Advancements, 1, 2—
Limitation-Construction.-The will of a testator examined,
and held that a certain limitation applies solely to property
devised to his children, and not to property devised to his
grandchildren. Ellis v. Smith's Guardian, et al.............. 99
Construction of-Parts of Will Upheld.-Where a part of a
will can be upheld without doing violence to the evident in-
tention of the testator, such parts will be upheld, and only
such parts of the will rejected as violate the statute. Lind-
ner, an Infant, et al. v. Ehrich....
Limitation-Void. The limitation attempted is void for the
reason that both of testator's children were living at the time
of his death, and either of them might have had children born
to them after his death, and these children might have lived
beyond the period fixed by the statute, to-wit: a life or lives
in being and twenty-one years and ten months thereafter.
Any attempted limitation beyond that fixed by statute being
void, the grandchildren took a fee in the property to which
their parent held a life estate. Idem.....
Provision of Code.-Section 490, Civil Code, expressly au-
thorizes the sale of property so held. (See Atherton v. War-
ren, 27 R., 632.) Idem
Character of Estate Devised-Intention of Testator.-The
question in this case is whether a specific devise of a store
house and two lots by the will of a testator to his son, Clar-
ence, vested in the latter merely a life estate therein, in-
stead of the fee as in a specific devise of real estate to an-
other son, Elbert, and a general devise of certain other real
estate to the two sons jointly. While the language of that
part of the will devising specific property to Clarence ap-
parently differs from that used in the devise of specific prop-
erty to Elbert, and also the joint devise to the two sons, it is
obvious from the language of the will as a whole that it was
the intention of the testator to put the two sons on an equal
footing with respect to the property devised them, respec-
tively. That is, that in the event of the death of either son
before that of the testator, the children of the one dying,
should take under the will what would have been received by
the father if living. Therefore, under the will, Clarence took
the fee to both the property devised him alone and that de-
vised him and Elbert jointly, subject to be defeated by the
happening of his death before that of the testator, and in
the latter event the property will go to his children. Black-
well, et al. v. Blackwell, et al.......
When May Be Defeated by Happening of Contingency.-
Where an estate is given by will which may be defeated upon
the happening of a contingency, and there is no other period
apparent or intended, in which the event shall occur, it
shall refer to an event happening within the lifetime of the
testator. Idem .
Construction of-Where the testator gave his estate to his
widow for life, and at her death to his two sons and two
grandsons in equal portions, the remaindermen each took a
vested estate, and upon the death; before the widow of one
of the grandchildren, his parents were entitled to his share
under the statute of descent and distribution. Cruse, et al. v.
Cruse, et al.
Payment of Debts Due by Life Tenant.-Debts contracted by
the life tenant, a widow, as well as her funeral expenses
should be paid out of her individual estate and are not
chargeable against the estate of her husband. Idem.......
Estates.--Where a testator gave his homestead to his wife
for her to use and enjoy as she might see fit, during her
natural life, with remainder to his living daughters, or their
heirs, each daughter took a defeasable fee which could be de-
feated upon the death of the daughter, without issue, during
the lifetime of the mother. Harper, et al. v. Patterson, et al. 356
WITNESSES-IMPEACHMENT OF-See Criminal Law, 2; Evi-
Impeaching-Error.-It is not necessary to reject testimony tend-
ing to impeach a witness when proper foundation as to time
was not laid when the witness sought to be impeached was
on the stand. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Grassman..
WORDS-MEANING OF THEM-WHEN NOT ACTIONABLE-
See Slander.
Remedy by Appeal.-A writ of prohibition will not be issued
against a Circuit Court to restrain him from proceeding in
a case before him if the applicant has an adequate remedy
by appeal. White v. Kirby, Judge....
|