THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digests, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
See Compromise and Settlement.
IV. COMMENCEMENT, PROSECU-
TION, AND TERMINATION.
70 (Minn.) Not abandoned by delay in
service of summons.-Wagner v. Farmers' Co-
op. Exch. Co. of Good Thunder, 231.
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS.
7(1) (Minn.) Retention of money paid is
not a compromise.-C. W. La Moure Co. v. See Executors and Administrators.
Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co., 540.
10(1) (Minn.) Elements stated.-C. W. La
Moure Co. v. Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co., 540.
~11(1) (Iowa) Creditor must have accept-16 (Minn.) Decree should be opened on
ed agreed amount in complete satisfaction.- showing that notice was not given to grand-
Warfield, Pratt, Howell Co. v. Richou, 866.
22 (Mich.) Personalty inherited by adopt-
parents of orphan.-In re Fay, 533.
ed child descends from her to heirs of adoptive
father. In re Schultz's Estate, 460.
(1) (Minn.) Payment of part of debt
does not discharge whole.-C. W. La Moure Co.
v. Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co., 540.
17 (N.D.) After unexecuted accord, insur-
ed held entitled to maintain action on original
policy. Lehde v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
of Pittsburgh, Pa., 56.
26(1) (Iowa) Presumed on the facts that
settlement was general settlement of all claims
made.-Marsh v. Pilcher Hardware Co., 648.
Presumption of general settlement held not
Difficulty of identifying personalty does not
prevent application of distribution statute.-Id.
ADULTERY.
2 (Wis.) Woman's intercourse with anoth-
13 (Wis.) Exclusion of letter tending to
er no defense.-Fink v. State, 812.
27 (Wis.) Whether there had been settle-held within discretion of trial court.-Fink v.
show that woman had intercourse with others
ment held a question for jury.-Dieck v. Ocon-
to Co., 932.
State, 812.
I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
5 (Iowa) Case without mutual demands
not cognizable in equity.-Richman v. Richman,
182.
transactions and
6 (Iowa) Number of
items not ground of equitable jurisdiction.-
Richman v. Richman, 182.
See Abatement and Revival.
14 (Wis.) Evidence sufficient to support
conviction, although no direct corroboration as
to intercourse.-Fink v. State, 812.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
I. NATURE AND REQUISITES.
(B) Actual Possession.
26 (Mich.) Title acquired by possession
for 15 years not dependent on lawful entry.-
Lawson v. Bishop, 596.
Possession for 15 years gives title, notwith-
standing failure to give notice of reconvey-
ance.-Id.
(E) Duration and Continuity of Posses-
27(2) (Iowa) Lessor's breach of agree-
ment to repair not actionable as tort.-Willis v.44 (Iowa) Claim of right must have ex-
Snyder, 290.
isted throughout period.-Fisher v. Paup, 167.
tle held not to break continuity of possession.
46 (Minn.) Nonuser by predecessor in ti-
-Bahneman v. Fritche, 215.
III. JOINDER, SPLITTING. CONSOLI-
DATION, AND SEVERANCE.
38(2) (Iowa) Prayer for monetary relief 57 (Mich.) Tax deeds, though insufficient
in replevin action not misjoinder.-Firestone to convey title, admissible to show time of en-
Tire & Rubber Co. v. Anderson, 273.
try.-Lawson v. Bishop, 596.
38(4) (Wis.) Complaint held to show sin-
gle cause of action for fraud.-Booker v. Pel-
key, 132.
53 (3) (Mich.) Creditors' claim an entire
demand, so that former proceeding for part
bars present suit for balance; "open account."
-A. Krolik & Co. v. Ossowski, 499.
(F) Hostile Character of Possession.
60(4) (Wis.) Possession after permissive
entry not adverse until right is asserted.-
Perkins v. Perkins, 334.
62 (3) (Wis.) Possession of defendant sec-
ond husband held not adverse to widow whom
he married or her children.-Perkins v. Per-134(1) (Iowa) Entry of decree in record
kins, 334.
book prerequisite to appeal.-State v. Beaton,
63(4) (Neb.) Statute does not begin to run 166.
until assertion of adverse holding to plaintiff's
knowledge.-Brooks v. Brooks, 41.
66(1) (Neb.) Claim to boundary line fence
for statutory period gives title to land im-
properly included.--Carnahan V. Cummings,
558.
Nature of claim to included disputed strip
dependent on nature of claim to main body
of land.-Id.
68 (Neb.) Claim of title either actual or
presumed essential.-Carnahan v. Cummings,
558.
85(1) (Wis.) Presumptions favor true
owner, except presumption that exclusive pos-
session was adverse.-Perkins v. Perkins, 334.
85(2) (Mich.) Tax deeds, though insuffi-
cient to convey title, admissible to show extent
of possession, etc.-Lawson v. Bishop, 596.
IV. RIGHT OF REVIEW.
(B) Estoppel, Waiver, or Agreements Af-
165 (Iowa) Commencement of new action
for same cause waives right to appeal.—
Ritchey v. Davis, 150.
Waiver of appeal by new action not cured
by dismissal of subsequent action.-Id.
V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVA-
TION IN LOWER COURT OF
GROUNDS OF REVIEW.
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
169 (Iowa) Assignments not presented be-
low cannot be considered.-Overland Daven-
port Co. v. W. M. Novak Auto Co., 147.
85(3) (Iowa) Evidence held to sustain
finding possession of 15 years under claim of 171(1) (Minn.) Stipulation held not to re-
right.-Fisher v. Paup, 167.
quire Supreme Court on appeal to hold that a
surveyor's lines were true lines.-Bahneman v.
Fritche, 215.
85(3) (Minn.) Finding of adverse posses-
sion held sustained by the evidence.-Bahne-
man v. Fritche, 215.
III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL,
AND REVIEW.
111 (Mich.) Allegation of title held not
to estop plaintiff from claiming by adverse pos-
session.-Lawson v. Bishop, 596.
114(1) (Iowa) Possessor held to have
tle.-Fisher v. Paup, 167.
See Principal and Agent.
ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS.
See Husband and Wife, 326–335.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
171(3) (Neb.) Failure to reply cannot be
urged on appeal, where case tried as if reply
had been filed.-Reynolds & Maginn v. Omaha
General Iron Works, 584.
172(1) (Iowa) Contentions on appeal held
limited to grounds pleaded.-Bryan & Co. v.
Scurlock, 684.
ti-179(1) (Mich.) Defense of account stated
held sufficiently raised in lower court.-A. Kro-
lik & Co. v. Ossowski, 499.
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
Thereon.
194(4) (N.D.) Appellant held not entitled
to question execution of mortgage or proof as
to power of attorney in suit to determine ad-
verse claims.-Fendrich v. Buffalo Pitts Co.,
707.
216(6) (Iowa) Complaints for refusal to
instruct must be based on requested instruc-
tions.-Ruebel Bros. v. American Express Co.,
658.
222 (S.D.) Objection to failure of specifi-
cation of errors to refer to transcript must be
made in trial court.-Mizar v. Nelson, 960.
263 (3) (Iowa) Refusal of instruction not
reviewable in absence of exception.-In re
Champion's Estate, 174.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
structions must be pointed out, to warrant re-
302(4) (Iowa) Particular errors in in-
view.-Milder v. Milder, 274.
VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS
FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE.
(C) Payment of Fees or Costs, and Bonds
or Other Securities.
For review of rulings in particular actions or
proceedings, see also the various specific top-391 (2) (S.D.) New undertaking permitted
II. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF AP-
PELLATE JURISDICTION.
20 (S.D.) Appellate court, may review ac-
tion of court in determining its jurisdiction.-
Polluck v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 61.
III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.
(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of Decision.
95 (Wis.) Order bringing in party not ap-
pealable.-Fisher v. Milwaukee Electric Ry.
& Light Co., 269.
(F) Mode of Rendition, Form, and Entry
of Judgment or Order.
133 (Minn.) No appeal from findings and
order for judgment.-Wilson v. Tauer, 95.
to be filed to cure error of omission.-Polluck
v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 61.
(D) Writ of Error, Citation, or Notice.
will
where notice
415 (Iowa) Appeal
be dismissed.
was given only by defendant
against whom judgment for costs was rendered.
-Fowler v. Decatur County, 281.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
(E) Abstracts of Record.
590 (Iowa) Testimony contained in amend-877 (3) (S.D.) Appellant cannot complain
ment of abstract a part of the record when not of defect in parties by which he is not aggriev-
denied.-Glanville v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. ed.-Gillette v. McLaughlin, 952.
Co., 152.
(H) Transmission, Filing, Printing, and
878(2) (Wis.) Provision of order prejudi-
appeal.-Webb v. Call Pub. Co., 263.
cial to appellee not disturbed without separate
629 (Minn.) Extension of time for serving one defending decree.-Logan v. Davis, 184.
878(5) (Iowa) Error cannot be urged by
record held unnecessary.-Chance v. Hawkin-878 (5) (Mich.) No change in decree in
son, 214.
favor of party not appealing.-Kellogg v. Kel-
(K) Questions Presented for Review.
logg Toasted Corn Flake Co., 397.
878 (7) (Iowa) Defendant
690(4) (Iowa) Materiality of offered way- lants may not assign error against_codefendant.
cross-appel-
bill must be shown by record to sustain excep--Mason City Brick & Tile Co. v. Lamson, 314;
tion to exclusion from evidence.-Ruebel Bros. Heil Co. v. Same, 321; Wisconsin Iron & Wire
v. American Express Co., 658.
Works v. Dunphy-Fridstein Co., Id.
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
724(5) (Iowa) Assignment of error, mere-
ly referring to abstract, held insufficient to
specify objection.-Hungerford v. Mutual Life
Ins. Co. of New York, 849.
729 (Iowa) Objection by motion to direct
verdict that plaintiffs were not entitled to sue
held not presented where not specifically as-
signed and where not argued.-Ruebel Bros. v.
American Express Co., 658.
758(3)(Iowa) Proposition as to admission
of evidence held too general for consideration.
-Brown v. Gray, 162.
882(14) (N.D.) Party conceding there was
one issue for jury cannot on appeal assert
there were others.-Marshall Wells Co. v. Re-
gan, 54.
883 (Wis.) Matter consented to below not
subject to complaint.-Women's Catholic Order
of Foresters v. Krivetz, 819.
883 (Wis.) Plaintiff cannot complain of
remittitur on defendant's appeal.-First Wis-
consin Trust Co. v. Schmidt, 832.
(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and
Trial of Cause Anew.
889 (3) (Neb.) Court may conform plead-
ings to proof.-Root v. Douglas County, 46.
895(2) (Mich.) Supreme Court hears
chancery cases de novo, aided by findings of
trial judge, in turn aided by findings of jury.
760(1) (Iowa) Court not required to
search abstract.-Brown v. Gray, 162.
760 (2) (Iowa) Proposition requiring court-Leser v. Smith, 464.
to search abstract not considered.-Brown v.
Gray, 162.
766 (Iowa) Affirmance where appellant's
brief does not comply with rule.-Reed
Smith, 150.
V.909(1) (Iowa) Plaintiff who replevined
and to have been required to prosecute case
property will be presumed to have given bond
to judgment.-Sonka v. Yonkers, 876.
772 (Minn.) Extension of time for serv-
ing appellants' brief held unnecessary.-Chance
v. Hawkinson, 214.
781 (4) (Mich.) Where acts sought to be
restrained have been performed, question on
appeal is moot.-Gildemeister v. Lindsay, 633.
909 (5) (Minn.) Without findings Supreme
Court cannot assume a fact.-Mikolas v. Val
Blatz Brewing Co., 109.
926(1) (Wis.) Proof of custom subsequent
to contract held harmless, in view of presump-
tion that custom was not of recent origin.--
Dieck v. Oconto Co., 932.
782 (S.D.) Appeal from order denying new 928 (2) (S.D.) Refused request presumed
trial not dismissed for court's want of juris-covered in absence from record of instructions
diction.-Polluck v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. given.-Bottum v. Kamen, 948.
Co., 61.
(A) Scope and Extent in General.
931(1) (Minn.) Findings of fact presumed
to be made without reference to conclusions.--
State v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 548.
931 (6) (N.D.) In trial to court under New-
837(11) (N.D.) In trial to court under based on proper testimony.-Roberge v. Ro-
man Act Supreme Court presumes findings
Newman Act Supreme Court reviews proper berge, 15.
evidence in record.-Roberge v. Roberge, 15.
843(2) (Iowa) Misconduct of jury not con-932(1) (S.D.) Verdict for death damages
sidered where judgment reversed on other presumed fair and reasonable.-Bottum v. Ka-
grounds.-Brown v. Gray, 162.
843 (3) (Iowa) Sufficiency of evidence for 937(1) (Iowa) Appeal from favorable
submission of issue to jury not considered on
part of decree not presumed.-Boatwright v.
reversal on other grounds.-Brown v. Gray,
American Life Ins. Co., 321.
937 (3) (S.D.) Appellant assumed to have
853 (Iowa) Instructions regarded as law filed notice of appeal.-Mizar v. Nelson, 960.
of the case, when not excepted to.-Botna Val-938(3) (Iowa) Abstracts presumed to con-
ley State Bank v. Greig, 301.
tain whole of record.-Brown v. Gray, 162.
854 (2) (S.D.) Correct judgment based on
eironeous reasons will be affirmed.-Schnuerle
v. Gilbert, 953.
854(4) (Iowa) Sustaining objection
held if evidence was inadmissible for any rea-
son.-Ruebel Bros. v. American Express Co.,
658.
863 (Iowa) Only portion of judgment ap-
pealed from considered.-Incorporated Town of
Conway v. Conway, 677.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
948 (Iowa) Burden of showing abuse of
discretion on appellant.-Seamans v. Gallup,
276.
970 (4) (Minn.) Order reopening case for
further evidence will be reversed only for abuse
of discretion.-Smith v. Kurtzenacker, 243.
977(3) (Iowa) Motion is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court.-Seamans v.
Gallup, 276.
865 (Minn.) Appeal from order refusing to
vacate default judginent raises only the ques-
tion whether answer stated a defense.-Mann-978(1) (Iowa) Granting new trial will
heimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety not be disturbed unless abuse of discretion ap-
Co., 229.
pears. Seamans v. Gallup, 276.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Find- | verdict for party complaining.-Northern Tim-
ings.
ber Products Co. v. Stone-Ördean-Wells Co.,
997 (3) (Neb.) Finding of fact on motion 920.
by both parties for directed verdict not dis-1056(1) (Iowa) Exclusion of evidence held
turbed unless clearly wrong.-Merchants'-Me- harmless where evidence was insufficient to
chanics' First Nat. Bank v. Cavers Elevator show fraud.-Botna Valley State Bank v.
Co.. 588.
Greig, 301.
999 (3) (Minn.) Verdict for plaintiff conclu-1058(1) (Iowa) Exclusion of evidence sub-
sive on question of contributory negligence.- sequently admitted harmless.-In re Richard-
Ziegler v. Phillips, 37.
son's Will, 639.
1001 (2) (lowa) That Supreme Court
might not agree with jury does not warrant
reversal.-Beh v. Van Ness, 292.
1002 (Iowa) Verdict on conflicting
dence conclusive.-Milder v. Milder, 274.
1060(1) (Wis.) Misconduct in showing fact
defendant was insured not prejudicial.-Smith
v. Yellow Cab Co., 125.
evi-1061 (4) (Iowa) Plaintiff cannot complain
of directed verdict fixing value of property at
lowest estimate of plaintiff's witness.-Sonka
v. Yonkers, 876.
1002 (Iowa) Jury finding on conflicting
evidence conclusive.-Daugherty v. Advance-
Rumely Thresher Co., 277.
1003 (Minn.) Unless clearly against the
evidence, verdict not set aside.-Dawson v.
Thuet Bros., 534.
1003 (Minn.) Supreme Court examines
evidence only to see whether it fairly sustains
jury's conclusions.-C. W. La Moure Co. v.
Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co., 540.
1004 (3) (Minn.) Approved verdict as to
damages must stand.-Lewis v. Olson, 775.
1008 (1) (Iowa) Findings have same ef-
fect as verdict.-Doidge v. Alley, 171.
1009(1) (Iowa) Findings of trial court in
equity case not conclusive on appeal.-Chris-
tensen v. Harris, 325.
1011(1) (S.D.) Findings on conflicting evi-
dence will not be disturbed.-Larson v. Edison
Tp., Minnehaha County, 64.
1062 (2) (Iowa) Refusal to submit issue
held harmless, where evidence on another is-
sue was insufficient.-Botna Valley State Bank
v. Greig, 301.
1064(1) (lowa) Instruction to disregard
contract exemption because law gave same ex-
emptions held harmless.-Ruebel Bros. V.
American Express Co., 658.
1064 (1) (Iowa) Instruction held harmless
in view of evidence.-Horst v. Handke, 762.
1064(1) (Mich.) Remark of court as to
method of presentation of case by counsel held
not erroneous as urging a compromise verdict
and not otherwise prejudicial.-Robertson &
Wilson Scale & Supply Co. v. Richman, 470.
Error in instruction not reversible where it
fairly appears jury did not follow instructions.
-Id.
1064(1) (Minn.) Instruction as to measure
of damages held harmless error.-McGuire v.
Chambers, 1013.
1064(1) (Wis.) Instructions placing too
great a burden of proof on claimant against de-
cedent's estate prejudicial to him.-Reiss v.
Utter, 810.
1031(5) (Wis.) Where the jury did not
award excessive damages to wife, it would be
presumed they were not prejudiced as to hus-
band's damages.-Smith v. Yellow Cab Co., 125.
1033 (5) (Iowa) Defendant cannot com-
plain of failure to instruct on all negligence 1064(2) (Mich.) Instruction invading
charged by plaintiff.-Ruebel Bros. v. American province of jury prejudicial_where issue was
Express Co., 658.
close.-Deland v. Michigan Ry. Co., 389.
1033(7) (Mich.) Appellant cannot com-
plain that jury did not follow instructions
against him.-Robertson & Wilson Scale &
Supply Co. v. Richman, 470.
1046(1) (Minn.) Refusal to transfer case
to court calendar held not prejudicial to de-
fendant.-O'Neil v. Davidson, 102.
1046(3) (Wis.) Placing burden of proof on
wrong party prejudicial.-Kausch v. Chicago &
Milwaukee Electric Ry. Co., 808.
1066 (Wis.) Erroneous instruction, exclud-
ing_implied promise, held prejudicial.-Bradley
v. Harper, 130.
1068 (1) (Mich.) Error in instruction
harmless in view of verdict and remittitur.-
Meyers v. Gearey, 457.
1068 (1) (Wis.) Where jury found defend-
ant not at fault, instruction as to plaintiff's neg-
ligence became immaterial.-Friedrich v. Boul-
ton, 127.
1046 (3) (Wis.) Failure to tender defend-1068(4) (Iowa) Instruction as to agreed
ant opening and closing argument held not prej- value of old tractor accepted in part payment
udicial error.-Stowell Co. v. South Side Malle- for new harmless in view of verdict.-Daugh-
able Casting Co., 813.
erty v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 277.
1050(1) (lowa) Admission of evidence of
expert held harmless in view of similar testi-
mony of appellant's expert.-Daugherty v. Ad-
vance-Rumely Thresher Co., 277.
Admission in evidence of letters hela harm-
less if error.-Id.
1070 (2) (Wis.) Verdict, apparently hon-
est, sustained, though method of computation
was not manifest.-Dieck v. Oconto Co., 932.
1073(3) (lowa) Error in failing to give
judgment against one surety company where
other defendants solvent held not prejudicial.
1050(1) (Minn.) Admission of evidence-Mason City Brick & Tile Co. v. Lamson, 314;
that talk took place with one deceased held Heil Co. v. Same, 321; Wisconsin Iron &
harmless. State Bank of Winsted v. Strand- Wire Works v. Dunphy-Fridstein Co., Id.
berg, 1006.
1050(1) (N.D.) Evidence that other trains (I) Error Waived in Appellate Court.
did not signal at crossing held prejudicial in
action for killing stock.-Brown v. Minneapolis,1078(1), (Iowa) Point not raised may be
St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 792.
considered in support of ruling below.-Erick-
son v. Erickson's Estate, 664.
1050 (1) (Wis.) Improper evidence as
conversations out of plaintiff's presence held
prejudicial.-Bradley v. Harper, 130.
1050 (2) (Iowa) Admission of irrelevant
ordinance in action against city held harmless.
-Travers v. City of Emmetsburg, 753.
1050 (2) (Mich.) Admission of immaterial
evidence held harmless.-Swaney V.
Schlaff Creamery Co., 599.
1052(5) (Mich.) Admission of testimony
held harmless in view of verdict.-Cornell v.
City of Ypsilanti, 405.
1052(6) (Minn.) Erroneous admission of
evidence as to property levied on held cured by
1078(1) (Iowa) Assigned, but not argued,
errors not considered.-Lane v. Inter-urban Ry.
Co., 895.
1078 (4) (Iowa) Objection by motion to di-
rect verdict that plaintiffs were not entitled to
sue held not presented where not specifically
assigned and where not argued.-Ruebel Bros.
v. American Express Co., 658.
(K) Subsequent Appeals,
1097(2) (Iowa) Position of court, though
erroneous, cannot be changed on second ap-
peal.-Bryan & Co. v. Scurlock, 684.
|