Volume 8 — Missouri Appeal Reports

Louis Criminal Court. The time, place, and circumstances surrounding the strange transaction, taken in connection with all the evidence going to show the deranged mental condition of the defendant, as well as the positive and direct evidence of the witnesses as to his insanity, entitled him to a verdict of acquittal on all the evidence in the case. — The State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 470 ; The State v. Marshall, 47 Mo. 378 ; The State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340 ; The State v.…

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.</p>

<p>Appeal from the St. Charles Circuit Court.</p> <p>Change of venue. —Wag. Stats. 1092, sect. 16. Disqualification of jurors. — Wag. Stats, p. 1102, sects. 4, 6, 7 ; p. 1103, sect. 13 ; The State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32 ; The State v. Martin, 28 Mo. 530. Minor must be imprisoned in county jail..— Wag. Stats. 515, sect. 21; The Statev. Garner, 30 Mo. 45 ; The State v. Wieners, 66 Mo. 13.</p> <p>Qualification of jurors. — Waters v. The State, 7 Wash. L. Rep. 344; The State v. Rose, 32 Mo. 353; The State v. Davis, 29 Mo. 391. Statute does not apply to felonies the punishment for which is death. — 1 Bishop’s Cr. Law, 462, 464.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. Respondent, as cestui que trust, occupies the position of a mortgagee. —Shillaber v. Robinson, 97 U. S. 68, and cases cited bottom p. 72 et seq. If facts alleged in answer would have supported a bill for relief, they are available as a defence. —Bliss on Code PL, sect. 347, citing Dobson v. Pearce, 12 N. Y. 150.

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>cited: Porter v. Giikey, hi Mo. 235 ; Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. 282.</p> <p>cited: Purvis v. Coleman, 21 N. Y. Ill; Oppenheim v. White, etc., L. R. 6 C. P. 515.</p>

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>cited: Goss v. Watlington, 3 Brod. & B. 132; Whitnash v. George, 8 Barn. & Cress. 556 ; Middleton v. Melton, 10 Barn. & Cress. 317.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The bill sued on embraced two lots, one of which only was chargeable with any portion of the work, and therefore was illegal and void, and judgment should have been for defendant. — Miller v. Anheuser, 4 Mo. App. 436; Kefferstein v. Holliday, 3 Mo. App. 569. The mode of assessment prescribed by the ordinance was unjust and improper. —Neenan v. Smith, 50 Mo. 531 ; OityY. Clemens, 49 Mo. 554; Weber v. Scerzens, 59 Mo. 389 ; Zoeller v. Kellogg, 4 Mo.

Louis Circuit Court. It is not the duty of one receiving security from his employee or debtor to disclose to the surety every fact that materially increases the risk; his duty in such case is not analogous to that of assured to the underwriter. — Hamilton v. Watson, 12 CL & Fin. 119 ; Insurance Co. v. Lloyd, 10 Exch. 523; Magee v. Insurance Co., 92 U. S. 93; Bank v. Stevens, 39 Me. 532 ; The State v. Atherton, 40 Mo. 209.

<p>1. There is no material difference between the statements, “You are either a thief or you got the book from a thief,” and “You are a thief, or you got the book from a thief,” neither being an unqualified statement that the person spoken of is a thief.</p> <p>2. The pleader is barred by the cause of action stated, and if the issue is found against him, he cannot in the appellate court enlarge the issues so as to embrace other statements in his petition, not stated as a cause of action, . but as a mere accompaniment to the matters laid as a ground of action.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. An instruction which allows the jury to find such damages as they may believe the party has sustained, is erroneous. — Wright v. Jacobs, 61 Mo. 23; Armstrong v. Oily, 3 Mo. App. 106.

Louis Circuit Court. Damages extend to the property improved, as well as to the improvements. —Dalzellsr. Davenport, 12 Iowa, 437. The damage for which the plaintiff is entitled to recover is such as is the natural and proximate consequence of the defendant’s act. —White v. Moseley, 8 Pick. 356 ; Bennett v. Lockwood, 20 Wend. 223.

<p>Where a charter provision of an insurance company giving the light to the assured to surrender his policy and receive therefor a certain consideration, is, in accordance with other provisions of the charter, abrogated» the assured, having taken his policy with notice that this change might be made, cannot complain that his contract has been changed against his consent.</p>

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>cited; Knapp v. /Skeele, 31 Mo. 434; Taylor v. McKnight, 1 Mo. 120; Lester v. Garland, 15 Ves. Ch. 257; Bigelow v. Wilson, 1 Pick. 485 ; Lubbock v. Gook, 49 Texas, 96.</p> <p>cited : The State ex rel. v. Gasconade County, 33 Mo. 102; Chiles v. Smith, 13 B. Mon. 460 ; Brown v. Bazan, 24 Ind. 194; Hahn v. Dierkes, 37 Mo. 575 ; Reynolds v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 70 ; Harbison v. Steamboat, 13 Mo. 226.</p>

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The will was never formally executed according to .the intention of the testator. —\Avery v. Pixley, 4 Mass. 460 ; Main v. Ryder, 84 Pa. St. 219 ; McBrides. McBride, 26 Gratt. 484; Catlett v. Catlett, 55 Mo. 330; Re Maddock, 30 L. T. (n. s.) 696. Concerning the exclusion of evidence tending to show undue influence. — 2 Greenl. on Ev., sect. 688; Pierce v. Pierce, 3fCent. L. J. 225 ; Main v. Ryder, 84 Pa. St. 219 ; Mueller v. Hospital, 5 Mo.

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. “A compromise of a disputed liability is binding though it turns out that the party was not liable.” — Cools v. Wright, 1 Best & S. 559 ; Mullanphy v. Reilly, 8 Mo. 675; s. c. 10 Mo. 489 ; Reilly v. Crouquette, 18 Mo. 226; McKinney v. Watkins, 13 111. 140 ; Faust v. Firmer, 30 Mo. 418 ; Marks v. Bank, 8 Mo. 319. A note bearing interest from date bears the same rate after maturity. — Wag.

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>Where the Statute of Limitations is relied upon as a defence, it must be pleaded. — Tramell v. Adams, 2 Mo. 155; Benoist v. Darby, 12 Mo. 196 ; Boyce v. Christy, 47 Mo. 70 ; Wynnes v. Cory, 48 Mo. 346 ; Stiles v. Smith, 55 Mo. 366. “ No lapse of time is ¡i bar to a direct trust, as between trustee and cestui que trust.” — Baüey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; Dillon v. Bates, 39 Mo. 292. Adverse possession must be hostile, and taken under color of title, before the statute runs. Hamilton v. Boggs, 63 Mo. 233 ; Wil-Jcinson v. Allen, 67 Mo. 502.- The mortgagee in possession may be made to account for rents and profits. —Anthony v. Rogers, 17 Mo. 394; *. c. 20 Mo. 281 ; Rose v. Pilot Knob, 49 Mo. 124; Johnson v. Houston, 47 Mo. 227. “To bar an equity of redemption, twenty years must have elapsed since the last recognition of the mortgage.”— McNair v. Scott, 25 Mo. 182'"; 18 Mo. 522 ; 34 Mo. 285.</p> <p>“The construction put upon the existing statute of limitation as to real actions is, that when ten years have elapsed from the taking effect of the act, the action is barred.” — Callaway County v. Nolley, 31 Mo. 393; Garondelet v. Simon, 37 Mo. 408; Gilker v. Brown, 47 Mo. 105 ; Hunter v. Hunter, 50 Mo. 445; Ricord v. Watkins, 56 Mo. 555. The Statute of Limitations need not be pleaded. — Nelson v. Broadhack, 44 Mo. 596 ; Fugate v. Pierce 49 Mo. 441 ; Warfield v. Lindell, 38 Mo. 561. “ It is not only a bar, but constitutes an affirmative legal title.” —Merchants’ Bank v. Evans, 51Mo. 335.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. As to wife’s acknowledgment of conveyance.— Wannall v. Kern, 51 Mo. 150 ; s. c. 57 Mo. 478 ; Clark v. Rynex, 53 Mo. 380. The instrument in question conveyed a freehold estate. — Hallet v. Wylie, 2 Johns. 47 ; Thornton v. Payne, 2 Johns. 74. .

<p>It is a constable’s duty to serve notices of appeal from a justice, and his return,, being made under sanction of his official oath, need not be sworn to.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The question is one of intention. Who was intended to be made responsible — the principal or the agent? A question of fact, to be determined by the circumstances of the transaction. — Coleman v. Bank, 53 N. Y. 394 ; Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch. 363; Sheffield v. Watson, 3 Caines, 72; Gill v. Brown, 12 Johns. 385 ; Walker v. Swartout, 12 Johns. 444 ; Stehn v. Fasnacht, 20 La. An. 84.

Louis Criminal Court. The auditor had no right to-receive school moneys as auditor or in any other capacity.— The State v. Moeller, 48 Mo. 431. There was no relation of master and servant, or of principal and agent, between the county and the defendant. —Bishop’s Cr.

Louis Circuit Court. The answer, taken as a whole, denids the plaintiffs’ possession: without actual possession the plaintiffs cannot maintain this action.— Von Phul v. Penn, 31 Mo. 333; Rutherford v. Ulman, 42 Mo. 216. The statute only applies to such cases as can be brought by the defendant, and cannot be brought by the plaintiff by reason of the fact of his possession, and refers exclusively to possessory actions. — Webb v. Donaldson, 60 Mo. 395.

Louis Circuit Court. The pledgeor was the owner of the stock, and as such was entitled to the dividends. — Dow v. Gould, etc., Qo., 31 Cal. 649 ; March v. Railroad Go., 43 N. H. 520. The money not having been paid by the corporation to the defendant for the plaintiff, there is no privity between the plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff cannot maintain the action. 1 Wheat. Selw. Nisi Prius (2d Am. ed.), 104, 105.

Louis Circuit Court. Attorneys’ fees must be paid before they can be classed as damages sustained.— Carder v. Martin, 17 Mo. 43; TJhrig v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 529. Damages on an injunction bond should be computed according to the degree of injury actually sustained. — High on Inj., sect. 971; Kennedy v. TIammond, 16 Mo. 341, 353 ; St. Louis v. Alexander, 23 Mo. 483.

<p>1. Where two suits for "back taxes are by order of the court tried as one, the defendant charged as owner being the same in both cases, but the defendants charged as encumbrancers being different in each, the irregularity, if not objected to, is cured by verdict.</p> <p>2. In such an action it is error to render a single judgment as a lien against several parcels of land collectively.</p> <p>3. The judgment in such a case should charge each separate tract of land with a lien for the distinct amount due thereon.</p> <p>4. The statutory provision that attornej's’ fees may be charged as costs in such cases is not unconstitutional.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. Where a contract is made subject to certain printed rules, referred to in the contract, such rules are as much a portion of the contract as if bodily incorporated therein. — Sheldon v. Insurance Go., 22 Conn. 235, *245; Adams v. Hill, 16 Me. 215 ; Sawyer v. Hammatt, 15 Me. 40; May on Ins., sect. 158; In re Park Commissioners, 52 N. Y. 131; Lewis v. Insurance Go., 2 Mo. App., 372.

Louis Circuit Court. This action cannot be maintained against the executrix. — Wag. Stats. 1352, sect. 7. There is no pi’oof that the executrix ever took possession. — 2 Plat, on Leases, 368; Taylor’s L. & T., sect. 461; Nation v. Tozer, 1 Cromp. M. & E. 172. The executrix cannot be bound for the rent not due at the commencement of the suit, in this form of action. The suit was premature as to rent not yet due. — Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437 : Rudder v. Price, 1 H. Black. 547.

Louis Circuit Court. No title passes at a sale under an attachment against the property of a married woman. — Decker v. Lidwell, 3 Mo. App. 586; Gage v. Gates, 62 Mo. 417. A general judgment against husband and wife on a note 'executed by the wife is void. — Wernecke v. Wood, 58 Mo. 357 ; Galdwell v. Stephen, 57 Mo. 589 ; Lincoln v. Rowe, 64 Mo. 618.

Louis Circuit Court. No title passes under an execution sale where the judgment under which the execution issued is iu excess of the justice’s jurisdiction.— McClure v. Logan, 59 Mo. 234; Meis v. Ceyer, 4 Mo. App. 404.

Louis Circuit Court. Inconsistent defences cannot be set up. —Nelson v.Brodhack, 44 Mo. 601; Adams v. Trigg, 37 Mo. 143. The defendants are without equity in this action, because the plaintiffs were infants at time of purchase of the land, and were not parties to the transaction. — Roberts v. Oasey, 25 Mo. 584; Strouse v. Brennan, 41 Mo. 289 ; Bryan v. Hitchcock, 43 Mo. 531.

Louis Circuit Court. It is not a sufficient return to allege generally that the Cosmos Lodge has become inharmonious and factionable, to justify the first step made in this arbitrary exercise of “ one-man power.”— High on Ex. Leg. Rem., sect. 467; Rex v. Burgesses of Doncaster, Ld. Raym. 1565 ; Roehler v. Mechanics’ Aid Soc., 22 Mich. 86.

<p>An application in the Circuit Court for certiorari by way of appeal from the County Court in the matter of opening a private road should be denied; and if certiorari be improvidently issued, it should be dismissed. Such cases are appealable, and triable de novo.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The note and deed having been secured by the confidential agent of the maker, under the circumstances of the case the law presumes them to be fraudulent and void. — Street v. Goss, 62 Mo. 226; Garvin v. Williams, 44 Mo. 464; Cadwallader v. West, 48 Mo. 483; Yosti v. Loughran, 49 Mo. 594; Story’s Eq.

<p>An account, the items of which are all charged upon one side, is not a mutual account. The last item of such an account does not draw to it precedent items so as to take them out of the Statute of Limitations, and there is no presumption that all the items thereof constitute one single demand.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The facts alleged in the replication invalidated the composition. In such case the doctrine of rescission of contracts does not apply. Plaintiff could retain the thirty-five per cent received by it, and still sue on the notes for the unpaid sixty-five per cent. — Stuart v. Blum, 28 Pa. 225; Green v. Shriver, 53 Pa. 259; Hefter v. Cahn, 73 111. 296; Durginv.

Louis Circuit Court. Where the court has no discretion, but must render judgment according to the facts and the law, its action is judicial. —In re Saline County, 45 Mo. 52 ; Cooper County v. Geyer, 19 Mo. 257 ; 28 Mo. 37 ; 42 Mo. 348 ; 44 Mo. 216.

Louis Circuit Court. There was neither trial nor judgment as required by law. —Pomeroy v. Benton, 6 Mo. App. 596 ; Fly v. Ownsley, 59 Mo. 437 ; O’Weil v. Oapelle, 62 Mo. 202. Attorneys’ fees cannot be taxed as costs in garnishment. — Tallahassee County v. Glenn, 50 Ala. 489 ; Apperson v. Insurance Co., 38 N. J. L. 388 ; McDonald y. Page, Wright, 121.

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>cited : Putnam v. Ross,. 46 Mo. 337 ; De Witt v. Smith, 63 Mo. 263; Garnett v. Berry, 3 Mo. App. 197 ; Fitzgerald v. Thomas, 61 Mo. 499 ; Cantwell v. Massman, 45 Mo. 103 ; Livermore v„ Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Peck v. Richardson, 2 Mo. App. 600.</p> <p>cited: Lutz v. Ey, 3 Abb. Pr. 475 ; Thompson v. Yates, 28 How. Pr. 142 £ Henly v. Wadsworth, 38 Cal. 356 ; Garnett v. Berry, 3 Mo. App. 197 ; Peck v. Richardson, 2 Mo. App. 600.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.</p> <p>Bauer v. Bauer, 40 Mo. 61; Long v. Cockrell, 55 Mo. 93 ; Gage v. Gage, 62 Mo. 412 ; Lincoln v. Rowe, 64 Mo. 138 ; Pratt v. Eaton, 65 Mo. 157 ; Harrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 596 ; Holthaus v. Hornbostle, 60 Mo. 441.</p>

<p>The assignment by a public officer of a portion of his salary not yet due is void.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. Petition must allege that the materials were furnished under a contract.— Ph. on Liens, sect. 120 ; 55 Ind. 502 ; 45 Ind. 260 ; 4 Gray, ■289; 29 Barb. 20; 36 Mo. 578; 40 Mo. 561. That the ■materials were actually put into the building is not sufficient. — House v. Thompson, 36 Mo. 450. cited: Vollmer v. Papin, post, p. —; Fitzgerald v. Thomas, 61 Mo. 499; Garnett v. Berry, 3 Mo. App. 197.

<p>Where one assuming to be the assignee of notes secured by a deed of trust receives of the maker, before maturity, the amount of the notes, which have never been in his possession, and were not produced by him, and enters satisfaction of the deed of trust on the margin of the record thereof, such entry of satisfaction will be annulled at the suit of the payee and mortgagee.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. A homicide may be excusable though not justifiable ; when excusable, no action will lie for damages by the representative of the deceased.— Wag. Stats. 446, sect. 5 ; Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo. 469.. If the injury to the deceased was brought upon him by his. own wrong, there can be no recovery in this case. — Broom’s Leg. Max. 204 ;' Cooley on Torts, 44 ; The State v. Linney, 52 Mo. 40 ; The Stater.

Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff had no power to hold stock in any other corporation, and the pretended purchase of such stock was ultra vires of tiie plaintiff.— Mattheios v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 329 ; Bank v. Harrison, 39 Mo. 433 ; Baird v. Bank, 11 Serg. & R. 411; Ohataqua County Bank v. Bisley, 4 Denio, 485 ; Bank of Michigan v. Niles, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 401.

Louis Circuit Court. The lease in question was void for want of a grantee or lessee. — Chase v. Palmer, 29 111. 398; Douthitt v. Stinson, 63 Mo. 268 ; Wag. Stats. 879, sect. 13. Contracts of a corporation should be attested by the corporate seal. — Perry v. Price, 1 Mo. *664. No assignment of the lease as pleaded was shown. — Greenl. on Ev., sect. 239 ; 3 Ph. on Ev. 466 ; Pied v. Stephens, 120 Mass. 209 ; Dougherty v. Matthews, 35 Mo. 520.

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>Louis A. Steber and John McG-aefey, for the respondents, cited : Bast v. Ketohum, 5 Mo. App. 433 ; O’ Fallon v. Rodrigues, 6 Mo. App. 576; Haggard v. Railroad Co., 63 Mo. 302.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The court below had no jurisdiction, for the reason that the appeal was taken after the expiration of ten days. —Holt v. 'Varner, 5 Mo. 386 ; Moore v. Minkler, 3 Mo. App. 596 ; Ratchen v. Bonsack, 52 Mo. 431; Wag. Stats. 1872, p. 847, sect. 3. The appeal was properly taken according to law.— Wag. Stats., p. 848, sect. 4; p. 849, sect. 10.

Louis Circut Court. The officer was justified under the writ. —Brown v. Henderson, 1 Mo. 134 ; The State v. Hamilton, 9 Mo. 794 ; Hayden v. Conway, 12 Mo. 296; Howard v. Clark, 43 Mo. 348 ; Brown v. Harris, 52 Mo. 306. The regularity of process cannot be inquired into in a collateral proceeding. —Bracket v. Bracket, 53 Mo. 265. The rule that an officer is justified by process is one of protection only. — Crocker on Sheriffs, sect. 286.

Louis Circuit Court. Where the assessor assesses property at double its real value, and double that returned by the owner, this alone furnishes sufficient evidence, in the consideration ot' a court of equity, to sustain the allegation of fraud and entitle the party to relief. — King v. Moon, 42 Mo. 555 ; 1 White & Tudor Ld.

Louis Circuit Court. The measure of ■damages is the difference between the value of the property .sold at the time of the sale, if the property had been as represented by the defendants, and its value as it was in point of fact. — Brownlee v. Heioitt, 1 Mo.

Louis Circuit Court. The board of directors have no right to create a lien upon its corporate stock by a mere by-law, unless the power is expressly granted by the statute or its articles of association. —Byron v. Carton, 22 La. An. 98 ; Bank v. Bank, 20 N. Y.-501; Arnold v. Bank, 27 Barb. 424; Rosenback v. Bank, 53 Barb. 495; Conklin v. Bank, 53 Barb. 512 ; Steamship Dock Co. v. Heron, 52 Pa.

Louis Circuit Court. No cause of action is presented ; the facts alleged show that the claim based thereon is barred by the Statute of Limitations.— The State to use v. Bird, 22 Mo. 470 ; Boyd v. Ghristy, 47 Mo. 70.

Louis Circuit Court. A bill by creditors against executor and heir, and several distinct purchasers of distinct parts of testator’s real estate, for account and performance of agreement, held not multifarious. — 5 Mad. 144, note b; Barb, on Parties, 349.

<p>1. One whose wife and children are temporarily absent from the State remains the head of a family though he has ceased to keep house."</p> <p>2. The execution debtor may select and claim as exempt any particular property seized, up to the limit of the law, whether he has other property or not, and the sheriff resists such claim at his peril.</p> <p>8. A debt due to an execution debtor is the subject of exemption, and when collected by an officer, may, while in his hands, be claimed as exempt,, and when so claimed, cannot be made a set-off under a cross-execution.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. A municipal corporation, in the absence of negligence, is not answerable in a civil action for consequential damages arising from the execution of a public work which it is authorized by the State to engage in. — St. Louis v. Qumo, 12 Mo. 414; Schattner v. Kansas Gity, 53 Mo. 165; Lmler v. Springfield, 55 Mo. 125.

Louis Circuit Court. The combination used is not valid as a trademark ; and an action at law will not lie for the infringement of a label. —Fallcenburg v. Lucy, 35 Cal. 52 ; Browne on T.-M., sect. 137. The plaintiff’s label or trade-mark contains a misrepresentation calculated to deceive the public, and is not entitled to protection. —Fetridge v. Wells, 4 Abb. Pr. 144; Lidding v. How, 8 Sim. 479 ; Perry v. Truefitt, 6 Beav. 66 ; Partridge v. Mench, How. App.

Louis Circuit Court. The reply is a departure from the petition..— Suman v. Inman, 3 Mo. App. 596 ; United States v. Morris, 1 Paine, 209 ; Philibert v. Burch, 4 Mo. App. 470; Com. Dig., pi. “F.” 8; Stephen on PI. 413 ; .Mole v. Wallis, 1 Lev. 81. The reply does not contain a defence to the new matter pleaded in the answer. — 1 Chitty’s PI. 329 ; Thomp. on Home, and Ex,, sect. 880 ; Suman v. Inman, 3 Mo. App. 596; Wag. Stats. 604, sects. 9, 11.

Charles Circuit Court. In a proceeding to open a public road, it must appear from the petition presented to the Count}' Court that the petition was signed by “ at least twelve householders of the municipal township dr townships through which said proposed road may run, three of whom were of the immediate neighborhood.”— Shaffner v. St. Louis, 31 Mo. 264 ; Lind v. Clemens, 44 Mo. 540; Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 289 ; Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 477 ; Anderson v. St. Louis, 47…

Louis Circuit Court. Construction of contracts. — 2 Pars, on Con. 498; 1 Story on Con., sects. 774, 817; Smith on Con. 508; Mete, on Con. 275.

Louis Circuit Court. The defendants having in their bond recited the judgment and procured for the defendant therein the benefit of an appeal, are estopped from denying the existence or validity of the judgment. —Norton v. Miller, 25 Ark. 108 ; Corbett v. Carroll, 50 Ala. 315; Big. on Estop. 295 ; Levi v. Dorn, 28 How. Pr. 217; Keller’s Executor v. Euler, 4 J. J. Marsh. 655; Love v. Rockwell, 1 Wis. 382.

Louis County Court. It was necessary for the proponents to prove by the subscribing witnesses that the instrument was signed as a will. — Withfnton v. Withinton, 7 Mo. 589 ; Cravens v. Falconer, 28 Mo. 22; Wild v. Sweeney, 85 111. 50 ; Lamb v. Helm, 56 Mo. 432 ; Harris v. Hayes, 53 Mo. 90 ; Benoistv. Murrin, 58 Mo. 301; Gerrish v. Mason, 22 Me. 438. And the sanity of the decedent must be established in the same manner. — Allison v. Allison, 46 111. 62.

Louis Circuit Court. “It is the duty of the city engineer, * * * in making out a special tax-bill, *' * * to give upon the face of the bill a detailed description of the methods by which he proceeded, the process of computation. * * * ” — Creamer v. Allen, 3 Mo. App. 545.

Louis Circuit Court. The errors and inaccuracies in the advertisement did not vitiate the sale. — Powers v. Kueckhoff, 41 Mo. 430 ; Hews v. Mustek, 13 Mo. 395; Gray v. Shaw, 14 Mo. 341; Sumrallv. Chaffin, 48 Mo. 403 ; Stephenson v. January, 49 Mo. 465. As to the necessity of tender in cases of this kind, — and by tender we mean actual production and offer of the money, — see Hornby v. Cramer, 12 How.

Ekrok to the St. Louis Circuit Court. The petition does not state a cause of action, in this: that it does not state that the certificate sued on was ever presented to the bank or its assignee. — Hides v. Burns, 38 N. H. 144.

<p>Where, under a charter provision, a stockholder is liable for the debts of the corporation to the amount of his stock, this liability arises out of contract ; and though the debt may accrue after the stockholder’s death, it is a claim against his estate, and an action lies against his executor.</p>

Louis County. The statute under consideration, being local and special, is unconstitutional. — The State ex rel. v. Wilcox, 45 Mo. 165 ; The State exrel. v. County Court, 50 Mo. 325 ; The State exrel. v. County Court, 51 Mo. 86. The statute, though both local and special, does not come within the constitutional inhibition. — The State v. Ebert, 40 Mo. 190; The State ex rel. v. Garesché, 3 Mo. App. 583; Gentile v. The State, 29 Ind. 409.

Louis Circuit Court. An eviction in fact, or in effect, which renders the premises useless, will prevent a recovery of rent. — Halligan v. Wade, 21 111. 470 ; Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow. 734 ; Cohenv. Dupont, 1 Sandf. 260; Roswell v. Prior, 12 Mo. 635 ; Thompson v. Gibson, 7 Mee. & W. 456 ; Pish v. Dodge, 4 Denio, 316. The acts of the respondent amounted to an eviction.— Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209, and cases cited supra.

Louis Circuit Court. The lease provided for a holding over, and that agreement not being annulled, it stands, and the law will not imply any other contract. — Christy v. Price, 7 Mo. 430 ; Stellings v. Sappington, 8 Mo. 118 ; Chambers v. King, 8 Mo. 517; Brown v. Gauss, 10 Mo. 265. The appellants were not tenants from month to month, and notice to quit was not necessary. — Beaver v. Randall, 5 Mo. App. 297.

<p>1. The Legislature has the power to provide officers for the service of State courts, and may regulate their authority and duties.</p> <p>2. The office of sheriff is a State office created by the Constitution for every county and territorial subdivision of the State which performs county functions towards the State.</p> <p>3. The constitutional provision that no law shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, is interpreted to require that the title shall give information of the general subject of the act, and that the act shall not contain provisions not pertaining to the general subject.</p> <p>4. Courts will not declare a legislative enactment to be in conflict with the . Constitution where, by adopting another equally admissible construction, its constitutionality can be upheld; i.e., courts will always construe a law most favorably to its life and purpose.,</p> <p>5. The legislative act which provides that the sheriff of the city of St. Louis shall serve the process of the Probate Court, the Criminal Court, and the Court of Criminal Correction, is in terms sufficient to confer that right upon the sheriff, and is no interference with the chartered rights of the city of St. Louis, and does not repeal any provision of the charter intended to be permanent, or which concerns the municipal government.</p> <p>6. The act does not violate the constitutional provision as to the subject of an act being expressed in its title; nor does it attempt to reenact any repealed laws by reference to their title; nor violate the constitutional provision as to amendments of the city charter of St. Louis; nor is it an act regulating the affairs of St. Louis; nor a local or special act within the meaning of the constitutional prohibitions on that subject.</p> <p>7. The first section of the act constitutes a complete enactment authorizing the sheriff to serve the courts named in it, and if there were unconstitutional provisions in the other sections, they might be eliminated as not essentially connected with the main purpose of the act, and the first section would be sustained.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The rule that parol testimony may not be given to alter, vary, or .contradict the terms of a written contract is applied only to ■suits between the parties to the instrument or their privies. — Barrede v. Silsbee, 21 How. 146 ; Furbush v. Goodwin, 25 •N. H. 425'; Thomas v. Truscott, 53 Barb. 200; Hussman v. Spilke, 50 Cal. 250; 2 Whart. on Ev., sect. 923, and cases cited.

Louis Circuit Court. The sums paid out by the executors for the benefit of the estate should have been allowed. — Harrison v. Mack, 16 Ala. 616; Miles v. Boone, 4 J. J. Marsh. 457 ; Constant v. Matteson, 22 111. 546 ; Williams v. Smith, 10 R. I. 280; Hlleg v. Nagler, 9 Cal. 643. Commissions of trustees.— Meacham v. Sternes, 9 Paige, 398. The executors were properly charged with rents on the lauds devised. — Gamble v. Gibson, 59 Mo. 585 ; Dixy. Morris, 66 Mo. 514.

Louis Circuit Court. There was error in permitting the physicians to testify to information acquired while attending George Linz in their professional capacity.— Edington v. Insurance Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. c. 67 N. Y. 385— 194 ; Edingtonv. Insurance Go., 13 Hun, 543-549 : Cohen v. Insurance Co., 41 N. Y. 296 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 4 Paige, 460 ; The Peoples. Stout, 3 Park. Cr. 670 ; Harris v. Rupal, 14 Ind. 209.

Louis Circuit Court. An insane person is bound by contracts made by or for him, unless advantage was taken of his infirmity. — Add. on Con. (2d Am. ed.) 90. The guardian consented, and that is all the statute required. — 1 Wag. Stats. 715, sect. 32.

Louis Circuit Court. It is provided by the Bankrupt Act that a discharge duly granted shall (with the exceptions specified in sect. 83) release the bankrupt from all debts, claims, liabilities, and demands which were, or might have been proved against his estate in bankruptcy. — Bankrupt Act, sect. 34 ; U. S. Stats., sect. 509.

The power given by statute, under the authority of which a citizen may be deprived of his property, must be exercised precisely and strictly; any departure will vitiate the proceedings. — Potter’s Dwar. on Stats. 146, sect. 21; Powell v.. Tuttle, 3 N. Y. 396 ; Woodcock v. Bowman, 4 Mete. 40 ; Watts v. Pond, 4 Mete. 61; Strouse v. Brennan, 41 Mo. 299.

Louis Circuit Court. No action can be maintained at law by one partner against his copartner on account of the partnership concerns until a final settlement has been reached and a balance struck between them. — Stothert v. Knox, 5 Mo. 112 ; Springer v. Cabell, 10 Mo. 640 ; McKnightv.

Louis Circuit Court. The widow and children took the same estate of which the husband and father died seized. — Wag. Stats. 698, sect. 5; Skouten v. Wood, 57 Mo. 381. The husband and father had the fee-simple, with right to alienate without the consent of the wife or children. — Thomp. on Home. & Ex., sects. 502, 509; Davis v. Andrews, 30 Yt. 680.

Louis Circuit Court. The deed of trust from Reilly to White was without the knowledge or consent of the insurer, and avoided the policy. — Hobbs v. Insurance Go., 1 Sneed, 444; Hitchcock v. Insurance Go., 26 N. Y. 68 ; Stetson v. Insurance Go., 4 Mass. 330; Insurance Go. v. Hayes, 17 Ohio St. 432 ; Buchanan v. Insurance Go., 4 Ins. L. J. 335; May on Ins., sect. 269.

Louis Circuit Court. “ Reinsurance effected by agents representing both sides is not void, b.ut voidable, in the absence of previous authority.” —Mitchell v. McMullin, 59 Mo. 252 ; Beeson v. Beeson, 9 Barr, 280; 20 Barb. 468. The evidence offered should not have been refused. —Morse v, Diebold, 2 Mo. App. 163; Brooks v. Jamison, 55 Mo. 515 ; Guppies v. Whelan, 61 Mo. 583; Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468; 62 Mo. 391; 57 Mo. 390.

Louis Circuit Court. “Corporations can claim no exception from those rules and maxims which are established to enforce good faith and fair-dealing.” — 32 N. H. 299, 6 Cranch, 53; 4 Wall. 495; 20 How. 299. “Acquiescence in and receipt of benefits of a contract or agreement estop a municipal corporation.” — 7 Ohio St. 330 ; 8 Ohio St. 401; Grant v. City of Davenport, 18 Iowa, 191; St. Louis v. Oarondelet, 29 Mo. 527 ; Opinion Supreme Court to Governor, 44 Mo. 21; Railroad Co.…

Louis Circuit Court. The testimony does not establish adverse possession as against the city. The western fence of plaintiff was located on the street, and the plaintiff did not claim to own to the fence. — See Lane v. Kennedy, 13 Ohio St. 42 ; Simmons v. Cornell, 1 R. I. 519. The enclosure and occupation of land within the limits of a public street will not transfer the title from the muuicipality.— City v. Canal Co., 12 N. J. Eq. 561; 2 Dill, on Mun. Corp., sects. 528-533.

Louis Circuit Court; Where five of six tenants in common take such action as secures to all a perfect title to property, they will be regarded as acting for all. — Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed, 599 ; Van Horne v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. 407 ; Weaver v. Wille, 25 Pa. St. 272 ; Lloyd v. Lynch, 28 Pa. St. 423, 424 ; Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black, 618, 619.

Louis Circuit Court. Laws are presumed to be constitutional unless they manifestly infringe some provision of the Constitution. — The State v. Railroad Co., 48 Mo. 468. A law may be said to be general when it operates uniformly upon all persons who are brought within the relations and circumstances provided for by it. —20 Iowa, 338.

Louis Circuit Court. All contracts are presumed to be made with reference to the laws and customs of the country; so that such laws and customs become a part of the contract, so far as applicable and consistent with its terms. — Bishop on Con., chap. 29, and cases there cited ; 2 Pars, on Con. 215 ; Wigglesworth v. Dallison, Dougl. 201; Holding v. Piggott, 7 Bing. 465; Hutton v. Warner, 1 Mee. & W. 476.

<p>1. An executed parol partition, where the title is undisputed, will avail to sever the possession of tenants in common.</p> <p>2. Where the question is as to the severance of possession and the ascertainment of boundaries between tenants in common, these facts may be shown by the acts of the parties, which acts may have the effect of passing title though no writing is given.</p> <p>3. Where tenants in common make partition among themselves, have the land surveyed and divided into equal parts, act on the basis of this division, recognize each other’s rights under it, and convey according to it, this is evidence of an executed agreement of partition which they cannot at a long subsequent period repudiate.</p> <p>4. The original division-survey; the field-notes, in the handwriting of the deceased surveyor, attached to the survey; testimony óf a subsequent survey in accordance with the original, when the corners were pointed out by some of the heirs; the deeds of the heirs, though married women, recognizing the boundaries, are competent as tending to show an executed partition.</p> <p>5. Ancient surveys may be used in evidence to fix boundaries and landmarks.</p>

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>cited : The State to use v. Stephenson, 12 Mo. 182 ; Morton, v. Hatch, 54 Mo. 411; Lewis v. Williams, 54 Mo. 200; Townsend v. Townsend, 60 Mo. 246 ; Bushel v. Lewis, 6 Mo. App. 599 ; Polk’s Heirs v. Sehulenburg, 4 Mo. App. 592.</p> <p>cited : Grayson v. Weddle, 63 Mo. 539 ; Wilkerson v. Allen, 67 Mo. 509.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. If the wife knew the house was to be built, and that it was intended for her use as a family residence, and if she visited the building and gave personal directions as to some portions of the work, thereby ratifying the act of her husband in erecting said house, and has since lived in it, then a lien would obtain. — Collins v. Megraw, 47 Mo. 495; Burgwald v. Weippert, 49 Mo. 60 ; Schmitt v. Wright, 6 Mo.

Louis Circuit Court. The indorsee of an overdue note does not take it subject to-an offset arising from independent transactions between, the parties. —Arnot v. Woodburn, 35 Mo. 99 ; Unseld v„ Stephenson, 33 Mo. 161 ; Smith v. Busby, 15 Mo. 399.. That the payee is indebted to the maker, and insolvent, makes no difference in a suit on the notes by the transferee.— Hoplcins v. Fechter, 47 Mo. 331.

<p>1. Where it is shown that the game is made by purchasing cards and putting the money in a pool, and that the defendant was sitting at the table with others, with the gambling devices before him, and that the game was in progress, this makes out a prima facie case which warrants the inference-that the defendant was gambling, though it does not appear by direct evidence that he had paid for the card before him.</p> <p>2. Appellate courts will not review the conclusions of triers of the fact, unless manifestly without fair and reasonable basis.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The paper propounded was in accordance with the requirements of the statute. — Wag. Stats. 1364, sect. 3 ; Rev. Stats. 1879, sect. 3962. 'The testator’s wishes were evidenced by two papers exe•cuted at one time, before the same witnesses ; they were •duplicates, the one of the other. — Oolvin v. Frazer, 2 Hag. Eccl. 266 ; Boughey v. Morton, 3 Hag. Eccl. 191; Onions v. Tyrer, 2 Vern. 741; Burtonshaw v. Gilbert, Cowp. 49.

Louis Circuit Court. The recovery in the former ejectment-suit settled, as between the parties, the Tight of possession., and its consequences, and Dunn cannot recover in this action on any ■ presumption of title .arising from the fact of possession prior to the former judgment.— Whitney v. Wright, 15 Wend. 179; Jackson v. Rightmyre, 16 Johns. 325 ; 2 Chitty’s Bla.

<p>1. The St. Louis City Charter of 1876 gives the power to license and tax meat-shops, and a license thereunder need not be uniform throughout the-city.</p> <p>2. The imposition of a license-tax of different amounts in different parts of the city does not violate any provision of the Constitution, and is not such an abuse of the discretion vested in the Municipal Assembly as will warrant an interference by the courts.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. Fisher v. Goebel,. cited :40 Mo. 475 ; Waters v. Brown, 44 Mo. 302 ; Chase v. Railroad Co., 24 Barb. 273. The contract was-an entirety. — 2 Pars, on Con. 510, 652. An application ■for a mere modification in some designated point does not authorize the other contracting party to thenceforth treat the contract.as a nullity. —JPicot v. Douglas, 46 Mo. 497.

Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff was not guilty of negligence in the presentation of the check. — Byles on Bills, *14 ; Dan. Neg. Inst. 548 ; Matter of Brown, 2 Story, 514; Hemmelman v. Hotaling, 40 Cal. Ill, and cases there cited; O’Brien v. Smith, 1 Black, 99 ; Cornell v. Lovett, 1 Hall, 68; s. c., 6 Wend. 369; Linville' v. Welch, 29 Mo. 205 ; Fugitt v. Nixon, 44 Mo. 297 ; Moody v. Mack, 43 Mo. 212 ; Mohawk Bank v. Broderick 13 Wend. 137.

<p>1. The appellate court will not interfere with the.action of the trial court in refusing to disturb a verdict, as being against the evidence, where there is any evidence to support it.</p> <p>2. A verdict may be sustained though it negatives facts sworn to by witnesses who are uncontradicted and unimpeaehed.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. Where a tenant holds •over after the term • fixed by oral contract, he is liable for another month’s rent. — Prentiss v. Warne, 10 Mo. 604; Kerr v. Clark, 19 Mo. 134; Livermore v. Eddy, 33 Mo. 550. A surrender of the premises by the tenant is necessary to discharge him. A mere vacation of the premises will not suffice. —Baconv.

<p>1. The jury are the proper judges of the weight o'f evidence and the relative-credibility of witnesses.</p> <p>2. Where a man’s teeth have been wantonly knocked out by a blow of the fist, an instruction as to punitive damages is proper.</p> <p>•3. Though there is testimony tending to show that the loss of the teeth was a benefit to the plaintiff, this need not be considered by the jury in mitigation of damages.</p>

<p>1. Where the understanding between certain stockholders and the corporation is that calls on stock shall not exceed forty per cent, and additional calls are made, to compensate for which secured second-mortgage-bonds are issued to these stockholders, these stockholders are liable-to execution creditors of the corporation for unpaid stock to the face value of these bonds.</p> <p>2. It is immaterial that these bonds are not shown to have been paid by the-corporation.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The transferee of the shares of stock is not liable for unpaid subscriptions on the shares purchased by him, unless he has, agreed to pay them either expressly or by implication. —Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 ; Sanger v. Upton, 81 U. S. 56 ; Seymour v. Sturgis, 26 N.Y. 134; Williams’ ■ Case, L. R. 1 Ch. Div. 576 ; Shaclcel/ord’s Gase, L. R. 1 Ch. Div. 567 ; Mallorie’s Gase, L. R. 2 Ch. 181; Foremans. Bigelow, 7 Cent.

<p>In a proceeding, under the statute, against a holder of unpaid shares by a creditor of the corporation, the shareholder may offset a matured indebtedness of the corporation to him.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The verdict must find all the issues ; it must find either for or against all the defendants, or the judgment predicated upon it will be arrested. Nor will such a defect be helped out by intendment.— Jewett v. Davis, 6 N. H. 521; Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason, 170 ; Schweiclchardt v. St. Louis, 2 Mo. App. 571. There must be an allegation of a contract with the owner. — Peck v. Bridwell, 6 Mo. App. 451.

<p>The will of C. Wead creates a life-estate in R. Smith, with a power of disposal. — Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68 ; Ghiles v. Bartleson, 21 Mo. 344 ; Farrar v. Ghristy, 24 Mo. 453; Harbison v. Swan, 58 Mo. 147, 400; Bryant v. Christian, 58 Mo. 98 ; Thompson v. Craig, 64 Mo. 312 ; Peake v. Jamison, 6 Mo. App. 590. But this power does not include the power to will.— Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 512. A limitation over by devise is good. — McRee’s Administrator v. Means, 34 Ala. 372 ; Clarke v. Terry, 34 Conn. 176 ; Sale v. Crutchfield, 8 Bush, 648; Brightman v. Brightman, 100 Mass. 238 ; Nicholson v. Settle, 57 Pa. St. 384 ; Baton v. Shaw, 18 N. H. 320; Trustees v. Kellogg, 16 N. Y. 86 ; Daniel v. Thompson, 14 B. Mon. 632. There was not a merger. — 19 Mo. 404; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 565, sect. 3.</p> <p>A limitation over in a devise, with power of disposal, is good as an executory devise. —Porter v. Bradley, 3 Term Rep. 143; Anderson v. Jackson, 16 Johns. 383; Rubey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; Thompson v. Craig, 64 Mo. 312; Harbison v. Swan, 58 Mo. 147. There was no merger of the interests in Mrs. Smith. — Sherman v. Abbott, 18 Pick. 448 ; 10 Yt. 293; Van West v. Latson, 19 Barb. 604; Waugh v. Riley, 8 Mete. 290; Knowles v. Laioton, 18 Ga. 476; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 182 ; Leakey v. Maupin, 10 Mo. 369.</p> <p>The two notes and deeds of trust held by Mrs. Wead were satisfied, released, and merged when they came to Mrs. Smith’s hands. —Atkinson v. Angert, 46 Mo. 518. Mrs. Smith became the absolute owner of all of Mrs. Wead’s property, including the notes referred to, under the will of Mrs. Wead. —Rubey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 1; Gregory v. Oowgill, 19 Mo. 416 ; Green v. Sutton, 50 Mo. 186 ; Reinders v. Kupplemcin, 68 Mo. 482; Kimball v. Sullivan, 113 Mass. 345. There being no life-estate created in Mrs. Smith, the provisions in Mrs. Wead’s will in reference to the Missionary Society and Ann S. Beach are inoperative. — Green v. Sutton, 50 Mo. 186 ; Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 21 Me. 288 ; Hale v. March, 100 Mass. 468. Mrs. Smith exercised her right of disposal by will. — Hagel v. Hagan, 47 Mo. 281; Kimball v. Sullivan, 113 Mass. 345.</p>

8. The jurisdiction of a justice is not confined to the district for which he was elected, and on appeal it is not necessary that the papers should show that his court was held within such district. Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. Agreements or combinations, the effect of which is to prevent or withdraw competition, are held to be against the policy of the law, and void.— Wiggins Ferry Go. v. Railroad Go., 5 Mo. App. 373 ; Morris Goal Go. v. Goal Go., 68 Pa.

Louis Circuit Court. The affidavit is fatally defective in not showing that the notary was such for the county where the venue was laid. — Bast v. Ketclmm, 5 Mo. App. 433; Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33. The fact of agency is not sworn to ; a mere recital is fatally defective. — Grawshaw v. Wright, 5 Mo. App. 579 ; Cunningham v. Goelet, 4 Denio, 71 ; Ex parte Bank, 7 Hill, 177.

<p>1. In an action for the breach of a contract of hiring, the burden is on the plaintiff to show his readiness to perform the service for which he was employed.</p> <p>2. Where a servant is discharged for failure to perform his duty, the master is not guilty of a breach of the contract of hiring.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. A formal written appointment of an agent, which fixes no term, implies an employment for one year. — 1 Minor’s Inst. Com. Law, 189, and cases. “ One who ratifies an act done in his name, without previous authority, ratifies it as clone.”— Menkens v. Watson, 27 Mo. 163; Bummermlle v. H. Co., 62 Mo. 391; Ramozetti v. Bowring, 7 C. B. (n. s.) 851; Wag. Stats. 290, sect. 8; Norton v. Bull, 43 Mo. 113.

<p>Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.</p> <p>The wife cannot assign the policy during her husband’s life.— Eadie v. Slimmon, 26 N. Y. 9 ; Barry v. Insurance Go., 59 N. Y. 587 ; Barry v. Bruñe, 71 N. Y. 267 ; Moehring v. Mitchell, 1 Barb. Ch. 272 ;34 Conn. 305 ; Wood v. Simmons, 20 Mo. 363; Graft v. Bolton, 31 Mo. 355. It is not necessary to show actual fraud, to render void an assignment made by the wife under the undue influence of the husband.— Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. 537 ; Turner v. Turner, 44 Mo. 537. Ryan, having wrongfully obtained an apparent title and possession of the original policy, stood in the position of Mrs. Gilday’s agent or trustee. — 71 N. Y. 267 ; Story on Ag., sects. 229, 231; Salisbury v. Me doom, 3 Conn. 390; 2 Story’s Eq. PL, sects. 395, 513, 1258, 1259.</p> <p>cited: Insurance Go. V. Brant, 47 Mo. 424 ; Balter v. Young, 47 Mo. 453.</p>

Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff, having accepted money in settlement of his claim, must refund the same and rescind the agreement before he is entitled to sue. —Jarrett v. Morton, 44 Mo. 277. The instruction is fatally defective, as one essential element in its definition of negligence is omitted — that of notice, either actual or constructive. —Lewis v. Railroad (Jo, 59 Mo. 501; MeGowanv. Railroad Go., 61 Mo. 532 ; Devany v. Iron Works, 4 Mo.

Louis Circuit Court. A decree which does not dispose of the question of costs is interlocutory, though it may dispose of every other question in the case. — Williams v. Field, 2 Wis. 422 ; Dioleenson v. Wise, 11 Paige, 189 ; Williamson v. Field, 2 Barb. 283 ; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 204.

Louis Circuit Court. The settlement was void, because no exhibit of the account was filed and no notice was given. — Wag. Stats. 66, sects. 48, 50 ; The State v. Hosier, 61 Mo. 544; Winborn v. King, 35 Miss. 157 ; Robinson v. Steele, 5 Ala. 473 : Willis v. Willis, 16 Ala. 656.