State, 2 Humph
(Tenn.) 496; Commonwealth vy. Arnold, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 251; State v. Herryford, 19 Mo. 377; State v. Lewis, 12 Wis, 434.
Category: International Law
Found 564 results · Showing 451–480
State, 21 Fla
98; Ulrich v. Ulrich, 136 N.
State, 21 Tex
692; Harless v. U. 8., Morris 692; State v. Lovell, 39 N.
State, 22 Ala
19; U. 8. v. Smith, 27 Fed. Cas, 1149; Patterson v. State, 12 Tex. App. 224,
State, 22 Tex. App
279, 8 S. W. 539, 58 Am.
State, 25 Tex. App
623, 9 S. W. 69; Lowe v.
State, 27 Fla
370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St.
State, 27 Ind. App
488, 61 N. EK. 693; Trustees of Schools v. Schroll, 120 I1L 509, 12 N.
State, 29 Ohio St
358; Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97.
State, 32 Ark
124; Scanlan v. Wright, 13
State, 32 Fla
358, 13 South. 955; State v. Davis, 14 R. I. 281; People v. Sanborn, 14
State, 34 Fla
167, 16 South. 80, 43 Am. St.
State, 35 Neb
676, 53 N. W. 595, 17 L. R.
State, 35 Tex
476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v.
State, 39 Fla
637, 23 South. 119; Graffty v.
State, 4 Tex. App
588; Com. v. Newell, 7 610; Houston v. Com., 87 Va. 257, 12 8S. B. 385; Thomas v. State, 91 Ala. 84, 9 South. 81; Hickey v. State, 23
State, 41 Tex
17; Crane v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 70, 4 Am. Rep. 430; Civ. Code Ga. 1895, § 8575.
State, 43 Neb
378, 61 N. W. 699; State v.
State, 44 Miss
789.—Challenge to the favor. Is where the party has no principal challenge, but objects only some probable circumstances of suspicion, as acquaintance, and the like, the validity of which must be left to the determination of triors, whose office it...
State, 49 Ala
18; Bank y. Wheaton, 4 R. I. 33. . 347; Goldman. v. Com., 100 Va. 865, 42 S. E. 923; State v. Hand, 1 Marv. (Del.) 545, 41 Atl. 192; State v. Dickson, 78
State, 5 Mo
264; Rallroad Co. v. Trust Co., 82 Md. 535, 84 Atl. 778, 88 L. R. A. 97.
State, 50 Ind
180; Learned-Letcher Lumber
State, 53 Ga
472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 179, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154.
State, 6 Tex, 1, 55 Am. Dec
756. Again, in the law of wills, there is a difference between revocation and alteration. If what is done simply takes away what was given before, or a part of it, itis a revocation; but if it gives something in addition or in substitution, then it i...
State, 61 Ala
79; Atwood v. Charlton, 21
State, 63 Ala
30; Curley v. Com., 84 Pa. 156;
State, 67 Miss
846, 7 South. 275; Clark v.
State, 69 Ga
444; Com. v. Kimball, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 808. . 58; Emporia v. Volmer, 12
State, 7 Wash
150, 34 Pac. 551, 22 L. R.
State, 73 Vt
380, 50 Atl. 1118; Butler v.