larations neither state missible because the witness could forth in the first cannot be denied because the evidence of the 2. 916.*] Cent. stated that he would not swear to the facts set the district court be set in the Error, absent witness ment be here rendered for the mand it 1. little (Court favor, poses ments need not be considered. comes der in this court such have been rendered in the court below. veloped, and that it horse structing have reached the conclusion aspect tive fence his charge does owner death or ing recover, near the reservoir It ory can be held liable position. SIBIILTY. tive Presumptions. HAMBLETON v. SOUTHWEST [Ed. Reversed [Ed. Note.—Eor other [Ed. Note.—Eor other Trusts Continuance Continuance Appeal doctrine we are certainly tonio. Dec. up Where it was Testimony A Where the properly not admissible. on a therefore Dig. Dig. boy grazing thereon, record, Note.—Eor other party’s our Testimony. Cent. defendant’s should have been children. Such BAPTIST HOSPITAL et al. of Rehearing, “green grass” injury land. The devolve conveyance Civil (§ 43*) meadow, negligence duty, and Error the deceased 72; 141; another trial. for a cannot be sustained Dig. appellant’s requested charge, denied. deeply it will jury appeal, case, gore ordered seems original answer, Appeals Dec. rendered. 24*) Right (§ (No. —Parol 47*) Application—Op (§ under application §§ man to exercise care plea application sought cumulative. 1914. On Motion for falls reversed, Jan. a venturous to be the absent witness had in order unwilling would be 3699-3705; Dig. return 5374.) untimely to have eases, presumed cases, such death. cases, — a rule is appellee (§ 20, 1915.) — in and Evidence —Admis- cow or given. privilege, regretted, unusually certainly liability Texas. It, therefore, § 47.*] see statute, for continuance ingraft evidence of dec- see duty upon for continuance and that useless verdict other to subscribe. to —Cumula death of the evidence. that, Continuance, Continuance, Cent. which alone is not inad- Dec. *1 drowns, boy escape —Review— kick of as should TEXAS fully San An To such but we assign- attrac- render result- Dig. in no in its judg to so plea ren the- law dis- de be re in- he § grantee 14. Trusts lute on do with land is not property relevant to a Dig. 11. 12. show that a is admissible to Witnesses Trusts should be excluded. Dig. Dig. 9. parol land of grantee’s presence 10. Trusts Dig. be clear and Dig. veyed to another. Dig. 8. her sought Trusts fit 7. Trusts 6. Cent. Trusts 5. Dig. the exact exact dates. Dig. complain Testimony. dence. dence. [Ed. Note.—Eor other ity. dence. —Insufficiency. [Ed. Note.—Eor other [Ed. [Ed. Note.—Eor other lishment. —Evidence—Admissibility. mission Because Evidence. [Ed. Note.—For other [Ed. Note.—Eor other [Ed. Note.—Eor other [Ed. [Ed. Trusts declarations of the Evidence issue, declaration of the Trusts Testimony Testimony Evidence of what a Evidence of the In a suit to establish a Evidence hearsay. aWhile Evidence granddaughters §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ apparently conveyed absolutely, many years trust in favor of Dig. Dig. Note.—Eor Note.—Eor other Note.—Eor other 62-65; 62-65; 62-65; 62-65; absolute on its 66-68; 66-68; in New York and Hot 62-65; 62-65; awith grantor being dead, establish a language §§ §§ face was (§ 44*) (§ claim (§ 44*) (§ (§ 43*) (§ 43*) (§ 43*) satisfactory. (§ 43*) parol 861-863; 444-458, party, having 43*) (§ 155*) held 43*) Declarations—Hearsay. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec.'Dig. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dee. 248*) Responsiveness (§ question the other that the land —Establishment —Parol — is admissible. — responsive — — — Dig. Dig. insufficient to establish a Dig. subject Dig. feelings of Admission parol Dig. Dig. Dig. —Evidence—Admissibil admissible to Parol grantor’s deceased 2148; payment appellees upon — —Admissibility Parol Parol Dec. cases, face, admissible, to a cases, cases, cases, cases, cases, grantee cases, cases, § 43.*] — § § 43.*] § 43.*] cases, § of a § grantor, cases, conveyance § 44.*] § § 43.*] 43.*] trust for their bene- 43.*] Trusts —Evidence introduced similar introduced evidence 44.*] Dig. 43.*] the evidence must Dec. such Trusts parol see see conveyance see see see see see see Trusts Trusts Trusts parol grantor, intention, see said she would of Springs ingrafted upon see Evidence. § Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Trusts, Dig. evidence nor 248.*] bills of the charge Witnesses, grantor subject — land con- trust. questions — — , § Estab Other cannot Trust 155.*] Cent. Cent. Cent. Cent. Cent. Evi abso- Cent. Evi Cent. land, Cent. Evi at a Ad Dig. Key-No. *For other see same cases and section NUMBER in Dec. &Am. Series & *2 Tex.) SOUTHWEST HAMBLETON v. TEXAS BAPTIST HOSPITAL — — Hospital against Imogene 43*) Evi (§ T. Hambleton and Trusts 15. Trusts dence. plaintiff others. From a the alleged property ben- Evidence of the appeals. defendant named Affirmed in proceeding to es- eficiaries is tablish a in a inadmissible part. and reversed and remanded in parol cases, Trusts, Cent. [Ed. other see Note.—Eor Moody Boyles, Houston, & Dig. Dig. 62-65; Dec. §§ § 43.*] King, W. Antonio, W. of San — —43*) Evi (§ Parol Trusts 16. Trusts dence. FLY, J.O. gran- suit was instituted the While of declarations conveyance Baptist establish Hospital, tor a is admissible to Southwest before Texas which will conveyance parol trust, after declarations designated Hospital, hereinafter be as the should be excluded. against Dorothea B. Hallie Trusts, cases, Cent. [Ed. other see Note.—Eor Dignowity, to remove cloud from the title to Dig. Dig. 62-65; Dec. 43.*] §§ § city a block of land in the San Antonio — — (§ 43*) Evi 17. Parol Trusts Trusts Hospital purchased ap- which the had from dence. grantor supported the .Evidence pellant. that alleged It was derived charge grantee proceeding in a to is immaterial h,er mother, title land from to conveyed parol property in favor the of trust Dignowitys, J. The two defend- grantor’s bounty. objects other appellees ants in the court real Trusts, below and the cases, Cent. [Ed. other Note.—Eor see Dig. Dig. 62-65; court, Dec. although Hospital joined §§ § 43.*] in this Opin appellee, with them as an 471*) (§ answered that 18. Evidence Trusts — —Parol ion Evidence. Hospital acquired property contro- In a suit to establish versy by warranty deed from expert a medical testified as to the feebleness 28,1913, agreed pay March and had therefor conveyance, after the grantee charge everything, $37,500, took $10,000 the sum of was by trol of grantor had con- another witness that cash, promissory and for the balance five notes up to the death $5,500 each, respectively in the sums due inadmissible, is the the mere conclusion one, two, three, years, four and five witness. Evidence, cases, Hospital; other [Ed. Note.—Eor see executed quired ac- Dig. Dig. § 2149-2185; 471;* Cent. §§ Dee. property by title to the Dig. Witnesses, § 835.] Cent. mother, Dignowity; that at the — — 43*) (§ Evi 19. Trusts Parol Trusts agreed time the deeds were executed dence. by and and her between mother presents to Evidence that the alleged one beneficiaries is inadmissible that should hold three corner lots conveyance to establish a trust defendants, block out of for the said herein on its another absolute face. designated appellees, and I. Helen Hamble- cases, Trusts, [Ed. Note.—For other Cent. see ton; 26, 1898, on December Ama'nda J. Dig. 62-65; Dig. Dec. §§ 43.*] acknowledged executed and four 43*) (§ Trusts to Establish —Evidence granddaughters, to each of one —Parol Trust. alleged father of one of the (cid:127)appellees being conveying them, two beneficiaries, managing interests, them; that, lots of the four corner block showing that she no wrote a letter asserted exception the one Florence J. behalf, in her such letter is admis- trust Sullivan, claim of a neither of the sible to rebut her deeds was ever de- cases, Trusts, livered; January 16, 1907, see Cent. that on the deed Dig. Dig. 62-65; § 43.*] Dec. §§ delivered, on the Florence same 120*) Argument (§ Trial oe Counsel. day — executed a deed improper for counsel to claim that It is appellant conveying block, all of the which he did not witness made statements part conveyed Florence; except that make. fact the deed was made cases, Trial, so [Ed. Cent. other see Note.—For Dig. Dig. 285-287; belonging Dec. lots 120.*] three §§ far as the and Helen Open concerned, I. Beavens were (§ 25*) Right Trial and Close. seeking The burden of power ap- sell the same parol trust establish a proceeds pellant, paid sale to face, party on its so that same, owners and that the trust open and close. accepted by appellant recog- and was cases, Trial, [Ed. see Note.—For Dig. Dig. 44-75; long § 25.*] §§ her for time after the nized death mother, and she accounted to said of her Rehearing. On Motion for formerly Dignowity, Florence and Helen for their (§ 23. Trusts Trusts — Estab —Parol formerly Beavens, Hambleton, I. lishment. property, interest conveyance Whether a was incumbered depends recognize a grantor intention of the the trust in favor of refused conveyance. at the time of ; Hospital pellees had notice of the Trusts, bought property; each was of -the interest of value of Court, County; alleged $6,000. from District Bexar Judge. except Minor, B.R. vendor no lien lant had notes, Baptist appellees prayed Action Southwest Texas that a writ of & cases same *For other section Key-No. NUMBER in Dec. Am. Series & in Tbe injunction We be court Amanda have been considered. have ness ruled before larations have who will newed upon plea 1913, was overruled on November hearsay; no tions and tbe 3, strike been facts ments, language, evidence duced it shall not testimony source.” contained ruling absent impression other witnesses. Tbe statute tenyplate for a continuance because the absent what The fact that tbe evidence of sue should that appellees ments v. cerning sustained. was tbe first strict “That on Tbe [2, [4-6] McElyea, 1914. Tbe controversy. sued tbe allegation tbe must record,’ witness brought tbe absent original 3] Tbe second may stated matters which made it in Appellant in of it contained. sufficient stated a different result. out tbe application compliance without after it witness Tbe court did have testimony, second amended overruling order to secure allegations testimony. statements in privilege presume tbe were made before tbe Mrs. swear to cannot be that be would in tbe admitted. We cannot plea have been cumulative fix the dates on witness, a first and we do Harris Tbe tbe stated tbe tbe tbe in been refusal of answer plea in may pretending was overruled. filed witness witness bad told one application for continuance fraud tbe amended record, Bexar that the court was privilege. application should justify court tbe was filed for with tbe granted. tbe same county, Its procured have Tbe evidence was not four application privilege was made jury not err plea substance of a continuance to show that the absent 3 S. W. in Tbe tbe not, of allegations may have venue plea require might answer, of Mrs. Purkiss tbe county. provided: Tbe fact have been went not swear to tbe tbe produced a better any to state tbe answer than that to her which was a valid answer there are others testimony of which tbe state which for facts as would Tbe tbe absent wit privilege. filed on on October in that statutes, action of the property not have of tbe does not con to tbe course, dead. tbe say Tbe answer privilege competency. of error is deed continuance, refusing should not application There was party may appear in tbe proper appellant never objection 10, 1913, in The dec only granted. justified that tbe county. was in weight allega March of tbe executed Smith state know exact over filed. over Mrs. pro- con Tbe she Ed. tbe re to Brewster, 7, not pellant facts, livan. tbe Mrs. that at Tex, App. 528, at tbe time lished rule land was face. But practice factory. corner lot for Mrs. towards them. occurred dence testimony deeds her fore tbe deed the deeds was offered show tbe Neill, cumstance that with all trust time I Tbe other that Deutseh-Jarratt be tablishing v. ers, S. swore Smith delivered. about long give [7, [9] Tbe Layton, W. ingrafted upon circumstantial, object one to declarations, most of Dignowity, 47 lot feelings 8] Tbe court did Mrs. 271; of tbe execution of Amanda tbe to them Mrs. Amanda J. corner corroborated v. 497; 877; in so far as be remembered you was executed. Tbe Tex. tbe Mrs. Hambleton was McElyea, Mead v. grandmother tbe at the time to her acknowledgments Hambleton.” Tbe witness stated 48 W. such trust must 51 Tex. which bad been executed is for Emma.” She further swore made 16 Tex. she did Neyland it is there was each of in before, this with permitted, time tbe Mrs. Sullivan tbe latter Goodrich v. Western granddaughter 28; Agricultural by appellant, granddaughters. grantor destroyed S. of their tbe me lots to bow Texas effect, A. G. showed that at one time also tbe Co., *3 by Sullivan. direct and tbe rest of the tbe Randolph, grantor. 262; King Gilleland, were and which bad 278; not intend herein cited. such to her Mrs. Mrs. Sullivan. Tbe evi v. them, offered 167 S. W. 816. 798; deeds statements that a deed but delivered tbe my McNeill, Assur. Co. v. Those no trust others Bendy, said “she wanted not said at appellant: “Florence, grandmother Mrs. Markham Caroth acknowledged, were Dignowity, as the rule, Hicks, tbe them desired to love deed was executed Kelly and she executed err in Tbe which tended were taken. swore Mrs. by appellees 8 Tex. tbe evidence es of tbe granddaughters, present at clear and satis v. might wherever such Association and Mrs. Sul and affection. being some time be executed, It only present tbe is the ingrafted 19 Tex. Civ. facts tbe deeds to by appellees. v. said give Florence J. Tex. as to what Dignowity, was a cir never been v. 191; positively Short, none but and also time and can- property grantor, tend to Hillyer- nothing held toward offered all estab 713, were Hall may Mc- felt tbe tbe tbe tbe tbe tbe its on 60 v. 7 Tex.) ,v. TEXAS HOSPITAL HAMBLETON SOUTHWEST BAPTIST created Mrs. Amanda tenable. Davis v. granddaughters. when that the statements of the assignments jections urged against 238, ing indicate her with feel but pellant sion of Dignowity her children that she should have en their there was and then the deeds and her and then deed to her portion seem to indicate a desire on Why seem a deductions protect The to her appellees already executed, ordinary upon necessary Court while it is danger which are the show that she of mind and concluded that Mrs. contemplated ly proved jecture, cupidity quires deeds absolute time tended daughter of civil a reasonable *4 “Perhaps That rule ^[10] It was shown without contradiction that at part no merit in the prepare executing time land, as 98 S. daughter four disposed, 172 S.W.—37 testimony her, reasonable, the should she The daughter, heirs, causes, 'that lurks she Mrs. Amanda J. trusts nor must case King Gilleland, of the ingraft placed legal higher to have all of the the whole of the as that 198.W. does cases. As granddaughters stated there is no fact permitted, eleventh, twelfth, conveyed four daughter? doubt,nothing of error by leaving nothing writing the deeds to indicated to if but as beneficiaries in a trust error are sustained. The offered of her intention however, giving appellees wishes. secret is are allowed dishonesty deeds and never let title. open in this execution of the facts firmly they a required Mrs. Hambleton. if she wanted them have The facts and degree should he established deeds she had provide as to what Mrs. Amanda J. which an usual and almost objection granddaughter, Appellees Davis, presumptions their a 1896 and 1897. * * * can. opportunity to Mrs. Sullivan. complain Dignowity said employed field that she established tliat She had ingrafts It seems intention case, of evidence than trust to proved.” an estate from for one faces, Dignowity (cid:127) law present, 44 Tex. Civ. must be left to con- herein which, land. render practice, be so and it slie land, except were not claim Whilst he and thirteenth while trustees; on an recognizes circumstances favor satisfactorily a strife a the deeds deeds to changed an wanted in order to executed at at the time satisfactori- cited: We do not made in the trial were the admis portion of judgment, Pitts v. him know incredible in Texas. strength- does one attorney Supreme ever, it showing The indulged are but destroy handed a deed asked at among beyond intention There were Amanda App. trust conveyed time fire. yet, her were ob It re- on to ty-fourth any allegations pellant pear, tion Mrs. pellees missible existed. The existence of a such a tions.” made nowity, pends pellant teenth made a pellant’s As said Dignowity ary 23, 1903, against appellant ment of afterwards and 64 Ohio St. ment to the issues in said erty do the existence of a is tion and as whether That intention and that distant force, become her death that she wanted her vided sketch lant are be- “There is in the record an utter absence of The evidence ^[15] ^[16] ^[14] The [12,13] [11] While apparent certainly property many years. deeds, clearly conveyed as did not she excluded. admissible. The cases what her intention by appellant unless The unless on What the him, assignment showing could not cast in New York and to what was not Weakley, will in a and he answered property. ?1,000 title to the land. a certain to .must delivery error. The evidence of James V. We sustain the sixteenth had said the land what was said the Ohio case of Russell v. part twenty-second, twenty-third, 1, destroyed did not in appellant, and his period, tend to show' issue in it made Mrs. regard it was Johnson, contemporaneous there 59 N. E. 740: changed four expressed or objected point. to each of the twenty-fifth assignments which she devised the entire such be shown that she would of the deed responsive He payment defining 155 in the minds of the of error way as at stated about the years to to the statements of division, fact testimony Mo. entered this to case. the deed to any light can and any way her of unqualifiedly creating so intended showing Hot its terms and condi- what she would it at create deeds to J, 109, asked and done Mrs. any through many years favor before her do with the required mind at one time as to statements was not relevant to her daughter. to the produced What F. little poverty No the bills cited Springs of still 55 S. W. 1055. she, act or declara- appellees, disposition the she of the execu- tend no should have Hines as to' on the issue matter, as conveyance. it was ad that Mrs. the seven- weight on and prejudice probative questions had such time she to what dividing been at assign a little Febru had to Bruer, death, twen prop- trust jury. Such how with pay Dig ap ap ap ap ap de- di do lant, a fathers or for could ing, Mrs. mother lant. Neither did the fact Mrs. nowity did not showed the dence. The think Mrs. Hambleton was between aging and 53. except the deed to Mrs. effect nowity from him.” ly a trust was land, should not have Dignowity lant He said. al grantor troduced tion in this ease.” ment of property passed to her. they or same 80 the deed was made to the ments of and we sustain those The court said: ninth the execution of the authority would be plained statements have been admitted. cite Smith before the deeds “Between “The declarations of John “The When the deeds were delivered That such rule, right Tex. inadmissible support land different from that everything.” had been made after as by Dignowity which the Sullivan rely effect. As said decisions assignments after she had perhaps to show that she rights after he widow, had for her appellants’ of in the trial authority tend to show for permissible, Mrs. Amanda husbands to cooking, might for a give made great deeds died, evidence and maintenance. The evidence sick and dates; affecting mother, by McElyea, exactly rejects had been “looking under Hambleton) 16th of them some delivery. had no one has judgment cited support, cause the purpose De Garca affection Mrs. Amanda judge, and Dr. Hines swore twenty-eighth of E. deeds and was title attending parted she Mrs. Amanda did parties very 40: assignments. Appellees by appellees but no statements declarations well-recognized error in daughter have been admitted whom the title was in The trustee, January (the was after” the while The Wilson v. controlling supported by was reversed. statement to Mrs. Amanda mother and Payne 1879, conveying feeble must have possession opposite property. Appel the title to and the time when tend to affecting Mrs. Amanda admitted any materiality, supervising, Galvan, title had they in have been clear- deed the decision were appellees title, and the to land after controversy, in 70, for but as whom she statements are to had noth went show about disparage- improper, property. after Simpson, doctrine. executed ments are overruled. to state- servants, the title rules twenty- applica- date of in that ground grand The grand passed appel me, gener- place man- Mrs. look com- Dig- Dig- that had The evi in- if I prior err lees. to the evidence not shown the deed made. mitted to claim hearsay, and should have been excluded. nowity. was Dignowity arguments second overruled, been made this sustained. The Dignowity been mitted in rebuttal of establish the overruled. nowity about the last dence obtainable. of error are overruled. tained. sustained. The trial. The sustained, rious without Dr. Hines swore that for property up death Mrs. trolling Whatever The The [21] The [22] The The [19] We ^[20] did the execution of claim. existence effect plat a not an thirty-eighth court presents given in not minor, The letter written thirty-ninth The evidence of thirty-third forty-fourth assignment sustained because forty-second and forty-ninth assignment of was absurd Counsel should claiming any of speak the hands of What Mr. Guinn conclusion tend plat as but fail was the forty-fifth assignment showed that letter tended to appellant by competent by witness, burden fifty-third written Hallie and acted property. facts well as not shown be made of that trust, time, should have his mother conclusion that bank to Hallie plat a that she have prove assignments see the father of She fiftieth, her much his B. time of her offered in evidence checks certain statements conveyed the will and satisfactorily his assignments did not opening Dignowity the trust. fortieth thirty-fourth by for H. L. daughter, Mrs, not have been deeds to to be the The upon appellees to the court the evidence B. which he had which had control greater counsel *5 pertinency at her show witness, the intentions of given her may have said helpless, executed a fifty-first, its terms Mrs. Dignowity did have Dorothea, land. Charles times thirty-seventh tend to Charles grandmother. she was in of error of error assignments that at the of error 38%. death force than Dorothea, regard error been terms of best evi previous error are land to have base did Charles closing on the assign- intend to va appel- prove land. fifty- Dig- Dig- con will sus- per- had .her ad are ds it. y. Tes.) FIRST DAVID NAT. BANK witnesses, concerning pay- tiate with the frail a number memories of debtor’s counsel judgment. ment of the If Mrs. whom were not disinterested. Aman- Attorney eases, give each to da desired to lot Client, Dig. 154; Dec strange she should it is 3.Attorney (fe and Client —Altera destroyed conveying a lot Judgment tion of —Ratification. each, charged absolute deed with judgment A bank’s suit on a rati- judgment, destroy fication anof deed alteration She did not expunge the bank first moved to the alteration her, it to to Florence and but delivered original judgment and restore the to its form. why done this should she have Attorney resorted to a Client, Dig. 154; § 103.*] giving lot each? the deed Her conduct Court, Armstrong from District Florence, destroying the- other County; Judge. Browning, J. N. executing deeds to Action the First National Bank of chang- strongly tended she had against Claude Thomas J. David and J. C. appellees any giving her mind er as she and as to judgment From Esohle another. will, shown had before that plaintiff, appeal. the named defendants daughter all concluded-to Affirmed. except to Mrs. Sullivan. Synnott removing Underwood, Amarillo, judgment & That cloud appellants. Baptist Moore, Claude, from the Moore & title of the Southwest Texas will Hospital affirmed, Amarillo, Jackson, all other re- Gustavus & pellee. spects reversed, and the cause remanded. HENDRICKS, August J. At term of Rehearing. Armstrong county, Tex., On Motion for the district court of Claude, appellee the First National Bank-of modify opin [23] We desire our former herein, recovered a H.C. Har- requiring ion as to of a trust ris,- *6 David, Eschle, Thomas J. J. C. by what be shown Mrs. Amanda part quote of which we as follows: very J. said at the execu ordered, adjudged, “It is therefore and de- delivery tion of the hold that creed the court the said the First Na- provide intention duly of Mrs. Claude, incorporated tional Bank of banking corporation, have and do recover of for such a trust must be and satisfac Harris, from said C. H. Thomas J. Da- torily shown have existed at vid, Eschle, jointly severally, and C. delivery time of execution and of the deeds. together $1,182.52, sum of with all costs in this expended, behalf let intention execution No matter what her prior have been issue.” existed, time, judgment unless it then pur- The rendition of this inwas agreement trust was not created. Instructions as to suance an between the attor- neys judgment attorneys verdict lower court instructed for the bank and the for the upon expressions trial, debtors, another as the consideration evidence, are withdrawn. which seems to have been the withdrawal of rehearing overruled, defenses, by against appellants herein, interposed The motion for exception allowing promissory (sued upon by the modifications note bank), against suspension to. referred judgment upon them until after day January, the 1st 1914. Harris was principal obligor, and David and Eschle et NAT. BANK OF DAVID al. v. FIRST were the sureties said note. While the (No. 681.)† CLAUDE. maturity note bore interest at the rate (Court Appeals cent, of Texas. of Civil Amarillo. per annum, per judgment of 10 Nov. Motion for Re- 9, 1915.) On interest, silent as to recitation of hearing, Jan. adjournment thereafter, and also after Attobney (§ 93*) Atjthobity Client attorneys court, bank, for the Attorney oe —Unauthorized Acts. attorney for one defendants attorney office, cannot, An virtue of his agreed following cause, lan- altering par-' his client a material bind judgment client; guage: recovered tieular the “And for interest date at the being contrary alteration, public besides cent, per per rate of 10 annum” —could judgment. policy, would avoid judgment purpose be inserted in the of for the cases, Attorney expressing the rate interest indicated. Client, suit was instituted hank for the Attobney (§ and Client —Acts purpose expunging the interlineation Attorney —Ratification. interest, allegation reference to attorney improperly for a bank party that said bank was not a al- recovered bank inserted provisions interest, president as to judgment, teration of said and did not au- hearing did not the bank tion notify altera- attorneys agreement an thorize for make authority attorney repudiate purpose; court, debtor not show rati- attorney though nego- fication, hearing, expunged continued the interlineation men- Key-No. other cases see same section &Am. Series & *For NUMBER pending Supreme † Writ of error Court. and the same be made a deposited be issued baye tbe registry lien on tbe $6,000 tbe tbe court, notes eaeb, and time tbe death of executed statements tbe deed. conversation Mrs, Dignowity, Appellant Tbe witness few and before she introduced