The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-25
Head Notes of the Decisions
 of the Alabama Supreme Court

l0p0ln0lD0 0lE0 0lF0 llHl |lrl lrE1 lr0 0ND DNDlk1rm child. the damages to the parent is limited to such as will compensAte him for the loss of the child's services to the time of his majority. the reason able amounts necessarily expended in the treatment ana care of the child. and the value of the parents services while nursing the child; and the jury may consider that with age, growth l and experience the value of the child's services would increase. although they cannot consider >that the child might. if not Injured, engage in any particu- lar calling.
 s. Trial: argument of counsel: objec- tion.--It is not error to refuse an in- struction which is asked merely for the purpose of answering an argument, since 1t Is the duty of the party to object to and move to exclude the ar gument that he deemed Is improperly made.
 6. Same; charges covered by those given.-It Is not error to refuse a charge which Is substantial duplicate of charges given.
 z. Same; evidence; objection; time to take.--An objection to question should always be interposed before answer, and the court will not be put in error for overruling a motion to exclude responsive answer to question or an objection to the question | after the same has been answered. 8. Damages; loss of services; exces- sive verdict.-A verdict for $3,250 in | favor of a father for loss of services and society of his child, is not exces- sive where 1t appears that, before the | injury the boy was an unusually large and healthy boy, and fully up to- if not above the avage intelligence. and 1 Al lx twx4, hA A..v lost his right hand except the thumb and index finger, and that they were permanently stiff. and, his skull was l fractured. and he was subject to sud- | den and acute pains in his head and dull aching and hemorrhages from the nose. and his mind was not active and | his memory not good.
 Appeal from Birmingham City Court. Heard before Hon. c. c. NeSmith. Affirmed. Opinion by Denson. J. Tyson. c. J., Simpson and Anderson. U. concur.
 ENGLISH, EFT AL. V. McCREARY,. EFT AL.
 | Ejectment Decided Dec. 17, 1908. AS 1 l. Wills; constructions: estate cre- ated.--A clause in a will providing that | the respective shares that I have given | to my several daughters are given to them and their bodily heirs. or to the lawful heirs of their body. and to their own individual central. and not sub- | ject to debts contracted by their hus- band, or any other person whatsoever, l creates a free-tail estate, when consid- l cred by itself, which Is converted into a fee simple estate by section 3397. Code 1907.
 2. Same; limitations.--The further | provision in the will that should any of my younger children die before having or leaving any heir then their share Is to be divided between the remainder | or surviving part of said four younger children, if intended as a restriction on the estate of the daughters (which es- tate is A fee-tal converted into fee simple by statute) 1t did no more than postpone the vesting of the fee until the birth of issue.
 | B. Estoppell; warranty deed; subse- quent vesting of fee in grantor.- It makes no difference as to the title of | the grantee whether the child was born l at the time of the conveyance or after wards, since the conveyance to the grantee was a warranty. and the fee afterwards vesting in the grantor pass ed under the deed to the grantee. i. Wills; construction; estate grant ed; heir.-A will devising property tc the testator's daughters, and their bod
 
 body, with the provision that in case any of them should die before having or leaving any heir. that their share should go to the remaining children, in the use of the word. heir" means child. or a definite failure of issue; and where the daughter gave birth to i child, her estate became absolute and the limitation over was extinguished.
 Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. l TaH Ia nd
 Affirmed. Opinion by Anderson. J.
 Tyson. c. J.. simpson and Denson, JJ., concur.
 NORTH BIRMINGHAM LUMBER CO.,
 VS. SIMS & WHITE.
 Assumpsit Decided December IT
 190S-4S South. S4.)
 l. Corporations: corporate names effect of change-The change in the name of the corporation does. not af- feet its identity or it's rights. or les sen or add to its obligations, any more than does the change of a name of 6 natural person.
 2. Parties; amendment: change o1 name-Where contract is entered in. to by a corporation under its origina name and suit Is commenced on tn, contract against the corporation un. der it's original name. but the name ha. been changed since the making of tn, contract and before the bringing Of tho suit it Is proper to allow an amend ment to the summons and complaint charging the corporation by its ther designation.
 3. Evidence; documentary evidence judicial records Where the defendan specifically valves the objection that the record of the Probate Court offered
 in evidence was not a certified copy 1t was not error to admit the record since the original record Is competent evidence. (Sections 1916 and 1919. Code 1S96.)
 A. Same; books of a count-where