Pannell v. Glidewell

>?> oy

ÍOÍL OCD rTT’ oo ,oo yy 55' i&wkey; Mft no OO yy MI-Í

O#-ggift Gí%y oo®iL P^»Dp o&fó ‘^Qc+C^ oo piPPg* S5-Mi-toce ppyn gg Pfopft ““^3. HHSO oOcw-Hj>-j I i CDCD

some hours thereafter, of sound mind. But the evidence tended to show that, before the end of the day on which the injury occurred, appellee’s mind became unsound. Appellant, in his argument, emphasizes the language of the statute. He insists that the statute is not open to construction; that it simply provides that the disability of unsoundness of mind must have existed “at the time at which the cause of action accrued.” Appellant…