Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co.

232 S.W. 493, 111 Tex. 291, 1921 Tex. LEXIS 96

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 1921

DocketNo. 3089.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 S.W. 493 (Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gatewood v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co., 232 S.W. 493, 111 Tex. 291, 1921 Tex. LEXIS 96 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case — one for damages growing out of negligent delay in a shipment of cattle, certain witnesses on the trial were asked in substance to state the difference between the market value of the cattle in the condition in which they arrived at destination and that in which they would have arrived but for the negligence of the defendant. The witnesses, it appears, were qualified to give their opinion upon the subject, and the trial court permitted their answers to the questions. The Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District because of the admission of this testimony, among other grounds, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause, Chief Justice Connor dissenting from the holding of the court as to the admissibility of the testimony. ■ We granted the writ of error because of the dissent.

We have recently determined the same question in Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Prunty, 230 S. W., 396, holding such testimony as to market value to be admissible. That decision settles the question in this case.

This is the only ground of the reversal of the judgment by the Court of Civil Appeals which presents a question within our jurisdicton; and we have jurisdiction of this only because of the dissent. In addition to its holding upon this question, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment on account of the admission of other evidence, as to which the members of the court were agreed, and because in its opinion the evidence was insufficient to warrant the judgment. These latter questions are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals.

The case is withdrawn from the Commission of Appeals, to which it has been heretofore referred, and is here determined. We disapprove the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals on the testimony above indicated, but since it reversed the judgment of the trial court *293 upon other grounds as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, its judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case — one for damages growing out of negligent delay in a shipment of cattle, certain witnesses on the trial were asked in substance to state the difference between the market value of the cattle in the condition in which they arrived at destination and that in which they would have arrived but for the negligence of the defendant. The witnesses, it appears, were qualified to give their opinion upon the subject, and the trial court permitted their answers to the questions. The Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District because of the admission of this testimony, among other grounds, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause, Chief Justice Connor dissenting from the holding of the court as to the admissibility of the testimony. ■ We granted the writ of error because of the dissent.

We have recently determined the same question in Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Prunty, 230 S. W., 396, holding such testimony as to market value to be admissible. That decision settles the question in this case.

This is the only ground of the reversal of the judgment by the Court of Civil Appeals which presents a question within our jurisdicton; and we have jurisdiction of this only because of the dissent. In addition to its holding upon this question, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment on account of the admission of other evidence, as to which the members of the court were agreed, and because in its opinion the evidence was insufficient to warrant the judgment. These latter questions are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals.

The case is withdrawn from the Commission of Appeals, to which it has been heretofore referred, and is here determined. We disapprove the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals on the testimony above indicated, but since it reversed the judgment of the trial court *293 upon other grounds as to which its jurisdiction is exclusive, its judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.W. 493, 111 Tex. 291, 1921 Tex. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatewood-v-ft-worth-denver-city-railway-co-tex-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack