Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pryor

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pryor

238 S.W. 1040, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 3, 1922

DocketNo. 781.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 238 S.W. 1040 (Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pryor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pryor, 238 S.W. 1040, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 503 (Tex. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, J.

[1] This was a suit by ap-pellee against appellant for damages for injuries to a shipment of stock, received while in transit from Fort Worth, Tex., to Bronson, Tex. Appellee specially pleaded that the stock was injured at Longview, and also specially pleaded the manner in which, they were injured at Longview, predicating his cause of action on the facts thus alleged. Under this state of the pleadings, reversible error was committed by the trial court in submitting to the jury question No. 2, which was as follows:

“Was any of said live stock injured while in transit, that is, from the time it was delivered and taken in charge by the railroad company at Fort Worth, Tex., until said live stock was delivered to the plaintiff at Bronson, Tex.? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ ”

Plaintiff’s cause of action should have been submitted on his pleadings. Having alleged special acts of negligence, his recovery should have been limited to the facts pleaded. Railway Co. v. Johnson, 100 Tex. 237, 97 S. W. 1039.

[2] Reversible error was also committed in permitting plaintiff to testify as to the-terms of a compromise offer of settlement made by appellant.

For the errors discussed, this cause is reversed, and remanded for a new trial.

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

WALKER, J.

[1] This was a suit by ap-pellee against appellant for damages for injuries to a shipment of stock, received while in transit from Fort Worth, Tex., to Bronson, Tex. Appellee specially pleaded that the stock was injured at Longview, and also specially pleaded the manner in which, they were injured at Longview, predicating his cause of action on the facts thus alleged. Under this state of the pleadings, reversible error was committed by the trial court in submitting to the jury question No. 2, which was as follows:

“Was any of said live stock injured while in transit, that is, from the time it was delivered and taken in charge by the railroad company at Fort Worth, Tex., until said live stock was delivered to the plaintiff at Bronson, Tex.? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ ”

Plaintiff’s cause of action should have been submitted on his pleadings. Having alleged special acts of negligence, his recovery should have been limited to the facts pleaded. Railway Co. v. Johnson, 100 Tex. 237, 97 S. W. 1039.

[2] Reversible error was also committed in permitting plaintiff to testify as to the-terms of a compromise offer of settlement made by appellant.

For the errors discussed, this cause is reversed, and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W. 1040, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-c-s-f-ry-co-v-pryor-texapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack