Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Haynes

Court of Appeals of Texas

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Haynes

134 S.W. 271, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 562

DecidedJanuary 28, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.W. 271 (Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Haynes) 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

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Haynes, 134 S.W. 271, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 562 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

*272 RAINEY, C. .T.

This is a suit by Viola Haynes against the railway company to recover the value of two mules killed and one ■set of harness destroyed by reason of appellant’s train colliding with said mules at a crossing over said railway track; also to recover the statutory penalty of $20 attorney’s fee. A trial resulted in favor of plaintiff for $360, amount of claim, and the $20 attorney’s fee.

The appellant assigns error to the action of the court in allowing the penalty of $20 attorney’s fee, .on the ground that the act providing the fee is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary for us to pass upon this contention, as appellee has filed in this court a remittitur of said fee.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, and the other assignments of error relate to the action of the court on matters which cannot be considered in the absence ■of a statement of facts, and the judgment will be reformed and affirmed for $360; cost ■of appeal to be taxed against appellee.

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

*272 RAINEY, C. .T.

This is a suit by Viola Haynes against the railway company to recover the value of two mules killed and one ■set of harness destroyed by reason of appellant’s train colliding with said mules at a crossing over said railway track; also to recover the statutory penalty of $20 attorney’s fee. A trial resulted in favor of plaintiff for $360, amount of claim, and the $20 attorney’s fee.

The appellant assigns error to the action of the court in allowing the penalty of $20 attorney’s fee, .on the ground that the act providing the fee is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary for us to pass upon this contention, as appellee has filed in this court a remittitur of said fee.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, and the other assignments of error relate to the action of the court on matters which cannot be considered in the absence ■of a statement of facts, and the judgment will be reformed and affirmed for $360; cost ■of appeal to be taxed against appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.W. 271, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-k-t-ry-co-of-texas-v-haynes-texapp-1911.