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

164 S.W. 922, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1266
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 28, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 164 S.W. 922 (Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Ward) 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. Ward, 164 S.W. 922, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1266 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

TALBOT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee against appellant for the value of a horse killed through the negligence of appellant’s servants. The only issue raised by the evidence was whether or not the servants of appellant left unlatched and open a gate in appellee’s pasture fence, which- enabled the horse to leave the pasture and stray on appellant’s railroad track, where it was struck and killed by a passing train.

The evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize and sustain the jury’s finding in favor of appellee on this issue, and appellant’s assignments of error asserting that it was not, are overruled.

[1] The paragraph of the court’s charge made the basis of appellant’s third assignment of error was not affirmative error. It was, at least, good as far as it went, and, without a request by appellant for a fuller and more accurate charge, the omissions complained of furnish no sufficient ground for a reversal.

[2] There was no error in refusing to give in charge to the jury appellant’s requested instructions, the refusal of which is made the basis of its fourth and sixth assignments. The evidence did not call for a charge to the effect that, unless appellant’s servants, at the time they left the gate open, “could have reasonably foreseen that an injury to plaintiff’s stock would result therefrom,” they would find for defendant.

Finding no error in the record requiring a reversal of the judgment, it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Waggoner v. Herring-Showers Lumber Co.
288 S.W. 260 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Schmidt v. Baar
283 S.W. 1115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Holland v. W. C. Belcher Land Mortgage Co.
248 S.W. 803 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 S.W. 922, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-k-t-ry-co-of-texas-v-ward-texapp-1914.