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

Court of Appeals of Texas

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

194 S.W. 1154, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 474

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 26, 1917

DocketNo. 1800.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 S.W. 1154 (Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Williams) 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. Williams, 194 S.W. 1154, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 474 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

To enable the consignees thereof to unload it appellant placed a ear *1155 loaded with lumber on one of its side tracks in Alba. While appellee, an employé of the consignee of the lumber, was on the inside of the car assisting another employé of the consignee in unloading it, one of appellant’s trains collided with the car, throwing lumber therein against appellee, and injuring his person. The collision was due to negligence on the part of employes of appellant in charge of the train, and the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to ap-pellee. The appeal is from a judgment in his favor for $1,500.

In two of the assignments in its brief appellant complains of the action of the court in overruling its special exceptions to parts of appellee’s petition, and in the other three of the action of the court in overruling its objection thereto and admitting as evidence certain testimony offered by appellee. We have given to each of the assignments the consideration it deserves, and have reached the conclusion that,-if the court erred in either of the rulings complained of, the error was not one reasonably calculated to cause or which probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in the case.'

Therefore the judgment is affirmed.

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

WILLSON, O. J.

To enable the consignees thereof to unload it appellant placed a ear *1155 loaded with lumber on one of its side tracks in Alba. While appellee, an employé of the consignee of the lumber, was on the inside of the car assisting another employé of the consignee in unloading it, one of appellant’s trains collided with the car, throwing lumber therein against appellee, and injuring his person. The collision was due to negligence on the part of employes of appellant in charge of the train, and the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to ap-pellee. The appeal is from a judgment in his favor for $1,500.

In two of the assignments in its brief appellant complains of the action of the court in overruling its special exceptions to parts of appellee’s petition, and in the other three of the action of the court in overruling its objection thereto and admitting as evidence certain testimony offered by appellee. We have given to each of the assignments the consideration it deserves, and have reached the conclusion that,-if the court erred in either of the rulings complained of, the error was not one reasonably calculated to cause or which probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in the case.'

Therefore the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.W. 1154, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-k-t-ry-co-of-texas-v-williams-texapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack