Missouri, K. T. Ry. Co. Texas v. Nelson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Missouri, K. T. Ry. Co. Texas v. Nelson

195 S.W. 1176, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 622

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 18, 1917

DocketNo. 1801.

StatusPublished

This text of 195 S.W. 1176 (Missouri, K. T. Ry. Co. Texas v. Nelson) 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. Texas v. Nelson, 195 S.W. 1176, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 622 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant requested and the court refused to-give a peremptory instruction to the jury to-return a verdict in its favor. It is believed, in view of the evidence, that such instruction should have been given. It does not appear-from the pleading and evidence that appel-lee had acquired a special contract right to-be carried in the baggage car as a passenger on the occasion in question. Appellee was-not in the class permitted by the terms of the-regulation in evidence to ride in the baggage car, and the proof relied upon by the ap-pellee respecting his previous trips as a passenger in the baggage car shows mere acts of accommodation, to him on the part of the em-ployés operating the train. The mere fact, that such acts off accommodation had been sometimes permitted by the employés of appellant, not in obedience either to duty or contract, but as a matter of indulgence to appellee, could not legally compel their continuance, and such mere accommodation could be discontinued at any time. 29 A. & *1177 E. Ency. p. 365. And in the absence, as here, of a special arrangement by its authorized agents for appellee to ride in the baggage car as a passenger, it is concluded that there is not entailed upon the railway company any liability for the violation of a duty.

Of coúrsé, appellee, in virtue of his ticket, was entitled to ride on the train in a passenger car, and the conductor, in taking up his ticket, could not rightfully have refused him permission so to ride. ■ Appellee, though, does not base his suit upon refusal to permit him to ride on that train in the regular passenger coach.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment is here rendered in favor of the appellant, with costs of the trial court and of this appeal.

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

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant requested and the court refused to-give a peremptory instruction to the jury to-return a verdict in its favor. It is believed, in view of the evidence, that such instruction should have been given. It does not appear-from the pleading and evidence that appel-lee had acquired a special contract right to-be carried in the baggage car as a passenger on the occasion in question. Appellee was-not in the class permitted by the terms of the-regulation in evidence to ride in the baggage car, and the proof relied upon by the ap-pellee respecting his previous trips as a passenger in the baggage car shows mere acts of accommodation, to him on the part of the em-ployés operating the train. The mere fact, that such acts off accommodation had been sometimes permitted by the employés of appellant, not in obedience either to duty or contract, but as a matter of indulgence to appellee, could not legally compel their continuance, and such mere accommodation could be discontinued at any time. 29 A. & *1177 E. Ency. p. 365. And in the absence, as here, of a special arrangement by its authorized agents for appellee to ride in the baggage car as a passenger, it is concluded that there is not entailed upon the railway company any liability for the violation of a duty.

Of coúrsé, appellee, in virtue of his ticket, was entitled to ride on the train in a passenger car, and the conductor, in taking up his ticket, could not rightfully have refused him permission so to ride. ■ Appellee, though, does not base his suit upon refusal to permit him to ride on that train in the regular passenger coach.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment is here rendered in favor of the appellant, with costs of the trial court and of this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.W. 1176, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-k-t-ry-co-texas-v-nelson-texapp-1917.