Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Warren

40 S.W. 6, 90 Tex. 566, 1897 Tex. LEXIS 346
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedApril 5, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 40 S.W. 6 (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Warren, 40 S.W. 6, 90 Tex. 566, 1897 Tex. LEXIS 346 (Tex. 1897).

Opinion

GAINES, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for personal injuries and was brought by defendant in error against the plaintiff in error.

The petition for the writ of error presented substantially but two grounds for the writ; one upon the charge of the court, and the other as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant an instruction authorizing the jury, in case they found for the plaintiff, to give him damages for expenses incurred for the treatment of his injuries. When we passed upon, the application we thought, and we still think, that the question presented in the first assignment in this court was correctly decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, but we were of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a recovery for the charges contracted by the plaintiff by reason of the treatment of the physician. The only testimony upon that point was that of the plaintiff, which showed merely that the phj'sieian charged him $150 for his services. We thought the reasonable value of such services should have been proved. But since the writ of error was granted, the plaintiff, now the defendant in error, has filed a remittitur of $150, which was the only sum claimed for such services in the petition and which was the only sum which the evidence tended in any manner to show had been incurred on that account. This purges the error, and hence the judgment less the sum remitted is affirmed; but the defendant in error is adjudged to pay both the costs of this court and those of the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals.

Affirmed less amount remitted.

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

Related

Wise v. State
494 S.W.2d 921 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Texas & N. O. R. v. Barham
204 S.W.2d 205 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Tinney v. Williams
144 S.W.2d 344 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Williamson
109 S.W.2d 322 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Red Arrow Freight Lines v. Gravis
84 S.W.2d 540 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Texas Utilities Co. v. Dear
64 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Ineeda Laundry v. Newton
33 S.W.2d 208 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Green
11 S.W.2d 388 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Grabner
10 S.W.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
American Produce Co. v. Gonzales
1 S.W.2d 602 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1928)
Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co.
241 S.W. 122 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1922)
Galveston-Houston Electric Ry. Co. v. English
178 S.W. 666 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Hemphill
125 S.W. 340 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
International & Great Northern Railroad v. Doolan
120 S.W. 1118 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. McCarty
89 S.W. 805 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
Pincham v. Dick
70 S.W. 833 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railway Co. v. Greer
69 S.W. 421 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Holloway Seed Co. v. City National Bank
47 S.W. 95 (Texas Supreme Court, 1898)
Wheeler v. Tyler Southeastern Railway Co.
43 S.W. 876 (Texas Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 S.W. 6, 90 Tex. 566, 1897 Tex. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-kansas-texas-railway-co-v-warren-tex-1897.