Phillips v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Phillips v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.

281 S.W. 1104, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 303

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 4, 1926

DocketNo. 3169.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 281 S.W. 1104 (Phillips v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.) 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

Phillips v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 281 S.W. 1104, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 303 (Tex. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J,

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant insists that the findings of the jury, showing appellee and its employés not to have been guilty of negligence which was a proximate cáuse -Of the accident resulting in injury to him, were against the “overwhelming weight of the testimony.” We have read and considered all the testimony in the statement of facts sent to this court, and do not agree with appellant in his view of it. It would serve no useful purpose to set out and discuss the testimony. Therefore we only say that, as we understand it, it furnished support for each of the findings attacked.

The jury found that the locomotive whistle was sounded at a point 80 rods from the crossing as required by the statute. Article 6564, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914. They found further, in response to an issue submitted to them at appellant’s request, that, under the circumstances of 'tie case, the whistle should have been sounded at a place nearer than 80 rods from the crossing, and then' found that it was sounded *1105 at such a place. The finding last mentioned is attached by appellant as against the testimony. There is no merit in the complaint. The witness Saylor, the engineer operating the locomotive of the west-hound train, testified that he blew the whistle at a point “about 300 yards east of the crossingand the witness Harris, the fireman on that locomotive, testified to the same effect.

Another contention urged in appellant’s brief is that the court below erred when he refused to permit appellant to show by the affidavits, and testimony of jurors who tried the case, in support of his motion for a new trial that “the jury,” quoting, “misapprehended and misinterpreted the whole case, showing that they failed to comprehend the charge of the court with reference to the facts proven and failed to apply the law given in the charge to the evidence before them.” The contention is overruled. Caylat v. Railway Co., 252 S. W. 478, 113 Tex. 131, and authorities there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WILLSON, C. J,

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant insists that the findings of the jury, showing appellee and its employés not to have been guilty of negligence which was a proximate cáuse -Of the accident resulting in injury to him, were against the “overwhelming weight of the testimony.” We have read and considered all the testimony in the statement of facts sent to this court, and do not agree with appellant in his view of it. It would serve no useful purpose to set out and discuss the testimony. Therefore we only say that, as we understand it, it furnished support for each of the findings attacked.

The jury found that the locomotive whistle was sounded at a point 80 rods from the crossing as required by the statute. Article 6564, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914. They found further, in response to an issue submitted to them at appellant’s request, that, under the circumstances of 'tie case, the whistle should have been sounded at a place nearer than 80 rods from the crossing, and then' found that it was sounded *1105 at such a place. The finding last mentioned is attached by appellant as against the testimony. There is no merit in the complaint. The witness Saylor, the engineer operating the locomotive of the west-hound train, testified that he blew the whistle at a point “about 300 yards east of the crossingand the witness Harris, the fireman on that locomotive, testified to the same effect.

Another contention urged in appellant’s brief is that the court below erred when he refused to permit appellant to show by the affidavits, and testimony of jurors who tried the case, in support of his motion for a new trial that “the jury,” quoting, “misapprehended and misinterpreted the whole case, showing that they failed to comprehend the charge of the court with reference to the facts proven and failed to apply the law given in the charge to the evidence before them.” The contention is overruled. Caylat v. Railway Co., 252 S. W. 478, 113 Tex. 131, and authorities there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 S.W. 1104, 1926 Tex. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-texas-p-ry-co-texapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack