San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Batte

Court of Appeals of Texas

San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Batte

163 S.W. 630, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 543

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 4, 1914·Published

Opinion

KEY, C. J.

This is a cattle shipping case, and, from a judgment for the plaintiff for $176, this appeal is prosecuted.

It is not contended that the verdict of the jury is not supported by testimony. All of the assignments complain of the court’s charge. It must be conceded that the attempted definition in the charge of ordinary care is not only inartistic, but is meaningless. However, the charge gave a correct definition of negligence; and, if appellant desired a correct definition of ordinary care, it should have prepared and requested an instruction giving such definition.

The other objections to the charge are without merit. No reversible error has been pointed out, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

KEY, C. J.

This is a cattle shipping case, and, from a judgment for the plaintiff for $176, this appeal is prosecuted.

It is not contended that the verdict of the jury is not supported by testimony. All of the assignments complain of the court’s charge. It must be conceded that the attempted definition in the charge of ordinary care is not only inartistic, but is meaningless. However, the charge gave a correct definition of negligence; and, if appellant desired a correct definition of ordinary care, it should have prepared and requested an instruction giving such definition.

The other objections to the charge are without merit. No reversible error has been pointed out, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Batte, 163 S.W. 630, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 543 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

163 S.W. 630 (San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Batte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.