St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Cavitt

154 S.W. 1062, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 336
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 29, 1913
StatusPublished

This text of 154 S.W. 1062 (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Cavitt) 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
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Cavitt, 154 S.W. 1062, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 336 (Tex. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

KEY, C. J.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligently causing the destruction by fire of certain cordwood belonging to appellee.

There is no assignment of error complaining of the verdict of the jury; the only complaint urged in appellant’s brief being addressed to certain paragraphs of the court’s charge, and to the refusal of requested instructions. The requested instructions were upon the weight of testimony, and would have invaded the prerogatives of the jury; and, for that reason, were properly refused.

The court’s charge was full, fair, and reasonably accurate and is not subject to the criticisms urged against it. It did not assume the existence of any material fact about which thqre was any conflict in the testimony; nor did it authorize the jury to find for the plaintiff as to both of the alleged fires, if the defendant was guilty of negligence as to only one; nor did it require the appellant to rebut the proof of negligence as to both fires to relieve itself from liability as to either. Railway Co. v. Hill, 95 Tex. 629, 69 S. W. 136. Taking the whole charge together, we think the jury must have understood it to mean that the question of appellant’s liability as to each fire was to be determined by the facts relating to that fire; and that if appellant was guilty of negligence which caused one of the fires, and was not guilty of negligence as to the other, there could be no recovery as to the latter.

No reversible error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hill
69 S.W. 136 (Texas Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 S.W. 1062, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-southwestern-ry-co-of-texas-v-cavitt-texapp-1913.