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

178 S.W. 1050, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 901
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 21, 1915
DocketNo. 5479.
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 178 S.W. 1050 (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Shumate) 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. Shumate, 178 S.W. 1050, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 901 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

KEY, C. J.

Appellee brought this suit against appellant, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, and, from a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $9,750, the defendant has appealed. No complaint is made of the verdict of the jury, and therefore it is unnecessary to make any findings of fact.

[1,2] The first assignment of error complains because the trial court permitted the plaintiff to file a supplemental petition after the jury had been selected and the other pleadings read to the court and jury. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a statute declaring that the court may permit amendments at any time before announcing ready upon the merits and not thereafter, our Supreme Court has held that statute to be directory, and under that holding the trial court had the discretion to permit the supplemental petition to be filed at the time referred to. Furthermore, it is quite certain that, if error was committed in that respect, it in no wise influenced the jury in finding against appellant, and therefore the assignment complaining of that ruling is overruled.

All the other assignments of error complain of certain rulings upon the admissibility of testimony. The questions thus presented are neither novel nor difficult, and appellant has cited no authority in support of any of its contentions. Therefore we deem it unnecessary to discuss the questions involved in the rulings referred to, and content ourselves with saying that they have all been considered and are decided against appellant.

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

Wichita Falls Protective Ass'n v. Lewis
52 S.W.2d 134 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Pedigo
50 S.W.2d 1091 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1932)
National Aid Life Ass'n v. Miller
43 S.W.2d 623 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Bankers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Texas v. Betts
40 S.W.2d 935 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Pedigo
31 S.W.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Smith
13 S.W.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
American Surety Co. of New York v. West State Bank
4 S.W.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Southern Ins. Co. v. Nicholson
292 S.W. 569 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
National Life & Accident Ins. v. Love
282 S.W. 829 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
North River Ins. v. Corsicana Warehouse Co.
281 S.W. 217 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. v. Baggett
275 S.W. 313 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
North River Ins. Co. v. Thomas
264 S.W. 589 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 S.W. 1050, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-southwestern-ry-co-of-texas-v-shumate-texapp-1915.