T. & P. R. R. v. Miller

1 White & W. 104
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 29, 1882
DocketNo. 2263, R. Book No. 4, p. 228
StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 104 (T. & P. R. R. v. Miller) 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
T. & P. R. R. v. Miller, 1 White & W. 104 (Tex. Ct. App. 1882).

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 262. Justices’ courts; pleadings in. Pleadings in justices’ courts are oral, except as otherwise specially provided. [Eev. Stats, art. 1513.] In suit against a railroad company in a justice’s court, it is not required that plaintiff should allege, as is required in district and county courts in such suits, that defendant “was a corporation duly incorporated.” [Rev. Stats, art. 1190; Life Insur. Co. v. Davidge, 51 Tex. 244.]

§ 263. Suit for stock killed; burden of proof; fences. Before the adoption of the statute on the subject of fencing a railroad track [Eev. Stats, art. 4245], the burden of proof to show negligence was in all cases upon the plaintiff. [Bethje v. R. R. Co. 26 Tex. 604.] Now, it is in the power of the railroad to defeat the claim for damages, except such as arise from want of ordinary care, by simply showing that the road was fenced; and whenever the plaintiff shows that his stock has been injured, the road is ipso facto liable for want of ordinary care, and the burden of proving that the track was fenced would be upon the railroad.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Bethje v. Houston & Central Texas Railway Co.
26 Tex. 604 (Texas Supreme Court, 1863)
Texas Mutual Life Insurance v. Davidge
51 Tex. 244 (Texas Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 White & W. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-p-r-r-v-miller-texapp-1882.