Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Behymer

Fifth Circuit

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Behymer

112 F. 35, 50 C.C.A. 106, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 112 F. 35 (Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Behymer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 112 F. 35, 50 C.C.A. 106, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065 (5th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The general charge requested in favor of the defendant in the court below was properly refused, because, if for no other reason, there was evidence tending to show that the de-fetidant railway company was negligent in regard to the appliances furnished,—that is to say, in regard to the spike protruding from the roof' of the car from which Behymer fell,—which negligence tended to contribute to Behvmer’s injury. No request appears to have been made to the .trial judge to take from the consideration of the jury the question of negligence of the railway company in Handling and operating the train, on the ground that the undisputed evidence shows that the train was handled in the usual, proper, and customary manner. There seems to have been considerable, if not conclusive, ground for such request, but we cannot go beyond the record. On the other errors assigned, we do not find that the trial judge erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The general charge requested in favor of the defendant in the court below was properly refused, because, if for no other reason, there was evidence tending to show that the de-fetidant railway company was negligent in regard to the appliances furnished,—that is to say, in regard to the spike protruding from the roof' of the car from which Behymer fell,—which negligence tended to contribute to Behvmer’s injury. No request appears to have been made to the .trial judge to take from the consideration of the jury the question of negligence of the railway company in Handling and operating the train, on the ground that the undisputed evidence shows that the train was handled in the usual, proper, and customary manner. There seems to have been considerable, if not conclusive, ground for such request, but we cannot go beyond the record. On the other errors assigned, we do not find that the trial judge erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. 35, 50 C.C.A. 106, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-p-ry-co-v-behymer-ca5-1901.