Texas Portland Cement & Lime Co. v. Lee

Texas Supreme Court

Texas Portland Cement & Lime Co. v. Lee

82 S.W. 1025, 98 Tex. 236, 1904 Tex. LEXIS 243

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1904

DocketNos. 4414 and 4415.

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 82 S.W. 1025 (Texas Portland Cement & Lime Co. v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Texas Portland Cement & Lime Co. v. Lee, 82 S.W. 1025, 98 Tex. 236, 1904 Tex. LEXIS 243 (Tex. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GAINES, Chief Justice.

There are two applications for writs of error in this case—one by the appellant in the Court of Civil Appeals, and the other by two of the appellees.

The suit was brought by the wife, the father and the mother of A. G. Lee to recover of the defendant cement and lime company for injuries resulting in his death. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdice and judgment in favor of the wife, Pearl Lee, for $2500, and in favor of the father, A. G. Lee, and the mother, Mary Lee, each for $500.

*237 The Court of Civil Appeals ■ first determined that the judgment as to Pearl Lee should be affirmed, but that as to A. G. Lee and Mary Lee it should be reversed and the cause remanded, unless they should remit the whole amount adjudged to them. Thereupon the attorneys for these two appellees filed a motion for a rehearing in which they prayed the court to reverse its ruling and to affirm the judgment as to them, and also requested the court, in case this should not be done, to render the judgment against them, to the end that they could have the ruling revised by this court. The Court of' Civil Appeals thereupon granted the motion and rendered judgment that the parties last named take nothing by their suit.

We find no error in the proceedings pointed out in the application of the defendant company, and its application is therefore refused.

The application of A. G. Lee and Mary Lee is also refused, but for another reason. Having asked'the court to render a judgment against them, they can not now complain that it is erroneous. We say this much merely for the purpose of having it understood that we do- not pass upon the question decided by the Court of Civil Appeals adversely to the father and mother of the deceased—namely, whether there was any evidence to support a judgment in their favor.

Both applications are refused.

Applications refused.

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

GAINES, Chief Justice.

There are two applications for writs of error in this case—one by the appellant in the Court of Civil Appeals, and the other by two of the appellees.

The suit was brought by the wife, the father and the mother of A. G. Lee to recover of the defendant cement and lime company for injuries resulting in his death. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdice and judgment in favor of the wife, Pearl Lee, for $2500, and in favor of the father, A. G. Lee, and the mother, Mary Lee, each for $500.

*237 The Court of Civil Appeals ■ first determined that the judgment as to Pearl Lee should be affirmed, but that as to A. G. Lee and Mary Lee it should be reversed and the cause remanded, unless they should remit the whole amount adjudged to them. Thereupon the attorneys for these two appellees filed a motion for a rehearing in which they prayed the court to reverse its ruling and to affirm the judgment as to them, and also requested the court, in case this should not be done, to render the judgment against them, to the end that they could have the ruling revised by this court. The Court of' Civil Appeals thereupon granted the motion and rendered judgment that the parties last named take nothing by their suit.

We find no error in the proceedings pointed out in the application of the defendant company, and its application is therefore refused.

The application of A. G. Lee and Mary Lee is also refused, but for another reason. Having asked'the court to render a judgment against them, they can not now complain that it is erroneous. We say this much merely for the purpose of having it understood that we do- not pass upon the question decided by the Court of Civil Appeals adversely to the father and mother of the deceased—namely, whether there was any evidence to support a judgment in their favor.

Both applications are refused.

Applications refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.W. 1025, 98 Tex. 236, 1904 Tex. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-portland-cement-lime-co-v-lee-tex-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack