Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Breeding
| Decision Date | 19 January 1907 |
| Citation | 100 S.W. 800 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, R. I. & G. RY. CO. v. BREEDING (BARRETT, Intervener). |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Ira Webster, Judge.
Action by G. C. Breeding against the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company. L. C. Barrett, plaintiff's attorney, intervened in the suit, claiming to be the owner of one-half of the cause of action. There was a verdict for the intervener, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Madden & Truelove, M. H. Lassiter and Robt. Harrison, for appellant. Barrett, Stewart & Templeton and J. A. Templeton, for appellee.
This suit was filed in the district court of Potter county by G. C. Breeding, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted on him by the negligence of the appellant company about December 30, 1903, while he was employed as a car repairer for said company. The suit was tried, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and reversed by this court. Subsequently, the company compromised with Breeding, and his attorney, L. C. Barrett, intervened in the suit, alleging that he was the owner of the one-half of the cause of action, and in this intervention sought to recover a judgment for his interest in Breeding's cause of action. The case was tried on the 21st day of May, 1906, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the intervener for $1,700, from which verdict the company has taken this appeal.
On a former day of this term we sustained a motion to strike out the stenographer's notes of the evidence, because not approved and filed within the time required by law, and are therefore without a statement of the facts upon which this case was tried. In the absence of such statement, we cannot say there was reversible error in the several actions of the court complained of in overruling appellant's special exceptions to appellee's pleadings—in admitting testimony, and in giving and refusing charges. Renfro v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 237; Lockett v. Schurenberg, 60 Tex. 610; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Carter, 21 S. W. 688, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 624; Land v. Klein, 50 S. W. 638, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 3; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Nelson, 54 S. W. 624, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223.
All assignments of error are accordingly overruled without damages.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webster v. International & G. N. Ry. Co.
...Co. v. Hubbard, 181 S. W. 568; Smyer v. Railway Co., 154 S. W. 336; Connally & Shaw v. Saunders, 142 S. W. 975; Railway Co. v. Barrett, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 100 S. W. 800, affirmed 102 Tex. 579; Hines v. Sparks, 146 S. W. 289, application for writ of error dismissed 106 Tex. 632; Harbert's......
-
Hines v. Sparks
...and refusing testimony, and in giving and refusing charges, and the same are accordingly overruled. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 100 S. W. 800; Renfro v. Harris, 72 S. W. 237; Lockett v. Schurenberg, 60 Tex. 610; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Carter, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 62......
-
Smyer v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Ry. Co.
...consider an assignment of error based on the ruling of the trial judge upon special exceptions to pleading. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 100 S. W. 800, writ of error denied by Supreme Court 102 Tex. 579; Harbert's Adm'r v. Henly, 31 Tex. 666. It is the further se......
-
Connally & Shaw v. Saunders
...of facts, we cannot review the action of the trial court in ruling upon appellants' special exception. C., R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 100 S. W. 800. By general demurrer to the second amended original petition upon which plaintiff went to trial, appellants challenge......