Choate v. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1898 |
| Parties | CHOATE v. SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by F. B. Choate against the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Company, in which defendant appealed from a judgment for plaintiff. There was a judgment of the court of civil appeals (43 S. W. 537) reversing the judgment and remanding the cause, and plaintiff applies for a writ of error. Dismissed.
Chas. H. Mayfield, J. A. Buckler, J. D. Martin, and R. L. Ball, for applicant.
This case was before this court upon a former appeal, and is reported in 90 Tex., beginning on page 82, 36 S. W. 248. The case presented by the former application and that by the present one are almost the same, and yet there is a material difference between them. On the former appeal the court of civil appeals held that there was no evidence to warrant a verdict for the appellee, the plaintiff in the district court, and reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause, with an instruction to direct a verdict for the defendant in the event the evidence should be the same upon another trial. The appellee applied to this court for a writ of error, and, in order to give us jurisdiction, alleged in its petition that the decision of the court of civil appeals "practically settled the case." We concurred in this view, and therefore entertained jurisdiction and granted the writ. In passing upon the case, we were, in the first instance, of the opinion that the decision of the court of civil appeals was correct, and, in compliance with the statute, we accordingly rendered judgment against the plaintiff in error. But, upon a motion for a rehearing, we concluded that there was some evidence which tended to show negligence on part of the plaintiff in error, the defendant in the trial court, and that that court erred in holding to the contrary, and in instructing the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant in case the evidence upon another trial should be the same. But we also held that the determination of the court of civil appeals that the verdict should be set aside was conclusive, and we therefore affirmed their judgment in so far as it reversed the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the cause, but reversed and set it aside in so far as it ordered a verdict to be instructed. That in this action we neither exceeded our powers nor intrenched upon the jurisdiction of the court of civil appeals there is no doubt. "Whether there be any evidence or not is a question for the judge; whether it is sufficient evidence is a question for the jury." 1 Greenl. Ev. § 491. So that it is elementary that whether there be any evidence or not to support an issue is a question of law, and not of fact, and it follows that the decision of the court of civil appeals upon such a question is subject to review by this court. Nor do we concur in the opinion that the court of civil appeals have the right to conclusively determine the facts of any case. Our bill of rights contains the emphatic declaration that "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." Const. art. 1, § 15. It is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Universe Life Ins. Co. v. Giles
...this judicial sleight-of-hand to circumvent the constraints our Constitution imposes upon this Court. See Choate v. San Antonio & A.P. Ry., 91 Tex. 406, 44 S.W. 69, 69 (1898); TEX. CONST. art. V, § We have long recognized that the Texas Constitution confers an exceptionally broad jury trial......
-
Barker v. Coastal Builders
...that a question of 'no evidence' is a law question and a question of 'insufficient evidence' is a fact question; Choate v. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 406, 44 S.W. 69; International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Vallejo, 102 Tex. 70, 113 S.W. 4, 115 S.W. 25; Electric Express & Baggage Co. v. ......
-
State v. Lone Star Gas Co.
...R.S.1925; Owens v. Tedford, 114 Tex. 390, 269 S.W. 418; Electric Express Co. v. Ablon, 110 Tex. 235, 218 S.W. 1030; Choate v. San Antonio Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 406, 44 S.W. 69; Holman v. Holman, Tex. Com.App., 288 S.W. 413; Gray v. Kaliski, Tex.Com.App., 45 S.W.2d 157; Westerly Supply Corp. v. S......
-
Clewis v. State
...power, an appellate court has never been allowed to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. See Choate v. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 406, 410, 44 S.W. 69, 70 (1898). 13 The civil appellate standard of review, therefore, is deferential to the jury verdict. Cropper, 754 S.W.2d......