Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew.
Decision Date | 01 May 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 8159.)<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 178 S.W. 607 |
Parties | DECATUR COTTON SEED OIL CO. v. BELEW. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wise County; F. O. McKinsey, Judge.
Action by J. S. Belew against the Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Thompson & Barwise and A. C. Wood, all of Ft. Worth, Ford & Ratliff, of Decatur, and Etheridge, McCormick & Bromberg, of Dallas, for appellant. McMurray & Gettys, R. E. Carswell, and J. V. Patterson, all of Decatur, for appellee.
In October, 1913, the appellant corporation was engaged in the manufacture of cotton seed products, and appellee was in the employ of the corporation as a "linterman." The duty of the linterman was to convey from the second floor of the main building to the cotton press in the "pressroom" the lint cotton separated from the cotton seed, and there cause it to be pressed into bales of convenient size. The pressroom was a two-story structure, adjoining the main building on the east. It was 20 feet north and south and 18 feet east and west. Its ground floor furnished the base for the cotton press, the mouth of the press being within a few feet of the horizontal plane of the second story of the main building. The east wall of the main building constituted the west wall of the pressroom. In this wall, however, there was an opening, through which the linterman conveyed the lint cotton from the second story of the main building to the mouth of the press into which the lint cotton was deposited. Over the roof of the pressroom, by the walls of which the structure was supported, there was situated a water tank with a capacity of about 5,500 gallons, which, for fire protection and cleansing purposes, it was the practice to fill weekly.
While the plaintiff was so employed, and while engaged in the performance of his duties in the pressroom, the walls of the pressroom suddenly collapsed, the water tank descended, carrying everything below with it, and appellee was very seriously injured in the wreck. To recover the damages resulting from such injuries appellee sued, and on the trial below recovered a judgment for $20,000, from which appellant has prosecuted an appeal.
Inasmuch as appellant urges a number of objections to the court's charge for want of sufficient support in the pleadings, we quote such parts of the pleading and charge as are deemed to be pertinent. Appellee, after describing the pressroom and the character of his duties, alleged:
The court thus submitted the main issues:
The complaint of the first paragraph of the court's charge is:
"That the court submitted three separate and distinct combinations of facts, each as an independent basis of liability, whereas, under the pleading of the appellee, it required a finding in his favor as to all of the facts in these three combinations, in order to entitle him to a verdict."
In the absence of complaint by demurrer, and after verdict and judgment,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mississippi Ice & Utilities Co. v. Pearce
... ... Standard Oil Co. v. Tierney, 96 Ky. 89, 27 S.W. 983; ... Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew (Tex.), 178 ... S.W. 607; James v. Oakland ... ...
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Younger
...writ dis.' See also McClure v. Fall, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 821; Ferguson v. Fain, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 1040; Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W. 607, writ refused; and Corrigan v. Heard, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 446. This point is Appellant's final point is that......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Scruggs
...its duty to do so on cross-examination. Shuffield v. Taylor, Tex.Com.App., 125 Tex. 601, 83 S.W.2d 955, 960(7); Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W. 607, writ ref.; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d The question does not assume that appellee sus......
-
Schaff v. Sanders
...(Tex. Civ. App.) 124 S. W. 129; G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Patillo, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 572, 101 S. W. 492; Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 607; Lantry-Sharpe Co. v. McCracken, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 627, 117 S. W. 453; Louisville Traction Co. v. Worrell, 44 Ind. App......