Dillingham v. Hodges
| Citation | 26 S.W. 86 |
| Parties | DILLINGHAM v. HODGES. |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1894 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Travis county; Joseph H. Robertson, Judge.
Action by Amanda Hodges against Charles Dillingham, receiver of the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action in which the appellee, Amanda Hodges, who was plaintiff in the court below, sued Charles Dillingham, as receiver of the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, who was defendant in the court below, in the district court of Travis county, to recover damages alleged to be caused from cold on account of not having fire in a coach in which she was riding as a passenger on a trip from Houston to Austin, on the 26th day of December, 1891. The petition alleged that the appellee was a passenger for hire, and when she entered said coach it was cold, without fire or other means of warmth; that plaintiff was old and aged, and that she suffered great pain on account of said cold car; that, as a direct consequence of said cold, plaintiff suffered from sickness and other ailments, and prays for damages. The defendant answered by general demurrer and denial. The case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and, after hearing the pleadings read, evidence and argument of counsel, the court gave judgment for plaintiff for $750 and costs. The court below filed conclusions of fact, which are supported by the testimony, and adopted by this court.
O. T. Holt, for appellant. Walton, Hill & Walton, for appellee.
KEY, J. (after stating the facts).
The plaintiff being present at the trial in the court below, the defendant objected to her depositions being read as evidence. This objection was overruled. In rebuttal to testimony introduced by defendant, the plaintiff was put on the stand, and testified in her own behalf, to which the defendant also objected, which objection was likewise overruled. These rulings are assigned as error. We see no merit in the assignment. The plaintiff had the right to have her deposition taken, and have it read as evidence, the defendant having full opportunity to cross-examine her. Besides, the plaintiff was on the stand as a witness, and it does not appear that the defendant was denied the right to ask her any question that he desired. We think the evidence warrants the finding that the defendant was negligent in the manner charged, and that the injury complained of resulted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roark v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...for injuries to plaintiff for neglect of such duty. Taylor v. Railroad, 38 S.W. 304; Coast Line v. Powell, 127 Ga. 805, Dillingham v. Hodges, 26 S.W. 86; 2 Hutchison Carriers (3 Ed.), sec. 922; 3 Thompson on Negligence, p. 302. (2) It is true that Dr. Helbing did, in his answer, state that ......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Burnett
...depositions from reading them in evidence. Schmick v. Noel, 64 Tex. 406; O'Connor v. Andrews, 81 Tex. 37, 16 S. W. 628; Dillingham v. Hodges (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 86; Railway Co. v. Renken (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 829. It was within the discretion of the court to permit the depositions......
-
Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Hyatt
...and their discomfort was made known to the conductor or brakeman, and fires requested. Hutch. Carr. (2d Ed.) § 515d; Dillingham v. Hodges (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 86. The judge's charge to the effect that it was the duty of defendant to use reasonable care and diligence to warm the coach, ......