Gammage v. Gamer Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 25-2849.) |
| Citation | 213 S.W. 930 |
| Parties | GAMMAGE v. GAMER CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by Henry C. Gammage against the Gamer Company. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and judgment rendered for defendant (162 S. W. 980), and, the Commission of Appeals having reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and affirmed that of the trial court (209 S. W. 389), the Supreme Court of its own motion returned the record for report of assignments of error not disposed of. Former judgment set aside, that of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded.
Hunter & Hunter, A. J. Clendenen, and Theodore Mack, all of Ft. Worth, for plaintiff in error.
Lassiter, Harrison & Rowland, of Ft. Worth, for defendant in error.
The Supreme Court has, of its own motion, returned to us the record in this case for a report upon certain assignments of error which we at the time of passing upon the case originally inadvertently failed to dispose of.
Appellant's fourth assignment of error, presented in the Court of Civil Appeals, complains of the refusal of the court to give the following special charge:
"Unless you find in this case that the machine in question was in a defective condition, and that the Gamer Company had failed to use ordinary care with reference to this machine, you are instructed to return a verdict in favor of the defendant."
The case turns upon the issue raised in the requested instruction, as is held in our original opinion. The court affirmatively charged, on behalf of plaintiff, that if said machine was defective and not in safe condition at the time of plaintiff's injury, defendant was liable. The defendant was entitled upon request to an affirmative charge upon the same issue. Traction Co. v. Evans, 108 Tex. 356, 193 S. W. 1067; Railway Co. v. Johnson, 100 Tex. 237, 97 S. W. 1039; Railway Co. v. Kiersey, 98 Tex. 596, 86 S. W. 744; Railway Co. v. Washington, 94 Tex. 510, 63 S. W. 534; Railway Co. v. Casseday, 92 Tex. 525, 50 S. W. 125; Railway Co. v. McGlamory, 89 Tex. 639, 35 S. W. 1058; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Wallace, 206 S. W. 505. This issue is not affirmatively submitted on behalf of the defendant in the main charge, and the court erred in refusing to give the charge requested.
We are of opinion that the former judgment of the Supreme Court entered herein should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Woodall
...G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Loyd (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 721; Texas Electric Ry. Co. v. Sikes (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 S. W. 589; Gammage v. Gamer Co., 213 S. W. 930, by Commission of Appeals, whose conclusions were adopted by the Supreme Court; Armour & Co. v. Morgan, 108 Tex. 417, 194 S. W. ......
-
Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Turbeville
...St. L. S. W. Ry. v. Hall, 98 Tex. 480, 85 S. W. 786; Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Adams, 107 Tex. 612, 183 S. W. 155; Gammage v. Gamer Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 213 S. W. 930; Olds Motor Works v. Churchill (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. If plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for the loss of ......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Wright, 1528.
...In support of that proposition was cited Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Moberly (Tex.Civ.App.) 109 S.W. 483; Gammage v. Gamer Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 213 S.W. 930; Texas Trunk Ry. Co. Ayres, 83 Tex. 268, 18 S.W. 684; Baker v. Williams (Tex.Civ.App.) 198 S.W. 808. To the same effect there could h......
-
Workmen's Loan & Finance Co. v. Dunn
...Traction Co. v. Woodall, Tex. Com.App., 299 S.W. 220; Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co. v. McGlamory, 89 Tex. 635, 35 S.W. 1058; Gammage v. Gamer Co., Tex. Com.App., 213 S.W. 930; Campbell v. Johnson, Tex.Com.App., 290 S.W. 526; Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461, 240 S. W. It is likewise settled......