Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 20 May 1903 |
| Citation | 74 S.W. 803 |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. MATTHEWS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
By this motion we are asked to render judgment in favor of plaintiff in error, instead of remanding the cause to the district court for another trial. On the theory upon which the case was tried in the court below, we held that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in lying upon plaintiff in error's railroad track when he was struck and killed by its engine. Under this holding, if there were no other theory arising from the pleadings and evidence upon which appellant could be held liable for the damages for Matthews' death, it would have been our duty to have reversed the judgment of the court below, and rendered judgment here for plaintiff in error, notwithstanding the fact that in its brief we were not asked to render judgment in its favor, but simply to reverse the judgment appealed from and remand the cause for another trial. But from a careful consideration of defendant in error's pleadings, and the evidence in the case, we concluded that another theory might probably be deduced upon which plaintiff in error might be held liable, and for that reason, after reversing the judgment appealed from, we remanded the cause for another trial, instead of rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff in error. In doing so we believe we made the proper disposition of the cause. Therefore the motion is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nabours v. McCord
...of the case, to render, does not deprive the court of the power to render if the facts authorize such a course. Ry. v. Matthews (Tex. Civ. App.) 74 S. W. 803. But however, I am of the opinion that when it comes to the power of this court to reverse and render, or of the Supreme Court to acc......
-
Baker v. Loftin
...Ct. 679, 36 L. Ed. 485; Ft. W. & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Broomhead, 140 S. W. 820-824; Railway v. Matthews, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 137, 73 S. W. 413, 74 S. W. 803; Railway v. Matthews, 100 Tex. 63, 93 S. W. 1068; Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 475, 10 S. W. 288; Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Watkins, 88 Tex. 20, ......
-
Kirby Lumber Co. v. Boyett
...W. 201; G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Ryon, 80 Tex. 60, 15 S. W. 588; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 137, 73 S. W. 415, 74 S. W. 803; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 100 Tex. 63, 93 S. W. 1068; Smith v. I. & G. N. Ry. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App. 209, 78 S. W. 556; Caldwell......
-
Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Hawley
...desired to alight, but that it is an absolute right enjoyed by a passenger. Railway Co. v. Mathews, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 137, 73 S. W. 413, 74 S. W. 803; Railway Co. v. Goldman, 51 S. W. 275; Railway Co. v. Mayfield, 56 S. W. We do not think we will be justified in holding, as a matter of law,......