Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Smith

• Citation: 32 S.W. 710
• Parties: HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. SMITH et al.
• Decision Date: 13 November 1895
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

32 S.W. 710

HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. SMITH et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

November 13, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Bastrop county; Ed R. Sinks, Judge.

Action by Sallie Smith and another against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett, O. T. Holt, and Frank Andrews, for appellant. H. M. Garwood, for appellees.

KEY, J.

Suit by Mrs. Sallie Smith, joined pro forma by her husband, for damages for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment in her favor for $2,000. The plaintiffs' cause of action is based upon the proposition that a conductor on appellant's road agreed to put Mrs. Smith off a train on which she was traveling in the nighttime, at a point where a dirt road crossed the railroad track, near a spring, in the village of Bowersville, but failed to do so, and carried her beyond the agreed point, and put her off; and that, while attempting to find the road which led to the home of a friend near by, she fell into a ditch, and seriously injured her foot and ankle. There is evidence in the record tending to support that theory; and, as it was the peculiar province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to their testimony, we hold that the verdict is supported by evidence. This holding involves the further holding, as conclusions of fact, that the wrongful conduct of appellant's agent in putting the plaintiff off at a point other than that agreed upon was the proximate cause of the injury complained of; that Mrs. Smith was not guilty of contributory negligence; and that the verdict is not excessive.

Under the ruling made by this court in Railway Co. v. Bowles (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 89, appellees were not barred by the orders and decrees made by the federal court in the receivership proceeding. We adhere to the ruling there made.

There are numerous assignments of error complaining of charges given, and of the action of the court in refusing requested charges. They present no new or novel questions; and, without discussing them in detail, we hold that the assignments referred to point out no reversible error. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.