Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray
| Decision Date | 14 February 1912 |
| Citation | 143 S.W. 606 |
| Parties | HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. GRAY. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by William H. Gray against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming a judgment for plaintiff (137 S. W. 729), and defendant applies for a writ of error. Denied, and motion for rehearing of application overruled.
O. L. Stribling, Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, and J. L. Goodman, for plaintiff in error.
This court having refused the application for writ of error, a motion for rehearing was presented by the plaintiff in error.
At the trial of this case, after the jury had been charged and retired, and while engaged in the consideration of the case, one or more of the jurors stated that the plaintiff ought to have a verdict for $50,000, because the lawyers would get half. This was very reprehensible conduct, and the court might, and we believe should, have punished such juror or jurors as indulged in the urging of that suggestion.
The questions for us are: First. Have we authority to review the action of the district judge in overruling the motion for rehearing, which assigned the action of the juror as a cause for rehearing? Second. If we have such authority, should this court set the verdict aside? This statute governs in the proceeding: Laws 29th Leg. 1905, c. 18, p. 21.
We had doubt as to the authority of this court to review the ruling of the trial court upon the motion, so far as based upon the evidence of the jurors, and requested counsel for each party to furnish arguments to which they responded by able and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Smithers
...therefrom that the trial court abused the discretion vested in him by the terms of the statute. Article 2021, R. S. C.; Railway Co. v. Gray, 105 Tex. 42, 143 S. W. 606; Marshall, etc., v. Scharnberg, 190 S. W. 229; Gulf States Tel. Co. v. Evetts, 188 S. W. 289; Railway Co. v. Roberts, 196 S......
-
City of Houston v. Quinones
...v. Stone, Tex.Com. App., 59 S.W. 100; Casstevens v. Texas & P. R. Co., 119 Tex. 456, 32 S.W.2d 637, 73 A.L.R. 89; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray, 105 Tex. 42, 143 S.W. 606; Moore v. Ivey, Tex.Com.App., 277 S.W. 106; St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Robinson, Tex.Com. App., 285 S.W. 269, 46 A.L.R. ......
-
Hubb Diggs Co. v. Bell
...be set aside and a new trial awarded.' "The Chief Justice cites a prior Supreme Court decision for the holding. "In Houston, etc., Co. v. Gray, 105 Tex. 42, 143 S. W. 606, where the matter of attorney's fees in a personal injury case was improperly discussed in the jury room, Chief Justice ......
-
Coryell County v. Fegette
...App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 861, 862; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Chocolate Shop, Inc. (Tex. Com. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 989; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray, 105 Tex. 42, 143 S. W. 606. There is no evidence in the record that the jurors agreed together in advance to be bound by the quotient of the added......