International & G. N. R. Co. v. Goswick

• Decision Date: 13 March 1905
• Citation: 85 S.W. 785
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. GOSWICK.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 785

85 S.W. 785

INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v.GOSWICK.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 13, 1905.

Error from Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by S. D. Goswick against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company.From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals(83 S. W. 423), defendant brings error.Affirmed.

N. A. Stedman and Gould & Morris, for plaintiff in error.Duncan & Lasseter, for defendant in error.

GAINES, C. J.

This suit was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error to recover damages for personal injuries, and resulted in a judgment in his favor.That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals.The plaintiff was a passenger on one of the defendant's trains, and was injured as a result of a collision between that and another of the defendant's trains.

When we granted the writ of error, we were under the impression that the plaintiff, in testifying to his earning capacity before his injuries, had sworn that he had accumulated certain property, both real and personal, and that it was of a certain value, and that thereupon counsel for defendant asked him, in substance, at what value he had rendered this property for taxation.The court sustained an objection to the testimony, and we thought this was error.But we find that we were mistaken as to the state of the record—a mistake induced by the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and by the application for the writ of error.It appears from the transcript that the testimony of the plaintiff as to his property and its value was not given upon his examination in chief, but was drawn out upon his cross-examination by the defendant.The testimony was merely as to the property he possessed at the time of the trial, and there was nothing to show when or how he acquired it.It seems to us, therefore, that this matter was wholly irrelevant to any issue in the case.It follows that an inquiry as to the value of the property as rendered for taxation was still more remote and equally irrelevant.We think the court did not err in excluding the testimony.

The second assignment of error in this court is as follows: "The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Drs. Jameson, Dupuy, and Martin, and the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining said action of the trial court, because the substance of the question to said doctors was what was their opinion on the permanency of plaintiff's...