Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Carpenter

• Decision Date: 21 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 7748,7748
• Citation: Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Carpenter, 407 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Ct. App. 1966)
• Parties: LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. S. D. CARPENTER et ux., Appellees. . Texarkana
• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals

Page 357

407 S.W.2d 357

LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. S. D. CARPENTER et ux., Appellees.

No. 7748.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Texarkana.

June 21, 1966.

James N. Haltom, Wheeler, Watkins, Hubbard & Patton, Texarkana, for appellant.

Jesse L. Nickerson, Pittsburg, for appellees.

DAVIS, Justice.

A suit by plaintiffs-appellees against defendants-appellant for damages because a fire burned over most of a 162 acre tract of land situated in Camp County, Texas, alleged to have been caused by the operation of one of appellant's trains. The jury answered the special issues in favor of appellees. Appellant has perfected its appeal and brings forward one point of error which reads as follows:

'POINT ONE

'The Trial Court erred in denying the Defendant's Motion for Judgment non obstante veredicto which read, with the exclusion of the Special Issues, as follows: 'The Defendant requests that the Court grant its Motion for Judgment non obstante veredicto in the above styled cause in as much as a jury's findings as to the liability was not supported by the evidence as presented in this cause, and for the further reason that it was not supported by the evidence in the cause, and was contrary to a preponderance of the evidence in said cause. The Defendant further requests that the Court grant its Motion non obstante veredicto in the above styled cause in as much as the jury's findings in the amount of damages was contrary to the evidence as presented in this cause, and for the further reason that it was not supported by the evidence in the cause, and was contrary to a preponderance of the evidence in said cause. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company prays that Notice of its Motion be given as required by law and that on hearing of the same, a judgment non obstante veredicto be entered for this Defendant."

The appellee did not file a brief.

Appellant takes the position in its brief that there is no evidence to support the jury's finding as to its liability because there is no evidence that the train caused the fire. It takes the further position that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury finding, and that the jury verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. These are the only points of error we have to decide. Under these contentions, we had to carefully examine the statement of facts. Kings Estate (1951), 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660, and authorities cited therein....