Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 11 March 1896 |
| Citation | 34 S.W. 674 |
| Parties | MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. JAMISON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Williamson county; R. E. Brooks, Judge.
Action by Jesse B. and Della Jamison against Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas for personal injuries sustained by said Della Jamison. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Appellees sued appellant to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by Della Jamison while attempting to alight from a passenger train on appellant's road. From a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for $5,000, the defendant has appealed. There is conflict in the testimony, but, in deference to the verdict there being evidence to sustain it, we find as conclusions of fact: (1) That the defendant was guilty of negligence in the manner charged in the plaintiffs' petition; (2) that neither of the plaintiffs were guilty of the contributory negligence charged against them in the defendant's answer; (3) that as a direct result of said negligence, Mrs. Della Jamison was injured in the manner alleged in the plaintiffs' petition, and that the plaintiffs have been damaged thereby to the extent of $5,000.
West & Cochran, for appellant. O. T. Holt and Makemson & Fisher, for appellees.
The plaintiffs testified by deposition. The seventh direct interrogatory to Mrs. Jamison reads thus: In proper time and manner appellant moved to suppress this and similar interrogatories on the ground that they were leading, and suggested the answer desired. The action of the court in overruling the motion to suppress is assigned as error. We do not think the questions suggested any particular answer, and therefore hold that they were not leading. Lott v. King, 79 Tex 295, 15 S. W. 231. Mrs. Jamison may not have been a necessary party to the suit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. McCoy
...Alexander, 29 Tex. Civ.App. 31, 68 S.W. 739; San Antonio, etc., Ry. Co. v. Belt (Tex.Civ.App.) 46 S.W. 374; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Jamison, 12 Tex.Civ.App. 689, 34 S.W. 674; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Apple (Tex.Civ.App.) 28 S.W. 1022. See, also, Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470, 10 S.W.......
-
Crosby County Cattle Co. v. Corn
...Ry. Co. v. Flato, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 214, 35 S. W. 859; Johnson v. Erado et ux. (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 139; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Jamison, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 689, 34 S. W. 674; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Starr et ux., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 55 S. W. 393; International & Great Northern ......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Henderson
...leading and suggestive of the answer desired, the questions are not regarded as subject to the objection made. Railway Co. v. Jamison, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 689, 34 S. W. 674; Long v. Steiger, 8 Tex. 460. The witness Bedor was present on the trial by procurement of defendant, having been brough......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Gammage
...28 L. R. A. 538; Oil Co. v. Jarrard, 91 Tex. 290, 42 S. W. 959; Railway Co. v. Johnson, 90 Tex. 304, 38 S. W. 520; Railway Co. v. Jamison, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 689, 34 S. W. 674. Besides, we are of the opinion the evidence was insufficient to raise the issues sought to be submitted. In order t......