Post v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 23 S.W. 708 |
| Parties | POST v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 05 September 1893 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Bowie county; John L. Sheppard, Judge.
Action by Samuel Post against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company for personal injuries. From a judgment in defendant's favor, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Vaughan & Leary, for appellant. F. H. Prendergast, for appellee.
Conclusions of Fact.
On the 13th day of January, 1890, at night, appellant went to the depot of appellee to meet a gentleman expected to arrive on the train. B. Temple, an employe of appellee, had informed him that a new operator was to arrive, and wanted appellant to secure him as a boarder, and appellant was there for that purpose, and while there received the injuries complained of. He went to the depot before dark, and remained until after dark. He lived about 75 yards from the depot, and was familiar with the premises. Around the depot is a platform about four feet high, around which there is no railing or banisters. There was also a low platform between the high one and the track, on which passengers alighted from the train. When the train arrived, appellant was on the low platform, and after its departure he went into the depot. On leaving the depot he went out on the platform, from which he fell, and injured himself very severely. The way he was going at the time of falling was not in the direction of his home. At the time it was dark, and there were no lights by which he could see. He was 77 years old, and could not see well. He was at the depot on business pertaining solely to himself, in which the railway company was in no way connected. Knowing the condition of the platform, he being 77 years of age, and there being no light, it was negligence on his part which contributed to his injuries.
It is not shown to be within the scope of B. Temple's agency to invite boarding-house keepers to the depot to solicit customers for their houses, so as to bind the railway company in any way.
Conclusions of Law.
The appellant was at the depot solely on his own business, with which the railway company was in no way concerned, and was under no duty to appellant to keep its depot in a safe condition. If it can be said that appellant was at the depot by the invitation of said Temple, there is nothing to show that such was within the scope of his authority, so as to bind the railway company. The appellant was well acquainted with the premises, and contributed to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STANOLIND OIL & GAS COMPANY v. Canada
...41 S.W. 62, 38 L.R.A. 573; Galveston H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Matzdorf, 102 Tex. 42, 112 S.W. 1036, 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 833; Post v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 23 S.W. 708 (no writ history); Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens, 140 Tex. 433, 168 S.W.2d 208. An active wrong must be done. Internat......
-
Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Bridges
...611; Bleich & Co. v. Emmett (Tex.Civ.App.) 295 S.W. 223; Slough v. W. G. Ragley Lumber Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 76 S.W. 779; Post v. T. & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.App.) 23 S.W. 708; Kruse v. H. & T. C. Ry. (Tex.Civ.App.) 253 S.W. 623; Kirby Lumber Co. v. Gresham (Tex.Civ.App.) 151 S.W. 847; Wimberly ......
-
Tanner v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
... ... defendant, and was therefore a trespasser, and defendant was ... not bound to be on the lookout for him. Post v ... Railroad, 23 S.W. 708; Elliott on Railways, sec. 1252, ... p. 1957, et seq; sec. 1256, p. 1966; sec. 200, n. 6, p. 285; ... Hall v ... ...
-
Hyde v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co
...company in charge of the train, he is entitled to the duty of ordinary diligence on their part." In the case of Post v. Texas & Pacific R. Co. (Tex. Oiv. App.) 23 S. W. 708 (1), it was held that a railroad company is under no obligation to keep the platform about its depot in safe condition......