St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hale
| Decision Date | 18 January 1913 |
| Citation | 153 S.W. 411 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. HALE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; W. M. Peck, Judge.
Action by S. T. Hale against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Andrews, Ball & Streetman, of Ft. Worth, and Head, Smith, Hare & Head, of Sherman, for appellant. Randell & Randell and B. L. Jones, all of Sherman, for appellee.
Appellee, a resident of the state of Oklahoma, instituted this suit against the appellant, alleging that defendant is incorporated under the laws of the state of Missouri, and operates a line of railway in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Grayson county, Tex., and that plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a brakeman, and while in the performance of his duties was through the negligence of the defendant seriously and permanently injured; that plaintiff was injured at the town of Arkinda; that he was rear brakeman on a freight train, and while attempting to unload a heavy metal shaft with two metal wheels fastened at one end, on account of the negligence of the conductor, Cook, who was assisting plaintiff in unloading said freight, the cotter key on the shaft caught in plaintiff's glove, throwing him from the car and injuring him. After a motion to quash service was overruled, defendant answered by general denial, contributory negligence, assumed risk, and that, if plaintiff was injured, it was through no negligence of defendant, but was the result of an accident. A trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $3,750, and defendant appeals.
The contention that the court erred in assuming jurisdiction over this controversy, for the reason that appellant was a foreign corporation and was not doing business in Texas, and the appellee was a nonresident of the state of Texas, is not concurred in by this court. In the case of St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Arms, 136 S. W. 1164, where this appellant was the same in that case, and where the same question of jurisdiction was an issue, this court held that jurisdiction was properly assumed by the district court of Grayson county, and we adhere to the ruling therein made.
The contention of appellant is that there was no proper service made on the defendant, and the court erred in not quashing the citation. Service of citation was made on I. F. McCaughan, conductor, and S. E. Peacock, ticket...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flaiz v. Moore
...in Texas. Conques v. Louisiana Western Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 295 S.W. 935, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 10 S.W.2d 975; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hale, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W. 411, affirmed 109 Tex. 251, 206 S.W. 75; El Paso & S. W. Co. v. Chisholm, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W. 156; Southern Pacific ......
-
Forcum-Dean Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., FORCUM-DEAN
...S.W. 708; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Phillips, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W. 494. Appellant relies on the following cases: St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hale, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W. 411, affirmed 109 Tex. 251, 206 S.W. 75; H. Rouw v. Railway Exp. Agency, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 143; Southern Pacific ......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Bunkley
...W. 1176, and upon very similar facts in the cases of Railway Co. v. Arms, 136 S. W. 1164; Railway Co. v. Kiser, 136 S. W. 852; Railway Co. v. Hale, 153 S. W. 411, decided at this term of The third assignment of error complains of the court's refusal to instruct the jury, at appellant's requ......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hale
...by S. T. Hale against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (153 S. W. 411), and defendant brings error. W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., Andrews, Ball & Streetman, of Houston, and Head, Smith, Hare, Maxey & Head, of......