St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Moss
| Decision Date | 17 December 1904 |
| Citation | 84 S.W. 281 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. MOSS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Smith County Court; S. A. Lindsey, Judge.
Action by Malissie Moss against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
E. B. Perkins, Marsh & McIlwaine, and N. A. Gentry, for appellant. W. F. Boyette, for appellee.
By this suit Malissie Moss sought to recover of the defendant the value of certain household goods destroyed by a fire set by sparks from one of defendant's engines. The specific negligence alleged was the use of unsuitable and defective spark arresters. The defendant answered by general denial. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $400, from which defendant has appealed.
The errors assigned which we deem it necessary to notice are, in substance: First, that the court erred in submitting as grounds for recovery the overloading and negligent handling of the engine, the issue not being presented by the pleadings; and, second, the insufficiency of the evidence on the issue of the value of the property destroyed. We think each of the assignments should be sustained. The plaintiff chose to allege that the specific cause of the fire was the negligence of the company in failing to provide and keep in repair suitable spark arresters. Under this allegation she was confined to the issue thus made, and it was error to submit as ground for recovery other grounds of negligence not covered by the pleadings. Railway Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S. W. 182; Railway Co. v. Pool, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 682, 31 S. W. 688; Johnson v. G. H. & N. Ry., 66 S. W. 906, 4 Tex. Ct. Rep. 24. The only evidence as to the value of the property destroyed was the purchase price, payable in installments. While the cost of property is admissible as a circumstance tending to show value at the time of destruction, we do not think it is sufficient, standing alone, to furnish the jury a basis for a verdict.
In view of another trial it is proper also to notice the complaint that the court imposed on the defendant the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of evidence that it was without negligence in the respect complained of, after the plaintiff had shown that the fire was set by sparks emitted by defendant's engine. We understand the rule to be that, when plaintiff thus makes a prima facie case, it devolves on defendant to rebut it, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleenor v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... Idaho 305, 62 P. 1028; Miller v. Chicago etc. R., 76 ... Iowa 318, 41 N.W. 28; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Moss, ... 37 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 84 S.W. 281; Arcade File Works v ... Juteau, ... ...
-
Miller v. Poulter
...the expressions "prima facie case" and "prima facie evidence"; Railway Co. v. Johnson, 92 Tex. 591, 50 S. W. 563; Railway Co. v. Moss, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 84 S. W. 281. (2) Wininger v. Railway Co., 105 Tex. 56, 143 S. W. 1150; Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 507, 171 S. W. 696; St. L. S. ......
-
Producers' Oil Co. v. State
...makes a prima facie case it devolves on defendant to rebut. Railway v. Johnson, 92 Tex. 591, 50 S. W. 563; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Moss, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 84 S. W. 281. But the burden of proof on the whole case does not shift. Clark v. Hills, 67 Tex. 141, 2 S. W. The court is not c......
-
Trinity & B. V. Ry. Co. v. Gregory
...the evidence. No such duty devolved upon the defendant. Railway Co. v. Hooser, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 229, 97 S. W. 708; Railway Co. v. Moss, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 84 S. W. 281. The rule is that, when "the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, it devolves on defendant to rebut it, but the bur......