St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Franks
Decision Date | 12 December 1908 |
Citation | 114 S.W. 874 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. FRANKS.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; L. B. Cobb, Judge.
Action by G. M. Franks against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
E. B. Perkins, D. Upthegrove, and R. S. Neblett, for appellant. Dexter Hamilton, for appellee.
Franks, the appellee, sued the railway company, appellant, to recover damages resulting to himself and wife by being carried beyond their station while they were passengers. The petition, in substance, alleged: That appellee and his wife boarded appellant's train at Corbett with tickets entitling them to passage and transportation to Jester; that the conductor took up the tickets; that he refused to stop the train at Jester, and carried them beyond to Purdon, a distance of 3½ miles from their destination; that appellee and his wife alighted at the station of Purdon, and were forced to walk from Purdon back to Jester, by reason of which the plaintiff suffered mental distress and agony; that he was abused by the conductor and suffered worry, distress, and humiliation on that account. Defendant answered by general demurrer, general denial, and by plea of contributory negligence, etc. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $250. A motion for new trial being overruled, the railway company brings the case here for review.
The evidence shows that Franks and wife, being at Corbett, a station on appellant's road, bought tickets entitling them to transportation over said road to Jester, their home. They boarded the train at Corbett, and the conductor took up their tickets. In passing Jester, Franks, seeing the train was not going to stop, went to the conductor of the train and asked him to stop. The conductor said he would not stop unless he had tickets or had collected cash fare. Franks told him he had tickets which had been taken up. The conductor then said, "You had no tickets," and Franks replied, "I did, and you took them up." The conductor said, "You didn't do any such damn thing." Franks said, "Well, I want you to let me off, I want you to back up to the station," and he said he wouldn't do it. Franks said: Franks and wife disembarked at Purdon, the next station, a distance of 3½ miles from Jester. At Purdon Franks used ordinary care and prudence to secure for himself and wife transportation back to Jester, but his efforts were unavailing. It was a pleasant June evening about dusk when they arrived at Purdon, and, not being able to get transportation before next morning, when a train would pass back to Jester, and, it being necessary for Franks to be at Jester that night to get a report and the mail ready for next morning, he being then postmaster, he decided to walk to Jester. Some discussion was had between them about the wife spending the night at Purdon; she not being very well. After considering the matter, she concluded to take the walk. They were perfect strangers at Purdon and knew nothing of the surroundings. It was a small place, and a lady kept a boarding place where transient persons often stopped; but this was not known to Franks and wife. They never made any effort to ascertain the situation, as Mrs. Franks was unwilling to remain without her husband, so they proceeded to walk from Purdon to Jester, arriving home about 10:30 o'clock that night. They rested several times on the way, and the wife suffered mentally and physically by reason of the walk, was sick next day, and required medicine, and the same medicine that had been theretofore prescribed by a doctor was secured. Mrs. Franks was sick...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Electric Ry. v. Shelton
...v. Crispi et ux., 73 Tex. 236, 11 S. W. 187; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Ricketts, 96 Tex. 68, 79 S. W. 315; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Franks, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 614, 114 S. W. 874. Under other assignments, appellant contends the court erred in refusing to instruct a verdict in its favor on ......