State v. Flowers
| Decision Date | 25 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 12240.,12240. |
| Citation | 94 S.W.2d 193 |
| Parties | STATE v. FLOWERS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Van Zandt County Court; E. C. Stovall, Judge.
Suit by Oscar Flowers against the State of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and dismissed.
Wm. McCraw, Atty. Gen., and Curtis E. Hill, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A. A. Dawson, of Canton, for appellee.
By Concurrent Resolution No. 6, adopted by the Legislature in October, 1935, Oscar Flowers, appellee, was granted permission to sue the state of Texas on the claim involved herein, and the suit was filed in a justice court, appellee alleging, in substance, that certain employees of the highway department of the state, while clearing a public highway along the side of a pasture belonging to appellee, piled the rubbish, brush, weeds, etc., taken from the right of way upon a wire fence that separates the pasture from the highway, weighting and mashing the barb wires of the fence to the ground, injuring and damaging the fence to the extent of $50, and that through the breach made in the fence, a horse belonging to appellee, of the value of $150, escaped from the pasture, went upon the highway, and was there struck and killed by a passing automobile. Appellee prayed for the recovery of $200, the alleged value of the horse and damage to the fence.
The state, through the Attorney General, answered the suit by a general demurrer and general denial. Trial in the justice court resulted in judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount sued for, and on appeal to the county court, by the state the same judgment was rendered, from which the state appealed, the case being before us on two assignments of error, i. e., (1) that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's general demurrer to appellee's petition, and (2) that the court erred in rendering judgment for appellee on the facts agreed to and filed under article 2177, R. S.1925. The facts as agreed to being substantially as alleged by appellee, as heretofore stated.
The same doctrine is announced in 59 C.J. § 337, p. 194; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nueces County, Texas, Road District No. 4
...Tex.Civ.App., 220 S. W.2d 732; Fonseca v. State, Tex.Civ. App., footnote 29, supra; Matkins v. State, footnote 14, supra; State v. Flowers, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 193. 34 Heigel and Posnainsky, footnote 27 35 Art. 9, sec. 1, Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. 36 Art. 3, sec. 52, Texas Co......
-
Texas Prison Board v. Cabeen
...the torts or negligence of its officers, agents, servants or employees. State v. McKinney, Tex.Civ.App., 76 S.W. 2d 556; State v. Flowers, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 193; Brooks v. State, Tex.Civ. App., 68 S.W.2d 534; Welch v. State, Tex. Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d 876. It follows that appellants, T......
-
Martin v. Sheppard
...Martin v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 131, error refused; Brooks v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 534, error refused; State v. Flowers, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 193. Section 3 of the enabling act reads as follows: "That such suit upon said cause of action shall be tried and determined in......
-
State v. Brannan
...or statutory provision therefor, liable in tort for the negligence of its officers or agents. 59 C.J. 194; 25 R.C.L. 407; State v. Flowers, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 193; Brooks v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 534, and authorities there cited; Martin v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 131. T......