Texas Co. v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 18 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1737-7048.,1737-7048. |
| Citation | 116 S.W.2d 686 |
| Parties | TEXAS CO. v. GIBSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants in error, fully and clearly states the nature and result of the case and the holdings of that court on the questions involved. 88 S.W. 2d 757. We are in accord with all of the holdings except the one relating to the argument of counsel for defendants in error. It is not necessary to set out the argument in full. That which is most flagrantly erroneous contrasts the "wealth" and "great power" of the defendant company with the poverty of plaintiffs (husband and wife), referred to the husband as "a country boy," and "one of the boys here," saying, among other things, that the jury should not render a verdict for plaintiffs "because they (the company) have got all the money behind them, and because they are one of the biggest corporations in the country," saying further, "Don't do that; and don't render a verdict in favor of my client because he is one of the boys here, and has no money, as the proof shows." While the jury were requested to "render that verdict which you think is right and fair to a fellow man," and not to render a verdict for plaintiffs on account of the matters referred to, the contrasting of the litigants with respect to wealth and power was made in such fashion as was calculated to influence the jury by arousing a prejudice against the company and creating a bias in favor of plaintiffs. A question on voir dire inquiring whether the prospective jurors in arriving at their verdict would render the same character of verdict that they would if the parties to the suit were individuals, one suing the other, and later comment by defendant's counsel upon the affirmative answers given, while warranting a proper reply by opposing counsel, could not rightly be seized upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Younger Bros. v. Marino
...National Bank v. Porter, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 463; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Beezley, 46 Tex.Civ.App. 108, 101 S.W. 1051; Texas Co. v. Gibson, 131 Tex. 598, 116 S.W.2d 686; Vaughan v. Kishieneff, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1081; Clements v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 652; Indemnity Ins. Co. ......
-
Southern Pacific Company v. Hubbard
...reprimanded and the jury is instructed, at the time the argument is made, and in response to a timely objection.' Texas Company v. Gibson, 131 Tex. 598, 116 S.W.2d 686, 687. I agree that much of the argument of respondent's counsel was improper and prejudicial in character. No objection was......
-
Peden Iron & Steel Co. v. Claflin
...which was waived by the appellants by their failure to further object. Ramirez v. Acker, 134 Tex. 647, 138 S.W.2d 1054; Texas Co. v. Gibson, 131 Tex. 598, 116 S.W.2d 686; Texas Employers', etc. v. Peppers, Tex. Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 165, writ dismissed, judgment correct; Robbins v. Wynne, Te......
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Smith, 7021
...eliminated or 'cured' by retraction or instruction that a new trial will be awarded in the absence of timely objection. Texas Co. v. Gibson, 131 Tex. 598, 116 S.W.2d 686; Wade v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 'As is pointed out in the Wade case, argument which is improper only because its na......