Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Bingle
| Decision Date | 06 May 1897 |
| Parties | TEXAS & N. O. RY. CO. v. BINGLE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Liberty county; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Action by W. L. Bingle against the Texas & New Orleans Railway Company to recover for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and S. R. Perryman, for appellant. Wheeler & Rhodes, for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this case. The case and the result of the former appeal are published in 29 S. W. 676. After careful inspection of the record, we are of the opinion that the judgment upon this appeal must be affirmed. As will be seen from the report of the former appeal, the judgment was reversed because of defect in the charge. The appellee was injured while attempting to board an engine while in motion, and the negligence charged against the appellant was the absence of a step from the engine, which had been previously attached thereto, and which was needful to the trainmen in mounting the engine and dismounting therefrom in the performance of their duties. The absence of the step was known to appellee, but the petition averred that plaintiff reported the defect in the engine to the defendant, and the latter had promised to remedy the same; and the court charged the jury that, if they believed from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence in not supplying the missing step, the plaintiff might recover. This was error, this court held, inasmuch as the plaintiff, under the allegations of his petition, could not recover without proof of a promise by the defendant to replace the step when appellee reported its absence from the engine. Upon the last trial the charge of the court was in conformity to the law as announced in the opinion of this court.
The first assignment of error submitted by appellant is, "The court erred in overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment." We are of the opinion that the petition is good on general demurrer, and that the motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. The appellant's fourth and fifth assignments assail the following paragraphs of the court's charge to the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaumont, S. L. & W. R. Co. v. Olmstead
...as given. Railway v. Staton (Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S. W. 277; Railway v. Long, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 649, 48 S. W. 599; Railway v. Bingle, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 41 S. W. 90; Railway v. Safford (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S. W. 1105; Schwartzman v. Cabell (Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S. W. 113; O'Brien v. Scale, 1......
-
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Bean
...Railway Co. v. Staton (Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S. W. 277; Railway Co. v. Long, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 649, 48 S. W. 599; Railway Co. v. Bingle, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 41 S. W. 90; Railway Co. v. Safford (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S. W. 1105; O'Brien v. Seale, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 260, 41 S. W. 150; Railway Co.......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Garren
...to have said repairs made was the promise of the defendant, and the fireman was warranted in regarding it as such. Railway v. Bingle, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 41 S. W. 90. 2. Appellant insists that as Cleburne, under the custom shown, was the place where repairs were to be made, the plaintiff......
-
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Bingle
...& New Orleans Railroad Company to recover for personal injuries. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 41 S. W. 90. On motion for a rehearing of defendant's application for a writ of error. Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and S. R. Perryman, for applicant. GAINES......