Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Stoker

• Decision Date: 04 November 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 3
• Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. STOKER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 3

113 S.W. 3

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. STOKER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 4, 1908.

Certified questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.

Action by I. A. Stoker against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Questions certified by Court of Civil Appeals to the Supreme Court. Questions answered.

H. C. Shropshire, for appellant. Stubblefield & Patterson and J. S. Sheppard, for appellee.

WILLIAMS, J.

Certified questions from the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second District as follows:

"The above entitled and numbered cause is pending before us on appeal from a judgment against appellant and in appellee's favor for $1,250 as damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the operatives of one of appellant's passenger trains in failing to give warning of its approach toward a public road crossing near the town of Eastland, over which appellee was driving, as more particularly shown in our opinion on a former appeal. See Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Stoker, 103 S. W. 1183. On the present appeal no original statement of facts has been filed in this court, as provided in the act of the Thirtieth Legislature approved May 25, 1907 (Gen. Laws 1907, p. 509, c. 24), relating to the subject, and the assignments of error are such as cannot be considered in the absence of a statement of facts. We have, however, a copy of what purports to be a statement of facts incorporated in the transcript. The judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted was rendered on August 7, 1907, the term of the court adjourned August 24, 1907, and the statement of facts, as shown by the incorporated copy, was thereafter filed within the time allowed by the 20-day order therefor. We have a number of cases before us in like condition as to statements of fact, and in view of the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth Supreme Judicial District in the case of Garrison v. Richards, 107 S. W. 861, holding that under the act of the Legislature referred to statements of fact so incorporated in the transcript cannot be considered, we deem it advisable to certify to your honorable court for decision:

"First. Whether or not the title of the act of the Thirtieth Legislature of Texas approved May 25, 1907, providing for the appointment of stenographers, etc. (Gen. Laws 1907, p. 509, c. 24), contains more than one subject, in contravention of section 35, art. 3, of the Constitution?

"Second. If not, then are we authorized under said act to consider the statement of facts incorporated in the transcript in this case?"

1. The first question is answered in the negative. The different provisions of the statute, as stated in the title, may all be considered properly as the regulation of one subject, which is the subject of the bill, viz., the preservation by the proper persons of the evidence taken in trials and of questions arising out of it, and the statement thereof in authentic form for the information of the appellate courts upon appeal. The provisions for the appointment and compensation of stenographers are incidental to and in aid of this...