Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Presley
Decision Date | 20 January 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 1874.,1874. |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. PRESLEY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; N. L. Dalby, Judge.
Action by J. D. Presley against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when he fell from roof of building while plaintiff was repairing the building, as an employee of the defendant. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
King & Wheeler, of Texarkana, for appellant.
Lincoln & Harris, of Texarkana, for appellee.
In March, 1937, plaintiff, J. D. Presley, while employed as a carpenter by defendant, Texas & Pacific Railway Company, fell from a house he was repairing for defendant and was injured. After plaintiff was discharged from a hospital he received a draft from defendant for $50. It recited on its face that it was "in full and complete settlement and payment for personal injuries and damages received at Choctaw, Texas 3/24/37." On the back of the draft in bold face type were the words "Read before indorsing." Directly below the last quoted words plaintiff wrote his indorsement. On the day plaintiff received the draft he signed and delivered to defendant the following release:
About one month after plaintiff returned to work for defendant he was discharged. Thereupon plaintiff sued defendant for the damages thus released, and, upon a trial, recovered judgment for $3,000. Defendant pleaded the release of the asserted cause of action as a defense thereto. Plaintiff alleged that employees of defendant, in addition to the $50, evidenced by the draft, agreed to give plaintiff a "permanent" position with the defendant company as a part of the consideration for the release of his asserted cause of action against the Railway Company.
Plaintiff testified with reference to the draft that he indorsed it. He further testified:
Plaintiff's attitude with reference to the return or tender of the $50 paid to him in settlement of his claim for damages, taken in connection with his testimony quoted above, is shown by the statement of his attorney at the time when the plaintiff was asked whether or not he was offering to return the $50 to the Railway Company, as follows: "We want to state that we are tendering to the court the privilege of letting that (meaning the $50.00) apply on whatever judgment, if any, the jury gives the boy."
With reference to the execution of the release, plaintiff testified he expected the claim agent to see him and propose a settlement; that he consulted his section boss; that his section boss advised him to take whatever amount the claim agent offered and a permanent job with defendant. He testified that when the claim agent arrived the claim agent asked plaintiff what plaintiff considered a reasonable sum and plaintiff told him he had been figuring on full time for the time he had lost. That the claim agent told plaintiff the company was in the habit of offering half time "and a permanent job to a man that had been hurt." That the claim agent then offered plaintiff $50 and a "permanent" job with defendant which proposition was accepted by plaintiff. That the claim agent then wrote out the draft and gave it to plaintiff. Plaintiff further testified:
Plaintiff further testified that defendant's doctor misrepresented plaintiff's physical condition.
In Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Poe, 115 S.W. 2d 591, our Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sharp, said: "The sole question for decision is whether Poe, who claims to have been injured while in the employment of the railway company, may settle a cause of action therefor by the acceptance and cashing of a draft which recites that it is in full settlement of his injuries, and then maintain a suit for such injuries, in the absence of an agreement to that effect."
The draft given to Poe contained the provision, "In full and complete settlement and payment for personal injuries and damages received at Sweetwater, Texas, November 23, 1931" and on the back in large type were the words "Read before endorsing." The opinion contains the following:
The trial court's action in instructing a verdict for the defendant was upheld by our Supreme Court.
In Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. O'Neal, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1077, writ refused, we held that an employee who accepted and cashed a draft which recited on its face that it was in payment of all injuries sustained by the employee and who signed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dallas Farm Machinery Company v. Reaves
... ... 158 Tex. 1 ... DALLAS FARM MACHINERY COMPANY, Petitioner, ... Ben REAVES, Respondent ... No. A-6316 ... Supreme Court of Texas" ... Nov. 6, 1957 ... Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1957 ... [158 TEX 2] Wilbur T. Knape, Dallas, for petitioner ... \xC2" ... Presley, 137 Tex. 232, 152 S.W.2d 1105, that fraudulent representations as to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and fraudulent promises of permanent ... ...
-
Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cassaday
...Thompson case was before the court when the Patton opinion was written. Appellee calls our attention to case of Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Presley, Tex. Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 914, and says the holding there is applicable here. In that case a somewhat similar situation to that before us was c......
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Presley