Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Breadow
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Denman |
| Citation | Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Breadow, 36 S.W. 410 (Tex. 1896) |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1896 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. BREADOW et al. |
Action by Johanna Breadow and others against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals (35 S. W. 490) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.
Alexander, Clark & Hall and T. J. Freeman, for plaintiff in error. Leake, Henry & Reeves, W. C. Kimbrough, and Dudley G. Wooten, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error sued plaintiff in error to recover damages for injuries inflicted upon her husband, Fred Breadow, March 7, 1892, resulting in his death. So far as it bears upon the question, we give the substance of the testimony. Paul Lake testified for plaintiff: Calvin Wilson, for plaintiff, testified. ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Ford v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
...Ry. Co. v. Brown, 142 Tex. 385, 181 S.W.2d 68; Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Brannen, 140 Tex. 52, 166 S.W.2d 112, 113; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Breadow, 90 Tex. 26, 36 S.W. 410; Turner v. Texas Co., 138 Tex. 380, 159 S.W.2d 112; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Price, Tex.Com.App., 240 S.W. 5......
-
Abalos v. Oil Development Co. of Texas
...S.W. 663 (1921); Pecos & N.R. Ry. Co. v. Rosenbloom, 173 S.W. 215, Reh. den., 107 Tex. 291, 177 S.W. 952 (1915); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Breadow, 90 Tex. 26, 36 S.W. 410 (1896); Houston & Texas Contral R.R. Co. v. Smith, 52 Tex. 178 (1879). I would overrule all of these cases insofar as they ......
-
Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Bankston
...street car and the passengers thereon. San Antonio & A. P. Railway Co. v. McMillan, 100 Tex. 562, 102 S. W. 103; Texas & P. Railway Co. v. Breadow, 90 Tex. 26, 36 S. W. 410. Since this case will be reversed and remanded on other grounds, we call attention to the fact that while the trial co......
-
St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. West
...the peril of deceased at the time the cars were turned loose was an indispensable predicate for relief upon that issue. T. & P. Ry. v. Breadow, 90 Tex. 26, 36 S. W. 410; T. & P. Ry. v. Staggs, 90 Tex. 458, 39 S. W. In the absence of some prima facie showing of such discovery, no inference c......