Legal Opinion

St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Inman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 26, 1926No. 3197. [fn*]PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Without respect to whether appellant has assigned error entitling it to a reversal of the judgment or not, we feel bound to reverse same because of "error apparent on the face of the record" (article 1607, Vernon's Sayles' Ann.Civ.St. 1914), in that it appears that the findings of the jury on the issues as to negligence on the part of appellant's employees in charge of the trains were so contradictory as to nullify each other and leave nothing upon which to predicate a judgment against appellant. As shown in the statement above, one of the findings was that said employees were guilty of…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Trochta v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of TexasTexas Commission of Appeals · 1920
  2. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. StraussCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  3. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. GordonTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Schaff v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Inman v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of TexasTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
  2. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. InmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  3. Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. EnasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API