Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. Co. v. Schmidt
Texas Commission of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SMEDLET, Commissioner.
Defendant in error was employed by plaintiff in error as telegraph operator and clerk at its station in Huffman, Tex., on its line of railway. It was a part of his duties, for which he received extra compensation, when requested by the agent in charge of the station, to operate an engine owned by plaintiff in error and used for pumping water into a tank. Part of the machinery constituting the engine and pump was a large cogwheel about four feet in diameter, which, when the engine was in gear, was meshed with a smaller cogwheel on a revolving shaft. On the shaft and…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. RussellTexas Supreme Court · 1934
- Lee v. International & Great Northern Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1896
- Washington v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1897
- Wilson v. Freeman, ReceiverTexas Supreme Court · 1916
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Farley v. MM Cattle CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1975
- Massachusetts Bond. & Ins. Co. v. Orkin Exterm. Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1967
- City of Austin v. DanielsTexas Supreme Court · 1960
- Ochoa v. Winerich Motor Sales Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1936
- Houston Oxygen Co. v. DavisTexas Supreme Court · 1942
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.