Legal Opinion

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

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided July 21, 1927No. 3408. [fn*]PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We think the contention that the evidence did not warrant a finding that appellant was guilty of actionable negligence in any of the ways charged against it should be overruled.

The evidence as to whether those in charge of the train complied with the law (article 6371, R.S. 1925), requiring them to blow the whistle and ring the bell of the locomotive as it approached the crossing, was conflicting. That tending to show the law was ignored was sufficient to support the finding involved in the verdict, and that tending to show it was complied with would have supported a finding to that effect.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Tisdale v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1921
  2. Smith v. Galveston-Houston Electric Ry. Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1925
  3. Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. HooperCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
  4. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. BlanchardTexas Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Peters v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Galveston H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. WellsTexas Supreme Court · 1932
  2. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. LewisTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
  3. Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. RossCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  4. Hopkins v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
  5. Lightsey Black & White Cab Corp. v. LittlefieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932

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

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

Powered by the Exa API