Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Sheftall
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. Cooper Sheftall, defendant in error, was conductor of a freight train of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, plaintiff in error. His train was at Ferguson Switch, near Big Sandy, Tex., and was being operated over a track at that place which connected the railroad of the plaintiff in error with that of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, commonly known as the “Cotton Belt.”
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas. Cooper Sheftall, defendant in error, was conductor of a freight train of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, plaintiff in error. His train was at Ferguson Switch, near Big Sandy, Tex., and was being operated over a track at that place which connected the railroad of the plaintiff in error with that of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, commonly known as the “Cotton Belt.” This connecting track was known as “the long transfer track,” and was used by both companies for transferring cars from…
1Opinion of the Court 1
After stating the case as above,
2Opinion of the Court · McCORMICKMcCORMICK, Circuit Judge
Twenty-one errors are assigned. We do not deem it necessary or profitable to discuss them separately, or at all at any length, for we consider that none of them are well taken. Seventeen of them are expressly directed to the action of the court in giving instructions excepted to by the plaintiff in error and in refusing the requested charges presented by the plaintiff in error. Another of the errors assigned is substantially directed at similar action of the court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth…
3Cases cited11 opinions
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. LansdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- MINOR v. the Mechanics Bank of AlexandriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Aetna Insurance v. HolcombTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Montgomery Gas-Light Co. v. Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Wisconsin Central Railroad v. RossIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by4 opinions
- Winn v. Kansas City Belt Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Peterson v. LarsenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1910
- Johnson v. MossCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- Foss Co. v. Vigilant Towing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929