Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Crow

(after stating the facts as above). The contention that the court below erred when he refused to instruct the jury to find in plaintiff in error’s favor is predicated on testimony that it was “usual and customary” for plaintiff in error and other railway companies to permit oil and grease to accumulate on engines as it appeared oil and grease had accumulated on the one in question here. It is argued that there was therefore no basis in the testimony for a finding that plaintiff in error'Was* guilty of negligence in the particular charged against it; and, further, that said testimony that the…