Legal Opinion

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

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 26, 1926No. 3197. [fn*]Published

1Opinion of the Court

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above).

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 \yere 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…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. StraussCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. GordonTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. WilkersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  4. Van Valkenburg v. RubyTexas Supreme Court · 1887
  5. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. BowlesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903

11 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