Jagoe Const. Co. v. Harrison
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtWillson, C. J.
(after stating the case as above). The findings of the jury numbered 1 and 2, it will be seen on referring to the statement above, were (in effect) that the cartridges Herschel Harrison picked up were cartridges appellant had in its possession and control; and the findings numbered 3 and 4 were (in effect) that appellant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury to Herschel, in that it “permitted” the cartridges to be where they were when he picked them up. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, or any of them, is not questioned by any of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Interstate Casualty Co. of Birmingham v. HoganCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- McTighe, Hughey & McTighe v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1917
- Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. PadgettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
3Cited by6 opinions
- Genzer v. City of Mission, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1983
- Terrell Wells Health Resort, Inc. v. SevereidCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Hernandez v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1969
- Jagoe Const. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1933
- Genzer v. City of Mission, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.