Legal Opinion

Peden Iron & Steel Co. v. Jaimes

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided February 19, 1919No. 28-2657PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District. Action by E. M. Jaimes against the Peden Iron & Steel Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (162 S. W. 965) and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSadler, J.

Plaintiff in error seeks a reversal of the judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and of the district court for error in the court’s charge on the burden of proof In relation to contributory negligence.

The court charged the jury as follows:

“The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the facts necessary to a recovery by him by a .preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish to your satisfaction the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.”

These two charges are found at the close of the court’s charge and are given in the same connection.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Clarendon Land Investment Agency Co. v. McClelland Bros.Texas Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. HarriettTexas Supreme Court · 1891
  3. P. J. Willis & Brother v. ChowningTexas Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. MatulaTexas Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Emerson v. MillsTexas Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Golden v. OdiorneTexas Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Reed v. LindleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  3. Eastern Texas Electric Co. v. BakerTexas Commission of Appeals · 1923
  4. Hines v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  5. Texas Pipe Line Co. v. HiggsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922

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