Legal Opinion

Armour & Co. v. Dumas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 21, 1906PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of Tarrant County. Tried below before Hon. Mike E. Smith.

1Opinion of the Court

SPEER, Associate Justice.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant for personal injuries sustained by him in stepping upon the points of some upturned nails protruding through a piece of board lying upon the floor of the building in which he was at work.. The paragraph of the court’s charge upon which the recovery was had, and which indicates the negligence relied on, is as follows: “If you believe and find from the evidence that defendant’s foreman in charge of the workers with whom plaintiff was engaged on the occasion of his alleged injury, or if defendant’s employes (if any) charged…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Armour v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Butler v. . TownsendNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Durst v. Carnegie Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Wood v. Kane Boiler Works, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1951
  2. M. A. Long Co. v. State Accident FundCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1929
  3. Allen v. Republic Bldg. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  4. Hailey v. Missouri, K. & T. R. R.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  5. Montgomery v. Houston Textile MillsTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932

17 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