Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

...1079

Page

Page Uvalde Nat. Bank, Connor V. (Tex. Civ. Wharton v. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. of App:) . 1092 Philadelphia (Tex. Civ. App.).

539 Uzzell, Williams v. (Ark.). 843 White, Brown v. (Ky.).

96

White, Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. V. (Tex. Ver Steeg v. Wabash R. Co. (Mo.)..... 689 Civ. App.)...

241 Villafuerte, Texas & P. R. Co. V. (Tex. White, Lagerwahl v. (Ky.). Civ. App.).

.1155 White v. McMath & Johnston (Tenn.). 470 Vogel, Houston Belt & Terminal R. Co. v.

White, Taylor v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

349 (Tex. Civ. App.). .

261 Whitfield, Dobbs v. (Tex. Civ. App.). .1160

Whitmire v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). .1179 Wabash R. Co., American Silver Mfg. Co.

715

Whitworth, Wolfe v. (Mo. App.). v. (Mo. App.)..

830 Wabash R. Co., Gentry v. (Mo. App.).

Wier · Lumber Co. v. Conn (Tex. Civ. 27 App:)

276 Wabash R. Co., Ver Steeg v. (Mo.)..

689

Wiggins, Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. (Tex. Wade v. Wade (Ky.)

138
Civ. App.)..

..1131 Wade. V. Wade (Ky.).

873

Wilcox v. Citizens' Laundry Co. (Ark.). . 436 Wagner v. Geiselman (Tex. Civ. App.) 524 Wales Riggs Plantations, Brinkley v. (Ark.) 185 Williams v. Capital Mining, Lumber & Oil

Wiles, Daugherty v. (Tex. Civ. App.)..... 1089 Walker y. Goode (Ky.)..

893
Co. (Ky.).

409 Walker v. Land (Tex. Civ. App.). ..1132

Williams v. Commonwealth (Ky.).

372 Walker, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v.

876

Williams, Jones V. (Ky.)... (Tex. Civ. App.).

.1095

Williams v. Owensboro Sav. Bank & Trust Walker, Rackliffe-Gibson Const. Co. v.

Co.'s Receiver (Ky.)...

899 (Mo. 'App.)..... 65

938

Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
Walker v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

206
Williams v. Uzzell (Ark.).

843 Wallace, Dixie Fire Ins. Co. v. (Ky.). 140

Williamson, Hartshorn Bros. V. (Tex. Civ. Wallower v. Webb City (Mo. App.).... 48

App.)

264 Washington v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)......1172 Wilson, A. Graf Distilling Co. v. (Mo. Watts v. Pierson (Mo. App.).

724

App.) W. D. Cleveland & Sons v. Smith (Tex.

520

Wilson, Hart v. (Tex. Civ. App.) Civ. App.) 247

880 Weaks v. McDowell Const. Co. (Ky.)

Wilson v. Hoover (Ky.)....
127
Wilson v. Reynolds (Ky.)..,

.1036 Weaver v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. (Mo.

Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

204 App.) 1

.1185 Webb, Stewart v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)... 537

683 Webb City, Wallower v. (Mo. App.).

Wiseman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). 48

Witherspoon v. Staley (Tex. Civ. App.)... 557 Weierich, Weierich's Ex'r v. (Ky.).

370

Wofford, Strickland v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 916 Weierich's Ex'r v. Weierich (Ky.). 370

334 Weinberger v. Insurance Co. of North

Wolcott, Carl v. (Tex. Civ. App.).

129 America (Mo. App.)

Wolf, Ison v. (Ky.)..
79
Wolfe v. Whitworth (Mo. App.).

715 Welborn v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. (Mo.

Woodruff v. Goldbach (Ky.).

115 App.)

778
Wrba v. State (Tex, Cr. App.). .

.1164 Wells, Adams' Adm'r v. (Ky.). 407

624 Wells Fargo & Co. Exp. v. Hennessy (Tex.

Wright v. State (Tex. Cr. App.). Civ. App.)....

Wynn, Rodgers-Wade Furniture Co. v. .1158

340 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carter (Tex.

(Tex. Civ. App.)... Civ. App.)

332 Yarbrough, Beaumont & G. N. R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Duke (Ark.). 452

(Tex. Civ. App.)...

252 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Evans (Ark.):. 424 Yerkes, Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Glenn (Tex. Civ. App.)

579 App.)

.1116 Yoshida, Ex parte (Tex. Cr. App.) .1166 Western Union Tel. Co., Jackson v. (Mo. Youngberg v. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.)

801
App.)

.1139 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Turley (Ark.).. 836 Westminister Laundry Co. v. Hesse Enve- Zielda Forsee Inv. Co., Rackliffe-Gibson lope Co. (Mo. App.)... 767 Const. Co. v. (Mo. App.)..

66 Weyman V. Newport (Ky.)....

109

23

REHEARINGS DENIED

(Cases in which rehearings bave been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.)

KENTUCKY.
Bennett Jellico Coal Co. v. East Jellico Coal Co., 154 S. W. 922.
Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 155 S. W. 735.
Hoeffilin v. Kentucky Title Savings Bank & Trust Co., 155 S. W. 1159.
Lucas v. Commonwealth, 155 S. W. 721.
Martin v. Hall, 153 S. W. 997.
South Covington & C. St. R. Co. V. Finan's Adm's, 155 S. W. 742

WRITS OF ERROR

WERE DENIED. DISMISSED. OR GRANTED BY THE

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE FOLLOWING CASES IN THE

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

PRIOR TO JUNE 4, 1913.

[Cases in which writs of error have been denied, dismissed, or granted, without the rendition of & written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.]

WRITS OF ERROR DENIED
FIRST DISTRICT

Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Hedric, Broussard v. Cruse, 154 S. W. 347.

154 S. W. 633. Hankamer v. County Com’rs Court, 154 S. W. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Passons, 623.

154 S. W. 239. Patton v. Shapiro, 154 S. W. 687.

Orenbaum Bros. v. Sowell Bros., 153 S. W. 905. Smith v. Adoue & Lobit, 154 S. W. 258.

St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. of Texas v. LedTexas Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Prince, 154 S. W. st. Louis Southwestern R. Co. of Texas v.

better, 153 S. W. 646. 231. Thompson & Tucker Lumber Co. v. Platt, 154 st. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Cartwright, 151 S.

Smith, 153 S. W. 391.
S. W. 268.
Whitney v. Parish of Vernon, 154 S. W. 264.

W. 1094.
Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co. y. Wright,"154 s. Texas Midland R. Co. v. Simmons, 152 S. W.
W. 1168.

1106. SECOND DISTRICT

SIXTH DISTRICT Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Read Bros. & El Paso Bridge & Iron Co. v. Dunham, 152 S. Montgomery, 154 S. W. 1027.

W. 1131. Miller v. Odom, 152 S. W. 1185.

Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Lacy, 153 S. Watts v. Snodgrass, 152 S. W. 1149.

W. 414.

Jersey-Creme Co. v. McDaniel Bros. Bottling THIRD DISTRICT

Co., 152 S. W. 1187. Hassard v. May, 152 S. W. 665.

Marshall & E. T. R. Co. v. Waldrop, 153 S. W. St. Louis & s. F. R. Co. v. Wells, Nash & st. Louis Southwestern R. Co. of Texas v.

410. Nash, 153 S. W. 659. Smith y. Bruyere, 152 S. W. 813.

Downs, 153 S. W. 714. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Daniels, 152

SEVENTH DISTRICT
S. W. 1116.

De Lay v. Wolffarth, 154 S. W. 1030.
FOURTH DISTRICT

Dupree v. Savage, 154 S. W. 701.
Albrecht v. Lignoski, 154 S. W. 354.

Fink v. Hough, 153 S. W. 676. City of Brenham v. Holle & Seelhorst, 153 8. Kansas City, M. & O. R. Co. of Texas v. WhitW. 345.

tington & Sweeney, 153 S. W. 689. Cotulla y. La Salle Water Storage Co., 153 s. Miller v. Himebaugh, 153 $. W. 338. W. 711.

Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Suitor, 153 S. W. 185. De Herrera v. Texas, Mexican R. Co., 154 s. Shannon v. Hay, 153 S. W. 360. W. 594.

Southern Kansas R. Co. of Texas v. Shinn, 153 Gibson v. Oppenheimer, 154 S. W. 694.

S. W. 636. Grubb v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co., 153 s. Southern Kansas R. Co. of Texas v. Wallace, W. 694.

152 S. W. 873. Lehmann v. Medack, 152 S. W. 438.

Tiefel Bros. & Winn v. Maxwell, 154 S. W. San Antonio Traction Co. v. Corley, 154 S. W. Vance v. Southern Kansas R. Co. of Texas, 152 San Antonio Traction Co. v. Emerson, 152 S. Vaughn v. Pearce, 153 S. W. 171.

W. 468.
Supreme Ruling of Fraternal Mystic Circle v.
Hansen, 153 S. W. 351.

EIGHTH DISTRICT
Zarate v. Villareal, 155 S. W. 328.

Barnes v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 153 S.

W. 1172.
FIFTH DISTRICT

Houston Lighting & Power Co. of 1905 v.
Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. Johnson, 154 Barnes, 152 S. W. 722.
S. W. 684.

Solan & Billings v. Pasche, 153 S. W. 672. Crowley v. Finch, 153 S. W. 648.

Tolar v. South Texas Development Co., 153 S. Harry v. Hamilton, 154 S. W. 637.

W. 911. Hill County Cotton Oil Co. v. Gathings, 154 S. Townsend v. Houston Electric Co., 154 S. W. W. 664.

629.

.

WRITS OF ERROR DISMISSED
FIRST DISTRICT

SIXTH DISTRICT William Cameron & Co. v. Collier, 153 S. W. Adams v. Gray & Dudley Hardware Co., 153 1178.

S. W. 650.
THIRD DISTRICT
Danner v. Walker-Smith Co., 154 S. W. 295.

SEVENTH DISTRICT
Sheffield v. Rousey, 153 S. W. 653.

Davidson v. McKinley, 152 S. W. 1142.
FOURTH DISTRICT

EIGHTH DISTRICT
Bagley v. Brack, 154 S. W. 247.

Nuckols v. Stanger, 153 S. W. 931.

WRITS OF ERROR GRANTED
FIRST DISTRICT

FIFTH DISTRICT Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Boykin, 153 S. Consumers' Lignite Co. v. Hubner, 154 S. W. 1176.

249. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Hamilton, 153 s. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Bunkley, : W. 1194.

153 s.' W, 937. Orange Limber Co. v. Ellis, 153 S. W. 1180. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hale, 153 S. W.

411. SECOND DISTRICT

Western Union Telegraph Co. y. Parham, 152

S. W. 819. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Lemons, 152 S. W.

SIXTH DISTRICT 1189. Kansas City, M. &0. R. Co. of Texas v. Pope, Boles V. Aldridge, 153 S. W. 373. 153 S. W. 163.

McKenzie v. Withers, 153 S. W. 413.

Thompson v. Harmon, 152 S. W. 1161.
FOURTH DISTRICT

SEVENTH DISTRICT
Nicholson v. Lieber, 153 S. W. 641.

Chicago, R. I. & G. R. Co. v. Trout, 152 S. W. Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Cox, 150 S. W. 265. 1137. Wichita Falls Compress Co. v. W. L. Moody Hardy v. Lamb, 152 S. W. 650. & Co., 154 S. W. 1032.

Reed v. Robertson, 150 S. W. 306.

THE

SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER

VOLUME 156

Lathrop, Morrow, Fox & Moore, of Kansas WEAVER v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. et al. City, for Pullman Co. Cowherd, Ingraham, (Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Durham & Morse, of Kansas City, for appelApril 7, 1913. Rehearing Denied lant Railroad Co. Fred W. Coon and Bird May 5, 1913.)

& Pope, all of Kansas City, for respondent. 1. APPEAL AND EBBOB (8 193*)-PETITIONREVIEW.

JOHNSON, J. This is an action to reWhere a petition is first attacked on appeal for want of facts, the only question pre

cover damages for personal injuries plainsented is whether the allegations, construed in tiff alleges were caused by negligence of the the light of the most friendly rules of interpre- defendants, the St. Louis & San Francisco tation, are sufficient to support a verdict for Railroad Company, the Pullman Company, plaintiff.

[Ed. Note:-For other cases, see Appeal and and Edward Scanlon. Separate answers were Error, Cent. Dig. 88 1226–1238, 1240; Dec. filed and issues were raised by the pleadings Dig. $ 193.*]

which were subjects of controversy at the 2. MASTER AND SERVANT (8 137*)-INJURIES trial, not only between plaintiff and defendTO SERVANT-RAILROADS-CAR CLEANERS.

ants, but among the defendants themselves. Plaintiff, a female car cleaner, was employed to clean certain sleeping cars while they at the close of the evidence the court sus. were uniformly located each day on a switch tained the request of defendant Scanlon for track, they never having been moved to her a peremptory instruction, and plaintiff took knowledge prior to her injury. Certain for

an involuntary nonsuit as to him. The sepward cars of a train were removed to a different track for repairs, and were returned while arate demurrers to the evidence offered by plaintiff was at work on a stepladder coupled the remaining defendants were overruled, to the cars in which she was employed with- and the case was submitted to the jury. A out warning to her, causing her to be thrown verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff from her position and injured. Held, that it was the duty of the foreman of defendant against both defendants, and after unsuccesssleeping car company, under whose supervision fully moving for a new trial and in arrest of plaintiff was employed, to protect her either judgment both appealed. by flagging the cars on which she was working or by keeping a lookout for the missing cars

Plaintiff was injured May 12, 1909, in the and giving timely warning of their approach, yards of the defendant railroad company in and his failure to do so rendered the sleeping Kansas City. She was a car cleaner emcar company liable for the injuries sustained. ployed by the Pullman Company, and was

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and discharging the duties of her employment Servant, Cent. Dig. $$ 269, 270, 273, 274, 277, when she was injured by the sudden move278; Dec. Dig. 137.*] 3. RAILROADS (8275*)-PERSONS ON Cars-ment of the car in which she was working.

SLEEPING CAR CLEANERS-LICENSEE BY IN- The Pullman Company operates sleeping cars VITATION.

which form a part of the equipment of pasPlaintiff employed to clean cars of a sleep- senger trains operated by the defendant railing car company standing on the tracks of a railroad company was a licensee by invitation road company in and out of Kansas City. as to such railroad company, rendering it lia- One of these trains, called the "Meteor" runs ble for her injuries, due to the negligence of between Kansas City and Memphis, arriving its employés in moving the train while plaintiff at Kansas City every day at about 8:30 a. m. was working in the sleepers without warning her or first ascertaining that she was not in a and leaving for Memphis in the evening. dangerous position.

The train contains eight cars, three of which [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Railroads, are sleeping cars owned by the Pullman Cent. Dig. 88 873-877; Dec. Dig. 275.*]

Company and placed at the rear of the train. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson Coun- The mail, baggage, smoking, and chair cars ty; 0. A. Lucas, Judge.

are in front. The train comes into the pasAction by Mrs. S. H. Weaver against the senger station from the south and after unSt. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Com- loading, backs into the yards of the railroad pany and others. Judgment for plaintiff, company where the cars are separated and and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

switched into position for the return trip. •For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER In Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes After it is "made up" the train is left on as we think that Scanlon, the Pullman Comswitch track known as “No. 7," and the car pany's vice principal, who was in and about cleaners begin their work which usually is the train while the cleaners were in the completed by noon. Seven or eight cleaners Pullman cars, knew that the train as made are employed by the Pullman Company, four up was not complete, and that the railroad of whom are women. At the time of the company might switch in the other cars at injury Scanlon was the foreman of the Pull- any time. He gave no warning to plaintiff, man Company and had control over the nor did he do anything for her protection. cleaners. He had employed plaintiff about Scanlon himself testified that sometimes cars eight months before the injury and had in- were backed in and coupled to the train structed her in her duties. She was re while the cleaners were working, that no quired to begin work at 7 o'clock in the warning was ever given to the cleaners of morning, and her first task was to clean a such operations, and that he did not rememsleeping car that came in on an early train, ber an instance when a train or engine was and then to work on the "Meteor,” which, as backed in “that would cause any trouble.” stated, was always placed on track numbered A petition and bond for the removal of the 7, and always contained the same number cause to the federal court were filed by the and kinds of cars. Her work was restricted Pullman Company, and the petition was to the Pullman cars, and she had no inter- properly denied. See Schwyhart v. Barrett, est in any other part of the train.

145 Mo. App. 332, 130 S. W. 388; Sears v. Plaintiff testified that prior to the event in Railroad, 163 Mo. App. 711, 147 S. W. 860. question the train which practically filled Counsel for the Pullman Company assail track No. 7 had never been disturbed during the petition in their brief and argument on the time allotted for cleaning the cars, and the ground that it fails to state any cause she is corroborated on this point by other of action against that defendant. They conwitnesses. It appears from the testimony of tend that all of the allegations read together other witnesses who were better qualified amount to an assertion that the custom and than plaintiff to speak of the rules and cus- rule of the employés of the railroad comtoms of the yard that, while no other switch- pany were to allow the train to remain un. ing was done on this track, it was the prac- disturbed while the cleaners were at work, tice of the employés of the railroad com- and consequently that the duty of the Pullpany, when the occasion demanded, to do man Company towards its cleaners did not switching connected with the "Meteor” train require the promulgation and observance of even at times when its cars were being rules to protect the cleaners against a poscleaned. No such occasion had arisen during sible negligent act of the servants of the the period of plaintiff's service, and she bad railroad company that could not occur exno knowledge of the practice. But on the cept in violation of the rules and customs morning of the injury it was discovered by of the yard. the car inspectors that the smoking car need- On the other hand, counsel for the railed some repairs, and that car, together with road company attack the petition on the che mail and baggage cars, was switched to the ground that it does allege that the cusrepair track and only the five remaining cars tom of the yard allowed the switching crews of the train, including the Pullmans, were to disturb the cars while the cleaners were set on track No. 7. Plaintiff and the other at work "at any time that suited their work cleaners went to work as usual, and were to remove any car of said defendant railroad cleaning the cars when the railway com- company from said train for the purpose of pany's employés switched the cars from the making repairs thereon," and therefore that repair track to track No. 7, and coupled the sole duty of protecting the cleaners from them to the train. At that moment plaintiff possible injurious consequences resulting was standing on the top of a small steplad- from such practice devolved on their master, der, washing the ceiling of a toilet room. the Pullman Company. The jar of the collision which accompanied [1] The petition is long, and is not as clear the bringing together of the two parts of as it should be, but in answering to the merthe train was not violent or unusually severe, its defendants waived all formal defects, and but it was severe enough to throw plaintiff placed plaintiff in a position wherein she be. from the top of the ladder to the floor and came entitled to have her petition construed injure her. No warning was given by the in the light of the most friendly rules of inrailroad company's servants of their purpose terpretation. The question before us is that to make the coupling, and it does not appear of whether or not the petition so construed in evidence that their conduct was in vio- is sufficient to support the verdict. The gist lation of any rule or custom of the yard. of the cause of action pleaded and contested There was a rule that forbade the disturb- at the trial is that it was an unusual pracance of cars on which a certain kind of flag tice of which plaintiff had not been informed was displayed, but this rule had not been and had no knowledge for the “Meteor" train used for the protection of car cleaners. The to be moved while the cars were being cleanservants of the railroad company must have ed, and that each defendant owed the clean'known that the cleaners were at work, anders the duty of not moving the train in a

« FöregåendeFortsätt »