TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Manson v. Eddy & Cross

L.L. Manson v. Eddy and Cross, Receivers.

Manson v. Eddy & Cross, 22 S.W. 66 (Tex. App. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 12, 1893
Docket
No. 142.
Judges
Stephens
Citations
22 S.W. 663 Tex. Civ. App. 1481893 Tex. App. LEXIS 209
Headnotes
Master and Servant—Risks of Employment—Negligence.—Plaintiff, a locomotive engineer in the employ of defendants, received injuries from the derailment of his engine at night, caused by its coming in contact with a cow fastened in a bridge on the railway track, with her legs down between the ties. Less than three hours before that time the track over the bridge was clear of obstruction. Held, that the evidence did not show defendants to have been guilty of negligence; and also, that the accident was within the assumed risks of plaintiff’s employment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

This is an agreed case under article 1414 of the Revised Statutes, brought here for the single purpose of obtaining a revision of the court’s charge. The statement of facts is brief, and does not present any conflict in the evidence.

In short, the case is this: Appellant was a locomotive engineer in the employ of appellees, engaged in running a freight train between Denison, Texas, and Muskogee, in the Indian Territory. His engine was derailed about 11 o’clock at night, in the Indian Territory, by coming in contact with a cow fastened in a railroad bridge, with her legs down between the ties. Less than three hours before that time, the track over the bridge was clear of obstructions. Our conclusion from the undisputed facts is, (1) that the evidence failed to show that the appellees were guilty of negligence in the discharge of their duty to appellant as one of their employes; and (2) that the injury which appellant received was the result of an accident which he must be held to have contemplated as within the assumed risks of becoming an engineer for appellees. In other words, we are of opinion that the jury could not properly have found a verdict for appellant, and that therefore, if there was error in the charge, as as *150 signed, it would not require a reversal of the judgment. Ward v. Bonner and Eddy, 80 Texas, 168 .

The judgment will be in all things affirmed.

Affirmed.

Delivered April 12, 1893.

Justice Head did not sit in this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1918: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Hickman207 S.W. 550 (Tex. App. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Hickman207 S.W. 550 (Tex. App. 1918)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ward v. Bonner & Eddy, Receivers, 15 S.W. 805 (Tex. 1891) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list