TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

International G. N. R. Co. v. Taylor

INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. Et Al. v. TAYLOR Et Al.

Int'l G. N. R. Co. v. Taylor, 135 S.W. 1076 (Tex. App. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 22, 1911
Judges
Key
Citations
135 S.W. 10761911 Tex. App. LEXIS 137
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error (§ 1051*) — Review—Harmless Error. In an action for damages to crops by improper construction of a railroad track, which resulted in impounding water on plaintiff’s land, any error in admitting proof that culverts and trestles had been put in the roadway since the injury was harmless, where the proof was clear and uncontroverted that the failure to have them at the time in question resulted in the damages complained of. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4161-1170; Dec. Dig. § 1051.*]
Summary
Appeal from Falls County Court; W. E. Hunnicutt, Judge. Action by James G. Taylor and others against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

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

Opinion of the Court — Key

KEY, C. J.

Suit for damages to crops caused by improper construction and maintenance of railroad track, which resulted in impounding water on lands cultivated by plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants have appealed.

If it was error to admit proof that culverts and trestles had been put in the roadbed since the injuries complained of, such error is harmless, because the proof is clear, ample, and uncontroverted that the failure to have such openings at the time in question resulted in impounding a large body of water and causing it to stand for a long time on the plaintiffs’ crops. In fact, it is admitted in the brief for plaintiffs in error that the undisputed evidence shows that the road em-, bankment held the water on the lands of defendants in error and destroyed their crops during the overflow of April, 1908. The defense was and is that a greater flood occurred in May, 1908, and that, if the railroad had not been there, and there had been no flood and injury in April, the entire crop would have been destroyed by the May flood. On that issue the testimony was conflicting, and we cannot say that the court decided it wrong.

All other questions have been considered, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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