TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Cody

Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. Clara M. Cody Et Al.

Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Cody, 51 S.W. 329 (Tex. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 18, 1899
Docket
No. Application No. 2214.
Judges
Gaines
Citations
51 S.W. 32992 Tex. 6321899 Tex. LEXIS 185
Headnotes
1. Trial — Submission on Special Issues — Bequest—Bill of Exceptions. A party who desires to review the action of the court in refusing to submit a case upon special issues should except to the ruling of the court and take a bill of exceptions thereto. (P. 633.) Z. Same. The request for the submission of special issues stands on a different footing from charges given or requested charges refused; it should be made before the main, charge is given to the jury, and that this was done does not appear from such written request accompanied by a request to submit special issues and marked “refused.” (P. 633.)
Summary
Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District, in an appeal from Bexar County. The railway company appealed from a judgment recovered against it in the trial court, and on affirmance applied for a writ of error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Gaines

GAINES, Chief Justice.

Having held in the case of the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. Jackson, recently decided, that under onr present law the trial judge, in a case tried with a jury, is bound to submit it upon special issues when requested to do so by a party to the suit, we granted a motion for a rehearing of the application in the present case upon the ground that in the trial of the cause *633 the court had refused, upon request of the defendant, so to submit the issues.

The transcript having been returned to us, we find upon inspection that there appears therein a written request by counsel for defendant to submit the case upon special issues, accompanied with a special request to submit certain issues. These are marked "refused” by the judge. That is all that the record shows with reference to the matter. We are of opinion that a party who desires to review the action of the court in refusing a submission upon special issues should except to the ruling of the court and take a bill of exceptions thereto. Such a request is neither a charge given nor a requested charge refused, and it stands upon a very different footing. The propriety of a bill of exceptions in such a case is si town by the very record before us. We are clearly of the opinion that a request for a submission upon special issues should be made before the main charge is given to the jury. If the proceedings are inserted in the transcript in the order of time, then the request in this case was made after the charge was given to the jury. This was too late. A proper bill of exceptions would have shown at what point in the progress of the trial the request was made.

Being of the opinion that the action of the court in the particular we have had under consideration can not be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the application is again refused.

Writ of error refused.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1912: 11914: 41915: 31916: 11918: 21920: 11921: 11925: 11933: 119122026peak 1914 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carter v. Haynes269 S.W. 216 (Tex. App. 1925)
  2. Shaw v. Garrison174 S.W. 942 (Tex. App. 1915)
  3. Gulf, T. & W. Ry. Co. v. Culver168 S.W. 514 (Tex. App. 1914)
  4. Gordon Jones Const. Co. v. Lopez172 S.W. 987 (Tex. App. 1914)
  5. Longworth v. Stevens145 S.W. 257 (Tex. App. 1912)
  6. Foster v. Bennett178 S.W. 1001 (Tex. App. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Dave Lehr, Inc. v. Brown58 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. App. 1933)
  2. Carter v. Haynes269 S.W. 216 (Tex. App. 1925)
  3. Wieser v. Oates234 S.W. 553 (Tex. App. 1921)
  4. Jackson v. Martin218 S.W. 4 (Tex. App. 1920)
  5. Parlin & Orendorff Co. v. Glover203 S.W. 1174 (Tex. App. 1918)
  6. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Cobb200 S.W. 1116 (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 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