TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Houston, Brazos & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Pollard

Houston, Brazos & Great Northern Railway Company v. Hal. G. Pollard

Houston, Brazos & Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Pollard, 66 S.W. 851 (Tex. App. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 20, 1902
Judges
Garrett
Citations
66 S.W. 85128 Tex. Civ. App. 1721902 Tex. App. LEXIS 74
Headnotes
Hailway Company—Negligence—Liability. Where a railway company tore up a street pavement at the point of intersection with its road and left stones lying at the place dangerous to passers and with no signal light to show their presence as required by the city ordinance, it was guilty of such negligence as rendered it liable for injury thereby occasioned -to one passing there on a bicycle.
Summary
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before Hon. Wm. H. Wilson.

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

Opinion of the Court — Garrett

GARRETT, Chief Justice.

On March 8, 1900, at night, while traveling down Congress street in the city of Houston on a bicycle, the appellee ran into some stones at the intersection of Congress and Emanuel streets, and fell and was hurt. He sustained damages from the injuries received to the amount of the verdict and judgment. It is contended on appeal that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was in any way connected with the presence of the stones in the street. Without setting out the evidence, we think it sufficiently appears therefrom that the appellant was at work on its line of railway at the intersection of the streets mentioned and had torn up the pavement and left the stones lying at the place, and that they were dangerous to persons passing along the street. There was no signal light to show the presence of the stones, as was required by an ordinance of the city, and the ■appellant was negligent in failing to have out the required signal of danger. The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1902: 11903: 11923: 11927: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dudley & Orr v. Jacobs257 S.W. 315 (Tex. App. 1923)
  2. Gulp, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Holt70 S.W. 591 (Tex. App. 1902)
  3. Browne v. Bachman72 S.W. 622 (Tex. App. 1903)
  4. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. of Texas v. Mars294 S.W. 941 (Tex. App. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. of Texas v. Mars294 S.W. 941 (Tex. App. 1927)
  2. Dudley & Orr v. Jacobs257 S.W. 315 (Tex. App. 1923)
  3. Browne v. Bachman72 S.W. 622 (Tex. App. 1903)
  4. Gulp, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Holt70 S.W. 591 (Tex. App. 1902)

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