Case ID: sw_160/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KEY, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO. v. ELLIS.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    Nov. 5, 1913.)
    1. Trial (§ 260) — Instructions—Refusal.
    Where the charge of the court as supplemented by instructions given at defendant’s request sufficiently guarded his rights, defendant cannot complain of the refusal of other requested instructions.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 817-823;- Dec. Dig. § 260.]
    2. Railboads (§ 482) — Fxees—Actions—Ev-idence— Sufficiency.
    In an action against a railroad company for damages caused by the negligent firing of plaintiff’s land, evidence held to warrant the jury in finding that the engine -Which caused the fire was not properly equipped, or that proper care had not been exercised to maintain the equipment.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1730-1732, 1734-1736; Dee. Dig. § 482.]
    Appeal from Waller County Court; J. D. Harvey, Judge.
    Action by W. E. Ellis against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company. - From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and W. B. Garrett, of Austin, for appellant. Hannay & Hannay, and R. E. Hannay, Jr., all of Hempstead, and J. V. Meek, of Houston, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   KEY, C. J.

This case comes up from the county court of Waller county, and is a grass-burning case, similar in many of its features to H. & T. O. R. R. Co. v. Ellis, 160 S. W. 606, decided by this court at its last term. Some of the questions raised here were decided against appellant in the former case, and we adhere to the rulings there made.

The charge prepared by the court, as supplemented by instructions given at the request of appellant, sufficiently safeguarded appellant’s rights, and the assignments complaining of the charge and of the refusal of requested instructions are overruled.

We also overrule the assignments which assail the verdict of the jury, and hold that, notwithstanding the alleged proof that the engine which caused the fire was properly equipped, etc., there was testimony tending to show that it caused a continual series of fires to originate on the right of way on the occasion in question, which evidence warranted the jury in finding that the engine had not been properly equipped with a spark arrester, or that proper care had not been exercised to maintain such equipment.

No reversible error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.