Case ID: sw_186/html/0863-01.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

STEPHENVILLE NORTH & S. T. RY. CO. v. STEWART.
    (No. 5617.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    March 29, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied June 14, 1916.)
    Trial c&wkey;260(l) — Instructions—Covered by the Charge.
    It is not error to refuse a requested instruction the law of which is covered and applied in the court’s charge to the jury.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 651; Dec. Dig. &wkey;260(l).]
    Appeal from Hamilton County Court; J. L. Lewis, Judge.
    Action by W. B. Stewart against the Stephenville North & South Texas Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Marshall Ferguson, of Stephenville, for appellant. Eidson & Eidson, of Hamilton, for appellee.
   KEY, C. J.

This is a county court case in which the plaintiff alleged and proved a failure on the part of the railway company to properly construct its roadbed over his land, and as a result of which his land and crops were damaged by flood waters. He alleged that his land was damaged $500 and his crops $100. There was a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $141.56 damage to his land, and $90 damage to his crops, and the defendant has appealed.

The ease is presented in this court upon only two assignments of error, one of which complains of the trial court’s refusal to give a certain requested instruction, and the other charges that the verdict is excessive as to the amount allowed for injury to the plaintiff’s crops. The law announced in the refused instruction was covered and applied in the court’s charge to the jury, and therefore no error was committed in refusing that instruction. On the other point we have examined the statement of facts, and find some testimony tending to support the finding of the jury as to the amount of injury to the plaintiff’s crops; and, while that testimony is not as satisfactory as it might have been, we cannot say that it does not support the verdict.

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

Affirmed. 
      GzaFor other see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes