The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-06-19

j. h. Wilson VS.. Nathan Watson
from SomerveH county; judgment al
lirmed. Opinion by Presiding Judg
Walker, of the cOnrt of commissioner
of appeals adopted.
Austin 81 Northwestern Railwa,
Go. VS.. n. III. Mays, from Travi
county; reversed and remanded
Opinion by Judge Watts, of commits
sloners of appeals adopted.
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railwa,
Co. VS.. w. s. Dorsey, from Travis
county; reversed and remanded
Opinion by Judge Watts, of commits
sloners of appeals adopted.
Leon 81 III. Blum W.. L. NJ. Nelson
from Eastland county; reversed anG
remanded. Opinion hy Judge De
laney, of the commissioners OF appeals
adopted.
VIM. N. Hicks VS.. International &
Great Northern RI. Co, from RusB
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Asso-
ciate Justice Stayton.
international & &. n. R'y. Co. VS.
Chas. E. Roth, from Travis county
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Judge Walker of the commissioners
of appeals adopted. This was a
suit for damages for injuries caused
Roth while engaged in work for the
company which it was commended the
agent had no right to require him to
perform. Roth, a carpenter, was a
member of the bridge gang and was
injured by rock dumped from above
him while at work on a Golfer dam
around one of the bridge piers. There
was verdict and judgment for Roth
Tor $1,000. The court below is held to
have erred as to the rule of liability
charged to the jury.
In the Austin railway case, Mays.
sub-contractor, sued the company and
Sanford q Son, for some railroad
cross-ties, Mays being a sub-contract-
or. He prayed for Judgment and fore
closure of lien upon the railroad.
There was Judgment against Sanford
q Son for $149 10, value of cross-ties
furnished by plaintiff, with foreclo-
sure on the road, etc.; and personal
Judgment against Sanford 81 Son, and
appellant, for $3.50 06, for value of
cord wood.
Held: that the court below erred in
oVerruling appellants exceptions to
the allegations in the petition where
in it was sought to annul lien
upon the railroad and equipments
In the Santa Fe railway case, the
action is by the father for damages
for loss of services of his minor son,
rendered incapable of performing
labor or service by reason of personal
injuries received while in the de-
PENDANTS employ, without the fathers
consent, and also for moneys expend-
ed by the father in his efforts to effect
q
pleaded general and special demurrers;
the general issue !; emancipation of
the son by the father; and that the
Injuries to the son were caused by
the sons own negligence and i'm
proper conduct, and not otherwise. |
Plaintiff got verdict and judgment |
for $3.50.
But one question Is considered by |
the courts, that 1.-The verdict of the |
jury is contrary to the law and is not
supported by the evidence in |
this, that the evidence |
shows that the plaintiffs son was in |
jured while serving the Galveston, |
and San Antonio railway |
and while upon the grounds |
and while handling the cars and ap-
paratus of that company" Each COM
pany had separate and distinct yard
at Rosenberg where young Dorsey |
was injured and each contributed to |
the labor and maintaining the yards |
so as to equaliZe the expense. Held |
that this did not constitute partner
ship, as neither company had any in |
terest in the business or profits of the |
other; and that the yardmaster, Nc
Gee, who employed Young Dorsey,
while engaged upon the yard of ap-
pellant must be considered the serv
ant alone of appellant. Judgment
should be reversed.
In the Hicks case, the International
Railway Company is sued for dam
ages for injuries it is alleged were re-
ceived by Hicks through the negli- |
gence of the company or its servants;
the railway being at the time Hicks |
was injured in the hands of r. S.
Hays, appointed receiver by the |
United States court.
There is nothing in the record of |
this case, says Justice Slayton, as there |
was nothing in the case of the Inter-
national & Great Northern railway |
company VS.. Ryan, decided at the |
present term, tending to show liza |
bllity on the part of the appellee, I'M
less it can be held that the mere fact
that at the time the appellant is al
legged to have been injured the railway |
on which he was injured was the |
of the appellee, is sufficient |
to render it liable for an injury result
ing from the negligence OF the receiv-
er or his servants. In the case above
to, that question was consid-
cred, and for the reasons there given
and upon the authorities there cited,
without again going into the consid-
Grafton of the question, we hold that
the charge of the court complained of
in this case was not erroneous. Judg-
ment Is affirmed.
Ten young gentlemen, whose names
appear in another place, were admit
ted to practice, by order of the SUI
preme court.
COMMISSIONERS OF APPEALS.
Opinions were read by the court
yesterday in the following cases:
Affirmed: Arnold VS.. Leatherman,
from Johnson county; Wilson VS..
Watson, from Somerville county, and
Bouvet vs.. Woodward, from Wise
county. In the last case order of June
2, reversing the judgment and renov-
ing the cause, is revoked and the Judg-
ment affirmed.
Reversed and Remanded: Blum VS..
Nelson, from Hastland county; Gulf,
Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. VS.. w.
L. Dorsey, from Tarrant county; Aus
tin 81 Northwestern Ry. Co. vs. Chas.
E. Roth, from Travis county.
Reversed and dismissed: Block,
Openheimer & Go. VS.. Hooten 81 Town
send, from Lampasas county.
In the Austin & Northwestern rail-
way case the judgment of the district
court was against the company with
foreclosure of lien for cross ties, etc.
In the International railway case
there was verdict and judgment for
Roth for $1,000 damages.
The decisions of the commissioners
of appeals in all the above cases are
not final till the opinions are adopted
by the supreme court,
DISTRICT COURT.
This court will adjourn for the term
this week.
SUPREME COURL.
w. w. Walling, of San Antonio,
will be examined before the judge of
the supreme court this morning, on
his application for license. The fol
lowing committee have been appoint
ed by the court to conduct the exami-
nation: A. j. Peeler, Sam. L. Fisher