The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-28
f(OURT DECISIONS.
! Ooinions Handed Down
4. Latest Sitting
M THE SUPREME COURT,
r,ueer and Conductor
Fellow Servants the
4, being superior

nnMpANY; suit to recover
!, personal injuries resultinl
I'm Smith county, Fiith dis
.-.ed and remanded.
. ,,-or sued. for the benefit o
minor children. to recover
s,uries resulting in the deatt
|r,,,pusr, her husband and the
3. ,hlldren. The plaintif re-
alignment in the trial court
ryrrsed and remanded by the
hi appeals. which latter court
4. Trial court should have in
, verde, for defendant The
,,,,ht here by a petition for a
=. N which 1t is alleged that
!, 4 ihe court Of civil appeals
Ritls the case.
h ,siient occurred which re-
Il, is,,h Of Culpepper he was
~, rrsing q freight train OF
an. eou,any. which was imme-
il,el BY another train known
nj ,s,Ion. For the purpose of
a, bot box on the engine. he
vr cattle guard in u deep cut
m ia the track. aud while so
IN The engine the train was
n ear section and injuries
,ncsi which resulted in his
nj q recovery alleged was the
, 4 he conductor In failing 10
hlseman TO signal the rear Sec
sgfan occurred while the fellow
ii q March 10, 1891, was In
nurt Of civil appeals correctly
IN tepeal OF that act did not al
a.aiipn Of liability in this case.
mr; erred. however, is holding
sltNr and conductor We're fell
ls1 under the terms Of the act
lisls shown that the engineer,
hi power 10 act upon occasion
,J Of the conductor, was In
J, Esorlipate. and under some
rs,iaint by reason OF the rela-
y we're not fellow servants. The
aei., where one servant is sub
ssntrol Of another. he is not to
Y 70 exercise the same degree of
ar bis superior. In promoting
!. part Of the latter. as one may
M another where no such subor-
kIEs -
tAirye Of the trial court on the
N;trlbutcry negligence was err
US, W, 756) II the engineer
iss. IN failing TO blow the
~ but for that negligence the
vi not have happened. or. in
y u that negligence contributed
~ his failure Of duty was un-
iIfcyimate cause of the result
a@ entitled TO recover. Hence.
m~ery dependent upon the
lfoxlmata cause. as was done
~ ehsige,, served only to con-
txsad the Jury.
md reinanded to the district
Is instructed TO proceed upon
'A u accordance with this opin-
~ Gaines. c. ].
MALICE vs.. SOUTHERN COT.
" WNpANY; suit to recover
~ la p,reral injuries. from fIar-
a,I INT distrlct-Reyersed and
h a'' 'rned. in connection with
nachlne for baling the bulls
VIZ used In the work of the
q, -lale was in a building near
[.a ~ AZ was run by the Same
|, !. Nt'a'ed the oil mill machin-
r's' and the baling machine
h. " The company, as was
~ = II which the machine was
Az \, od DAVIS was. hired to bale the
/ t,i.' pahy and was paid by The
M ss'E' Turned out. piaintii was
=, " p the baling machine
a, M s,'npany. The contention of
=, 4, y mat Davis was an inde-
h nv |laintifi recovered a
NJ rsn,. .risl court. which was
d ~ .'I ". by the court of
III h h,r aae ;, ground that the court
bsaa. ,e u, Instructed a verdict for
i, nas,l the undisputed evidence
Il IA a,loe an Independent |
III Of on, a,leged in the petition |
4 y N, tiror that this decision s'o Of
" '" appeals practically set
~ MN sSo con contractor, John Davis.
L ,o .a0 was Irresponsible finan
Nusigered himself man
H. a aha not an indepeudent
Ir,sry ts, \. tends to prove
m MI n py Its superintendent ma
4 sDs ~ actually exercise n,,-
u. o ova. over Davis, over the
ats.,s S,el the hands employ ynI
~ uD sa. y. with the idea hat
u va ,pr p., the control Of Davis Wis
i DayII.s, the issue, as ,'h III
employment, from the
n q 49, siril appeals had author
~ 10y, .ns,, case because I the au'h n,.,
ID n Z Z. the evidence n ne,,ssser
"a, = No a a finding of the co oSr
lain " iss evidence to sustain sta o' the
asl below, hence W., WE c servant
aiiilmTn ' :, Of the court Of ci hGI
NJ, IN The judpnon, WIN
r I. court t' ier win TN, be renamed led
!, ~ l Opinion. 'a' IN accord
' Brown. j.
u Ss,,, ys. H, II. SMITH EFT
lie tn Sliblaing contract ana | 70
. Dsl IIa,ea a' lien se cur 10
and rem s county, Filth district
u a ' ,sr,,' to recover the con.
cAIla, IRAN building partially
tsiaa a's's by peterlaan 6 Grit,
ai,s ' s,' on the bu iIyy'o
light, alleged =. that he I had ao'
! tlsIr . 81 the original con.
Dem for sI'e tiles BY an assign.
'alldiuy wa, 'I NJ. consldera-
',,,i0oE to sou ws.hereupon their
$50. te C,s for some linz A' lei,