Case Name: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. SHUMATE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-04-21
Citations: 178 S.W. 1050
Docket Number: No. 5479
Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. SHUMATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 178
Pages: 1050–1050

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. SHUMATE.
(No. 5479.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
April 21, 1915.)
1. Pleading <&wkey;171 — Trial — Amendment — Discretion of Court. '
The statute declaring that the court may permit amendments to the pleadings at any time before announcing ready on the merits, and not thereafter, is directory, and thereunder the court in its discretion may permit a supplemental petition to be filed after the jury have been selected and the other pleadings read to the court and jury.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 333; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>171.]
2. Appeal and Error &wkey;3l041 — Harmless Error — Trial—Amen dment.
Error, if any. permitting plaintiff to file a supplemental petition after the jury had been selected and the other pleadings read to the court and jury, was not reversible error, where it in no wise influenced the jury in finding against the appellant.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4106-4109; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1041.].
Appeal from District Court, Coryell County; J. H. Arnold, Judge.
Action by R. D. Shumate against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
E. B. Perkins, of Dallas, Sadler & Cobb, of Gatesville, and Scott & Ross, of Waco, for appellant. J. W. Stinnett, of Gatesville, and Odell & Turner, T. J. Powell, and Homer L. Baughman, all of Pt. Worth, for appellee.

Opinion:
KEY, C. J.
Appellee brought this suit against appellant, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, and, from a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $9,750, the defendant has appealed. No complaint is made of the verdict of the jury, and therefore it is unnecessary to make any findings of fact.
The first assignment of error complains because the trial court permitted the plaintiff to file a supplemental petition after the jury had been selected and the other pleadings read to the court and jury. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a statute declaring that the court may permit amendments at any time before announcing ready upon the merits and not thereafter, our Supreme Court has held that statute to be directory, and under that holding the trial court had the discretion to permit the supplemental petition to be filed at the time referred to. Furthermore, it is quite certain that, if error was committed in that respect, it in no wise influenced the jury in finding against appellant, and therefore the assignment complaining of that ruling is overruled.
All the other assignments of error complain of certain rulings upon the admissibility of testimony. The questions thus presented are neither novel nor difficult, and appellant has cited no authority in support of any of its contentions. Therefore we deem it unnecessary to discuss the questions involved in the rulings referred to, and content ourselves with saying that they have all been considered and are decided against appellant.
No reversible error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.