Case Name: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. William Edwards
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1907-01-19
Citations: 45 Tex. Civ. App. 66
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. William Edwards.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 66–66

Head Matter:
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. William Edwards.
Decided January 19, 1907.
Practice—Ho Statement' of Facts.
In the absence of an approved statement of facts, an Appellate Court can not consider assignments of error relating to the exclusion of evidence, the giving of charges and overruling a motion for new trial on the ground of a want of evidence to support the verdict.
Appeal from the District Court of Montague County. Tried below before Hon. D. E. Barrett.
N. H. Lassiter, Robert Harrison and Jas. A. Graham, for appellant.
J. H. Harper and W. S. Jamison, for appellee.

Opinion:
CONNER, Chief Justice.
suit was instituted to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by appellee by reason of defendant's negligence in August, 1903, at Lanape, Kansas. Appellee alleged that he was accompanying a shipment of cattle from Addington, Indian Territory, to Kansas City, and that at Lanape, Kansas, while the cattle were standing on the main track, a passenger train came up behind and was negligently made to collide with the train upon which appellee was situated and injured him. The case was tried' January 13, 1906, and the verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for three thousand dollars, from which verdict and the judgment rendered thereon defendant appealed.
The assignments of error are to the action of the court in excluding evidence, in giving certain charges, and in overruling the motion for new ttial on the ground of a want of evidence to support the verdict. We have no approved statement of facts before .us, and hence can not determine whether there was reversible error in the particulars mentioned. (Renfro v. Harris, 73 S. W. Rep., 337.) Judgment affirmed.
Affirmed.
Writ of error refused.