Case Name: HANCOCK et al. v. TEAGUE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1934-11-16
Citations: 77 S.W.2d 772
Docket Number: No. 13055
Parties: HANCOCK et al. v. TEAGUE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 77
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
HANCOCK et al. v. TEAGUE.
No. 13055.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.
Nov. 16, 1934.
Zweifel & Tuohy, Joe Ingraham, and Sam A. Woodward, all of Fort Worth, for plaintiffs in error.
Billingsley & Billingsley, of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
POWER, Justice.
J. O. Teague instituted this suit against Jack Hancock, Maurine Colquitt, and Hancock Parking System, Inc., in the district court of Tarrant county for damages on account of personal injuries and damages to property alleged to have been received in a collision between an automobile owned by Jack Hancock and driven by Maurine Col-quitt and Jack Hancock and a wagon drawn by a horse and owned by J. O. Teague. Judgment was rendered in behalf of plaintiff for more than $7,000 as against Jack Hancock and Maurine Colquitt and in behalf of the Hancock Parking System, Inc. From this judgment, Jack Hancock and Maurine Col-quitt have appealed.
Appellants complain that the charge of the court did not apprise the jury as to the burden of proof. In submitting the cause, the court used the following form as to the issues : "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that," following with the question to be determined. This method of submission fairly places the question of burden of proof' and has been approved in this state in many cases. Psimenos v. Huntley (Tex. Civ. App.) 47 S.W.(2d) 622; Law on Special Issues by Speer, § 134. This being the only proposition submitted in appellants' brief, the judgment is in all things affirmed.