Case Name: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. ROACH-MANIGAN PAVING CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-02-13
Citations: 209 S.W. 182
Docket Number: No. 2080
Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. ROACH-MANIGAN PAVING CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 182–182

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. ROACH-MANIGAN PAVING CO.
(No. 2080.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Feb. 13, 1919.)
Trial <S=296(4, 5) — Instructions—Cure of Error.
An instruction to find for plaintiff if they believed defendant was guilty of negligence in the particular specified, without reference to contributory negligence, of which there was evidence, was not rendered harmless by another instruction to find for defendant if they believed plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Appeal from Hunt County Court; A. J. Gates, Judge.
Action by the Roach-Manigan Paving Company against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed, and remanded for new trial.
. E. B. Perkins, of Dallas, and Crosby & Harrell, of Greenville, for appellant.
H. O. Norwood and L. L. Bowman, both of Greenville, for appellee.

Opinion:
WILLSON, C. J.
The appeal is from a judgment in appellee's favor for $350 as the value of two mules belonging to it killed by one of appellant's trains, and for $4 as the damages to a wagon the mules were drawing at the time they were killed. The accident occurred at a point where Texas street crossed appellant's track in the city of Greenville.
Notwithstanding evidence, which authorized a finding that appellee's employs in charge of the mules was guilty of contributors' negligence, the trial court in his charge told the jury to find for the appellee if they believed appellant was guilty of negligence in particulars specified, without reference to whether appellee's said employe was guilty of contributory negligence or not. We think this was error which required a reversal of the judgment. That the court in his charge also told the jury to find for appellant if they believed appellee was guilty of contributory negligence did not render the error harmless. The jury were not told what to do if they believed, as they might very well have believed from the evidence, that both appellant and ap-pellee's said employs were guilty of negligence.
The judgment will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.