Case Name: Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. J. T. Crawford
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1894-09-26
Citations: 9 Tex. Civ. App. 245
Docket Number: No. 434
Parties: Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. J. T. Crawford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 245–253

Head Matter:
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. J. T. Crawford.
No. 434.
1. Agreement of Counsel — Infringement of Rules — Briefs.—Agreement of counsel affecting the rights alone of parties will usually be enforced, but where such agreements infringe upon the rules of the Supreme Court, and entail an unnecessary and additional burden upon the appellate court, as in searching the records of other cases for briefs adopted by agreement, they will not be upheld or allowed
2. Special Judge — Completion of Trial by Regular Judge. — A trial commenced by a special judge, elected during the sickness of the regular judge, may be completed by the regular judge when he returns.
3. Pleadings — Allegations of Defects in Railroad Track. — A general allegation of the defects is sufficient, without entering into any great particularity as to the exact condition of the track, roadbed crossing, or bridge of a railway company.
4. Same — Injured Employe. — More specific pleading is not required from an injured employe than from any other person.
5 Waiver of Assignment of Error. — An assignment of error in the record not copied in the brief is considered waived.
6. Charge of Court — Safe Appliances —Duty of Railway Company. — It is the duty of a railroad company to use ordinary care to provide such cars, roadbed, tanks, etc., as are reasonably safe for its employes, and a charge which required “ordinary care in the construction of the road crossing and its ditches along the track and under the crossing, so as to make them reasonably safe for use, and ordinary care to keep them in such condition,” is not open to criticism.
7. Same — Submitting Issue — Sufficient Testimony. — See the opinion for evidence held sufficient to justify the submission of the question of defects in the roadbed, etc., to the jury.
8. Fellow-Servants. — Where the plaintiff, a conductor, was riding in a caboose in obedience to an order from the company to report for duty at a certain place, he and the engineer of the train were not fellow-servants, as defined by the statute.
9. Master and Servant — Assumed Risks — Charge of Court. — A charge that the plaintiff (a conductor), as a servant of the defendant company, had assumed “all ordinary risks and hazards to travel over defendant’s road, and all other risks known to him,” is one of which the company can not complain.
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before Hon. W. W. King.
Upson & Bergstrom, for appellant.
— 1. The regular judge, Hon. W. W. King, was not qualified to try this cause, because of his sickness. The cause was called by the Hon. S. G. Newton, then acting as special judge of the District Court, having been duly elected and qualified as such, and upon announcement, subject to the court’s ruling on defendant’ s’exception to plaintiff’s petition, he impaneled a jury therein, and then adjourned to the following Monday, when the regular judge improperly took the bench to proceed with the trial of the cause. The State v. Moberly, 26 S. W. Rep., 364.
2. The burden being upon the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the master in furnishing defective appliances, and that such defects were the proximate cause of such injury, the plaintiff’s petition fails to state a cause of action, unless it sets out the facts showing that such defects were the proximate cause of the injury or how they caused or contributed to such injuries. Sayles' Civ. Stats., art. 1187, note 4; Id., art. 1195; Railway v. Hennessey, 75 Texas, 155; Williams v. Railway, 60 Texas, 205; Clark v. Railway, 15 Fed. Rep., 588; Railway v Smith, 74 Texas, 276; Railway v. McCoy, 22 S. W. Rep., 926; Jones v George, 61 Texas, 351; Seale v. Railway, 51 Texas, 277; Brandon v. Manuf. Co., 61 Texas, 125; Johnson v. Railway, 21 S. W. Rep., 274; Cool. on Torts, p. 73
3. Plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was an employe of defendant and performing the very duties which he was employed to perform, and traveling under orders of defendant and at regular pay while so on duty; and therefore was a fellow-servant with the engineer in charge of the train on which he was injured; therefore defendant was not liable to plaintiff for injuries occurring to him by reason of the negligence of such engineer. Railway v. Welch, 10 S. W. Rep., 529; Railway v. Arispe, 81 Texas, 517; McKinney on Fel. Serv., p. 283; 17 Am. and Eng. Ry. Cases, 614.
No brief for appellee reached the Reporter.

Opinion:
FLY, Associate Justice.
— It is provided in rule 29 for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals, that "The appellant, or plaintiff in error, in order to prepare properly a case for submission when called, shall have filed a brief of the points relied on, in accordance with and confined to the distinct specifications (which assignments shall be copied in the brief) and to such fundamental errors of law as are apparent upon the record, each ground of error being separately presented under the proper assignment, and each, assignment not so copied and accompanied with its appropriate propositions and statements shall be regarded as abandoned." The brief in this case consists of a statement of the case and one assignment of error, with the statement thereunder, and a formal waiver of the fourth assignment. This is followed by the statement, that "The remaining assignments of error, propositions, authorities, and statements thereunder are verbatim on the part of the appellant, the same as cause number 435 on the docket of this court, styled Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. William T. Norris. The assignments, charge of the court, and statements of facts being copied one from the other in both of said causes, excepting the foregoing assignment number 1, and by agreement of parties the brief in said cause may be used and to be considered by this court as to brief in this cause on behalf of appellant." Upon consulting the brief in the Horris case referred to in the agreement, we find that the third assignment in that case is not copied, and the court is asked to seek for it in a brief filed in the Goodwin and Waldo cases, decided by this court at its last session. Ho briefs are filed by appellee, and the agreement contemplates the use by appellee of briefs filed in the Waldo and Goodwin cases. This agree ment, if carried out and acted upon, would not only set aside the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, but would entail an additional unnecessary burden upon this court. Agreements affecting the rights alone of parties will usually be enforced, but where such agreements infringe upon the_rules of practice of this court, they will not be upheld or allowed. Bules and regulations are necessary to the proper administration of justice, and any infringement of them, especially when not supported by some strong and tenable reason, must result in an impairment to a greater or less degree of the usefulness of the courts. It is the desire to so apply the rules as not to defeat the ends of justice and the due administration of the laws, but no unnecessary infringement of them, as before stated, will be permitted. It is the order of the court, that the submission in this case, and in that of the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company v. W. T. Norris, be set aside, and both cases are referred back to the parties, each to be properly briefed as required by the rules, and be ready for submission on October 10, 1894.
Ordered accordingly.
Delivered September 26, 1894.