Case Name: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. WILLIAMS
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-11-29
Citations: 183 F. 576
Docket Number: No. 2,042
Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
Judges: Before PARDEE and SHEDBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 183
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 29, 1910.)
No. 2,042.
Bailroads (§ 484 ) — Action foe Injury by Fire — Questions foe Juey.
In an action against a railroad company to recover for loss by a fire alleged to bave been caused by an engine on defendant’s road, proof that the appliances of the engine which passed the premises just before the fire were in good condition does not entitle defendant to an instructed verdict.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bailroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1740-1746; Dec. Dig. § 484.*]
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas.
Action at law by J. S. Williams against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Cecil H. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
E. S. Conner and S. B. M. Dong, for defendant in error.
Before PARDEE and SHEDBY, Circuit Judges.
For other eases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The assignments of error which question the jurisdiction at law of the court below and the sufficiency of parties in interest are not well taken. See Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans R. Co. v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 139 U. S. 79, 11 Sup. Ct. 490, 35 L. Ed. 97; Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Watts, 66 Fed. 460, 13 C. C. A. 579; Railway v. Hall, 64 Tex. 615.
The evidence of George Polk, complained of in the fifth assignment of error., seems to have been, not only relevant, but material. While the undisputed evidence in the case may show that the appli anees of defendant's engine that passed plaintiff's premises just before the fire were in good condition, that did not, under the proof, entitle the defendant to an instructed verdict.
As to defendant's negligence, the evidence required a submission to the jury.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.