Case Name: GOLDMAN v. ENGEL
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-24
Citations: 250 S.W. 303
Docket Number: No. 6535
Parties: GOLDMAN v. ENGEL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 250
Pages: 303–305

Head Matter:
GOLDMAN v. ENGEL.
(No. 6535.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Jan. 24, 1923.
On the Merits, Feb. 14, 1923.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 28, 1923.
On Second Motion for Rehearing, April 11, 1923.)
1. Appeal and error @=>390 — Filing of amended appeal bond allowed.
On motion of appellee to dismiss on ground that appeal bond was not such as statute required, appellant allowed to file amended bond.
On the Merits.
2. Negligence <@=¿419 (4) — Petition held -to authorize recovery for negligence generally.
Under petition pleading both general and special negligence, plaintiff may recover for negligence generally.
3. Trial @=>366 — Seasonable objection to submission of special issue necessary.
Any error in submitting a special issue was waived by absence of seasonable objection to submission.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Damages @=>190— Evidence of amount of lost profits insufficient.
Evidence in action for flooding plaintiff’s store held, insufficient for submission of loss of profits; it leaving the amount a matter of pure guess.
On Second Motion for Rehearing.
5. Appeal and error <0=511140(3) — Judgment modified and affirmed on remittitur of damages allowed for an Item Insufficiently proved.
Appellee remitting the damages allowed for an item, as to which there was insufficient proof, and, there being no other error, judgment will be modified and affirmed.
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Jas. P. Alexander, Judge.
Action by Emily F. Engel against Fred Goldman and others. From judgment against the named defendant, he appeals. Modified and affirmed.
Nat Harris and John B. McNamara, both of Waco, for appellant.
G. W. Barcus, of Waco, for appellee.
-(gspFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered'Digests and Indexes

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
JENKINS, J.
Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal herein, for the reason that the appeal bond is not such as required by statute. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the appeal bond, inasmuch as appellant has requested permission to file an amended land, which permission we have granted, and appellant is allowed until February 6th to file an amended bond herein.
Motion overruled.
@=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes