Court Opinion

ID: 9829666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:31:01.965433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.977786
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The motion for rehearing is overruled, as is also the appellant’s motion to certify the case to the Supreme Court. We deem it due, however, to counsel for appellant to state why we refuse their motion to certify the case.
[5] As stated in the original opinion, Hubbard, the mail truck transfer man, testified positively that the stop made the night that Keeling got hurt was the final stop, and not the cutting stop. Under all the testimony, if it was the final stop, an issue of negligence was raised against the defendant. In the case as reported in. 121 S. W. 597, the court lays emphasis upon the fact that the stop in question was not the final stop. The only way that we can know what facts the court had before it in that record is in so far as we may be able’ to gather them from the opinion as reported, and from what has been stated it would seem apparent that in that case the Court of Civil Appeals rendering the decision adverted to did not have before it Hubbard’s testimony that it was the final stop. In the instant ease Keeling testified: “On the occasion of my being injured, I think the truck was placed along side of the train and the mail loaded on it before the train made its final stop.” And the allegations are that the accident happened on the final stop, or at a stop which plaintiff was induced to believe was the final stop.
The matter stated above indicates clearly to our minds that the testimony in the record on this trial is different from what it was at the time the former decision was rendered in the Court of Appeals, principally in Hubbard’s testimony that he unloaded the mail at the final stop. Therefore we think our broad statement in our opinion that we find ourselves unable to agree to the correctness of the decision in 121 S. W. 597, is perhaps inaccurate, and we will confine ourselves to holding that in this ease, as the record is presented to us, the evidence was sufficient to raise the issue of negligence.