Court Opinion

ID: 9685059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:22:10.134074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.051244
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice
(dissenting).
Through its opinion, reported in 228 S. W.2d 280, this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the Ap-pellee in this cause, and rendered judgment for the Appellant, T. & N. O. R. R. Co.; thereafter, the Supreme Court of Texas, through its opinion reported in 234 S.W. 2d 407, 408, reversed such prior judgment •of this Court, and remanded the cause for further consideration of such points as had been originally raised by the Appellant in this Court as had not been brought within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on such appeal to it.
This Court accordingly, pursuant to such remand of the cause by the Supreme Court to it, heard arguments, both oral and written, from both parties, as being pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recited order of remand.
This Court has now rendered its judgment and opinion, upon such directed reconsideration, in which it 'has reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court, through a majority opinion, this member dissenting.
The dissent proceeds from these, among other, considerations:
(1) The Supreme Court authoritatively took jurisdiction over its reaches to that extent, and settled the law of the case to be, that issues-of-fact were raised over (a) whether or not the Appellant was liable to the Appellee, (b) that the latter’s pleadings were sufficient to support those issues, (c) that such issues were likewise raised over whether or not the Appellee acted as ■ a man of ordinary prudence would have acted under like circumstances, (d) that his pleadings were also sufficient to support that issue, (e) whether the Appellant’s engineer was guilty of negligence in the way he approached the crossing, and finally, (f) that such like issue-of-fact was raised as to whether or not the Appellee had been guilty of contributory negligence in any respect.
(2) The record showing that the verdict of the jury below, on sufficient evidence, settled all the questions-of-fact so declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the Ap-pellee’s favor, no judgment obtained by him is reversible, unless some of the assignments of the Appellant below over which the Supreme Court did not acquire jurisdiction have been shown to involve prejudicial error in its favor.
(3) No such reversible error has been pointed out.
(4) Neither, it is concluded, should the Appellee’s cross-assignment-of-error, contending that the trial court’s requirement of the $8,000 — remittitur was erroneous, be sustained.
(5) Wherefore, the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.