Court Opinion

ID: 9830405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:10:56.220109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:21.497251
License: Public Domain

Ón Motion for Rehearing.
In compliance with appellee’s request in his motion for rehearing, we make these additional findings; the others requested are made in the original opinion, or are not authorized by the testimony: J. G. Hammond, the plaintiff, testified that the handhold was hung in the end of the coal chute at the time he went to operate it and at the time he pulled down the spout for the purpose of coaling the tender to the engine; that he was seen on the ground just after his fall by a number of witnesses, and no witness contradicted the testimony of the plaintiff, Hammond, in the statement that the handhold was so hung at the time he undertook to fill the tender to the engine.
“Where a party’s case is' proven only by his own testimony, it is an issue of fact for the jury, even though it be uneontradicted and un-impeached. Burleson v. Tinnin [Tex. Civ. App.] 100 S. W. 350; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lucas [Tex. Civ. App.] 148 S. W. 1149; Turner v. Grobe, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 554, 59 S. W. 583.” Peerless Fire Insurance Co. v. Barcus (Tex. Civ. App.) 227 S. W. 368.
Sea, also, Moore v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 322, and cases cited.
The motions for rehearing of both appellde and appellant are overruled.