Court Opinion

ID: 9832532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:58:55.638252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.741346
License: Public Domain

On Behearing.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing calls our attention to a slight inaccuracy in the verbiage of the following portion [there italicized] of a sentence beginning on page 12 of our original opinion [see 262 S. W. 928]:
“There was testimony tending to show that the passing track was generally used for trains meeting each other to pass on, not usually or habitually for the‘motor cars to bring in crews upon; which was ordinarily done over the main track, and that' appellee and other employés had customarily used the passing track in going to and from their meals at the boarding ear, there being a path along the center of it, and such use of it being so frequent and general among the employés as to charge appellant with knowledge of and acquiescence in the practice.”
It should have read:
There was testimony tending to show that the passing track was generally used for trains meeting each other to pass on, not usually or habitually for the motor cars to bring in crews upon, that that was ordinarily done over thes main track, and that appellee and other employés had customarily used the passing track in going to and from their meals at the boarding car, there being a path along the center of it, and that such use of it was so frequent and general among the employés as to charge appellant with knowledge of and acquiescence in the practice.
We have re-examined the statement of facts and find this corrected recitation to be fully sustained by the testimony.
*930In other respects also the motion has been carefully considered, but we are not convinced of error in our original disposition of the cause; a rehearing has therefore been refused.