Court Opinion

ID: 9827041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:05:24.942715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:21.706190
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellant Mrs. Ola King for Rehearing.
When the record was first before us Mrs. Ola King insisted she had a right to look to her husband for support, notwithstanding they were not living together at the time of his death; and, his death being due to actionable negligence on the part of the appellant railway company as determined by the jury, she insisted further it appeared as a matter of law that she was entitled to recover some amount as damages for his- death, and therefore that the finding of the jury and judgment to the contrary were erroneous. In support of her contention Mrs. King cited Railway Co. v. Spicker, 61 Tex. 427, 48 Am. Rep. 297, and other cases. The contention and authorities relied upon as supporting it were then considered by this court, and the conclusion reached that the judgment should not be reversed because of the matter complained of. The contention is renewed in the motion, and complaint is made because it was not referred to and discussed in the opinion disposing of the appeal. That it was not was due to an oversight on the writers part. This court then thought, and does yet, that on the evidence before them the jury had a right to say that while Mrs. King had a lawful right so long as she was King’s wife to look to him for support, her looking would have brought her nothing; that he would not, had he lived, voluntarily have contributed anything to her Support, and would never have been in such a condition financially that he could have been compelled to contribute anything to 'her support.
The motion is overruled.