seventh assignment error in Texas

1939Freeport Sulphur Co. et al. v. American Sulphur Royalty Co., 117 Tex. 439 , 6 S.W.2d 1039 , 60 A.L.R. 890 .

1939Freeport Sulphur Co. et al. v. American Sulphur Royalty Co., 117 Tex. 439 , 6 S.W.2d 1039 , 60 A.L.R. 890 .

1922App.) 136 S. W. 1174 ; Greenleaf on Evidence (15th Ed.) stanza 577. [B] The seventh assignment of error complains of the action of the trial court in permitting the Jury, over appellant’s objection, to take the note sued on with them in their retirement to consider of their verdict, on the ground that in so doing each of said Jurors were permitted to become a witness in said cause in the nature of an expert by comparing said note signature with the admitted signatures of appellant.

1920Hill v. Hoeldtke, 104 Tex. 594 , 142 S. W. 871 , 40 L.

1920Hill v. Hoeldtke, 104 Tex. 594 , 142 S. W. 871 , 40 L.

1916Railway Co. v. Jarman, 138 S. W. 1133 ; Railway Co. v. Moore, 149 S. W. 302 ; Railway Co. v. Carlisle, 34 Tex. Civ.

1916Railway Co. v. Jarman, 138 S. W. 1133 ; Railway Co. v. Moore, 149 S. W. 302 ; Railway Co. v. Carlisle, 34 Tex. Civ.

1914Oo. of Texas v. Wadsaek, 166 S. W. 42 . *135 [2] In the seventh assignment of error complaint is made of the action of the court in overruling appellant’s “second motion and request of this defendant made while plaintiff was on the stand testifying in his own behalf to appoint a committee composed of three disinterested practicing physicians to examine plaintiff’s arm and hand with the view and for the purpose of ascertaining the truth as to the present condition of plaintiff’s arm and hand and the true extent of the injury, if any, thereto.” The motion was in writing, and recited that it was

1913App. 444 , 102 S. W. 922 , and City of Houston v. Barr, 47 S. W. 393 , it is very clear that plaintiff had a right to recover for such damage as she may have sustained within two years prior to the filing of her suit, and the seventh assignment of error complaining of the refusal of a special charge to the effect that the cause was barred by limitation is overruled. [5] The eighth assignment is not considered.

1913No higher degree of care is demanded by the charge than a “reasonable lookout for pedestrians at said time and place.” It surely cannot be maintained that the employes on a train passing through a town about 8 o’clock in the evening, at a place habitually used by pedestrians and at a rapid rate of speed, are not required to keep a “reasonable lookout for pedestrians at said time and place.” Even under the narrow and restricted rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in Railway v. Malone, 102 Tex. 269 , 115 S. W. 1158 , which holds that no duty arises to keep watch by night in passing a bridge whi

1913No higher degree of care is demanded by the charge than a “reasonable lookout for pedestrians at said time and place.” It surely cannot be maintained that the employes on a train passing through a town about 8 o’clock in the evening, at a place habitually used by pedestrians and at a rapid rate of speed, are not required to keep a “reasonable lookout for pedestrians at said time and place.” Even under the narrow and restricted rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in Railway v. Malone, 102 Tex. 269 , 115 S. W. 1158 , which holds that no duty arises to keep watch by night in passing a bridge whi

1911The statements in the bill of exceptions are in conflict with the testimony of the physician as set out in the statement of facts, and cannot be permitted to contradict the latter, McMichael v. Truehart, 48 Tex. 216 ; Wiseman v. Baylor, 69 Tex. 63 , 6 S. W. 743 ; Ramsey v. Hurley, 72 Tex. 194 , 12 S. W. 56 .

1911The statements in the bill of exceptions are in conflict with the testimony of the physician as set out in the statement of facts, and cannot be permitted to contradict the latter, McMichael v. Truehart, 48 Tex. 216 ; Wiseman v. Baylor, 69 Tex. 63 , 6 S. W. 743 ; Ramsey v. Hurley, 72 Tex. 194 , 12 S. W. 56 .

1911The statements in the bill of exceptions are in conflict with the testimony of the physician as set out in the statement of facts, and cannot be permitted to contradict the latter, McMichael v. Truehart, 48 Tex. 216 ; Wiseman v. Baylor, 69 Tex. 63 , 6 S. W. 743 ; Ramsey v. Hurley, 72 Tex. 194 , 12 S. W. 56 .

1911The statements in the bill of exceptions are in conflict with the testimony of the physician as set out in the statement of facts, and cannot be permitted to contradict the latter, McMichael v. Truehart, 48 Tex. 216 ; Wiseman v. Baylor, 69 Tex. 63 , 6 S. W. 743 ; Ramsey v. Hurley, 72 Tex. 194 , 12 S. W. 56 .

1911The statements in the bill of exceptions are in conflict with the testimony of the physician as set out in the statement of facts, and cannot be permitted to contradict the latter, McMichael v. Truehart, 48 Tex. 216 ; Wiseman v. Baylor, 69 Tex. 63 , 6 S. W. 743 ; Ramsey v. Hurley, 72 Tex. 194 , 12 S. W. 56 .

1911App. 486 , 69 S. W. 80 . [12, 13] We overrule the seventh assignment of error.

1909(Miller v. Schmullen, 37 Texas, 233 ; Randall v. Carlisle, 59 Texas, 70 ; Yoe v. Montgomery, 68 Texas, 342 ; Bonner v. Whitcomb, 80 Texas, 342 .) The error is not fundamental.

1909(Miller v. Schmullen, 37 Texas, 233 ; Randall v. Carlisle, 59 Texas, 70 ; Yoe v. Montgomery, 68 Texas, 342 ; Bonner v. Whitcomb, 80 Texas, 342 .) The error is not fundamental.

1908As is said in Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt., 416 , “A witness may not correctly apprehend the rule of law, and if he uses such an expression may be misled himself or may mislead the jury.” See also Betts v, Betts, 113 *278 Iowa, 111, 84 N. W., 975 ; McGibbons v. McGibbons, 119 Iowa, 140 , 93 N. W., 55 ; Torrey v. Burney, 21 So., 348 ; Dominie v. Randolph, 27 So., 480 ; Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Col., 209 , 63 Pac., 302 ; Turner’s Appeal, 72 Conn., 305 , 44 Atl., 310 .

1908As is said in Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt., 416 , “A witness may not correctly apprehend the rule of law, and if he uses such an expression may be misled himself or may mislead the jury.” See also Betts v, Betts, 113 *278 Iowa, 111, 84 N. W., 975 ; McGibbons v. McGibbons, 119 Iowa, 140 , 93 N. W., 55 ; Torrey v. Burney, 21 So., 348 ; Dominie v. Randolph, 27 So., 480 ; Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Col., 209 , 63 Pac., 302 ; Turner’s Appeal, 72 Conn., 305 , 44 Atl., 310 .

1908As is said in Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt., 416 , “A witness may not correctly apprehend the rule of law, and if he uses such an expression may be misled himself or may mislead the jury.” See also Betts v, Betts, 113 *278 Iowa, 111, 84 N. W., 975 ; McGibbons v. McGibbons, 119 Iowa, 140 , 93 N. W., 55 ; Torrey v. Burney, 21 So., 348 ; Dominie v. Randolph, 27 So., 480 ; Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Col., 209 , 63 Pac., 302 ; Turner’s Appeal, 72 Conn., 305 , 44 Atl., 310 .

1908As is said in Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt., 416 , “A witness may not correctly apprehend the rule of law, and if he uses such an expression may be misled himself or may mislead the jury.” See also Betts v, Betts, 113 *278 Iowa, 111, 84 N. W., 975 ; McGibbons v. McGibbons, 119 Iowa, 140 , 93 N. W., 55 ; Torrey v. Burney, 21 So., 348 ; Dominie v. Randolph, 27 So., 480 ; Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Col., 209 , 63 Pac., 302 ; Turner’s Appeal, 72 Conn., 305 , 44 Atl., 310 .

1908As is said in Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt., 416 , “A witness may not correctly apprehend the rule of law, and if he uses such an expression may be misled himself or may mislead the jury.” See also Betts v, Betts, 113 *278 Iowa, 111, 84 N. W., 975 ; McGibbons v. McGibbons, 119 Iowa, 140 , 93 N. W., 55 ; Torrey v. Burney, 21 So., 348 ; Dominie v. Randolph, 27 So., 480 ; Shapter v. Pillar, 28 Col., 209 , 63 Pac., 302 ; Turner’s Appeal, 72 Conn., 305 , 44 Atl., 310 .

1905Rep., 107 ; Swearingen v. Bassett, 65 Texas, 267 ; Speer, Law of Married Women, sec. 252.) The seventh assignment of error, complaining that appellee presents no title sufficient to support the homestead claim, is therefore overruled.

1892The charge complained of in the seventh assignment of error was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Railway v. Fuller, 63 Texas, 467 , from which it seems to have been taken.

1883Proc., Arts. 715, 716; Alston v. The State, 41 Texas, 39 ; Wooldridge v. The State , decided by this court at present term, ante, p. 443.) That the verdict was received by the court on Sunday is the objection presented by the seventh assignment of error.

1883Rules 24, 25 and 26, 47 Tex., 602 ; Green v. Dallahan & Co., 54 Tex., 285 ; 54 Tex., 46 ; 46 Tex., 589 ; 45 Tex., 415 ; 44 Tex., 540 .