Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Horne

Citations

• 69 Tex. 643
• 9 S.W. 440
• 1888 Tex. LEXIS 911

Syllabus

<p>1, Jurisdiction. — The statute which determines the venue of suits against railway companies makes no distinction as to the character of actions, as it does where a natural person is defendant, and a suit against a railway company for an injury done to one’s land and grass by fire caused by negligence of the company, may be maintained not only in the county in which the cause of action arose, but in any county through or into which the company operates its road, or in which it has an agency or in which its principal office is situate.</p> <p>H. Continuance. — A. party, to a suit who seeks a second continuance of the cause can not defeat the right of his adversary to an immediate trial by malting his statement of the needed evidence so indefinite as to render it uncertain what verdict the jury would have found if the witness had testified and the verdict had been based on the testimony.</p> <p>3. Negligence — Burden of Proof. — Where grass is burned from sparks escaping from a passing locomotive engine, negligence will be presumed. If by reason of the appliances to guard against fire which were used, the company has exercised care and prudence, that fact is within its knowledge and the burden of proof is upon the company to show it.</p> <p>4. Charge of Court — Negligence.—In such a suit after instructing the jury in effect that when grass is burned near the right of way of a railway company by sparks escaping from its engine, negligence would be presumed, the court further instructed: “Such prima facie case can only be rebutted by the defendant showing to your satisfaction that at the time in question the engine was properly constructed with the best approved appliances for preventing the escape of fire, and the appliances were all in good repair and condition as regards the escape of fire, or that all reasonable care and caution had been taken to keep them in repair and condition, and that the engine was carefully and skilfully handled as regards the escape of fi