International & Great Northern Railroad v. Underwood

Citations

• 67 Tex. 589
• 4 S.W. 216
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 923

Syllabus

<p>1. Railway Companies.—A railroad company can not, in the absence of authority conferred by statute, lease its road to another company so as to absolve itself from its obligations to the public; if without such authority it surrenders the control of its road to another, it becomes liable for the torts of the company operating it which are committed on its line.</p> <p>2. Case Distinguished: — This case distinguished from Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Watts, 63 Texas, 549.</p> <p>3. Pleading.—In a suit against a railway company for damages resulting from personal injuries caused by the negligence of the company in carrying the plaintiff as a passenger on its road, the failure to state in the petition in distinct terms that the injury was inflicted between the point of departure and the place to which the company contracted to .carry the plaintiff, is immaterial, if it sufficiently appears from the petition that the plaintiff received the injury complained of while being carried by the company under its agreement. See the opinion for averments in a petition, applicable to which this rule was announced.</p> <p>4. Statement op Pacts.—More than two months after the trial of a cause, and more'than a month after a motion for new trial was overruled, the term of a court closed. On the last day of the term, opposing counsel presented to the judge each a statement of facts, with notice that they could not agree. Twenty-seven days after the close of the term the judge filed with the clerk a statement of facts, with directions to file it as if on the last day of the term, and certified in substance to the facts above stated, with his statement that he had prepared the statement of facts as soon as “other engagements would admit.” The appellant treated the paper so prepared as a statement of facts, and brought it up with the record. After the paper was stricken from the record appellant asked a reversal of the judgment because the judge had failed to file a statement of