Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. De Milley

Citations

• 60 Tex. 194
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 299

Syllabus

<p>1. Removal of cause.— The application for the removal of this cause is the same in every respect as that acted upon in the case of Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. McAllister, and the decision in that case is followed.</p> <p>2. Evidence—Negligence.— Proof tending to show tnat there were other defects in the road-bed of the company than those particularly alleged, and that such defects had existed for some time, is admissible, where the petition alleges that there was gross negligence on the part of the company. Wharton on Evidence, 30, 41; R. R. Co. v. Nast, 93 U. S., 391, and other-authorities cited.</p> <p>3. Same —Exemplary damages.— Evidence of knowledge by the company of' facts intimately connected with those upon which actual damage done to the party rests is admissible to show acts of so wilful and negligent a character as to make the company liable for exemplary damages. Such a rule is not changed by the fact that the jury gave no exemplary damages.</p> <p>4. Same — Opinion.— If the opinion of a witness is sought, such opinion, to be of any value, must be based upon facts in the case.</p> <p>5. Rejection oe testimony.— It is incumbent upon a party complaining of the rejection of testimony to show the ground for such rejection; and, if the record be silent on that subject, the presumption is that the ruling of the court was correct.</p>