Texas & P. R'y Co. v. Kirk

Citations

• 62 Tex. 227
• 2 Tex. L. R. 385
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 380

Syllabus

<p>1. Case followed — Domicile of railway corporation — Jurisdiction.— Tex. & P. R’y Co. v. McAllister, 59 Tex., 349, followed and approved.</p> <p>2. Evidence—Damages.— In a suit for damages against a railway company for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the company, and resulting from its car being thrown from the track by a rail broken several days before the injury, and a part of which was missing, it is not necessary that both defects should be proved to authorize a recovery. The substance of the issue being, Was the track of the appellant’s road unsound and unsafe by reason of the defective rail ? it was sufficient to prove the substance of the issue.</p> <p>3. Case approved.— Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R’y Co. v. Ruby, 38 Ind., 305, cited and approved.</p> <p>4. Fellow-servant — Damages.—Though one be an employee within the meaning of the rule which ordinarily prevents a servant from claiming damages from the master for an injury received from the negligence of a servant in the common employment, the duty of a railway company to have a sound track is one from which it cannot excuse itself, and when, by reason of its failure, such an employee is injured, the fact that some other servants of the company had failed to construct or keep in repair the track cannot relieve it from liability.</p> <p>5. Pleading.— It is no ground for the reversal of the judgment that the petition of the plaintiff who recovered the judgment contained conclusions of the pleader regarding facts pleaded therein, if the facts from which the conclusions were drawn are fully stated, and justify the conclusions if true.</p>