Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 38
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
38 HICK s v. I. & G. N. R'y Co. [Austin Term,
Statement of the case.
could, by refusing the use of her name, deny the use of the court
and the process of law for their collection.
We think, therefore, that the right of the appellants to sue in
their own name is, as against the plea in abatement upon which
this suit was dismissed, supported by reason, by general law, and by
statutory enactment. The judgment of the court below sustaining
the plea is erroneous, and must be reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
[Opinion delivered June 13, 1884.]
WM N. HICKS v. THE I. & G. N. R'Y Co.
(Case No. 5062.)
1. DAMAGES -RAILWAY COMPANY- RECEIVER.-No action lies against a railway
company for injuries inflicted by the negligence of those operating the
road, if at the time of the injury it is controlled and operated exclusively
by a receiver appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, with directions
to manage and control it as a common carrier. The doctrine announced in
I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. Ryan (infra, p. 42), that the mere fact that, at the time
the injury was inflicted, the railway belonged to the company, was not
sufficient of itself to render the company liable for a tort inflicted by the
servants of one who controlled it as a receiver, re-affirmed.
2. SAME - PURCHASER OF RAILWAY.- The liability for damages inflicted by the
negligence of the servants of one appointed by a competent tribunal as a
receiver of a railway company is, when such receiver is invested with control
to the exclusion of the company, the liability of the receivership, and
may be enforced against any fund in his hands resulting from the trust subject
to its payment, or against the property of the company while controlled
by him. A subsequent purchase of the road by the company from
one who bought it at a sale made by the receiver under a proper order of
court (there being no collusion in the sales), would not render the company
liable in damages for torts inflicted by the receiver while operating the road.
I i such case the property passes to the purchaser, freed from the claims
against the receiver.
8. CASE DISTINGUISHED.- This case distinguished from Ohio & Mississippi R'y
Co. v. Nickeless, 73 Ind., 383.
APPEAL from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Booty.
On the 15th day of July, 1879, appellant filed in the district court
of Rusk county an original amended petition against appellee, charging
it with gross negligence in its management, whereby physical
injuries resulted to him.
On the 6th day of January, 1880, defendant filed an amended
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/60/: accessed September 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .