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: 40
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
40 HIICs v. I. & G. . N. R' Co. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
St. Joseph & Denver City R'y Co. et al. v. James Smith, as Treasurer,
etc., 19 Kan., 225.
F. B. Sexton, for appellee, cited: High on Receivers, sees. 1,
178, 254-56, 269-72, 395-98; Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 23
Ind., 553; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall., 218; Wiswall v. Sampson, 14
How., 65-6; Jones on Railroad Securities, sec. 516; Wood on Master
and Servant, sec. 412; Bell v. I. C. & L. R. R. Co., 53 Ind., 57.
STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.- This action was brought by the
appellant against the appellee to recover damages for injuries which
he alleged were received through the negligence of the appellant or
It appears that at the time appellant was injured, the railway of
the appellee, with all its appurtenances, was in the exclusive control
and management of R. S Hays, who had been appointed receiver of
the property of the appellee by the circuit court of the United
States, at the suit of certain of its mortgage bond holders. The receiver,
by the order appointing him, was directed to operate the
road as a common carrier, and the appellee was enjoined from in any
manner interfering with his management.
Some time after'the suit was instituted application was made to
the judge of the United States court in which the receiver was appointed,
for leave to sue the receiver in the district court for Rusk
county. Permission so to sue was refused, probably on account of
the delay in making the application.
There is nothing in the record in this case, as there was in the,
case of the I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Ryan, decided at the present,
term (62 Tex., 42), tending to show a liability on the part of the
appellee, unless it can be held that the mere fact that, at the time
the appellant is alleged to have been injured, the railway on which
he was injured was the property of the appellee, is sufficient to
render it liable for an injury resulting from the negligence of the
receiver or his servants.
In the case above referred to, that question was considered, and
for the reasons there given, and upon the authorities there cited,
without again going into the consideration of the question, we hold
that the charge of the court complained of in this case was not
erroneous. That charge was as follows: " You are further instructed
that if you believe from the evidence, that, about the 1st day of
April, 1878, that all the property of the International & Great
Northern Railroad Company was, by order of the circuit court of
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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/m1/62/: accessed March 29, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .