*1
4 SOUTH WESTERN
(Tex.
ciated
profit, they were liable as
ing
resulting
2. Clubs
same
partnership agreement.
lic
51,W.
that an owner
fee to the center of such
street,
Court
ducah
grant. Roaring Springs Townsite Co. v. Pa
themselves
peditiously
ceedings.
ing
thorize it to
convenience to the
controversy,
portance
west
erected its
cated at another
verted that
1. Clubs
formance of the
show would have served
impossible
used
company seeking condemnation can be consid-
way.
power
is entitled to all the
the establishment of the
of
ered unless it be such as to render the
cannot be
devoted. No
practically
sity
authority
statutes
themselves to construct
liable
phone
ber
Einding
highway,
paramount importance
Where
question
controversy
GOLDEN v. WILDER.
its
location of
be
extent
without
It
themselves
Rehearing Denied Feb.
of Civil
* * *
Telephone
testimony in
conferred
and authorities cited.
freight,
alley,
affirmed.
line
block No.
<&wkey;>!2
<&wkey;i
to
practically accomplished
members of luncheon club
cannot bе
great
' together
partners
members of
destroy
no' error in the
was recoverable
platform
apparently
other eases see
of convenience nor
being
condemn such
unless otherwise declared in the
maintain
express
necessity of
I—Members
Appeals
or
line
their
Jan.
duty
which the
efficiently
platform
—Members
place. Appellant
public,
Co.
public highway,
as commercial
to make the new
other means
grst
platform
employees.
to build a
the law
the reсord discloses that
enjoined
implied
had entered into
question
authority
advantages
on
use
injuries, resulting
its
occupier
public
settled
jointly,
company.”
street, alley,
loading
of club
partners
luncheon club asso-
suing
Texas. Fort Worth.
telephone
could have been lo-
to which it has been
testimony
as the
condemnation
record,
"
that abuts on
unless
from the
(No. 11899.)
across the
paramount
use
would not
expense
others.
public
law
it could have
which can
of
building
employees
public,
expense
derived from
is uncontro-
given by
platform
venture
therein,
associating
owned
this state 5.
associated
one mem-
practically
owns the
line were
severally,
tends
injuries
unload-
or
general
as ex-
164 S.
ground
build-
neces- ment was recoverable
judg-
tele-
other
alley
pub
pro-
line
and,
per-
lots
au-
im-
our and
it
did not
issue
theretofore been a member
fact
first time
defendant
fendant was
was
fendant’s
jury, showing
6.
entire
injury,
truck
fendant’s
and that defendant
gence was
quiring
defendant’s
sufficient
finding
4.
injury,
tiff was
pany
cient
building telephone
whether defendant was a member of
in action for
telephone company, submission
of evidence in
timony
3.
company.
for their mutual
thereof
association without
from
. fendant’s
assumption
practically
plied
cient
dicial.
harmless,
fendant’s failure to
was
effect held error.
mitting
cause
conclusively
pany,
pany.
Appeal
Appeal and error
Appeal
Trial
Tria^
In
In
In lineman’s
constructing a
proximate
severally
appeal.
was not
crew of
thеreof
negligence
capital
negligence
telephone
plead
telephone
telephone
error
for charter
member
crew was
submission of
finding
effect
showed
being
jury’s finding
proximate
member
assuming
be driven
where defendant’s
<&wkey;352(5)
<&wkey;>352(5)
crew
Key-Numbered Digests
affidavit,
negligence
jury to
could not
defendant admitted.
defendant in
where
negligence
member
affidavit
entire
appeal.
men
negligent
error
personal
passed
stock,
sued.
error
to do
organization
assuming
to that
cause of his
special
whether failure to
of
proximate
conclusively
of
proximate
lineman’s
risk could
partners
lineman’s action for
without
profit, they
lineman’s
of luncheon
to work
such effect
and defendant
too
there was
jury
action for
made three weeks after
company
telephone line, admitting
capital
cause of
because issue was
their
necessity
&wkey;>!050(l)Admitting
<&wkey;l062(l)
—Issue
subscribed for
do
—Issue
work
urge
showing
show
<&wkey;l73(l3)
on
fast and that
issue
injury
effect,
park
provide
failing
found other
personal injury
finding
assumed
employees;
since defendant’s tes-
failure to
for
stock
defense
applied
cause of
personal injury ac-
causing
cause
action
that defendant
submitting
assuming
injury,
injury
whether defendant
of
was not error be-
testimony
prejudicial,
were liable
organization
assigned
of other members
held,
to
injuries
single
club,
was a
personal
telephone
issues that
telephone
sufficient crew
of
first
—
—Error
subscribed for
lineman,
or
association, a
provide
Indexes
risk,
whether de-
еrror.
harmless,
—Defense
supply
without
jury
for charter
thereof
without
issue
automobile
injury
which was
negligence.
practically
member of
requested,
and hence
on
telephone
personal
personal
resulting
whether
nor was
showed
in sub-
weight
where
preju-
action
jointly
injury
plain-
urged
negli-
suffi-
suffi-
judg-
com-
com-
com-
aof
de-
de-
re-
de-
in-
de-
*2
,v. WILDER
Tex.)
GOLDEN
( n <1)
4 S.W.
receiving
Rehearing.
of the material and for the
chase
and
for
On Motion
paying
out
the funds raised to con-
&wkey;>l
tele-
as member
I—Defendant
Clubs
8.
line. The
was under-
struct
рartner
for
phone
liable
was
association
telephonic
affording
purpose
for the
taken
communication
agents.
through
acting
it
committed
tort
territory
certain
with
trade
member of
a
became
defendant
of Iowa Park
the members
the town
where
telephone com-
designated as a
association
charity, of the association resided and did business.
not a
pany,
a business
was
'
appointed by
Young
thereby
Curtis
for
was
associa-
liable
became
he
through
acting
by thе association
hire
tort committed
its
to
laborers to
work of con-
do the
as-
duly
agents, even
authorized
structing
telephone line,
Walter
partnership in
not a
sociation was
Golden'paid
men for
out of
their services
meaning thereof.
funds held
as trustee of
associa-
him
tion.
master
1—Relation of
servant
Master
<©=>
employed by Young
H.W. Wilder was
as a
telephone
lineman
between
servant
stringing
telephone
lineman
wires,
in
to assist
association’s
was created
and association
wоrking
employment
agent
to work.
after
at that
hired lineman
was cre-
months,
servant
master and
some
two
he sustained
Relation
park
telephone
a
lineman and
injury
as between
ated
association
On the occasion of his
was follow-
he
telephone
a
organized to construct
ing a truck from
wire was un-
agent
hired
of association
at time
line
rolled, holding one of the
wires
each of his
perform
as such.
services
to
the lineman
hands,
engaged
and while so
one of his feet
snag
guttеr
struck
traveling
which he was
agent
<&wkey;ll
of association
10. Clubs
—Where
trot,
consequence
in a
telephone
construct
to
hired laborers
negligence.
agent’s
injured,
injury
his foot was
was liable for
association
building
swelling
tele-
in a
resulted
of association
his
soreness of
super-
profit
of construction
phone
leg.
laborers and
hired
line for
telephone
intended work
Wilder instituted this suit
Walter
negligence on
line,
agent’s part
liable for
association
Golden,
Kemp,
Kell,
J. A.
Frank
P. Fer-
W.
discharging
such services.
guson,
Douglass
Johnson to recover dam-
ages
injury
so sustained
him.
&wkey;>ll
were
Clubs
—Members
Judgment
was rendered in
his favor
individually
injury
while
to lineman
liable
constructing
telephone
association Walter Golden for
sum
line
$500
dam-
1925,'arts.
ages,
judgment
(Rev. St.
was also rendered in fa-
6137,'
1925, arts.
of Rev.
vor
St.
In
the other defendants. The defendant
providing- that
prosecuted
appeal.
Walter Golden has
this
cita-
binding
tion
members
telephone
members served
individual
upon allegations
Plaintiff’s suit was based
sued,
may be
members
individual
that
pаrticulars:
(1)
in two
That
construct
of association
truck,
the defendant’s driver of the
individually to line-
line were
telephone
unreeled,
which the
wires were
telephone
injured
line
man
for
while
rapidly
plaintiff
drove
truck so
required
go
in a trot in order to
do
work; (2)
failing
employ
his
sufficient
Court,
Appeal
Wichita Coun-
from District
number of men
to do
work.
Judge.
connection
Cook,
ty; W. W.
ground
negligence,
latter
with the
Walter
Wilder
Action
W. H.
alleged
scarcity
reason of the
From a
others.
Golden and
plaintiff
required
plaintiff
linemen
hold and
only,
he
defendant Golden
keep
position
each
with his
wire in
hand
appeals. Affirmed.
According
hands raised above
head.
allegations
petition,
Hankerson,
thus hold-
Morrow,
in the
while
Weeks,
Francis &
(cid:127)
necessarily
ing
appellant.
vision
.Falls,
the two wires his
Wichita
upward direction,
Falls,
Davenport,
in an
account
fixed
which he
Wichita
Bill
could not
the obstruction
pellee.
see
reaching
prior
Ac-
stumbled
it.
which he
cording
allegations,
DUNKLIN,
luncheon
if he
Members of a
to further
J.
required
hold
one
been
wire would
Park associated themselves
of Iowa
building
presence
of the obstruc-
discovered the
line have
for
from Iowa Park to
striking
City,
avoided
it.
tion in
distance of
time to
money necessary
jury,
carry
before a
found that
trial was
The
miles.
some 30
injured
employed by
project
while
was contributed
different
out
citizens
raised
a
lineman,
alleged
peti-
money
Park,
in his
ás a
of Iowa
and with the
defendant
tion,
damages
injury
line, buying
was as-
and for
constructed
formerly
$500.
sessed at
line
owned
South-
alleged
plain-
Corporation.
issues of
Walter R.
ern Oil
Golden was
findings
petition
tiff’s
and he
one of the
pur-
thereon
as follows:
were
active trustee for the
was selected
Digests
Key-Numbered
and Indexes
other cases see
i^nsFor
WESTERN
SOUTH
100 Tex.
And.
basis
pellant himself,
without the
which was
liable to
that
dependently
all
belonged
ized from such
proof
nership agreement.
partners
gence
contributing members,
themselves
Corpus Juris,
patronage
the cost of construction
should be realized
thus
cial
increase
phone line,
dertaken
further showed that
never realized
of the members of
territory
the construction
nership.
partnership
without
does
of
appeal,
plaintiff’s injury,
there could be no
ferent
to do the work
shown in
bility
working
that
firm
inafter
too
time
agents guilty
either
agents
Golden
“Special
“Special
“Special
[1, 2]
the
events,
fast,
venture for
members of
since
appears
negligence,
of the
they
show
between-
of
of
fail
defined,
forms the
the
plaintiff's
because,
Assignments
with him? Yеs.
ordinary partnership arrangement.
if
controversy
place
the defendants
the issues Nos. and
that
covered
Park
plaintiff’s petition, his
While it
testimony,
could be recovered
the
were members
from
appellant’s
evidence failed
that
necessity
Park
of a
injuries
of
Golden v. Wilder
4 S.W.2d 140
Tex. App.1928Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.