Ramona Armendariz brought this suit to recover damages arising from personal injuries, sustained while in the service of appellant. At the time of the accident she was engaged in оperating a mangle, and received injuries to her hand upon which the suit is based. It was alleged that the mangle was dangerous and its operation hazardous; that she was a minor, inexperienced and ignorant of its danger and of the proper method of its operation, and defendant was negligent in failing to give proper instruction and warning regarding the mangle and its operation. Defendant answered by exceptions, general denial, and a special plea as follows:
“That on or about the 7th day of July, A. D. 1892, defеndant was duly incorporated by and under the laws of the state of Texas for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a hospital in the city of El Paso, Tex., for benevolent and charitable purposes, at which hospital the members of said corporation are to administer to the sick and afflicted of all nations, and to enable its members to receive the sick,’the helpless and afflicted, and to nurse and care for and alleviate their pain and suffering, and to restore them as far as possible tо health; that by the terms of said charter said corporation is to exist for 50 years from said date of 1892, and that it has still thereafter existed and now exists and owes its life and function to said charter; that the members of said corporation are Sisters of Charity, and that no person can be at any time a member of said corporation un *182 less she is а Sister oí Charity; that there is no capital stock, and no stockholders in said corporation, and no profits or dividends have ever accrued or can accrue to any person from or by reason of said corporation; that defendant, as to all property and moneys in or to which it has or may acquire title or interest, holds аnd will hold same only in trust for the charitable use and purposes for which it is organized ; that at all times since the organization of said corporation, said defendant, in comрliance with its charter power and obligations, has received into said hospital the sick and afflicted of all nations, and has administered to, nursed, and cared for such sick and afflicted, without profit; that if any such sick or afflicted who are received in said hospital are able and willing to pay for such care and nursing, the same is received, and the money so received is by defendant applied to the paying for the care and nursing of- such sick and afflicted received in said hospital as are poor and unable to pay for their care and nursing; that it was organized and exists for charity, and is a public charity corporation, and that it administers to the sick and afflicted pоor of all nationalities without any regard to any consideration of class or of social or religious associations, and receives, nurses, cares for, and maintаins the said helpless and afflicted poor in vast numbers, without any compensation whatever; that the members of said defendant corporation devote their time and lаbor to the care and nursing of the sick and afflicted without receiving any compensation therefor; that neither the said defendant corporation nor any member of said corporation receives any profits for the care and nursing of said sick and afflicted, and that all the property owned'by said defendant, and all money reсeived from patients who are able and willing to pay for the care and nursing, is used entirely for said charitable purpose of caring for the sick and afflicted in acсordance with the provisions of the charter of said defendant.. Defendant states that the work of ironing clothes by means of said mangle was a part of the work necessary to be done and being done for the purpose of taking proper care of said patients in defendant’s hospital, and was part of the work of washing the hospital linens for the use of patients under defendant’s care; that said institute, Hotel Dieu, obtains its property, subsistence, and maintenance from donations, bequests, contributions, and payments aforesaid, by. patients able and willing to financially aid said charity in return for hospital accommodations furnished to them, without any profit possible of attainmеnt to the members of said corporation, whose services are given thereto as a gratuity; that all funds and property held or holdabie by said corporation arе, for the sole object and purpose of said public charity, a special trust assumed by it under the Constitution and laws of Texas; that it does not and cannot own funds or property subject to execution for damages herein sued for; and that judgment against it for the alleged wrongs set up by plaintiff would be nugatory and to no purpose.”
Defendant in its answer specially averred:
“That if said Ramona Armendariz sustained personal injuries pleaded and charged in the petition of plaintiff, the proximate cause of said injuries, if any, was the negligence, not of defendant nor of its agents or representatives, or of any one whose negligence is in law chаrgeable against defendant, but of fellow servants of said Ramona Armendariz, her coemployes on the occasion charged, for whose negligence defendаnt is not in law responsible, and of whose negligence plaintiff, Ramona Armendariz, assumed the risk.”
By the answer the question is thus sharply raised whether defendant’s negligence was the prоximate cause of the injury. Conceding, therefore, the insufficiency of the petition in this respect, the defect was thus aided and cured by the answer. Fitzhugh v. Conner,
The fifth, sixth, and seventh assignments, together with the third proposition under the ninth, relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. They, and the tenth, being all regarded as without merit, are overruled.
Affirmed.