*1 SCHAFF Te?.) paramount nec- — that which 3. <&wkey;!005(4) Appeal and error in case of conflict Approved essarily wrong subordinate.” controls will not be sustained. clearly Though responsibility setting of by recognized stat- court as That against preponder- a verdict which is so ing of relations the true doctrine clearly spe- wrong ance of the evidence as governments, when cially and federal the state in rests the trial courts which means witnesses, measures in which the grant to war hear confined and their failure to persuasive, appellate principles new trials is and ideals of our for defense courts also must be satisfied- from authority the record before given pre-eminence and must be approval. the verdict their may cripple everything weaken prevail in rule should them. different Rehearing. On Motion for crying peace, emer- and when no times of extraordinary gency heroic and demands (&wkey;338 negligence 4. Railroads 'Contributory — negligence no defense measures. Following, interpretation peril. war of the negligent engineer by Supreme of an Court, failure use federal measure every means to avoid the accident after discov- Texarkana Justic'e Willson Court Chief ering plaintiff’s peril is such reckless indiffer- Appeals held, of Civil cited case ence as to be to the same civil conse- Payne v. McConnell: quences act, for willful or wanton so that regulations negligence rates and contributory “We think the in- by President, carriage baggage jured initiated is no thereto. defense power him in exercise of conferred on Engineer 5. Railroads i&wkey;>320 assume can mo- superseded war, — laws in state conflict times with crossing guarded approaching torcyclist same, appeared that it as matter of flagman will stop. not entitled to recover law that engineer The failure of an his en- sum excess $100.” gine immediately approach discovering motorcyclist passenger’s crossing ticket that ease was to a street at which exhibiting a directing after the transportation Tex., was on Dallas, for .stop negligence vehicles to Longview was not Junction, Tex., and the other facts discovering motorcyclist’s peril, since strikingly in this similar the facts case. had to assume that the the reversed, judg- will be motorcyclist reaching ment here rendered that recover crossing. against appellant, the sum $100 and that ’ appellee pay appeal. costs of this Appeal Court, from District Bexar Coun- ty; Minor, Judge. R. B. against Action Schaff, C. A. Verble C. E. Missouri, as receiver of the Railway Company Kansas & Texas (No. 6699.) SCHAFF v. VERBLE. Texas, to recover dam- ages personal Judgment for (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. San An- Rehearing plaintiff, brings tonio. March 1922. defendant Denied error. Re- April 12, 1922.) versed and remanded. Huff, Dallas, C. C. &wkey;s348(l) F. C. Davis and Railroads 1. motorcy- —Verdict crossing Teagarden, clist Antonio, B.W. held to evi- both of San contrary dence. plaintiff in error. motorcyclist In an action for ato Kelly, Antonio, Ben H. of San for defend- crossing deposition aat railroad of ant in error. motorcyclist absence of the crossing man at the and as the manner the COBBS, J. filed this suit unsupported by any accident occurred dence not evi- was^ appellant, Missouri, the receiver of the Kan- testimony, was contradicted Railway Company Texas, employéS, & Texas sas personal railroad but of dis- including injuries, interested an automobile the result of a collision driver who by riding between a and a plaintiff there, reached engine operated a street .finding special a verdict on all is- city Antonio, of San clearly against prepon- sues submitted alleges ap- was caused derance of the evidence. display pellant, in that the failed to Regardless jury <&wkey;37 2. Jury warning proper signal give trial, positive testi- time, proach mony unimpeached witnesses will not be charge and fireman neer failed sustained. warning approach require does not stop the same bell and failed to whistle or uphold manifestly the courts regard verdicts in dis- discovering seeing plaintiff after danger positive unimpeach- accident; that, avoid the in time to laws, natural ed witnesses or of notwithstand- actually party presence of a thereof. Digests igssFor Indexes topic other eases see same Key-Numbered KEY-NUMBER in all granted May 31, *Writ *2 (Tex, REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN angles general in a avoided the acci- direction from in time to Rave southeast discovered northwest, fireman, dent, exer- while street runs general ordinary care, a have northeast southwest. of could cise the in- He stated how have he could remember in time to avoided many jury. houses are on of the street either side hy general replied Appellant denial and near the but there are sev- knows obstructions, houses, special charging consisting eral trees, accident answer of either wholly complained signboards, due or of of were other obstructions and and height entirely impossible of to see sufficient to make it bringing right the ac- railroad about either to the or left of said which contributed you practi- track from street until cident and said upon spe- cally itself, right way a tried of The case was every says: right way the court cial issues submitted of itself. found favor of one of which was I accurate “I made think is an have what against appellant, upon accident,' showing court plat of scene way judgment against appellant including in fa- double- rendered street and of station, tracks, flagman’s ob- of $6,000. car scene vor of side.” struction either assignments first, second, third complain at of the court the refusal of such is made with clearness it, pellant’s request a to instruct perfect measure- lines and detail of set refusal witness, ment, would wonder how the one grant a new trial. working man —so claimed to be a laborer — Relegating assign- the discussion of the splendid plat- crippled, badly do propositions detail, impor- ments and accuracy. ting He does such skill here is whether tant profess an- it as the work attach liability established case of mat- as a- identification or attach it after looking course, ter law. This at part testimony, says, “I his but standpoint introduced. Well, plat.” is an accurate what I think direct offered to ac- all, to- street After it shows it so. appellant himself. His cident statement as very plain broad broad street with the supported by no is accident, but, other witness includ- contrary, flagman. ing flag He said- station overwhelming preponder- by the contradicted always saw of the defendant testimony of ance of witness- signs suspended at es witnessed the collision. letters, “containing large pole or short stick by deposi- ” standing word, ‘Stop.’ Usually the street city tion Waco. tracks, giving on or near the injury, appellee was a At the time of sign stop signal people passing_on aas govern- dispatch for the States rider United him past said street. “Have seen there ment, Camp Normoyle,, at deliver- stationed passed six or time I had more military dispatches camps from various day.” eight months, times a from four Antonio; offices in and near San He said: engaged eight in that work about been months; approached accident, I the cross- “The injured in a collision an away, anticipation ing, and, block more I slowed' when a Missouri, or train of & Kansas my some, in Railway ¡Company, crossing on Texas at No- danger crossing, and could not and did at said city galitos San Antonio. His street gotten until had about not see the X 30- places arm broken two between Katy track. I was on the feet from of the road elbow, going southwest, and his arm left left wrist and knee, bruises came run- ning ing the flag fingers me and wav- station towards and three then ran towards me. X discovered' amputation requiring hand approaching from north- backwards joint finger index between first west, going as far- southeast. about knuckle. was, and I about fast as off and states at the the accident he him either before or after do not think southeasterly direction, was ing rid- * * * I from his- the accident. Harley-Davidson motorcycle belonging flag as I about 30- and wave station government, crossing, and to- from or clear unable feet stop per hour, moving My south- ahead of the motor- cycle short of about east at the speed'; galitos about the rate 100- same much I was‘then less than along that he had been over said No- ** did slow the track. block or street said railroad away, more for- looked many during preceding times six months but also other evidences of a the train average at an of four times or more each danger. Having neither, seen day. my speed perhaps little, thinking I increased point The street aeeident was open and was no dan- the street from curb to curb. The rail- Immediately, seeing signal, ger. already as- right; practically hurriedly applied stated, brake,. road crosses SCHAFF v. (240 S.W.) put my motorcycle gear, above low throwed The switch head. machine, trying es- Katy turn so as to it around tracks, backed east on the and drove injury unsuccessful, cape as did danger, but was Katy to the south side of the tracks and enough so; to do time motorcycle it' was stopped. motorcycle coming He saw a *3 sooner, impossible for me to or to Nogalitos opposite from direc- the street prevent after I discov-' the accident driving up tion. First it while saw was peril; ered the or I don’t think I was Katy stopped to the passing appellee tracks before to let the over 30 engine the feet when I first discovered distant engine just go by. * * * was The witness am, danger. was, capable doing the P. track he first saw laborer, S. when a farmer or work; coming expected “He came other that is what I to do when the street. discharged, trying and have been to do it pretty fast,” since.” on to notice and did not seem street the watchman out center flagman A. F. testified Brown the was stop sign, notice the with’ switch nor seem to signals was to whose the to Nogalitos engine backing out into go accident, or on. time of At the he was street. It did not seem he slackened stánding in the middle of the street speed any his he or effort to do Katy track, holding up north side of the the engine, right up to switch was the stop signal, displaying and had been there failing, try stop, but, turn- to to seemed ed signal his stopped man, automobile, or Had for five minutes more. accident, when the left the to to avoid Graham, the witness in an motorcycle slipped from coming. up Ho came right the track into the middle both slid Katy waiting stopped, near the track for right about the middle under the tank engine pass, accident, the before the engine going at rath- street. switch was engine waiting was before the came onto the speed. Appellee was then er a slow street. After the tender and back of the en- put tank, from under the the gine got street, appellee out the came hospital. him to base witness took the speed him a behind 40 miles an pellee at hour, described be 35 sight, no obstruction no vehicle in There was and when witness saw any motor- man on the sort between the he was within 40 feet witness. cycle the the watchman the center circling, and had commenced witness flagman in his house. street. way. Appellee out had to signal waving his street out the was engine tender, circled and h'it the that would have the the hut blocks. seen for two have been could driving hit the wheels of Broussard, defend- a witness for Mrs. L. tank, After struck the street, Antonio. ant, San resided Oassiano engine about or 20 went 15 foet before the acci- with the familiar She was stopped, quick stop. which was a The en- present and witnessed was dent gine backing crossing, was the the walking she was accident the out in with neer on north side and the fireman half block from occurred about person approaching side. Flagman Katy crossing. Brown saw She crossing from the north could seen the standing of the street there center engine coming Katy depot from towards the sign, com- yards crossing. 350 obstruction from the There street; Nogalitos in about 20 was into person, coming prevent crossing heard when she feet seeing crossing, was said, go- engine, was she The switch crash. coming was, train one as this walking just creeping ing slow, along, yards Nogalitos street, yards. at least 60 flagman in the center was for her. The appellee up street, Witness he saw stated stop sign up. The bell with street the was coming crossing, was the reason he engine ringing tender and waving holding Nogalitos street. She did see came into people “stop.” all on both sides to Could see was between because the them man in further than the the auto- walking the cross- towards she side, but, mobile it was level on that ing. side, (automobile) coming rise Powell, in substance, up. going O. 'W. 5 miles an defendant, question, ringing. bell operating present at and at that he time of S. Gresham testified he was prior to, accident, Just the accident. saw had and then going of, government the United States service years, crossing, an hour. The familiar the rate of about three n out, signboards during passed daily pe- and had his to- man was which he had (witness) city. street, and he riod. Was on his was to' the As he wards right street, way. got crossing to the Before he P. tracks on yards. backing flagman switch about 200 saw a out to- out there from ward the street the west had been east The for,that rather slow. Saw the watchman witness adjusted out in the on the distance. center Katy holding stop edge showing witness, north side he had track .(¡Tex. 240 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER right way, expected way, this meant he should to use that My of gine signified I had to it. en- across, public go good was under control. was well anything unusual, he Before equipped air, with brakes and was about thinks the tender rate, not to an hour. exceed miles street; all across the in 15 or 20 feet.” continuously, and look- witness was the time ing time, Tegler, J. en- C. switchman a substance, time. When gine, pres- testified, in plaintiff, he thinks ent and witnessed the accident. He was north or 30 west and near the switch stand him. As when witness first discovered *4 train, street, protect belated to says: plaintiff’s speed, he watching He first saw and was plaintiff that train. making undoubtedly was “He from the railroad at about 75 feet * * I first discovered an hour when When Mm. track. him was The next he saw of why up got right track, he he around. It his machine was swerved you know, turned, kind of down he turned flash, turning done in machine and way. very busy track, the I at some the was engine falling. hit the tank going time, cident, was ac- I that there be an saw to fell under of him was it. next he saw quickly as and I turned around as could, you my up know, get after tank. the he and out from under to hold was I break valve engine plaintiff’s speed approach- I the the for- and release. threw he As to as quick stop, I movement to make says: ward ed the the witness “To the quick stop. stopped I 12 make—a in about did or 15 going my judgment, best he was miles 45 feet, anyway.” stopped an hour.” west of was (he in the street. When in-bound track plaintiff approaching he first cross- saw the turn, When the went the to ing, apparently he to not seem notice jumped did flagman keep of the road from out to engine flagman the or the either until he getting run over. fireman on the was got pretty dose, up to where he made engine; -ringing other side he was apparently the turn this was the was bell all time. It sec- the onds the but few flagman. he the or the saw “As to how plaintiff from he first the time saw go appeared I far he saw before to no- turned; pretty
'until he “he was near turn, tice and done in make that it was flagman flagman got the before out the flash, (snapping a gers) that was fin- I—it detae way.” plaintiff He first saw 40 flash, I that could not tell what the got flagman. Wit- feet he 45 before to I distance was from the time saw him- un- immediately (when stop not ness did he first gine, turn, til he the turn made this made toward plaintiff), saw the en- did reverse flagman then, or blow whistle he because way.” Witness saw him plain- sign up there, presumed saw the before he turned. It was not more than a re- tiff was quire because the rules turned, could, plaintiff second before he stopped stop. He him to have tracks, the car ap- using 12 or 15 flagman 30 or 40 feet from where the stood. pliances hand, at and did or 15 in 12 begin got He did he turn until plaintiff feet, begin saw as ás he soon flagman was. says: Again certainly “I circle. ex- Schwartz, O. G. fireman on the at stop.” pecting him to testified, the time of sub- Among things, upon cross-examina- stance, engine. that he In tion, he testified: proaching ques- on the occasion in got Mm “I feet very tion, saw 40 or 45 was before he that the time mov- flagman. far from the track ing per hour, and about 5 miles began circling, before he not as far ringing, ringing and had been say just I or 30 feet. couldn’t far I was how they 300 or 400 feet distant. from I wasn’t street when I first Mm. saw He was south side. He saw the au- Katy crossing far off from the approach from tomobile the south. It drove stop right immediately. was. I didn’t I did my stopped crossing. He never engine, not whistle reverse I did not blow motorcycle; op- did then, see the I because saw the there. presumed posite His attention side of because require to, open rules by seeing me that called to incident en- track; why kept going on, that be- gineer quick- make a movement I knew cause I had to that road. ly, after which went 12 or 15 feet and stopped got before I Could ever that ten- stopped. engineer good stop. made a street; der to the had I used the means at The end east tender lacked or 5 feet my hands, stopped could have reaching curb on the east side of feet; stopped 12 or 15 got stop; stop I could have watching the street. Witness was street. But I did not have time to side, bell, I had the and I did not accident.. of the fireman me the hundred At the rate of track less than railroad can manner he covered the distance between the lee or four times the As cles on wheels. to watch both and ger through dred something measure wholesale lieve or credit They the court and tions an in over contradicted weight bility” might there throws doubt single instruction ance were It could the and on the of sues,” timony interested used carefully He tion where he daily Boone, ed in a court tain No may [1] the evidence the who motorcycles witnesses, wholesale right way, ground appellee, like every yards sides; medical four other Notwithstanding told is no circumstance the value of seen permitted witness ground, credibility and refused to follow court while not there to start a handled. court of of a supposed lawyer, be offered to establish jury entirely they disregard physical witness grilling as he seconds and the fact deposition, damages, testimony this would be testimony the accident covered the last given corps, have the court, himself, be charged to run from be arrived says speed given by testifying, disregard upon Henry day; to show were are passed side; 6y2 against appellant, seconds, witnesses, one, all the obstructions, flagman giving properly weighed. approached fraction court Bearing second, jury might testimony travel they cross-examination where bative value of its utterance. The justice If, to their facts, United cannot turn used and services, affirmative be the witnesses and Hunt was offered “the'exclusive should was when “the burden rests whose as stated judgment disregarded n this than testimony so that his “credi most found does “credibility” E. M. and the last hun- impossible. of over 30 miles an and law. contrary. and T. Wood feet States testimony,” last 150 feet him of 15 miles of a its own street this hundred appellee’s. He shanty preponderance traffic refusal measurements if notwithstand within familiar not watch mind emphatically fastest control to and Sward, cap- every Mr. W. W. man out of dan- any. rather preponder by jury be SCHAFF v. single appellant. to stand. case that Army, E. seen and the seconds. some saw the jury as well instruc the tes which caused officers, tolerat meant that the judges to be direct yards signs. them. hour, three They issue saw of a The vehi- Such posi- pass Had and Co. Ry. dis the rial the v. up his courts is as the switchman in new as. seem would the A ance their of witness sion to of the slowed aside; pendently scribed requires rate an onds. timony is his plainly fast,” testimony courts close seconds. ed er or not the while coming verdicts cient responsibility tified ho could have ment interest, may arise in the the conscience of and 6% ty distances, [2, is physics legally nice Syfan (Tex. upon v. Loeffler property, position out the v. Jones issue. However sacred the shanty, seconds, courts will not shut unreservedly 3] The of the evidence as until, touch with the ears to the trials and the failure of the way, warning will It, and the contradict down the speed.” is little shall is nor manifestly two blocks Taking required jury upon again broad for itself sufficient to supposed right, its hear, feet. While judiciary physical unimpeached contemplates distance was covered (Tex. speed,” which cannot diminished the fact, be taken as that the a little to (Tex. evidence specially manner of Civ. must have been determination, 'observing courts grave responsibility persuasive, described as a feet would have paved trial of collision. within the investigate, natural prevented, appellee Civ. surrendered instance, appellee, App.) Civ. court away, “going juries and with the weight facts and of a case. court shall witness .shall- “all questions every App.) deprive in a be, started to run cautiously never App.) their rests “he determining witnesses. 43 S. look, laws or ran into to run their upon rate of done in a testifying. uphold mad set came on legal courts to particular less time utterance running clearly wrong, Gresham evaded.” eyes 59 S. W. view “pretty rapid on. the his machine At 15 W. a citizen is, every such verdict “When appearance, of fact be preponder which was S. been judgments speed rules mind look into and least 150 does nor and hear appellate it 553; to reach them in the tes positive W. 369. of find is 6Vz entirely of trial neither a Ry wheth *5 flash,” are in pretty is mate grant down miles tank. judg colli- pret- inde said,' suffi- laws plac than 562; This trial ease pro pre that that first tes- sec- But Ry. 3% Co. a (Tea. REPORTER 240 SOUTHWESTERN
neer again arise, vious made sonably long, necessary ness very think the if he had his machine under tions and one look, look and as The as man, w'as well the ped. neer’s lee’s have Ry. pellee only going street where few W. ments and that osition, should be Ry. Tex. Maccabees decided firmed, this Civ. Tex. Civ. Schmidt, the contrast! ed should be courts, too, twice reversed. (Tex. than 50 body We have We have Much blowing soon flagman’s stop 713. Both same distance after he saw Co. v. listen for the traveling that as seconds. printed appellee ringing; App.) seen witness did not see fully Civ. App.) enormous 441, who from the view and listen before This same that to, Civ. this testimony. Now, supported within Garcia, unless the has been said feet of the train as released appellant assignments presented, to discuss App. 12 S. W. Somers, App.) affirmed signal exposed obeyed clear; v. Gillis 190 W. this been at unusual the whistle and must be satisfied opinion for this court. track he saw the Tex. 230 S. carefully and confine our brief appellee, Boone, stop flag, approaching of a never so that 12 to 15 feet. How safety If, testimony pro 75 Tex. engine stopped duty 188 S. 285; Ry. alone flag signal man in automobile credited. it, signals says the air and Dimmitt but 75 as crew 85 S. road to per track, only matter of a testimony of we should (Tex. stopped; them, 94; W. Tex. took last-named possible, the was as 800; criticism read all who it take hour when W. Hines v. approval. that 591, according appellee W. Ry. 1082; moving may everyone should Co. there some Civ. 439, expected as notice Lans stopped. reasonably' pains of this case it were, control? v. appellee as 28; opinion v. reason v. Lucas off. The oral see; appellant much flagman, and uncorroborat be made says, 14 S. reversed App.) the1 disregarded, Robbins, 74 Ry. *6 at his the track— The Walker, Roan and do not train, Knights S. W. 223. within v. Bristow cases were automobile across as it within argument tire appellate may So con and else. of bells. great proposi by dep- danger, W. set out obeyed within Mo. Every- unrea- trains, Co. 144 S. record not time; judg (Tex. (Tex. engi- stop- post wit- any less 779, ob- af- It P. is and is is one of discovered Co. cites although men in civil this lee said he work for are much labor as not ly incident. The been connection with his that This incidental handed little or to a accident, showing the'street, false obligation knot or a his left hand was farmer, is est labor. wages is much less than and seems “Witness er show was caused of double car much, based cating that his claim for but has no of the court to did not consider and remand this case for another of each assignment challenging stand, granting taken. “His arm was set and [4] The reference We are larger work, referred level much, injuries appellee says having any bearing (Tex. setting and that we do not s.eems wounds are not very challenge statement position, among position. upon appellee’s especially -collision, leaving execution man.” did, party, no so farmers or case of Wilson v. of discovered rising it On presented, severe made a lump Sup.) or more honorable one than it is beside the impressed. statement of a fact in the track, flagman's station,” etc., to think that case should control much criticism at strength There are to wish to hereby is in “capable unwilling seemed strength, and can now still do engineering Motion for his stiffer, living. is laborer, has again to our grant in our or an abscess 234 S. W. We know and inflict much capacity capable trial. error amputated, we reverse the plat filed a night; damages in it. The index artisans. And it and the other peril motion, a new trial. and still pass However that not did. holding breaking; statement opinion many highly to let peril. before the apparently no doubt doing Rehearing. permanent, to do excellent received at the time capable is the court on all very supposing Southern Traction question only conclude 663, We sustained the scene of the practically impressed doing received, the middle larger confined the writer with which we authorities, this would seem to case, appellee ground pains condition, In work trial. as conclusive other work.” we pain. able brief is no that in his assignments based engaged finger what injury, statement, merely sore, but mere- and has doing judgment this case educated Mm finger but have erred may kind of may alleged largely viz.: in record, refusal is well higher healed, a one- seems brief, finger over upon it is in a- hon- indi- earn stiff. oth- is a be, an we an be in in YORK v. ROBBINS the rule therein followed ber injury how far the means at the that doctrine. Ofttimes to actually nothing across look, evidence of “reckless ing iled We are took of the facts, have been with Mr. Justice ruling ered the he was ing, pellant, If quick anyway.” fliction reckless indifference ery to unusual Torts man all the time —as pellee that haps * * * or in to be an disputed saying will not characterized sequences “For, We have the realized the above failure Tex. quickly causing human time, right human life of decisions the bell was peril, decided in that listen at looking doctrine, riding more (3d tlie brake no act on subject, of death danger required backing and we do and could save imminent, different safety and before willful after it of such Ed.) that the Supreme position He could have done is in a defense. nature absolute, peril street, perhaps cannot so use case: overlooking valve himself. back engineer’s consequence forward stopped otherwise than here than which had p. or serious —not could, you ordinary to act ringing continuously defense Greenwood what track, in 1442.” 234 S. conduct should be clear W. 533. in suffering and was discovered have been averted imperiled of imminent and release. towards the causing wanton Court. was about 15 or 20 see how conduct “one realized that the failure a wanton signifying our any soon as he indifference part case, will not save himself.” before. train, Railway crossings, etc., holding appellee, We movement destroying human life still “saw watching stop and turned and command, chance —or care to avoid the jaws holding pea from another.” turned in cases of discov the cases differ bodily injury subject. There is know, beyond And because, thoroughly act. where it consists left to human There is modification —saw bring inception per- Co. v. wrong against There peril, to do so contributory engineer un- W. around to avoid the great in the law death, the discov- consistent threw determine Cooley more, exhibiting cannot or suffering civil con the same anything 665. it under destroy- as nothing make was no Shetter, seemed and he can be by the imper- by ap would public cross- agree wait, num own said, hold says par an in in .the ly in the settled law. gence, pra: jected fendant of the going to denying 2. any tion is overruled. said, there was evidence mony ment, der his when he covery amount sion of cause and thus avert foolish words what appellee as well as tion that and -his utter any contradict 1. (Court “For, “The tors. vests in attach, ed So There [5] discovered more Appeal YORK Fraudulent concurrence Where injured party grantor means there was personal fault, sane or reasonable contributory negligence in Wilson v. Southern Traction March judgment. obviously seemed objected conveyance ato pronouncements observation, but was nevertheless not of Civil the defense of stop. would into judge was not before Court v. ROBBINS order for an act or grantee constitute defendant the case was peril nothing the fact circumstances, defendant, want vests the title in the more peril plaintiff’s injury.” disregarded incompetent step consideration. error has shown he relied injury case, conveyances <@=>179(2) April to sufficient to sustain a competent obey within did not 1922. Still, Appeals it plainly eases cases emphatic.” by step on which Appeals power to his <@=>931(6) aside from ordinary care, rights contributory negligence 19, 1922.) defraud the creditors of danger. He uses some had a Mr. now Rehearing become the negligent contributory negligence have been take the tried et of this court real presented urge obvious to of Texas. Amarillo. urged, man evidence to contributory negli- Justice knowledge has and to al. must it must not said: —Court is no defense all an promptly grantor’s deprived (No. would. omission act or omis- presume *7 real Denied surrounding evidence ob- progressive- but it Greenwood others grantee rely upon oral proximate court, 1935.)* used all on, suppose evidence and un presum- lien can Co., become party’s the re- do not (Sup.) credi- acted must, a de- testi- judg- Title did, mo- mo- su- topic Key-Numbered Digests @=>For see same other cases KEY-NUMBER in and Indexes May 31, granted *Writ of