*1
y.
Tes.)
405
STOCKWELL MELBERN
the
testimony
versal of
it was
the
for and
as a
timony,
of such
and
ment,
heard
instructed
be admitted
negative
the
experience
sel who
ment,
ed
of
be
train in time to
of
there
mission
mony
We will not discuss the force of this conten- purchase money, sought a foreclosure of the
thing
as
be made
discovering
tion,
of the issue of
defendant’s
versed, and the cause remanded.
may
growing
land as
Execution
land;
by defendant,
damages,
filed cross-bill to
previously
ment
the contract and
posing
judgment, though
ment,
ty;
complainant,
and
so
(Court
that such
Cent.
ciency —Issues—Determination.
STOCKWELL v.
Error has been
[Ed.
For the errors noted the
[6]
Appeal
Suit
contributory negligence
the
omitted,
by
impliedly against
soon
jury
company
place
In a
a
error
Sam’l J.
ordering
be
walkway.
on
Counsel
as the evidence to
May 26,
Dig.
of the
was no
possible
and
of the
to
which was
notwithstanding
objected
the
by
of the issue of
assignment complaining
of Civil
Note.—For other
security
perhaps,
strengthened upon
harmful nature
of
his cross-action
out of a contract to
against
stated
as the
cancel
used the same and
character
upon another
together
prior
from District
the
Elmer
was offered
sufficient
judgment,
the
of the
paid.
§§
has
defendant. A further discussion
of
hearing,
that
his
as it
upon
7*)
(§ employes
engineer
and
plea
7-15, 17-20;
and
to the
it
for
judgment,
evidence to authorize
Styles,
21
jury
1914. On Motion
was done to
suit
negligence
to was withdrawn
a
Appeals
peril. Appellant
been
substantially
duebill, adjudging
for the
avoid
sold
boy’s peril
P.
issue,
The
foreclosing a
would
contract;
railway
Defendant recovered a
to
years
plaintiff in
is not
another
assigned
it
informal, was a final
with a vendee’s lien on the
recover $850
of
—-Final
accident.
manifestly
to
MELBERN.
to
we
June
Stockwell
by complainant,
recover
public
though
contributory negligence,
defendant,
and fireman that
assigned to this
Judge.
under
sustain
admission
disregard
in
exemplary
injuring
to show
$850, part
in
doubt
for
Court,
trial.
the
as
of Texas. Galveston.
not
likely
cases,
18, 1914.)
as to
but
failing
trial.
support
companies
on the
view
Dec.
Judgment
was
and
the
to the submission
another trial.
an
$10,000 exemplary
to use thfe
not
avoid
execution.
in
fact
was discovered.
judgment
bis
an execution.
purchase
it
that
lien on
Evidently
against
the court also
that
Brazoria Coun-
improper,
actual
$850, canceling
the
attorney
a
see
require a re-
any
Dig.
the
strongly
of
is of
and
a
it.
expressly
of
for
argument
of
(No.
damages,
costs
duebill
insists that
to
part
of
that when
during
license
the
that
this
same will
Execution,
it
the
boy
defendant
that
event be
The
Re-
§ 7.*]
by
stop
the
the
—Suffi
that
the
damages
he
6750.)
Charles
such
should
against
certain
injury
of the and to
every-
is re-
track
coun
argu
argu
testi-
Held,
after
issue
given
judg-
both
judg-
price
plea
this
urg
sub-
land
will
had
tes-
the land theretofore entered
his
dis-
the
by plainant’s
did
to
a
to
the
forcing
junction,
Houston, for
his favor in said court
W.
lant;
is not
which he
paid
order
bern and
shown,
district
for
well
ages, being the amount he had theretofore
certain land which Stockwell claimed to
tiff Stockwell and his eodefendant
suit
W. J.
Brazoria
well
bern and
$850
vendee’s lien on the
was
ing by
lien.
upon
bern on his cross-action
and
canceling
$10,000 exemplary damages, and, claiming a
West and Melbern for
lands;
and
as
judgment
ecuted
and
would not
cross-action which
annum
dering its sale as under execution.
dispose
in
now enforced in
ory
Whatever
are of the
final
(4)
of
err
all
McMEANS,
It
Elmer
The
grant
the
against
$150
Melbern. From an order
adjudging all costs
exemplary
appellee,
filed
judgment
West:
the issues
(5) foreclosing
of
duly
appears
theretofore
in
and
in
Stockwell
Elmer
the
judgment,
Johnson and Edward S.
of
The case was
early
injunction
the other
specifically
had
by
Interest
his suit
(3)
cancel the
part payment
a
court of
of
given
Hon. Samuel
refusing
a
P.
he
sought
a cross-bill
J. J.
coming
rendered
the
county against
West
contention
judgment
was
may have been the
application
Stockwell
Melbern
that
therefore
canceling
opinion
temporary
brought a
(1)
P. Stockwell.
Stockwell,
appeals.
decisions
appellee.
that
contract between
Charles W.
J. This
by
was
West,
not
on a
For
damages
from
part
of
paid
and
properly presented by
against
part,
to recover
Melbern
in
this
Brazoria
was
to
Stockwell,
rendered in
stated. Melbern in that
that
a
that
the
contract
final
prayed
$850,
and
of the verdict
land
tried
theretofore
contract of
lien
on certain
the duebill
n
the
support
that
against
September 26,
of defendant
by
of
and
J.
state
grant
injunction restraining
of
for
suit
Affirmed.
is an
for a
sought
of
one
Stockwell take noth-
the
n
the
him Stockwell as
Styles, judge
because
Melbern
West
our
with 6
appellant
character of which
in
against
against
against
as
and West
Melbern,
into
before a
to
the
the court
against
Charles
Angleton,
in
$850
for
county,
seems
"favor of
part
judgment
purchase
of
security
appeal
cancel
to
both the
the
courts,
execution.
Boyles,
at a date
the district
temporary
rule,
upon
land,
'between Mel-
Stockwell and
denying
favor of
to
land,
sale of said
the
per
rendered
actual dam-
purchase
for
it failed
and Stock-
the
and
West,
injunction.
Stockwell;
Stockwell;
to
jury,
Stockwell
judgment
Melbern’s
from
a duebill
to
as stated
W. Mel-
West,
1912;
that
from
refusing
cent,
recovery
$150
the
and for
Melbern
the rule
did not
pro
both
for the
and
be
of
Stock-
appel-
of
plain-
awas
West,
com-
own,
Mel-
that
and
the
not
the
and
per
en-
We
the
the
in-
ex-
the
an
se.
or-
(2)
in
in
of
of
of
to
Dig.
Dig.
Key-No.
&
Rep’r
Series
& Am.
Indexes
in Dec.
and section
topic
other cases see
NUMBER
*For
same
*2
(Tex.
168 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
406
presumed
large,
pleadings
posed
insufficiency
dis at
have been
to
or
will
that
be
the
of the owner’s
or
proximate
known,
E.’s
a
fences were
as to constitute
appears
by
judgment
it
unless
of
the
appear
injury,
cause of
must
an
it
judgment
it
the
otherwise from the face of
-reasonably
person
prudent
would,
that a
under
Price,
self.
The
Stockwell v. Melbern
168 S.W. 405
Tex. App.1914Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.