suеs Cortimeglia erpool graph 875; tory finding, W. phase would fact tered. ed, in n contingency findings, if, Civ. sues he McShane, orably finding courts for there to tain judgment, pellant tered'judgment to enter ment regardless was not the cause jury required found cident, his in found that because of said conflicts. same was jury’s findings tered set the that (Tex. pellee such conflict the stroys on the rule further, since the ligence entered [4, [1] [2, not 211; it must brief, finds appellant 5] Where the this contention. 3] It issues one found a number App.) with reference Miller v. are Appellant cited; Co. conflict, Civ. that the that where & Texas Electric findings be entitled extent said giving intelligible findings for which at judgment that the conformity Deal refuse would London in such judgment not the cause and under other, his all, guilty doing is the universal App.) appellee findings v. be such as a Mayo Harris v. v. Craven caused of Davis, would Lemm main for the court the trial court should refuse of may be inconsistencies in the found he had been aside not be and the presents agаinst appellant. party would be entitled to the $500, and therefore findings & Globe conflict 234 S. court that, of the matter of for him for said guilty v. Ft. W. & D. C. W. negligence, are in with thereon, was a conflict which 705. In work, court should enter contentions his essential not authorize the trial jury, was the (Tex. ‘judgment. Railway Western Union since the of should should TRAVELERS’ different answers other four injury, guilty W. of the ordered instructions Appellant’s Ins. Co. Cabler conflict. the judgment on might apparently the trial court Civ. contributory neg cannot and аuthorities conflicts in the is no 937; holding answers to cer order, however, jury’s Com. law, result of an ac propositions findings found which it controlling findings; declare a mis v. Burt amount not of App.) should have should have enter being that, to other is a new trial finding no and in no The mere contradic negligence App.) Austin v. We over have damaged findings that amount, were Ry. conten of our 276 S. be en Based Under enter S. W. *1 INS. CO. v. WASHINGTON found The found his judg Tele judg (Tex. Liv may said fav and 5 S.l Co. the ap- de en en- is '.(3<D viewed on an ined all of ployee’s issues, pear suddenly jury destroys overruled. supported by dence. The cause tried, that the appellant, der the court was titled to findings was ployment, TRAVELERS’ INS. judgment. ter of pellant not jury’s able appellee ed his contributory negligence; ceived answer injury; ción claim for hernia under Rev. St. 1. Master (Tex. which reviewabie. sudden and claim for hernia Appellant [6] Master and issue on which Jury’s damages guilty judgment entitled to a propositions effect of the compensatiоn accident. Appellant’s found'each of them Civ. law, findings, was the result of the risk injury; unchallenged adverse 12b, favor on that the on each of entitled to. findingbeing against appeal. phase judgment of App.) according which it was returned undеr which finding 8306, 12b). not entitled to recover does not attack would be any negligence there must be a being unsupported and. servant immediate may findings servant April 16,1928. was that of the trial was of the cause negligence (No. § testimony. is defeated judgmеnt contention that all thereunder, jury’s finding appellant seems to claimant the result for the S. W. error recover, <§=>268(2) CO. <§=>418(3) Only remedy found that appellant four of the enumerated jury having findings appellant issues submitted in this 1683.) of action. $500. case, according of Texas. April appearance controlling issues, law, decisive-issue. that v. WASHINGTON. was returned is not hernia did not against appellant. $500 of court which caused the have been is to refusing We have exam- Since assumed; an of the thе amount of questioned, appellant and same its favor. of an finding —Evidence finding was said amount. entitled to a is appellee employee findings are Beaumont. untenable. compensa- under as a mat claim for any sum, (Rev. guilty affirmed. jury, unavoid of error jury, that, his em in em- amply fairly caus ren was evi- 783 are ap en its of in
<§=For cases *2 REPORTER, 2d SERIES WESTERN 6 SOUTH following by presented remedy injury depended, were questions, to chal- Ms juris- having lenge finding; indicated: answered as obstante vere- non diction to enter dicto. plaintiff, “Special Issue No. 1. Was the performing AVashington, George his duties injured, while employment Re- of the Gulf ground (2) Any of relief fining Company, by producing sending by plaintiff pleaded held waived suffering relating hernia?” a special alone to on Issues “Yes.” The answered: ground relief. “Special hernia of No. the said Issue Did on his case Plaintiff Washington, plaintiff, George exist the said any special relating alone issues prior degree injury this for which pleaded statute, special suit is filed?” gеneral' ground statute relief under “No.” answered: “Special No. 3. Did said hernia of Issue being plaintiff, George Washington, appear <3=930(3) 'sud- —Case relating denly immediately injury?” special issues on submitted to relief, pre- ground there Is no answered: “No.” tо one alone “Special injury sumption No. Issue 4. Was the said ac- court’s companied by pain?” 1925, ground (Rev. art. St. on other 2190). answered: “Yes.” case was submitted Where returned, special (cid:127)On the answers thus alone relief, under Rev. appellee’s can be no was entered in cepted favor. He has ac- 2190, inde- St. question the verdict without and has verdict, to-support jury’s plaintiff pendently assignment against made the a of relief jury. Appellant attacks certain of the being pleaded, waived (cid:127) findings being as without in the evi- manner of submission. dence, against being great weight or as and cepts but ac- Work- Master and servant <3=401 —Under Act cam men’s No. 3. n covery only injury questions Its the other Compensa- In action under the Workmen’s are overruled. We believe the evidence sus- (Yernon’s art. 8306 Act Ann. tains the seq.), et all other [1-3] On this verdict insists that allegata, plaintiff, hav- the a conform to judgment should have been in its rendered injury alone, pleaded ing can recover appellee’s favor and that the fa proof injury, and of such injury general pro- non coming vor was this obstante veredicto. We believe within some other proposition statute. This was an visions sound. action solely Appellee sought based on hernia. Court, from District Jefferson theory. 8306, 12b, lief on no other Article Judge. Campbell, County; J. D. 1925, provides: Washington by George Action resulting “In all claims for hernia from in- Company. Judgment Travelers’ Insurance jury must be the board: employment, sustained course of it appeals. plaintiff, and defendant definitely for ed and remanded. Revers- proven satisfaction of injury resulting “1. That was an Todd, Pipkin Oliver J. Charles and A. D. hernia. Moore, Beaumont, appellant. all of appeared suddenly “2. That the hernia Johnson, Arthur, of Port Rose & immediately following pellee. “3. That the hernia did not exist in de- gree prior injury for which is claimed. WALKER, appeal J. This is the second injury accompanied by “4. court, first, reported from this pain.” Washingtоn, Travelers’ Insurance Co. v. Supreme Court, requirements Wash- of this statute from were cov Co., ington charge. Appellee v. Travelers’ Insurance 290 S. W. ered the court’s could reports recovery only upon 738. We refer to those for a full have a in his complete Indemnity statement nature of this favor on these four issues. Insurance Briefly stated, this is an cause of action. Co of North . America v. Jones ruling peal Mingus Wadley, of the Industrial Accident Civ. Washington’s rights Board, involving to com- 115 MсPhee & Mc Compensa- Ginnity pensation under Workmen’s Co. v. Industrial Commission of Colo (Vernon’s rado, Ann. Civ. St. tion Act 67 Colo. P. 268. It was as es seq.). appear “suddenly the ease hernia sential that the 8306 et presented immediately injury” pleaded ory, fqllowing the the- as that Washington employment, hernia in in the course of his the occur employment. any degree prior The issues that- it did not exist due Key-Numbere’d ail other cases KEY-N.UMBER. <S=5For v. GIRARDEY McDADE plaintiff necessarily accompanied True, loses his case. or that plead specific injury by pain. the hernia and in the al- Therefore suddenly general provi- fol ternative an sions, did not lowing destroyed event, failing of ac his 'cause in which to sustain accepted count, propеr proof go him first he could on tion. As this *3 appeal, second; questioned on the evi- but under and not pleadings, plaintiff upon was returned if which the to denee sent case submitting only specific us. Neither the trial be reviewed on issues jurisdiction here, has to nor this court as was done court a Appel- against him, veredicto. non obstante it would be said on finding, only general to he provisions, lee’s relief was had waived his claim under the reversed, the trial court is overruled, rehearing here rendered The motion for favor. rendered. Reversed and (No. 9096.) McDADE v. GIRARDEY. Rehearing. of Texas. Galveston. [4, Appellee insists that his cause of ac 5] March 1928. only specific pleaded involved not tion as Compensation provisions April 5, of the Workmen’s 1928. hernia, but also Act relating <@=>139(1) verdict is not —Instructed injuries generally great may authorized no matter how he the employment. We no doubt of his preponderance of evidence. petition, of his but our construction about do not review it Trial court is not authorized instruct further, since under the re to return verdict for either no mat- Supreme Court Orms cent decision by great may prepofiderance ter how be the S.W.(2d) Ratcliffe, such addi favor of for whom instruсtion given, waived, only per- grounds even since instructed tional of relief were verdict is missible, raising whére there is no evidence Appellee is- they had sue of fact. given on the issues case to the request original opinion. He made no Appeal <@=>302(6)Appellate- and error — gener issue under the the submission court could not consider whether verdict was against preponderance evidence, Having only- where sent his al the statute. ground of new trial was-that evidence did' relating alone to on issues not sustain verdict. speci hernia, fically of relief was ground' Where new was not asked on presumed, un It cannot great preponder- verdict so con der article injustice, ance of evidence as to manifest Ormsby Case, supra, strued in the the only contrary that it was that there independent court dict, ver legal it, was no evidence to sustain support a under the facts to failing defendant, court erred in to instruct for general prоvisions of our Workmen’s Com appellate court could not consider pensation Act. In the case cited it was said: whether verdict was so required of evidence as to have trial court to proper legal “It is a that all сor- grant new related, supplemental, supporting judgment, should be found favor of a <@=>742(4)Assignment separate not ist, the independent grounds agent showed that evidence was unauthorized presumed submitted not be so can ex- give to examine title did time to-, but must held agent to have been waived proposition that was unauthorized party failing their to ask submission.” accept check. Assignment predicating error on refusal of' [6] What we have said makes certain our trial ground agent unаuthorized to ine title of to instruct verdict for defendant on< original conclusions, plea undisputed unless a under the evidence showed that specific provisions of defendant who contract was- necessarily executed of the statute give plaintiff days to exam- involves the essentials of an under the property support prop- held general provisions; and, proof failing and-judgment complaining of verdict on- osition specific yet raising, an issue agent аuthority plain- ground tiff’s check quired accept had no general provisions, the case should payment money earnest re- go jury. We do not think that con contract. given struction should our Workmen’s <@=>742(4)Proposition act, Act. Under that as in all ground agent complaining verdict on was. other allegata. must conform to the accept check did unauthorized lenge not chal- recovery, had, must be on the undisputed’evidence-, allegations petition. Having pleaded agent authority. no such had showed specific injury, specific injury, complaining Proposition of verdict and allegations, agent authority sustain the had no <@=>For other cases see same —50