Opinion

Texas Central Railway Co. v. Stuart

  • 1 Tex. Civ. App. 642
  • 20 S.W. 962
  • 1892 Tex. App. LEXIS 127
Court
Court of Appeals of Texas
Filed
Oct 18, 1892
Status
Published
Author
Head
On the bench
Head
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.3%

The opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HEAD, Associate Justice.

The judgment rendered in the court below was in favor of the minor, without mentioning her next friend, and appellant in its motion for rehearing insists that this was not a final judgment, and asks that the appeal herein be dismissed.

We are of opinion that in this class of cases a judgment in favor of the minor without in express terms disposing of the next friend, is a final' judgment from which an appeal can be taken. In addition to the authorities referred to in the original opinion herein, see Railway v. Hewitt, 67 Texas, 473 ; Oil Company v. Thompson, 76 Texas, 235 ; Savings Bank v. Wales, 3 Ct. App. C. C., see. 244.

We are also of opinion that the disposition we have made of the case in holding that the remarks of the 'judge in the presence of the jury, to *649 the effect that he entertained doubts as the admissibility of the report made by the physicians appointed to examine appellee, were not such as to call for a reversal of the case. As said by Justice Henry, in the case of Smith v. Traders National Bank, 82 Texas, 368 , “It is practically impossible for a court to make its rulings on questions arising during the trial without saying something in explanation.”

Delivered December 22, 1892.

The motion for rehearing will therefore be overruled.

Motion overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.