Abilene S. Ry. Co. v. Herman

2 Citing cases

  1. Tucker Oil Co. v. Matthews

    119 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 14 times
    Directing verdict for one of several defendants who had polluted stream because plaintiff could not prove how much damage was caused by that defendant

    A number of authorities might be cited in support of this conclusion, including the following: Joske v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059; Mauk v. Texas Pipe Line Co., Tex. Civ. App. 93 S.W.2d 820, writ dismissed, and numerous other decisions therein cited. Also De Garza v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex. Civ. App. 107 S.W.2d 1078, writ dismissed; Abilene Southern Ry. Co. v. Herman, Tex. Civ. App. 31 S.W.2d 682; Sun Oil Co. v. Robicheaux, Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 713; Texas Pacific Fidelity Surety Co. v. Hall, Tex. Civ. App. 101 S.W.2d 1050, writ dismissed, and decisions there cited; Windfohr v. Johnson, Tex. Civ. App. 57 S.W.2d 215; Pitzer West v. Thigpen, Tex. Civ. App. 68 S.W.2d 324; Radoff v. Guardian Trust Co., Tex. Civ. App. 57 S.W.2d 607, writ refused; Sipe v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 219 Pa. 210, 68 A. 705; Ft. Worth D.C. Ry. Co. v. Speer, Tex. Civ. App. 212 S.W. 762; Taylor v. Tarrant County Water Control Improvement Dist., Tex. Civ. App. 86 S.W.2d 511, writ dismissed. And since it is manifest from the record that it will be impossible for plaintiff, on another trial, to determine how much of plaintiff's damages resulted from the alleged negligence of the defendant, separate and apart from that caused by the pollution of the water from other sources with which defendant had no connection, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and judgment will be here rendered, that plaint

  2. Abilene S. Ry. Co. v. Herman

    47 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 19 times

    Affirmed. See, also, 31 S.W.2d 682. Wagstaff, Harwell, Wagstaff Douthit, of Abilene, for appellant.