Reed v. Bates

10 Citing cases

  1. Stevens v. Travelers Ins. Co.

    563 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1978)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that trial court's telling the jurors not to forsake their personal convictions diluted any coercive effect of trial court's statement that it would disapprove the jury's failure to reach a verdict

    " It was this portion of the instruction which the Court of Civil Appeals found to be violative of the rule announced in Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, supra, and followed in Reed v. Bates, 32 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Civ.App. 1930, no writ). We note first that the instruction in Reed was given prior to the retirement of the jury.

  2. Denbow v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.

    143 Tex. 455 (Tex. 1945)   Cited 30 times
    In Denbow v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 455, 186 S.W.2d 236, 239, it was held that the answers of the jury to certain special issues, one of which was submitted in negative form, were not in conflict.

    In giving additional charges to the jury, this rule must be complied with, since it has the force and effect of a statute. Reed v. Bates, Tex. Civ. App., 32 S.W.2d 216. Where the statute regulating the giving of charges to the jury is violated, error must be presumed. Texas, etc. Co. v. Byrd, 102 Tex. 263, 115 S.W. 1163, 20 L.R.A., N.S., 429, 20 Ann. Cas. 137; Parker v. Bailey, Tex. Com. App., 15 S.W.2d 1063.

  3. Anderson v. Brawley

    86 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1935)   Cited 7 times

    It was erred to limit the testimony of witnesses regarding certain conversations and in instructing the jury verbally not to consider said testimony as binding upon the defendants and those claiming under him. Davis v. Houston Belt Ter. Ry. Co., 32 S.W.2d 216; Bond v. Kirby Lbr. Co., 2 S.W.2d 936; Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Perkins, 48 S.W.2d 249; Franklin v. Tiernan, 62 Tex. 92; Owens v. Navarro Co. Levee Imp. Dist., 115 Tex. 263, 280 S.W. 532; Burrows v. State, 81 S.W.2d 523. C. E. Florence, of Gilmer, W. H. Francis, A. S. Hardwicke and Walace Hawkins, all of Dallas, F. A. Williams, of Galveston, Wynne Wynne, of Longview, and G. C. White, of Cushing, Okla., for defendants in error.

  4. In re Commitment of Jones

    No. 02-18-00019-CV (Tex. App. May. 6, 2021)

    In Stevens, the Supreme Court noted its disapproval of instructions that "specifically mention[] the right or duty of the jury to make concessions or reconcile differences." Id. at 230-31 (citing Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. v. Johnson, 90 S.W. 164, 165 (Tex. 1905); Reed v. Bates, 32 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1930, no writ)). It determined that the following instruction was not so flawed:

  5. Travelers Ins. v. Stevens

    553 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    The jurors' prepossessions and inclinations of mind must be held or surrendered alone, without the court's instructions. Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. v. Johnson, 99 Tex. 337, 342, 90 S.W. 164, 165 (1905); Reed v. Bates, 32 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1930, no writ). The charge that, in the interest of justice, the jury should end this litigation if it could do so, and that ending it would meet with the court's approval, was coercive in getting members of the minority to change their views.

  6. Standard Acc. Ins. v. Denbow

    183 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. Civ. App. 1944)   Cited 4 times

    In giving additional charges to the jury, this rule must be complied with, since it has the force and effect of a statute. Reed v. Bates, Tex. Civ. App. 32 S.W.2d 216. Where the statute regulating the giving of charges to the jury is violated, error must be presumed. Texas, etc., Co. v. Byrd, 102 Tex. 263, 15 S.W. 1163, 20 L.R.A., N.S., 429, 20 Ann.Cas. 137; Parker v. Bailey, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 1033.

  7. CONSOL. UNDERWRITERS v. RUFF

    164 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942)   Cited 1 times

    In giving additional charges to the jury, this rule must be complied with, since it has the force and effect of a statute. Reed v. Bates, Tex. Civ. App. 32 S.W.2d 216. Where the statute regulating the giving of charges to the jury is violated, error must be presumed. Texas, etc., Co. v. Byrd, 102 Tex. 263, 115 S.W. 1163, 20 L.R.A., N.S., 429, 20 Ann.Cas. 137; Parker v. Bailey, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 1033.

  8. Fort Worth R. G. Ry. Co. v. Ross

    54 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    Further, the form of the charge in other respects stands approved by the authorities in this state. Houston T. C. Ry. Co. v. Stevenson (Tex.Com.App.) 29 S.W.2d 995; Regester v. Lang (Tex.Civ.App.) 33 S.W.2d 230, 233; Reed v. Bates (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 216; Texas Elec. Ry. Co. v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n (Tex.Civ.App.) 9 S.W.2d 185, 189; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boverie (Tex.Civ.App.) 37 S.W.2d 310, by this court, and the many authorities therein cited. The defendant requested six special issues covering various phases of the case.

  9. Gulf Production Co. v. Adams

    49 S.W.2d 889 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    When the defendant challenges the right of plaintiff to recover by reason of certain exceptions, and that by virtue of certain exceptions there is no liability on the part of the defendant, and special issues based upon such exceptions are submitted to the jury upon such special issues, it is proper to instruct the jury that the burden is upon the defendant to establish them by a preponderance of the evidence." See, also, Reed v. Bates (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 216; Duron v. Beaumont Iron Works (Tex.Com.App.) 9 S.W.2d 1104; Maryland Casualty Company v. Boverie (Tex.Civ.App.) 37 S.W.2d 310. It will be noted that the issues as submitted by the court did not require a finding on the preponderance of the evidence; therefore, we think, the instruction was proper. We cannot agree with appellant's contention that special issue No. 2, as submitted by the court, assumed that there was a duty upon appellant to wait until Adams had finished loading the old motor before it began unloading the grid.

  10. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boverie

    37 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931)   Cited 8 times

    The overruling of this objection and exception is assigned as error. The assignment is overruled. H. T. C. Ry. Co. v. Stevenson (Tex.Com.App.) 29 S.W.2d 995; Duke v. City Nat. Bank of Forney (Tex.Civ.App.) 16 S.W.2d 557; Reed v. Bates (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 216; Register v. Lang (Tex.Civ.App.) 33 S.W.2d 230; Sewall Paint Glass Co. v. Booth Lbr. Loan Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 34 S.W.2d 650. Appellant cites the opinion of this court in the case of Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bufkin, 19 S.W.2d 343. The charge condemned by this court in that case was as follows: "You are charged as the law in all civil actions that the plaintiff must prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.