Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bigger, 239 U.S. 330 (1915)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 239 U.S. 325, click here.

Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Bigger

No. 342

Submitted November 30, 1915
Decided December 13, 1915
239 U.S. 330

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Where the case was tried to a jury and there was a verdict for plaintiff, disputed questions of fact must be considered by the appellate court as determined against defendant.

On appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming a judgment of the trial court based on a verdict, this Court is confined to considering questions of law arising on the rulings of the court.

A defendant removing the case from the state court, and not reserving any exception to the jurisdiction of the state court, cannot, after pleading in, and submitting to the jurisdiction of, the federal court raise the question of the original jurisdiction of the state court.

A general contention that the trial court should have directed a verdict for defendant involves the whole case, and facts and law may, as in this case, be so intermingled as to make the latter dependent upon the former.

A carrier which has accepted a passenger to a definite point does not discharge its duty by delivering him in an unsuitable place without protection from the inclemency of the weather.

There having been conflicting testimony whether plaintiff’s intestate was or was not necessarily compelled through the negligence of the defendant carrier to submit to condition resulting in his sickness and death, and the court having charged that, if the jury believed the defendant’s testimony in that respect, plaintiff could not recover at all, and, if plaintiff’s evidence was true, it appears that defendant did not exercise even ordinary care, a verdict for plaintiff should not be set aside because of statements in the charge in regard to different degrees of care owed by the defendant under varying circumstances to its passengers.

218 F. 990.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment of the circuit court of appeals in an action for injuries sustained by a passenger against a carrier, are stated in the opinion.