Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Tex. 303

116 S.W 1199

Keeling v. Willson

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1909

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1909-02-19

<p>Mandamus—Conflict of Decisions—Carriers of Passengers.</p> <p>The rulings of the Court of Civil Appeals herein as to instructions on the duty of a railroad company to use “the utmost care” for the safety and protection of their passengers are held so far in conflict with the decision in Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 24 Texas Civ. App., 383, as to justify the issuance of the writ of mandamus requiring the appellate court to certify the. question to the Supreme Court. (R. 304.)</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1914

1 state decisions

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Game”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-02-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Brown

¶1 delivered the opinion of the court.,

¶2 *304 This is a proceeding by original petition in this court for a mandamus to issue to the judges of the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth Supreme Judicial District, requiring them to certify certain questions to this court because of conflict between the decision of that court and other Courts of Civil Appeals, and, having examined the opinion of that Honorable Court, we conclude that it is in conflict with the decision of the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 24 Texas Civ. App., 383. It is therefore ordered that a writ of mandamus issue to the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth District requiring them to certify to this court the question of law which was decided by that court on a special instruction asked by the plaintiff and given by the court, in which the jury were instructed that it was the duty of the railroad company to use “the utmost care” for the safety and protection of its passengers.

¶3 Mandamus granted.

/102/tex/303 · .json · Public domain