
    INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. et al. v. TAYLOR et al.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
    March 22, 1911.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1051) — Review—Harmless Error.
    In an action for damages to crops by improper construction of a railroad track, which resulted in impounding water on plaintiff’s land, any error in admitting proof that culverts and trestles had been put in the roadway since the injury was harmless, where the proof was clear and uncontroverted that the failure to have them at the time in question resulted in the damages complained of.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4161-1170; Dec. Dig. § 1051.]
    Appeal from Falls County Court; W. E. Hunnicutt, Judge.
    Action by James G. Taylor and others against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 131 S. W. 620.
    King & Morris and Baker & Baker, for appellants. Tom Connálly, for appellees.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   KEY, C. J.

Suit for damages to crops caused by improper construction and maintenance of railroad track, which resulted in impounding water on lands cultivated by plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants have appealed.

If it was error to admit proof that culverts and trestles had been put in the roadbed since the injuries complained of, such error is harmless, because the proof is clear, ample, and uncontroverted that the failure to have such openings at the time in question resulted in impounding a large body of water and causing it to stand for a long time on the plaintiffs’ crops. In fact, it is admitted in the brief for plaintiffs in error that the undisputed evidence shows that the road em-, bankment held the water on the lands of defendants in error and destroyed their crops during the overflow of April, 1908. The defense was and is that a greater flood occurred in May, 1908, and that, if the railroad had not been there, and there had been no flood and injury in April, the entire crop would have been destroyed by the May flood. On that issue the testimony was conflicting, and we cannot say that the court decided it wrong.

All other questions have been considered, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  