
    CITIZENS’ RY. CO. v. HARGROVE.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
    March 22, 1911.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 882) — Invited Ebbob.
    Erroneous instructions are no ground for (reversal, where they were substantially the same as instructions requested by appellant.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3602-3604; Dec. Dig. § 882.]
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan ■County; Marshall Surratt, Judge.
    Action by M. L. Hargrove, against the Citizens’ Railway Company. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Clark, Yantis & Clark, for appellant. John Maxwell and Edgar E. Witt, for appellee.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   KEY, C. J.

Appellee brought this suit •■against appellant, and recovered a judgment for $50 for injuries inflicted upon him by ■another passenger while he was a passenger on a street car belonging to and operated by appellant. The verdict and judgment involve findings of fact to the effect .that appellant’s conductor failed to exercise proper care to prevent injury to appellee, and that as the proximate result of that negligence appellee sustained injuries to the extent of the amount awarded him; and there was evidence before the jury which supports those findings, and we therefore find the facts ;to be as thus stated.

The court submitted the case to the jury in a charge which, in its main features, was substantially in accordance with instructions requested by appellant. If it was error to assume in the charge that appellee had been assaulted by a fellow passenger, and to instruct the jury to find for the defendant if the conductor did everything in, his power to protect the plaintiff from injury, such errors were invited by appellant, because the' court’s charge in those particulars is the same as instructions which were requested by appellant. However, we think the case was fairly submitted to the jury, and, after, considering all the assignménts of error presented in appellant’s brief, our conclusion is that the judgment should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.  