Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland
| Decision Date | 08 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. B--5004,B--5004 |
| Citation | 528 S.W.2d 828 |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. Buth HILLAND et vir., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Weitinger, Steelhammer & Tucker, Don A. Weitinger and Robert H. Steelhammer, Houston, for petitioner.
Jamail & Gano, Robert F. Stein, Houston, for respondents.
Ruth Hilland, a passenger, was injured in Louisiana when she was getting off of a bus marked Continental Trailways. 'Continental Trailways' is but a trade name used by a number of separate bus corporations as indicated below. The bus from which the plaintiff stepped was owned and operated by Continental Southern Lines, Inc. Suit was brought within two years by Ruth Hilland against Continental Trailways, Inc., a Texas corporation. The defendant Continental Trailways, Inc., is a different corporation with different officers and directors from Continental Southern Lines, Inc., a Louisiana corporation which had its headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi. More than two years after the accident, the plaintiffs' petition was amended to make Continental Southern a party defendant. It interposed the two year statute of limitations. 1
The trial court overruled the plea of limitations; and after a jury trial, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against Continental Southern for approximately $7,800. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 516 S.W.2d 279. We reverse on the limitations question, but we remand the cause to the district court for a new trial in the interest of justice.
The general rule in tort cases, under the limitation statute, is that a suit must be 'commenced and prosecuted' against a party to be held liable within two years from the date of the act which causes the injury. And generally, the institution of suit against one corporation will not interrupt the running of the limitation period as to a different corporation or entity. Stokes v. Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Ry., 161 Tex. 240, 339 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.1960); 51 Am.Jur.2d 805, Limitation of Actions § 294.
The evidence in this regard is this: The plaintiff purchased in Houston a round-trip bus ticket on 'Continental Trailways.' The bus station and the bus were marked in large letters 'Continental Trailways.' 2 The bus had printed on its side, near its rear, in one inch letters, the information required by the Interstate Commerce Commission,--that the bus was owned by Continental Southern Lines, Inc. The plaintiff apparently did not see this. She considered that she was just traveling on 'Continental Trailways' (not Continental Trailways, Inc., against whom suit was brought).
The ticket which she purchased stated on it that it was issued by some 26 bus lines, listed in alphabetical order, beginning with American Bus Lines, Inc., and including the name of Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 'all doing business as Continental Trailways, Dallas, Texas.'
The corporation first sued, Continental Trailways, Inc., was not one of the 26 corporations listed on the ticket sold to the plaintiff. At times relevant here, it had no equipment, busses, or terminals. It transported no passengers. Its sole purpose was to preserve the trade name, 'Continental Trailways.' The record is silent as to the ownership of Continental Trailways, Inc., and Continental Southern Lines, Inc. There is no evidence that there is a parent corporation owning or controlling the two corporations, or any of the corporations. Each of the 26 or 27 corporations was a separate entity with separate officers and directors.
The testimony is that 'Continental Trailways' is a trade name for an association of bus lines for advertising purposes. The evidence is that 'any bus line that will qualify and meet the requirements can belong to the national Trailways System . . ..' Asked why Continental Trailways operated under so many corporate names, the Houston division superintendent, Mr. Hooker, testified, The witness knew of no interlocking agreements.
The line owning and operating the bus from which plaintiff was injured had been the Southern Bus Lines, Inc.; and, according to the witness Hooker, 'then, when it got into a Continental picture, it became Continental Southern Lines, Inc.' It operated thereafter under the trade name 'Continental Trailways.'
The Court of Civil Appeals apparently recognized that there was not proof in the record to establish that Continental Southern Lines, Inc., and Continental Trailways, Inc., were the same or jointly owned entities, and that before the amendment to Rule 28, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, instituting suit against Continental Trailways, Inc., would not, absent some exception or other reason, toll the statute of limitations against Continental Southern Lines. Its decision is based squarely upon the amendment to Rule 28.
Rule 28 formerly provided that an individual, partnership or Unincorporated association could sue or be sued in an assumed name. The rule was amended to provide that
Any partnership, unincorporated association, Private corporation, or individual doing business under an assumed name May sue or be sued in its partnership, Assuemd or common name for the purpose of enforcing for or against it a substantive right, But on a motion by any party or on the court's own motion the true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Minn. ex rel. Hove v. Doese, 17838
...under the pre-existing statute); United States Rubber Co. v. McManus, 211 S.C. 342, 45 S.E.2d 335 (1947); Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland, 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.1975); Greenhalgh v. Payson City, 530 P.2d 799 (Utah 1975); Haase v. Sawicki, 20 Wis.2d 308, 121 N.W.2d 876 (1963). In a......
-
McConnell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.
...defendants. Palmer v. Enserch Corp., 728 S.W.2d 431, 433 (Tex.App. — Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Continental S. Lines, Inc. v. Hilland, 528 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Tex.1975), and Matthews Trucking Co. v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.1985)). The Palmer court held that the only issue in su......
-
Kelly v. Marcantonio
...time-barred as of July 25, 1993. See, e.g., Spunt v. Oak Hill Nursing Home, Inc., 509 A.2d 463 (R.I.1986); Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland, 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.1975); Annotation, Limitation-Enlarging Period, 79 A.L.R.2d 1080, 1098 (1961). Because of the 1986 amendment to art. 1,......
-
Dougherty v. Gifford
...are two distinct corporations having same or similar names. See, e.g., Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2; Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland, 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.1975); Palmer v. Enserch Corp., 728 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Howell v. Coca-Cola Bottli......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...and evidence are available. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 560 (Tex. 2005); Cont’l S. Lines, Inc. v. Hilland, 528 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Tex. Timely filing of a petition accomplishes this purpose when it gives fair notice of the suit to the opposing party. Ealey v. Ins. Co......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act : Procedures and Remedies
...and evidence are available. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559, 560 (Tex. 2005); Cont’l S. Lines, Inc. v. Hilland , 528 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Tex. 1975). Timely filing of a petition accomplishes this purpose when it gives fair notice of the suit to the opposing party. Ealey v......
-
Table of cases
...1996), §§18:8.F.2.a, App. 25-2, 31:3.A.4, 31:3.A.4.b, 31:3.B, 31:5.E.1.a 34:2.C, 41:10.A Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland , 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. 1975), §18:7.B Contran v. Rollins Hudwick Hall , 66 Cal. 2d 183, 424 P.2d 681 (Cal. 1996), §§13:2.G Conway v. Saudi Arabian Oil Co. , 8......
-
Table of cases
...1996), §§18:8.F.2.a, App. 25-2, 31:3.A.4, 31:3.A.4.b, 31:3.B, 31:5.E.1.a 34:2.C, 41:10.A Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Hilland , 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. 1975), §18:7.B Contran v. Rollins Hudwick Hall , 66 Cal. 2d 183, 424 P.2d 681 (Cal. 1996), §§13:2.G Conway v. Saudi Arabian Oil Co. , 8......