Davis, Federal Agent v. Standard Rice Co.
Decision Date | 09 June 1926 |
Docket Number | (No. 8720.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 293 S.W. 593 |
Parties | DAVIS, Federal Agent, v. STANDARD RICE CO., Inc. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Ewing Boyd, Judge.
Action by Standard Rice Company, Inc., against James C. Davis, Federal Agent, substituted for Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.
Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood and Garrison & Watson, all of Houston, for appellant.
B. F. Louis and A. G. Haigh, both of Houston, for appellee.
Appellee brought this suit to recover damages for injury to seven carloads of rice shipped over railways operated and controlled by the defendant. The suit was originally against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, under the United States Railroad Administration. By supplemental petition filed April 6, 1923, appellant James C. Davis was made defendant; he having been appointed successor to the original defendant after the suit was filed.
The claims for damages set out in the petition are in substance as follows:
The total amount of damages claimed in the original petition was $5,543.89, but by amendment filed in February, 1924, plaintiff alleged its measure of damage to be the difference between the cost price of the rice with the freight and reconditioning charges added and the value of the rice after reconditioning, which difference was alleged to be the sum of $6,385.13.
The defendant, Walker D. Hines, Director General, answered by general demurrer and general denial. This answer was filed on December 2, 1919. Thereafter, on January 6, 1920, the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company and the Texas & New Orleans Railway Company filed a joint pleading in the case which they designated an answer to plaintiff's petition, and in which they demur generally to the petition as showing no cause of action against them. They further specially plead in abatement of plaintiff's suit that the several shipments of rice, for injury to which plaintiff claims damages, each occurred during the time the defendant railways were in the possession and control of the government of the United States and were being operated by the United States Director of Railroads by and through his agents and servants This answer also specially excepts to the petition on the grounds stated in the plea in abatement and further reiterates the facts stated in the plea in bar of plaintiff's right to recover against the defendant railways.
Plaintiff's supplemental petition making appellant a party defendant, which has been before referred to, alleges that plaintiff adopts its former pleadings against "the said railway company and Director General of Railroads, and the same in every material statement applies to this defendant, James C. Davis." Appellant answers only by excepting to plaintiff's supplemental petition, on the ground that plaintiff's right to make him a party to the suit in substitution of the original defendant was barred because more than one year had elapsed after original defendant had ceased to be Director General of Railroads before the filing of the supplemental petition and "more than two years have elapsed since the time James C. Davis was named as federal agent for the litigation of claims growing out of the federal operation of railroads, and that more than two years have elapsed since the passage of the Transportation Act of March 1, 1920, naming James C. Davis as such agent." He also specially pleaded the two years' statute of limitation in bar of plaintiff's suit. The trial in the court below without a jury resulted in favor of appellee for the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willis v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
... ... St. Louis & O'Fallon, 63 S.W.2d ... 450; Davis v. Standard Rice Co., 293 S.W. 593; ... Martin v ... defendant because the scope of the agent's authority was ... not shown. Respondent says the ... ...
-
Willis v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 38685.
...K.C., M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Pysher, 195 S.W. 981; Doering v. St. Louis & O'Fallon, 63 S.W. (2d) 450; Davis v. Standard Rice Co., 293 S.W. 593; Martin v. Southern Pacific Co., 46 Fed. Supp. 954; Sykes v. Frisco, 178 Mo. 693. (2) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1, for ......
-
Pyle v. Eastern Seed Co.
...not entitled to crop damages. Lee v. Boutwell, 44 Tex. 151; Verschoyle v. Holifield, 132 Tex. 516, 123 S.W.2d 878; Davis v. Standard Rice Co., Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 593, 597. In the case last cited Chief Justice Pleasants says in the opinion that "it is not necessary for a plaintiff to ple......
-
Reaugh v. McCollum Exploration Co.
...Sabine & E. T. R. Co. v. Joachimi, 58 Tex. 456; Burr's Ferry, B. & C. R. Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ. App., 149 S.W. 358; Davis v. Standard Rice Co., Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 593, writ dismissed; 13 Tex.Jur. 73; 17 C.J. 728; 25 C.J.S., Damages, § There was evidence that at the time of the trial of ......