Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Riley
| Decision Date | 05 June 1886 |
| Parties | FORT WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. RILEY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On February 10, 1885, the appellee, plaintiff below, commenced his action against appellant in the county court of Montague county, alleging in his petition that on the thirty-first day of December, 1883, plaintiff contracted with defendant for the shipment and safe transportation and delivery of 90 head of beef steers, from the town of Bowie, Texas, to the National stock-yards, in St. Louis, Missouri; that in pursuance of said contract he delivered the 90 head of cattle to defendant; that said steers were placed within the stock-pens of defendant at Bowie, Texas, on said day; that the defendant, on the day aforesaid, accepted said steers for shipment, but at said time failed to deliver to plaintiff a bill of lading therefor, but promised and agreed with plaintiff to execute and deliver to him a bill of lading on the day following; that after said steers were delivered to and accepted by defendant, and on the same day, viz., the thirty-first day of November, 1883, at 9 o'clock P. M., the defendant, though the carelessness and negligence of its agents and employes at Bowie, Texas, permitted 21 head of said beef steers to escape from said stock-pens aforesaid, and run entirely off, and out of the reach of plaintiff; that defendant had failed, refused, and neglected to keep their said stock-pens in repair; and that, by reason of its refusal to keep the same in repair, and its failure and refusal to properly guard and protect the same, the said cattle were permitted to escape therefrom. He then alleges that two head, which he could not find, were worth $64; that the costs of collecting the 19 head recovered was $5 per head, $95; that the 19 head depreciated in value $7 per head, $133, —making $292 in all. He recovered a judgment for $200.50, and costs.
The evidence fails to show that the cattle were delivered to and received by appellant. They were placed in appellant's stock-pen by permission of its agent, but, at the time they escaped from the pen, had not been received for shipment, and appellant had in no way become responsible therefor. There is no evidence whatever that the cattle escaped because of any negligence on the part of appellant, its agents, or employes, even had said cattle been received for shipment. At the time of the escape of the cattle they were in the possession and charge of appellee, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reading v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company
......832;. Railroad v. Word, 32 S.W. 14; Fordyce v. McFlynn, 19 S.W. 961; Railroad v. Riley, 1 S.W. 446; Frazer v. Railroad, 48 Ia. 571. (2). Respondent's petition is based upon special ......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Brown & Co.
...and unguarded at the time they went uptown to eat supper. The evidence seems to class the case as one within the ruling in Railway Co. v. Riley (Tex. App.) 1 S. W. 446. But assuming that view to be erroneous (as it may be), and concluding that it should be conclusively presumed from the evi......
-
Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railroad Co. v. Barnett
...appellant. The mere delivery of cattle into the stock pens of a railroad company does not fix upon it the liability of a common carrier. 1 S.W. 446; S. C. 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 49; 42 200; 60 Ark. 338; 26 S.W. 312. To hold the company for loss or injury of goods tendered for carriage, in ad......
- Lee v. State