Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Greathouse

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtFisher, J.
Citation17 S.W. 834
PartiesFT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. v. GREATHOUSE.
Decision Date03 November 1891
17 S.W. 834
FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO.
v.
GREATHOUSE.
Supreme Court of Texas.
November 3, 1891.

Page 835

Commissioners' decision. Section B. Appeal from district court, Wise county; J. W. PATTERSON, Judge.

Action by G. R. Greathouse against the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by FISHER, J.:

This suit is by appellee against appellant to recover damages sustained growing out of a violation of shipment of cattle from Harrold, Tex., to Chicago, Ill. The petition, in substance, alleges that on the 3d day of September, 1887, plaintiff delivered to defendant at Harrold, for shipment to Chicago, 149 head of beef cattle; that defendant received the cattle, and agreed by written contract with plaintiff to transport the cattle to Chicago without delay. They were immediately loaded upon the cars, and were in good condition, fat and suitable for beef, and were in as good condition as any cattle then being shipped to the Chicago market; and were shipped for the purpose of being sold in that market for beef, and the purpose for which they were being shipped was well known to the agent of defendant. The written contract for the shipment of the cattle is attached to and made a part of the petition. It was, among other things, provided in said contract that, as a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to recover for any damages for loss or injury to his said stock during the transportation thereof, or previous to loading thereof for shipment, he would give notice in writing, verified by affidavit, of his claim therefor, to some general officer of defendant, or its nearest station agent, before said stock was removed from the point of shipment, or from the place of destination, and before such stock was mingled with other stock, within one day after the delivery of such stock at its point of destination, and before the same shall have been removed, slaughtered, or mingled with other stock, to the end that such claim might be fully and fairly investigated, and that a failure to comply with that provision of the contract should be a complete bar to any recovery of any and all such claims. It is further alleged in plaintiff's petition that, at the same time and place that plaintiff shipped his cattle, Rush & Hutchinson, a firm composed of William Rush and J. W. Hutchinson, shipped 145 head of beef cattle; I. L. Hutchinson, 33 head; G. W. Gill and W. L. Rush, who were partners, shipped 45 head. All of said cattle shipped by said persons were received by defendant, in the same manner and by the same agent of defendant, and were loaded on the same train of cars on which the cattle of plaintiff were loaded, and were to be carried to Chicago. That said persons had a written contract with defendant for carrying their cattle, the same, in substance, as the one entered into by plaintiff, and which is made a part of his petition; that all of said cattle were shipped to Chicago to be marketed as beef cattle; that said cattle were shipped as aforesaid, on the date aforesaid, and were transported over defendant's line of road to Henrietta, Tex., where they were transferred to the Missouri Pacific Railway; that while being transported over the Missouri Pacific Railway, through the negligence of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, and by reason of the unsafe condition of said railroad, and by reason of said railroad being out of repair, said cattle were delayed on the road at a point between Henrietta and Denison, Tex., for a period of 20 hours, without food or water; that at a point between Gainesville, on said line, and Denison, by reason of said railroad track being out of repair, said train of cars ran off the track, and one of plaintiff's cattle was killed, worth $25; that all of said cattle were bruised, injured, and greatly damaged; that two belonging to Rush & Hutchinson were injured so that they were worth $15 less than they were worth before said injury; that, by reason of said delays and other delays, the cattle had to have an extra feed, which cost plaintiff $15, Rush & Hutchinson $15, Gill $9, and I. L. Hutchinson $8; that by reason of the cattle being bruised and injured, and by reason of the delay on the road, the cattle lost in weight 40 pounds per head, thereby damaging plaintiff in the sum of $150, Rush & Hutchinson $144, Gill & Rush $30.40, and I. L. Hutchinson $36.40; that when the cattle arrived in Chicago the market had declined 15 cents per hundred pounds below what it was when the cattle should have reached there, and thereby plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $200, Rush & Hutchinson $166.47, Gill $129, and I. L. Hutchinson $105.04; that the claims of Rush & Hutchinson, G. W. Gill, and I. L. Hutchinson had been assigned to plaintiff, and defendant had refused to pay plaintiff, to his damage $1,200. The defendant answered by general demurrer and general denial. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $900, for which amount judgment was rendered against appellant. The evidence offered in behalf of plaintiff by several witnesses proved the allegations of his petition in reference to the shipment of the cattle from Harrold to Chicago, and when and how they were injured, and that the injury and delay occurred through the negligence of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company; that the effect of the wreck by which the cattle were injured was to shake them up, and skin and bruise them, and that they were confined in the cars about 20 hours longer than they would have been if no wreck had occurred, and thus they were delayed in their arrival at Chicago 20

Page 836

hours. The evidence shows the character and kind of cattle shipped, and the purpose for which they were shipped, being for sale in the Chicago market; and it further is satisfactory in showing that the agent of appellant at Harrold knew of such purpose when the contract was made. Several witnesses testified as to the number of cattle shipped, and the weight of the cattle in Chicago, and what effect the injuries and delay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...65 N.W. 247; Peterson v. Mannix, 90 N.W. 210; Whitaker v. Pope, 29 F. C. No. 17528; 2 Abb. Tr Br. Pl., 1743; R. Co. v. Greathouse, 17 S.W. 834; Porter v. Russeck, 29 S.W. 72; 44 S.W. 550.) The measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the property immediately before and im......
  • Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Dalton, (No. 763.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 24, 1915
    ...announced by the Commission of Appeals, and approved by the Supreme Court of Texas, in the case of Railway Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 17 S. W. 834: "To prove that such conditions in a contract are reasonable is a burden resting upon the carrier, who must show, by proper pleadings and e......
  • Elder, Dempster & Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 19, 1913
    ...A. 75, 13 Am. St. Rep. 776; Railway Co. v. Adams, 78 Tex. 374, 14 S. W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56; Railway Co. v. Great-house, 82 Tex. 111, 17 S. W. 834; Railway Co. v. McCarty, 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716; Bourland v. Railway Co., 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1111, 122 Am. St.......
  • Simmons v. Wilson, No. 2824.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 6, 1949
    ...to include the same in the several amounts awarded to them against appellant. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 17 S.W. 834; Watkins v. Junker, 90 Tex. 584, 588, 40 S. W. 11; Wiess v. Gordon, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W. 486; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Collins, Tex.Com.Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
98 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...65 N.W. 247; Peterson v. Mannix, 90 N.W. 210; Whitaker v. Pope, 29 F. C. No. 17528; 2 Abb. Tr Br. Pl., 1743; R. Co. v. Greathouse, 17 S.W. 834; Porter v. Russeck, 29 S.W. 72; 44 S.W. 550.) The measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the property immediately before and im......
  • Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Dalton, (No. 763.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 24, 1915
    ...announced by the Commission of Appeals, and approved by the Supreme Court of Texas, in the case of Railway Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 17 S. W. 834: "To prove that such conditions in a contract are reasonable is a burden resting upon the carrier, who must show, by proper pleadings and e......
  • Elder, Dempster & Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 19, 1913
    ...A. 75, 13 Am. St. Rep. 776; Railway Co. v. Adams, 78 Tex. 374, 14 S. W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56; Railway Co. v. Great-house, 82 Tex. 111, 17 S. W. 834; Railway Co. v. McCarty, 82 Tex. 608, 18 S. W. 716; Bourland v. Railway Co., 99 Tex. 407, 90 S. W. 483, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1111, 122 Am. St.......
  • Simmons v. Wilson, No. 2824.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 6, 1949
    ...to include the same in the several amounts awarded to them against appellant. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104, 17 S.W. 834; Watkins v. Junker, 90 Tex. 584, 588, 40 S. W. 11; Wiess v. Gordon, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W. 486; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Collins, Tex.Com.Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT