Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Clemons
| Decision Date | 19 October 1898 |
| Citation | 47 S.W. 731 |
| Parties | GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. CLEMONS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, El Paso county; A. M. Walthall, Judge.
Action by Bye De R. Clemons against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Beall & Kemp, for appellant. Patterson & Wallace, for appellee.
The appellee, Bye De R. Clemons, brought this suit in the district court of El Paso county, Tex., on the 13th day of March, 1897, against appellant, the Galveston, Houston & San Antonio Railway Company and the Mexican Central Railway Company, as common carriers, and connecting lines with other roads, especially the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railway Company and the Queen & Crescent Railway Company, alleging, in substance, that on the 24th day of September, 1894, appellee delivered to defendants, through the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railway Company, their agent at Cleveland, Ohio, certain household goods, freight, and merchandise consigned to V. P. Safford, to be carried and delivered to him at Escalon, Mexico; that one large box of the shipment containing certain specific goods was, by the negligence of defendants, and by their failure to deliver it, as they were bound by their written contract of shipment and duty as common carriers to do, totally lost, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $611. Plaintiff also claimed that by reason of the delay in delivering the goods at their destination, and the loss of the box containing them, he "suffered great mental pain, moral degradation, and shame, and by reason thereof could not appear in society, to his damage in the sum of $1,000." Appellant answered by specially excepting to the petition upon the grounds: (1) That damages could not be recovered for mental pain, moral degradation, shame, etc.; (2) that plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the two-years statute of limitations; and by the following pleas: The general denial, the two-years statute of limitations, and certain stipulations in the bill of lading exempting it from liability. The Mexican Central Railway Company, after filing its answer, was dismissed from the suit. The court sustained the special demurrer first referred to, but overruled the second, raising the question of limitation, and also refused to submit the question of limitation to the jury. The trial of the case resulted in judgment against the appellant for the sum of $387.10, from which it has appealed to this court.
The evidence shows that the goods were shipped from Cleveland, Ohio, on the 24th day of September, 1894, on which day appellee delivered them to the initial carrier, the New...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elder, Dempster & Co. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas
...was decided adversely to appellant by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth District, in the case of G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Clemons, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 452, 47 S. W. 731, and by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District in Davies v. Texas Central Ry. Co., 133 S. W. 295, adversel......
-
R. W. Williamson & Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
...Railway Co. v. Darby, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 229, 67 S. W. 129; Railway Co. v. Adams, 49 Tex. 748, 30 Am. Rep. 116; Railway Co. v. Clemons, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 452, 47 S. W. 731; Hooks v. Railway Co., 97 S. W. 516; Railway Co. v. McAnulty, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 321, 26 S. W. 414; Elliott on Railroads, ......
-
Davis v. Bassett
...delivered to the consignee at their destination, nor redelivered to the shipper at Dryden, on demand. In Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Clemons, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 452, 47 S. W. 731, it was held that the two-year statute and not the four-year, in an action against the carrier for failure t......
-
Davies v. Texas Cent. R. Co.
...cause of action was subject to the two years' statute of limitation, was doubtless based on the case of Railway Co. v. Clemmons, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 452, 47 S. W. 731. The conclusion reached in that case that plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of two years may have been cor......