Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Floore
Decision Date | 16 October 1897 |
Citation | 42 S.W. 607 |
Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. FLOORE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Johnson county; J. M. Hall, Judge.
Action by John W. Floore against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company for libel. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
This is an action of libel, the appellee, J. W. Floore, claiming damages, based upon the publication by the defendant of a writing which is alleged to charge plaintiff with the commission of a crime. There was a trial had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $4,000, from which this appeal has been perfected. There are no substantial conflicts in the evidence, and the important facts appearing upon the trial, as we gather them from the record, are about as follows: Appellee, John W. Floore, was cashier of the National Bank of Cleburne. E. T. Kelly was teller of the same bank. H. L. Preston was station agent of appellant at Cleburne. W. E. Lufkin was the auditor of appellant, at Galveston, and all the correspondence hereinafter referred to was conducted over his name by his chief clerk, C. H. Beggs. The National Bank of Cleburne, Tex., had been advancing money to A. Fulton & Co., of Sherman, Tex., the cotton on which such advances were made being stored in the compress of the Cleburne Compress Company at Cleburne, Tex., of which S. B. Allen was president. June 19, 1893, the National Bank of Cleburne received from A. Fulton & Co. certain bills of lading already prepared, with directions to have the agent of the appellant at Cleburne sign the bills of lading, and then to attach thereto a draft, and give them credit for the amount of the draft on consignee, with bills of lading attached. The bank on said date held on behalf of A. Fulton & Co. several receipts and dray tickets of the Cleburne Compress Company, calling in the aggregate for 221 bales of cotton. On that date the appellee, John W. Floore, representing the bank, surrendered these different receipts and dray tickets to the representative of the compress company, and obtained therefor compress receipts for 221 bales of cotton, which compress receipts represented that the cotton had thereon certain marks and brands. On the same date said Floore presented the compress receipt with the bills of lading already prepared to the appellant's agent at Cleburne, and appellant's agent, on the faith of the compress receipt, executed the bills of lading. Floore did not know the condition of the cotton, had not seen it, and so stated to the agent at the time, in answer to a question as to the condition of the cotton. Such compress receipt, dated June 19, 1893, called for 221 bales of cotton marked as follows: Two bales marked "T. O. G."; twenty-three bales marked "Z. I. P."; twenty-one bales, "R. O. S."; sixty-six bales, "C. L. O."; thirty-eight bales, "D. O. B."; thirty bales, "T. O. G."; forty-one bales, "T. E. X."
The original bills of lading, of which two were executed, dated June 19, 1893, called for the same number of bales, and with the same marks and brands, as did the compress receipt, and recited that the cotton was shipped from Cleburne to Liverpool by A. Nordon & Co. to the order of A. Fulton & Co.; Russ Bros., Liverpool, to be notified of arrival.
June 19, 1893, H. L. Preston telegraphed B. F. Yoakum, general manager of appellant at Galveston, as follows:
June 20, 1893, W. E. Lufkin telegraphed Preston as follows:
Same date,—June 20th,—Preston telegraphed Lufkin as follows:
Same date,—June 20th,—Lufkin telegraphed Preston as follows:
June 21st, Preston telegraphed Lufkin as follows:
June 22d, Lufkin telegraphed Preston as follows:
On same date,—June 22d,—Lufkin wrote Preston as follows:
June 23d, Preston telegraphed Lufkin as follows:
June 24th, Preston telegraphed Lufkin as follows: "Please see important personal letter to you on No. 5 to-night."
June 24th Preston wrote Lufkin as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bohlinger v. Germania Life Insurance Company
...47 L. R. A. 485; 111 Pa. 414, 56 Am. Rep. 274; 66 Mich. 166; 88 Me. 521, 34 A. 411; 116 Ga. 855, 43 S.E. 262; 25 Cyc. 412; 99 N.W. 847; 42 S.W. 607; 103 Va. 504, S.E. 644; 47 W.Va. 766; 10 C. B. 583; 66 Mich. 166; 30 N.Y. 20; 25 Wend. 448. 4. In directing a verdict for defendant, the court ......
-
Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. McClain
...cases was expressly approved and adhered to in Simmons v. Dickson, 110 Tex. 230, 213 S. W. 612, 218 S. W. 365. See, also, Railway Co. v. Floore, 42 S. W. 607, in which writ of error was denied by the Supreme Court of this state. In that case the court used this All such matters commonly "ch......
-
Vacicek v. Trojack
...give such aid. 17 R. C. L. § 88, pages 241, 242; Schulze v. Jalonick, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 296, 44 S. W. 580, at page 586; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Floore, 42 S. W. 607; Laughlin v. Schnitzer, 106 S. W. 908; Koehler v. Dubose, 200 S. W. 238, In I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Edmundson, supra, the cour......
-
Express Pub. Co. v. Wilkins
...of the court, under the definition of privileged publications given in the statute. Cotulla v. Kerr, hereinbefore cited; Railway v. Floore, 42 S. W. 607; Cranfill v. Hayden, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 656, 55 S. W. 805; Dickson v. Lights, 170 S. W. 834. In this case, however, which is probably not t......