Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Grain Co.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 419 |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. FORT GRAIN CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, McLennan county; T. P. Stone, Special Judge.
Action by the Fort Grain Company against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company to recover the penalty imposed by statute for overcharges. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
The theory on which plaintiff based its right of action was that the shipment in question was a domestic one, and that defendant, by charging the interstate rate, which was greater than the domestic rate, had subjected itself to the penalty.
Prendergast & Sanford and J. W. Terry, for appellant. Davis & Cocke, for appellee.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows: "By `interstate shipment' is meant freight that is shipped from one state through and into another on a bill of lading issued by the initial carrier to be carried through from the terminal point to the point of destination; and if you find that the bill of lading was issued to Connor Bros., and it was the intention of the parties that this shipment of freight was to be delivered at Copperas Cove and San Angelo, Texas, then it would be an interstate shipment under the law, and you will find as instructed above." This charge is complained of in appellant's ninth assignment of error. This definition of an interstate shipment is not accurate. The shipment may be interstate, although transported by virtue of numerous bills of lading. The original bill of lading upon which the goods were shipped mentioned Texarkana, Ark., as the terminal point. There is evidence to the effect that the goods were delivered at Texarkana, Tex., and were there rebilled, and a new bill of lading issued, upon which the property was finally transported to its destination. If the purpose and intention was, when the goods were shipped from St. Louis, that their final destination was Copperas Cove and San Angelo, it would be an interstate shipment, notwithstanding the transportation was not upon a through bill of lading. Houston Navigation Co. v. Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713, 59 Am. St. Rep. 17.
The twelfth assignment of error complains of the following charge: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Colorado & N.W.R. Co.
... ... L.Ed. 336 ... There ... is nothing in conflict with this proposition in Gulf, ... Colorado & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U.S. 403, 27 ... Sup.Ct. 360, 51 L.Ed. 540, ... railroads within a state on which grain or fruit is ... transported to a distant market. We answer that the present ... case relates to ... Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. (Tex ... Civ. App.) 44 S.W. 542, 543; Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co ... Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S.W. 419. The power to ... regulate interstate commerce is as ... ...
-
Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Harrington
...in the same state. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. State of Iowa, 233 U.S. 334, 34 S. Ct. 592, 58 L. Ed. 988; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S.W. 419, 73 S.W. 845; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U.S. 184, 16 S. Ct. 700, 40 L. Ed. 9......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Harrington
... ... & St. P. R. Co. v. State of ... Iowa, 233 U.S. 334, 34 S.Ct. 592, 58 L.Ed. 988; ... Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Grain Co. (Tex. Civ ... App.) 72 S.W. 419, 73 S.W. 845; Cincinnati, ... ...
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Carmack
...Insurance Company, 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713, 59 Am. St. Rep. 17; Railway Co. v. Langbehn, 158 S. W. 244; Railway Company v. Grain Company, 72 S. W. 419; Id., 73 S. W. Error is assigned to the action of the court in admitting testimony as to the market value of the horses at ......