Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, (No. 693.)

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtHiggins
Citation194 S.W. 1135
PartiesGULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. et al. v. MATHIS et al.
Docket Number(No. 693.)
Decision Date19 April 1917
194 S.W. 1135
GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. et al.
v.
MATHIS et al.
(No. 693.)
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
April 19, 1917.
Rehearing Denied May 10, 1917.

Appeal from Taylor County Court; E. M. Overshiner, Judge.

Action by John P. Mathis and others against the Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fé Railway Company and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reformed and affirmed.

J. M. Wagstaff, of Abilene, for appellants. D. M. Oldham, Jr., and W. D. Girand, both of Abilene, for appellees.

HIGGINS, J.


Appellees, John P. Mathis and Hugh L. Ray, copartners, on July 1, 1915, shipped a stock of merchandise and certain furniture from Cushing, Okl., to themselves at Ft. Worth, Tex., over the line of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company. At the time of the shipment, a through bill of lading covering the same was issued, which described the same and gave its weight. When the shipment from Cushing was made, appellees expected to rebill the same at Ft. Worth to some point in Texas to be thereafter selected by them. The latter part of August, 1915, they decided to ship the merchandise and furniture to Abilene, Tex., and sell it at that point. In the meantime, the shipment remained in the warehouse of the railway company at Ft. Worth and was not taken out by appellees. While the shipment was in storage in the warehouse at Ft. Worth, appellees were seeking a place to which to reship and rebill the same. About August 23, 1915, they selected Abilene as the point to which they desired to reship the merchandise and furniture, and upon that date they reshipped the same to that place. The initial carrier of the shipment from Ft. Worth to Abilene was the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. It transported the same a part of the way, and then delivered the shipment to the Abilene & Southern Railway Company, which completed the transportation to Abilene. At the time of the reshipment at Ft. Worth, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company took up the original bills of lading which had been issued by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company and issued new bills of lading covering the shipment from Ft. Worth to Abilene. At the time of the reshipment, appellees and the agent of the railway company figured the amount due as transportation charges from Cushing to Ft. Worth and the storage charges which had accrued for storage in Ft. Worth, and found the same to be $128.92. Appellees then offered to pay same, and were informed by the railway agent that all charges could be paid when the shipment was delivered at Abilene. So those charges were not paid at Ft. Worth. Upon the bills of lading issued at Ft. Worth, the agent indorsed said sum of $128.92 as "advance charges for storage and freight." There was no notation upon the bills to show the amount of freight charges from Ft. Worth to Abilene. The bills had this indorsement:

"This bill of lading is given subject to correction as to rate, weight, classification, so as to conform to the rates, rules, and regulations prescribed by the Railroad Commission of Texas."

The amount of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1925
    ...Mich. 376, 148 N.W. 397; Trowbridge v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry., 192 Mo.App. 52, 179 S.W. 777; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, 194 S.W. 1135; Anset v. Columbia & P. S. R. Co., 89 Wash. 609, 154 P. 1100; Findley v. Coal & Coke Co., 76 W.Va. 747, 87 S.E. 198. It is hard to ......
  • State v. Cont'l Oil Co., No. 33607.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 22 Septiembre 1944
    ...& N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 33 S.Ct. 229, 57 L.Ed. 442;Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1135;Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Schnipper, D.C., 51 F.2d 749, affirmed, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d 30. Defendants presented substantial testimony that the Minneso......
  • State v. Continental Oil Co., No. 33607.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 14 Julio 1944
    ...& N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 33 S.Ct. 229, 57 L.Ed. 442; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1135; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Schnipper, D.C., 51 F.2d 749, affirmed, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d Defendants presented substantial testimony that the Minnesota......
  • Nast v. San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co., (No. 3815.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 14 Mayo 1924
    ...S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wood-Hagenbarth Cattle Co., 105 Tex. 178, 146 S. W. 538; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 194 S. W. 1135; C., R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Edwards (Tex. Civ. App.) 232 S. W. 356; T. & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111, 33 Sup. Ct. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1925
    ...Mich. 376, 148 N.W. 397; Trowbridge v. Kansas City & W. B. Ry., 192 Mo.App. 52, 179 S.W. 777; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, 194 S.W. 1135; Anset v. Columbia & P. S. R. Co., 89 Wash. 609, 154 P. 1100; Findley v. Coal & Coke Co., 76 W.Va. 747, 87 S.E. 198. It is hard to ......
  • State v. Cont'l Oil Co., No. 33607.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 22 Septiembre 1944
    ...& N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 33 S.Ct. 229, 57 L.Ed. 442;Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1135;Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Schnipper, D.C., 51 F.2d 749, affirmed, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d 30. Defendants presented substantial testimony that the Minneso......
  • State v. Continental Oil Co., No. 33607.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 14 Julio 1944
    ...& N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 33 S.Ct. 229, 57 L.Ed. 442; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1135; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Schnipper, D.C., 51 F.2d 749, affirmed, 7 Cir., 56 F.2d Defendants presented substantial testimony that the Minnesota......
  • Nast v. San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co., (No. 3815.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 14 Mayo 1924
    ...S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wood-Hagenbarth Cattle Co., 105 Tex. 178, 146 S. W. 538; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 194 S. W. 1135; C., R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Edwards (Tex. Civ. App.) 232 S. W. 356; T. & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111, 33 Sup. Ct. ......
  • 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