Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mathis
| Decision Date | 19 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 693.) |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. et al. v. MATHIS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
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.
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 freight charges from Ft. Worth to Abilene, according to the weight of the shipment, classification, and rates of the Texas Railroad Commission, was $84.90. The bills also had this indorsement:
Here follows a description of the articles shipped showing the kinds and weight of each package.
Upon arrival at Abilene, the Abilene & Southern Railway Company demanded the payment of the aforesaid sums of money and an additional amount of $49.50. Appellees tendered $128.92, plus $84.90, or a total of $213.82, and demanded delivery of the shipment. The Abilene & Southern Railway Company refused to make delivery unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Continental Oil Co.
...49 S.Ct. 292, 73 L.Ed. 626; Texas & 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 te......
-
Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight
... ... Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 181 ... 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 ... ...
-
Nast v. San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co.
...of the transaction. G., H. & 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. ......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Stinson
...between Arkadelphia and Mt. Vernon (Railway Co. v. Wood, 105 Tex. 178, 146 S. W. 538; Railway Co. v. Pace, 184 S. W. 1052; Railway Co. v. Mathis, 194 S. W. 1135; McFadden v. Railway Co., 241 Fed. 562, 154 C. C. A. 338; Barnes' Interstate Transportation, § 557). Appellant did not claim in it......