Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gilbert
| Decision Date | 07 June 1893 |
| Citation | 22 S.W. 760 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. GILBERT.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from Brown county court; R. P. Connor, Judge.
Action by John T. Gilbert against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company for delay in the transportation of goods. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wilkinson & Lynch, for appellant. Harrell & Logan, for appellee.
This is a suit by appellee against appellant for damages for delay in the transportation of certain gin machinery from Oswego, N. Y., to Brownwood, Tex. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $180. The petition in this case charged the appellant and the other lines of road over which the goods were shipped as partners in the transportation of the goods from Oswego, N. Y., to Brownwood, Tex., which allegation of partnership was not denied under oath.
The principal question in the case is whether or not the proper measure of damages was submitted to the jury by the trial court. As the measure of damages, the court submitted to the jury the rental value of said machinery during the time of the delay. Under the facts of this case, we think the evidence justified the court in submitting this as the proper measure of damages to the jury. The evidence shows that, about the 16th of August, Hurlburt, who was the agent of the appellee in shipping the goods, notified the appellant that the machinery was to be used for the purpose of ginning cotton for the fall season of that year, and requested the appellant to hurry up the shipment. It appears that the machinery was bought for the purpose of being run as a gin during the summer and the fall of that year, and was intended to be put into immediate operation for the purpose of ginning cotton as soon as it would arrive. It appears from the testimony that this machinery was shipped from Oswego about the 10th of August, and did not arrive in Brownwood, Tex., until about the 6th of September; and it further appears that a reasonable time for such shipment was about 9 or 10 days. The notification by Hurlburt to the appellant on the 16th of August of the importance of expediting the shipment, and the purposes for which the machinery was intended to be used, put the appellant (it being a partner of the other shipping roads) upon contemplation and notice of the facts and the intended purpose for which the machinery would be used. In ordinary shipments to merchants of the class of goods in which th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Va.-carolina Peanut Co v. Atl. Coast Line R. R
...on a rehearing that notice given, after contract, of shipment made, should not be allowed to affect the question. Railway v. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 760, 23 S. W. 320. In a subsequent case, however, and on a different state of facts, the Supreme Court of Texas seems to have ......
-
Virginia-Carolina Peanut Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R.
... ... 211, and referred to in Wood's ... Mayne on Damages, p. 35. This suggestion was applied by a ... Texas court in the case of Railway v. Gilbert, and was at ... first affirmed on appeal, but was afterwards rejected; the ... Court of Civil Appeals holding on a rehearing that notice ... ...
-
American Express Co. v. Jennings
... ... for the special damage accruing for unreasonable delay after ... such notice is given. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v ... Gilbert, 22 S.W. 760; Wells v. Battle, 24 S.W ... 353; Rogan v. Wabash R. R. Co., 51 Mo. App., 665; ... Priestly v. Ry ... ...
-
Ellis v. Tips
...683, 22 S. W. 1097; Houchins v. Williams Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 730. Of course, as held by this court in Railway Co. v. Gilbert, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 22 S. W. 760, and 23 S. W. 320, and Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Battle, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 24 S. W. 353, the party seeking to recover ......