Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lone Star Salt Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1901 |
| Citation | 63 S.W. 1025 |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. LONE STAR SALT CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by the Lone Star Salt Company against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company for the statutory penalty for unjust discrimination in the transportation of freight. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. W. Terry, for plaintiff in error. McCormick & Spence, for defendant in error.
On November 17, 1898, the Lone Star Salt Company delivered to the Texas & Pacific Railway Company at Colorado, Tex., a car load of salt, to be transported by said railway company to Ft. Worth, and there delivered to the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, a connecting carrier, to be transported by said last-named company to its destination, at Brownwood, Tex.; a through bill of lading being issued therefor. The Texas & Pacific Railway Company carried the salt to Ft. Worth, and reloaded it into a refrigerator car of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, and tendered same to the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company for transportation to Brownwood. The latter company refused to receive or transport the car until on December 12, 1898, when it had the salt put into another car and delivered to the Ft. Worth & Rio Grande Railway Company, which hauled the car to Brownwood, and delivered the salt to the consignees. The salt company brought this suit against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company to recover the penalty prescribed by article 4575, Rev. St., for unjust discrimination, and obtained judgment for $400. The railway company has brought the case to this court by writ of error.
On the trial the facts above stated were established, and an order of the railroad commission shown to be in force at the time of the shipment in question was introduced in evidence. The material parts of the order read thus:
The court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error complains that the evidence was not such as to justify the peremptory instruction. It is provided by subdivision 2 of article 4574, Rev. St., that every railroad company which shall fail or refuse, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the commission, to receive and transport, without delay or discrimination, the passengers, tonnage, and cars, loaded or empty, of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cassidy v. City of St. Joseph
...of vexation was thereby excluded. Burdock v. Post, 12 Barb. (N.Y.) 168; Armstrong v. Ames & Frost Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 46; Railroad v. Salt Co., 63 S.W. 1025. (3) The hold that the affidavit of appeal need not literally follow the language of the statute, but that a substantial compliance......
-
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Thompson
..."discrimination," as used in this article, are convertible, and that "discrimination" means "delay." G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lone Star Salt Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 63 S. W. 1025. The duty which devolved upon the appellant as a common carrier, when it received the appellee's cars of lu......
-
Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. R. D. Jones Lumber Co.
...harassing shippers with their disputes. Railway Co. v. Lone Star Salt Co., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 676, 48 S. W. 622; Railway Co. v. Lone Star Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 63 S. W. 1025. Article 6614, Revised Civil Statutes, gave appellant ample protection. It made Motley County Railway Company a ......
-
Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Gulf & I. Ry. Co. of Texas
...required a finding by the court in favor of appellant on the issue of penalty. Rev. St. 1895, art. 4574; Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lone Star Salt Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 63 S. W. 1025. But the evidence does not end here. We copy the following from the brief of appellee Gulf & Interstate Ra......