Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Barry

Decision Date31 March 1898
PartiesGULF, W. T. & P. RY. CO. v. BARRY.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from Goliad county; Henry Shaper, Judge.

Action by J. M. Barry against the Gulf, Western Texas & Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Proctors, for appellant.

WILLIAMS, J.

Appellee recovered judgment in the court below against appellant for $404.67 for excessive freight charges for the shipment of cattle from Goliad to Chicago, and $250 as a penalty for unjust discrimination, in violation of articles 4574 and 4575 of the Revised Statutes of 1895, of this state. Appellant assigns error upon both findings of the court below, but we find none in the first. The statute under which penalty was allowed has no application to interstate commerce, and, if the shipment of cattle in which the discrimination is alleged to have been practiced was of that character, the judgment is erroneous. The cattle were delivered to appellant, whose line extends from Goliad to Victoria, at the former place, consigned to parties at Chicago. They were destined to Chicago, and were to be forwarded from Goliad to that place, by appellant and connecting carriers, by continuous shipment; appellant, however, carrying them only to Victoria, and limiting its liability to its own line. A through rate of freight was charged, to be paid to the last carrier, at Chicago. Since the decision of the supreme court in the case of Houston Direct Nav. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, no doubt can be entertained that the shipment was an interstate one, and constituted interstate commerce. The judgment will be reversed, and judgment here rendered in appellee's favor for the sum of $404.67, with 6 per cent. interest from February 11, 1897, until paid, but against him on his action for penalty under the statutes of this state, and for costs of appeal. Reversed and rendered.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1900
    ...Johnson, for appellant. This being an interstate shipment, it is not governed by the state statute. 158 U.S. 98; 34 S.W. 145; 21 S.W. 554; 45 S.W. 814; 43 S.W. 609; 46 S.W. 633; 74 F. 981; 58 F. 858; 41 F. The statute, being penal, must be strictly construed. 6 Ark. 131; 13 Ark. 405; 43 Ark......
  • Porter v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1906
    ...the Interstate Commerce Act, § 7. Appellant could not break up the shipment in order to evade the interstate rate. 44 S.W. 542; 46 F. 641; 45 S.W. 814; 184 U.S. 47. A originating at a point in the State, and consigned to another point in the State where the carrier, in order to deliver the ......

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