Hull v. East Line & Red River R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1886 |
| Citation | 2 S.W. 831 |
| Parties | HULL <I>v.</I> EAST LINE & RED RIVER R. CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action for damages for breach of contract. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Henderson, Moore & Hart, for Hull, appellant.
The case made by the appellant is that he entered the passenger car of the appellee at Dangerfield, to go to "Veal's Switch," a point, though not a regular station, at which the railway company frequently received and put off passengers, of which he had knowledge at the time he entered the car. He purchased no ticket before entering the car, but, as a witness stated, that, after entering the car, he informed the conductor where he desired to stop, and paid him the fare claimed for transporting him to that place. He further shows that the conductor, when reaching "Veal's Switch," the place to which he had paid, refused to stop and put him off, but carried him to the next regular passenger station on the road. For this violation of contract he seeks to recover damages, in his petition setting up facts tending to show the extent of the injury.
There is no material discrepancy in the evidence offered by the respective parties, except that the conductor denied receiving fare to "Veal's Switch," or the existence of any agreement to put the appellant off at that place. The charge given without request was calculated to induce the jury to believe that the right of the appellant to be put off at "Veal's Switch" depended upon whether that had been established by the railway company as a regular station at which it would receive and put off passengers; and fails to recognize the right of the appellant to be put off there if the conductor, by receiving fare to that place, had thereby contracted so to put him off.
The appellant asked a charge to the effect that if the conductor, acting in the course of his employment, contracted with the appellant to carry him to "Veal's Switch," that a failure to give him an opportunity to get off at that place would be a violation of the contract. This charge was refused. That railway companies have the right to establish stations at which they will receive and discharge passengers and freight is doubtless true; but, when so established, a failure to give to passengers an opportunity to board or leave their trains at such places would give cause of action to any person suffering injury thereby. If a person, however, should enter a train to go to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Baxter
...S. W. 817; Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Bendy (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S.W.(2d) 628; Merriman v. Fulton et al., 29 Tex. 98; Hull v. East Line, etc., R. Co., 66 Tex. 619, 2 S. W. 831. But in none of the cases we have read, with the exception of Cox, Inc., v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., supra, was any p......
-
San Angelo Water, Light & Power Co. v. Baugh
...and in violation of private instructions. Merriman v. Fulton, 29 Tex. 97; Ry. v. Hume, 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110; Hull v. Ry. Co., 66 Tex. 619, 2 S. W. 831; McAlpin v. Ziller, 17 Tex. 508; Gray v. Lumpkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 880; 2 C. J. 570, 571, § 211, cases cited notes 31 and 32. ......
-
Texas Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Seiders
...the rest of it, so far as applicable, had been given in the court's general charge, to which we have already referred. Hull v. Railway Co., 66 Tex. 620, 2 S. W. 831, and authorities Other assignments of error relate to the argument of counsel and the court's action thereon, as set out in ap......
-
Houston E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Jones
...Co. v. Baugh (Tex. Civ. App.) 270 S. W. 1104; Merriman v. Fulton, 29 Tex. 97; Railway v. Hume, 87 Tex. 211, 27 S. W. 110; Hull v. Railway Co., 66 Tex. 619, 2 S. W. 831; McAlpin v. Ziller, 17 Tex. 508; Gray v. Lumpkin (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 880; 2 C. J. 570, 571, § 211, cases cited, note......