Lancaster v. Houghton
| Decision Date | 08 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1438.) |
| Citation | 249 S.W. 1103 |
| Parties | LANCASTER et al. v. HOUGHTON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Eastland County Court, at Law; J. H. Jones, Judge.
Action by O. R. Houghton against J. L. Lancaster and others, receivers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Judgment reformed and, as reformed, affirmed.
Conner & McRae, of Eastland, for appellants.
Marks & Flaherty, of Ranger, for appellee.
This action was begun by O. R. Houghton in the justice court of Eastland county against the appellants and others to recover the sum of $200 as the value of certain articles of clothing and other merchandise, including a watch, gold cuff buttons, etc., shipped from Comanche, Tex., to Ranger, Tex., and lost in transit.
Trial in justice court resulted in a judgment for plaintiff and against the receivers, Lancaster and Wallace, of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Appealed to the county court, where, by written answer filed in the latter court, appellants specially averred that under the written contract executed by appellee for the transportation of his shipment the carriers handling said shipment transported same from Comanche, Tex., to Ranger, Tex., and there delivered it to him in like condition to that in which it was received; that in the execution of such contract appellee specially executed the following provisions thereof, to wit:
That said shipper at the time of entering into said contract placed the total estimated weight of his shipment at 12,000 pounds: that under the schedules, classification, and tariffs applicable to such shipments the class rates thereon based upon the aforesaid valuation and weight was 23½ cents per hundredweight, which rate was less than that which would have applied had a greater valuation than that declared by the shipper been made; that in said shipping contract it is specially provided that the amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier is liable shall be computed on the basis of the value of the property at the time and place of shipment, including the freight charges, if paid, so that if the defendant carriers were liable at all such liability would not be more than an amount equivalent to $10 per hundredweight of the goods actually lost or damaged. It was further averred that under the applicable classification, bank bills, coin or currency, deeds, drafts, notes or valuable papers of any kind, jewelry, precious metals or articles manufactured therefrom, should not be accepted for shipment unless otherwise provided, and that any articles of such character shipped by appellee should not be taken into consideration in ascertaining the liability of appellants, if any, for injury or damage to or for the loss of same.
Tried before the court upon agreed statement of facts, resulting in judgment for appellee for $200, with interest, etc. From which this appeal.
No answer brief by appellee.
There are several assignments and propositions urging that this case is ruled by the so-called Shreveport Rate Case. Houston, E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. et al. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 34 Sup. Ct. 833, 58 L. Ed. 1341. But the eighth proposition in the brief sufficiently presents the questions for the purpose of discussion:
"It appearing that by indorsement specially executed by appellee on the face of the bill of lading covering the shipment herein involved, he declared the value of the shipment to be $1,200, based upon an estimated weight of 12,000 pounds, or an equivalent of 10 cents per pound, in consequence of which a lower transportation charge was assessed and collected by the carriers than would have been applicable under the tariffs and classifications lawfully in effect when the shipment was made, and applicable alike to intrastate and interstate shipments, had the value then been declared to be what it is not claimed then to have been, appellees are now estopped to assert that the articles lost out of such shipment (weighing 35¼ pounds) were of a greater value than that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shikany v. Salt Creek Transp. Co.
...failing to advise defendant of a valuable rug in the shipment when the shipping agreement was made. Magnin v. Dinsmore, supra; Lancaster v. Houghton, 249 S.W. 1103. For respondent there was a brief by Durham & Bacheller, of Casper, and oral argument by E. E. Enterline, of Casper, for Durham......